[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 129 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8460-H8480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 627.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2-1
printed in part 2 of House Report 104-223.
amendment no. 2-1 offered by mr. stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 2-1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2-1 offered by Mr. Stupak: Page 14, beginning
on line 8, strike section 243 through page 16, line 9, and
insert the following (and conform the table of contents
accordingly):
SEC. 243. REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO ENTRY.
(a) In General.--No State or local statute or regulation,
or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to
provide interstate or intrastate telecommunications services.
(b) State and Local Authority.--Nothing in this section
shall affect the ability of a State or local government to
impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with
section 247 (relating to universal service), requirements
necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect
the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality
of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of
consumers.
(c) Local Government Authority.--Nothing in this Act
affects the authority of a local government to manage the
public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable
compensation from telecommunications providers, on a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of
the rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the
compensation required is publicly disclosed by such
government.
(d) Exception.--In the case of commercial mobile services,
the provisions of section 332(c)(3) shall apply in lieu of
the provisions of this section.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Stupak] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Virginia rise to claim the time?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] to protect the authority of local
governments to control public rights-of-way and to be fairly
compensated for the use of public property. I have a chart here which
shows the investment that our cities have made in our rights-of-way.
{time} 0915
Mr. Chairman, as this chart shows, the city spent about $100 billion
a year on rights-of-way, and get back only about 3 percent, or $3
billion, from the users of the right-of-way, the gas companies, the
electric company, the private water companies, the telephone companies,
and the cable companies.
You heard that the manage's amendment takes care of local government
and local control. Well, it does not. Local governments must be able to
distinguish between different telecommunication providers. The way the
manager's amendment is right now, they cannot make that distinction.
For example, if a company plans to run 100 miles of trenching in our
streets and wires to all parts of the cities, it imposes a different
burden on the right-of-way than a company that just wants to string a
wire across two streets to a couple of buildings.
The manager's amendment states that local governments would have to
charge the same fee to every company, regardless of how much or how
little they use the right-of-way or rip up our streets. Because the
contracts have been in place for many years, some as long as 100 years,
if our amendment is not adopted, if the Stupak-Barton amendment is not
adopted, you will have companies in many areas securing free access to
public property. Taxpayers paid for this property, taxpayers paid to
maintain this property, and it simply is not fair to ask the taxpayers
to continue to subsidize telecommunication companies.
In our free market society, the companies should have to pay a fair
and reasonable rate to use public property. It is ironic that one of
the first bills we passed in this House was to end unfunded Federal
mandates. But this bill, with the management's amendment, mandates that
local units of government make public property available to whoever
wants it without a fair and reasonable compensation.
The manager's amendment is a $100 billion mandate, an unfunded
Federal mandate. Our amendment is supported by the National League of
Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of
Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the
National Governors Association. The Senator from Texas on the Senate
side has placed our language exactly as written in the Senate bill.
Say no to unfunded mandates, say no to the idea that Washington knows
best. Support the Stupak-Barton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Barton], the coauthor of this amendment.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Fields], and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], for trying to
work out an agreement on this amendment. We have been in negotiations
right up until this morning, and were very close to an agreement, but
we have not quite been able to get there.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for his leadership
on this. This is something that the cities want desperately. As
Republicans, we should be with our local city mayors, our local city
councils, because we are for decentralizing, we are for true
Federalism, we are for returning power as close to the people as
possible, and that is what the Stupak-Barton amendment does.
It explicitly guarantees that cities and local governments have the
right to not only control access within their city limits, but also to
set the compensation level for the use of that right-of-way.
It does not let the city governments prohibit entry of
telecommunications service providers for pass through or for providing
service to their community. This has been strongly endorsed by the
League of Cities, the Council of Mayors, the National Association of
Counties. In the Senate it has been put into the bill by the junior
Republican Senator from Texas [Kay Bailey Hutchison].
The Chairman's amendment has tried to address this problem. It goes
part of the way, but not the entire way. The Federal Government has
absolutely no business telling State and local government how to price
access to their local right-of-way. We should vote for localism and
vote against any kind of Federal price controls. We should vote for the
Stupak-Barton amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
Stupak amendment because it is going to allow the local governments to
slow down and even derail the movement to real competition in the local
telephone
[[Page H 8461]]
market. The Stupak amendment strikes a critical section of the
legislation that was offered to prevent local governments from
continuing their longstanding practice of discriminating against new
competitors in favor of telephone monopolies.
The bill philosophy on this issue is simple: Cities may charge as
much or as little as they wanted in franchise fees. As long as they
charge all competitors equal, the amendment eliminates that yet
critical requirement.
If the consumers are going to certainly be looked at under this, they
are going to suffer, because the cities are going to say to the
competitors that come in, we will charge you anything that we wish to.
The manager's amendment already takes care of the legitimate needs of
the cities and manages the rights-of-way and the control of these.
Therefore, the Stupak amendment is at best redundant. In fact, however,
it goes far beyond the legitimate needs of the cities.
Last night, just last night, we had talked about this in the author's
amendment and we thought we worked out a deal, and we tried to work out
a deal. All of a sudden I find that the gentleman, the author of the
amendment, reneged on that particular deal, and now all of a sudden is
saying well, we want 8 percent of the gross, the gross, of the people
who are coming in. This is a ridiculous amendment. It should not be
allowed, and we should vote against it.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee.
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thanks to an amendment offered
last year by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], and adopted by
the committee, the bill today requires local governments that choose to
impose franchise fees to do so in a fair and equal way to tell all
communication providers. We did this in response to mayors and other
local officials.
The so-called Schaefer amendment, which the Stupak amendment seeks to
change, does not affect the authority of local governments to manage
public rights-of-way or collect fees for such usage. The Schaefer
amendment is necessary to overcome historically based discrimination
against new providers.
In many cities, the incumbent telephone company pays nothing, only
because they hold a century-old charter, one which may even predate the
incorporation of the city itself. In many cases, cities have made no
effort to correct this unfairness.
If local governments continue to discriminate in the imposition of
franchise fees, they threaten to Balkanize the development of our
national telecommunication infrastructure.
For example, in one city, new competitors are assessed up to 11
percent of gross revenues as a condition for doing business there. When
a percentage of revenue fee is imposed by a city on a telecommunication
provider for use of rights-of-way, that fee becomes a cost of doing
business for that provider, and, if you will, the cost of a ticket to
enter the market. That is anticompetitive.
The cities argue that control of their rights-of-way are at stake,
but what does control of right-of-way have to do with assessing a fee
of 11 percent of gross revenue? Absolutely nothing.
Such large gross revenue assessments bear no relation to the cost of
using a right-of-way and clearly are arbitrary. It seems clear that the
cities are really looking for new sources of revenue, and not merely
compensation for right-of-way.
We should follow the example of States like Texas that have already
moved ahead and now require cities like Dallas to treat all local
telecommunications equally. We must defeat the Barton-Stupak amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-
Barton amendment, which is a vote for local control over zoning in our
communities.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Stupak-Barton,
that would ensure cities and counties obtain appropriate authority to
manage local right-of-way.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my colleague from Michigan
[Mr. Stupak] on this very important amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot from the other side about gross
revenues. You are right. The other side is trying to tell us what is
best for our local units of government. Let local units of government
decide this issue. Washington does not know everything. You have always
said Washington should keep their nose out of it. You have been for
control. This is a local control amendment, supported by mayors, State
legislatures, counties, Governors. Vote yes on the Stupak-Barton
amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I was a former mayor and
a city councilman. I served as president of the Virginia Municipal
League, and I served on the board of directors of the National League
of Cities. I know you have all heard from your mayors, you have heard
from your councils, and they want this. But I want you to know what you
are doing.
If you vote for this, you are voting for a tax increase on your cable
users, because that is exactly what it is. I commend the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Barton], I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]
who worked tirelessly to try to negotiate an agreement.
The cities came back and said 10 percent gross receipts tax. Finally
they made a big concession, 8 percent gross receipts tax. What we say
is charge what you will, but do not discriminate. If you charge the
cable company 8 percent, charge the phone company 8 percent, but do not
discriminate. That is what they do here, and that is wrong.
I would hope that Members would defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] will be
postponed until after the vote on amendment 2-4 to be offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2-2 offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair simply state if it plans to
roll other votes? Some of us were waiting around for this vote.
The CHAIRMAN. It is the intention of the Chair to roll the next two
votes on the next two amendments, 2-2 and 2-3, until after a vote on 2-
4. We will debate the first Markey amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Could the Chair use names, please?
The CHAIRMAN. We will roll the next two amendments, the Conyers and
Cox-Wyden amendments, until after the vote on the first Markey
amendment.
amendment 2-2 as modified offered by mr. conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a modified amendment.
[[Page H 8462]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment as modified offered by Mr. Conyers: Page 26,
strike line 6 and insert the following:
``(c) Commission and Attorney General Review.--
Page 26, lines 8 and 10, page 27, lines 6 and 9, strike
``Commission'' and insert ``Commission and Attorney
General''.
Page 27, lines 4 and 12, insert ``Commission'' before
``Decision''.
Page 27, after line 21, insert the following new paragraph:
``(5) Attorney general decision.--
``(A) Publication.--Not later than 10 days after receiving
a verification under this section, the Attorney General shall
publish the verification in the Federal Register.
``(B) Availability of information.--The Attorney General
shall make available to the public all information (excluding
trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or
financial information) submitted by the Bell operating
company in connection with the verification.
``(C) Comment period.--Not later than 45 days after a
verification is published under subparagraph (A), interested
persons may submit written comments to the Attorney General,
regarding the verification. Submitted comments shall be
available to the public.
``(D) Determination.--After the time for comment under
subparagraph (C) has expired, but not later than 90 days
after receiving a verification under this subsection, the
Attorney General shall issue a written determination, with
respect to approving the verification with respect to the
authorization for which the Bell operating company has
applied. If the Attorney General fails to issue such
determination in the 90-day period beginning on the date the
Attorney General receives such verification, the Attorney
General shall be deemed to have issued
a determination approving such verification on the last day
of such period.
``(E) Standard for decision.--The Attorney General shall
approve such verification unless the Attorney General finds
there is a dangerous probability that such company or its
affiliates would successfully use market power to
substantially impede competition in the market such company
seeks to enter.
``(F) Publication.--Not later than 10 days after issuing a
determination under subparagraph (E), the Attorney General
shall publish a brief description of the determination in the
Federal Register.
``(G) Finality.--A determination made under subparagraph
(E) shall be final unless a petition with respect to such
determination is timely filed under subparagraph (H).
``(H) Judicial review.--
``(i) Filing of petition.--Not later than 30 days after a
determination by the Attorney General is published under
subparagraph (F), the Bell operating company that submitted
the verification, or any person who would be injured in its
business or property as a result of the determination
regarding such company's engaging in provision of interLATA
services, may file a petition for judicial review of the
determination in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. The United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to review determinations made under this
paragraph.
``(ii) Certification of record.--As part of the answer to
the petition, the Attorney General shall file in such court a
certified copy of the record upon which the determination is
based.
``(iii) Consolidation of petitions.--The court shall
consolidate for judicial review all petitions filed under
this subparagraph with respect to the verification.
``(iv) Judgment.--The court shall enter a judgment after
reviewing the determination in accordance with section 706 of
title 5 of the United States Code. The determination required
by subparagraph (E) shall be affirmed by the court only if
the court finds that the record certified pursuant to clause
(ii) provides substantial evidence for that determination.''
Page 29, line 8, insert ``and the Attorney General's''
after ``the Commission's''.
Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
{time} 0930
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member in opposition
to the amendment is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I began this discussion on an amendment to
reinstate the Department of Justice's traditional review role when
considering Bell entry into new lines of business by congratulating the
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
In the committee bill that the Committee on the Judiciary reported, we
were able to come together and bring forward an amendment exactly like
the one that is now being brought forward.
I appreciate the chairman's role in this matter.
The amendment is identical to the test approved by the Committee on
the Judiciary, as I have said earlier this year, on a bipartisan basis.
Everyone on the committee, with the exception of one vote, supported
our amendment. It was named the Hyde-Conyers amendment. It received
wide support, and I hope we continue to do that.
It provides simply that the Justice Department disapprove any Bell
request to enter long-distance business as long as there is a dangerous
probability that such entry will substantially impede competition.
Point No. 1: This amendment on the Department of Justice role is more
modest than the same provision for a Department of Justice role in the
Brooks-Dingell bill that passed the House on suspension by 430 to 5
last year. So, my colleagues, we are not starting new ground. This is
not anything different. It has received wide scrutiny and wide support.
It is a matter that should not be in contention and should never have
been omitted from either bill and certainly not the manager's
amendment.
The Justice Department is the principal Government agency responsible
for antitrust enforcement. Please understand that the 1984 consent
decree has given the Department of Justice decades of expertise in
telecommunications issues. By contrast, the FCC has no antitrust
background whatsoever.
Remember, we are taking the court completely out of the picture. So
what we have is no more court reviews or waivers. We have a total
deregulation of the business. Unless we put this amendment in, we will
not have a modest antitrust responsibility in this huge, complex
circumstance.
Given this state of facts, it makes unquestionable sense to allow the
antitrust division to continue to safeguard competition and preserve
jobs. For the last 10 years the Justice Department has done an
excellent job in keeping local prices, which have gone up, and long-
distance rates, which have gone down.
The amendment I'm offering will reinstate the Department of Justice's
traditional review role when considering Bell entry into new lines of
business. The amendment is identical to the test approved by the
Judiciary Committee earlier this year on a bipartisan 29 to 1 basis. It
provides that the Justice Department must disapprove a Bell request to
enter the long-distance business so long as there is a dangerous
probability that such entry will substantially impede competition.
This should not even be a point of contention. The Justice Department
is the principal Government agency responsible for antitrust
enforcement. Its role in the 1984 AT&T consent decree has given it
decades of expertise in telecommunications issues. The FCC by contrast
has no antitrust background whatsoever. Many in this body have slated
the FCC for extinction or significant downsizing.
Given this state of facts it makes unquestionable sense to allow the
Antitrust Division to continue to safeguard competition and preserve
jobs. For the last 10 years the Justice Department has been given an
independent role in reviewing Bell entry into new lines of business,
and the result has been a 70-percent reduction in long-distance prices
and an explosion in innovation.
At a time when the Bells continue to control 99 percent of the local
exchange market, I, for one, think we should have the Antitrust
Division continue in this role. Don't be fooled by the FCC checklist--
the Bells could meet every single item on that list and still maintain
monopoly control of the local exchange market.
Last Congress this body approved--by an overwhelming 430 to 5 vote--a
bill which provided the Justice Department with a far stronger review
than my amendment does. It's no secret that I would have preferred to
see this same review role given to the Justice Department this
Congress. However, in the spirit of bipartisan compromise I agreed to a
more lenient review role with Chairman Hyde when the Judiciary
Committee considered telecommunications legislation. I was shocked when
this very reasonable compromise test
[[Page H 8463]]
was completely ignored when the two committees sought to reconcile
their legislation.
Finally, I would note that the amendment has been revised to clarify
that any determinations made by the Attorney General are fully subject
to judicial review. It was never my intent to deny the Bells or any
other party the right to appeal any adverse determination, so to
accomplish this purpose I have borrowed the precise language from the
Judiciary bill.
I urge the Members to vote for this amendment which gives a real role
to the Justice Department and goes a long way toward safeguarding a
truly competitive telecommunications marketplace. In an industry that
represents 15 percent of our economy, we owe it to our constituents to
do everything possible to make sure we do not return to the days of
monopoly abuses.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The core principle behind H.R. 1555 is that Congress and not the
Federal court judge should set telecommunications policy. This is one
of the few issues that seems to have universal agreement, that Congress
should reassert its proper role in setting national communications
policy.
My colleagues, last November the citizens of this country said, loud
and clear, we want less Government, less regulation. Getting a decision
out of two Federal agencies is certainly a lot harder than getting it
out of one. For that reason alone, this amendment ought to be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant], a member of the committee.
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] made a very important point a moment ago when he pointed out
that last year when we passed the bill by an enormous margin, we had a
stronger Justice Department provision in the bill than we do, than even
the Conyers amendment today would be.
The House has adopted the manager's amendment over our strong
objections, but for goodness sakes consider the fact that, while the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] makes the point that we have
decided that Congress shall make the decision with regard to
communications law rather than the courts, Congress cannot make the
decisions with regard to every single case out there.
As is the case throughout antitrust law, all we are saying with the
Conyers amendment is that the Justice Department ought to be able to
render a judgment on whether or not entry into this line of business by
one of the Bell companies is going to impede competition rather than
advance it.
Now, what motive would the Justice Department have to do anything
other than their best in this matter? They have done a fine job in this
area now for many, many years. The Conyers amendment would just come
along and say, we are going to continue to have them exercise some
judgment.
What we had in the bill before was that when there is no dangerous
probability that a company who is trying to enter one of these lines of
business or its affiliates would successfully use its market power and
the Bell companies have enormous market power, to substantially impede
competition, and the Attorney General finds that to be the case, there
will be no problem with going forward.
When they find otherwise, there will be a problem with going forward,
and we want there to be a problem with going forward. For goodness
sakes, we know that the developments with regard to competition in the
last 12 years are a result of a court, a sanction agreement, supervised
by a judge. I do not know that that is the best process, but the fact
of the matter is we allowed competition where it did not exist before.
Why would we now come along and take steps that would move us in the
direction of impeding competition or essentially impeding competition?
Give the Justice Department the right to look at it as they look at so
many other antitrust matters. The President has asked for it. I think
clearly we asked for it a year ago.
Let us keep with that principle.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, there are three things wrong with this
amendment. The first is the agency which will be administering it, the
Justice Department. The Justice Department is in good part responsible
for the unfair situation which this country confronts in
telecommunications. The Justice Department and a gaggle of AT&T lawyers
have been administering pricing and all other matters relative to
telecommunications by both the Baby Bells and by AT&T. So if there are
things that are wrong now, it is Justice which has presided.
The second reason is that if we add the Justice Department to a sound
and sensible regulatory system, it will create a set of circumstances
under which it will become totally impossible to have expeditious and
speedy decisions of matters of importance and concern to the American
people.
The decisions that need to be made to move our telecommunications
policy forward can simply not be made where you have a two-headed hydra
trying to address the telecommunications problems of this country.
Now, the third reason: I want Members to take a careful look at the
graph I have before me. It has been said that a B-52 is a group of
airplane parts flying in very close formation. The amendment now before
us would set up a B-52 of regulation. If Members look, they will find
that those in the most limited income bracket will face a rate
structure which is accurately represented here. It shows how long-
distance prices have moved for people who are not able to qualify for
some of the special goody-goody plans, not the people in the more upper
income brackets who qualify for receiving special treatment.
This shows how AT&T, Sprint and MCI rates have flown together. They
have flown as closely together as do the parts of a B-52. Note when
AT&T goes down, Sprint and MCI go down. When MCI or AT&T go up, the
other companies all go up. They fly so closely together that you cannot
discern any difference.
This will tell anyone who studies rates and competition that there is
no competition in the long distance market. What is causing the vast
objection from AT&T, MCI and Sprint is the fact that they want to
continue this cozy undertaking without any competition from the Baby
Bells or from anybody else.
If Members want competition, the way to get it is to vote against the
Conyers amendment. If you do not want it and you want this kind of
outrage continuing, then I urge you to vote for the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] who is my good friend.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my very dear colleague and the dean of the
Michigan delegation, that ain't what he said when the Brooks-Dingell
bill came up only last year, and he had a tougher provision with the
Department of Justice handling this important matter.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman], a very able member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Everything that my friend from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] said about the
question of competition can be assumed to be true, and none of it would
cause Members to vote against the Conyers amendment. Because I do not
think we should put artificial restrictions on the ability of the Bell
companies to go into long distance, I supported the manager's amendment
because it got rid of a test that made it virtually impossible for them
to ever enter that competition.
Now the only question is whether the Justice Department, that had the
foresight starting under Gerald Ford, finishing under Ronald Reagan, to
break
[[Page H 8464]]
up the Bell monopolies, should be allowed to have a meaningful role, a
role defined by a test which is so restrictive that it says, unless,
unless the burden supports, the assumption is with the Bell companies.
It says unless the Attorney General finds that there is a dangerous
probability that such company or its affiliates would successfully use
market power to substantially impede competition in the market such
company seeks to enter, it is an extremely rigorous test that must be
met to stop them from entering the market. But it gives the division
that has been historically empowered to decide whether there is
anticompetitive practices a role in deciding whether or not that entry
will impede competition.
This place voted last year by an overwhelming vote for a test that
was far more rigorous, a test that said that they could not enter
unless we found there was no substantial possibility that they could
use monopoly power to impede competition. Do not overreach, the
proponents of Bell entry into long distance, do not over reach. Do not
shut the Justice Department out from an historic role that they have
had, that they should have, to look at whether or not there is a high
probability that they will cause, they will exercise monopoly power.
Support the Conyers amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Michigan for reviving the judiciary bill which did pass our committee
29 to 1, because it does go a long way toward establishing or
reestablishing a principle that I believe in; namely, that antitrust
laws should be reviewed and administered by that department of
government specifically designed to do that, and that is the Department
of Justice.
{time} 0945
When a Baby Bell enters into manufacturing or into long distance,
antitrust questions are brought into play. The Department of Justice,
it seems to me, is the appropriate agency to oversee that transition
and analyze the competitive implications.
Once the bills are in these new lines of business and operating, it
becomes a regulatory proposition and then oversight by the Federal
Communications Commission is appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has done
is to propose a more meaningful role for the Department of Justice,
which is what the Judiciary Committee wanted to do. But the problem is,
that DOJ comes in at the tail end of the regulatory process. It becomes
a double hurdle for a Baby Bell trying to get into manufacturing or
long distance. It is not the same quick, clean expedited process that
we had in our legislation (H.R. 1528).
So, it adds additional hurdles for a company, a Bell company seeking
to get into manufacturing or long distance. It will add considerably to
the amount of time that is consumed. A Bell company can make all of the
right moves and do everything it wants, and then at the end of the
process be shot down by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, I had proposed and preferred a dual-track, dual-agency
situation where options could be chosen by the Bells to get into these
new businesses, but that is not to be.
Having said what I have just said, I do approve and appreciate the
fact that a more expansive role is proposed to the Department of
Justice in dealing with these important antitrust issues. After all, it
is an antitrust decree that we are modifying, the modified final
judgment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. What we are
doing here is we are getting ready to unleash these huge, huge economic
forces. They are huge.
The Justice Department, I wish it were much stronger, to be perfectly
honest. Last year, the bill that people voted for had this type of
language in it. It is an independent agency. It is not the FCC.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if we are getting ready to unleash
these huge forces on the American consumer, we ought to want some
watchdog, some watchdog out there someplace.
Granted, we want competition, but what we may end up with is one guy
owning everything. If my colleagues want the Justice Department for
heaven's sakes, vote ``yes.''
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Fields].
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the most difficult issue in this
bill has been how the local loop is opened to competition. No question,
that is where the focus of the controversy has been. It is a delicate
question.
Mr. Chairman, what we have attempted to do is to open this in a
sensible and fair way to all competitors. Consequently, we created a
checklist on how that loop is opened. We have the involvement of the
State public utility commissions in every State in that particular
question. We have reviews by the Federal Communications Commission that
the loop is open. Consequently, there is no need to give the Department
of Justice a role in the opening of that loop.
We have worked with our good friends on the Committee on the
Judiciary coming up with a consultative role for the Justice
Department. It was never envisioned by Judge Greene in the modified
final judgment that Justice would have a permanent role and this is the
time we made the break. This is the time we move this
telecommunications industry into the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, a sixth of our economy is involved in this particular
industry. Central to opening up telecommunications to competition is to
open the loop correctly and as quickly as possible, because in opening
the loop and creating competition, we have more services, we have newer
technologies, and we have these at lower costs to the consumer. That is
a desired result and that is something that we have worked for this
particular bill.
Mr. Chairman, that is why we have spent so much time on how this loop
is opened and there is no need for Justice to have an expanded role.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the other side of the aisle.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, first, that I
agree completely with the direction of the bill. I voted in favor of
the manager's amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley],
because I think we want to go from the courts, the Congress, and
ultimately get Congress out of this and let companies compete.
Mr. Chairman, I think the future is one of companies that compete in
different areas simultaneously. Each company will offer telephone
services, entertainment services, and so forth. But we must remember
that this whole matter has arised from an antitrust situation. Even
though we want all companies, including the regional Bells, to
participate in all aspects of business enterprise, the fact of the
matter is that there is still basically a control of the local
telephone market.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, for a period of time, the Department
of Justice should have a specific identifiable role in this bill. That
is why I urge my fellow Members of the House to support the Conyers
amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, but I am interested in its findings.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1555 assigns to the FCC the regulatory functions
to ensure that the Bell companies have complied with all of the
conditions that we have imposed on their entry into long distance. This
bill requires the Bell companies to interconnect with their competitors
and to provide them the features, functions and capabilities of the
Bell companies' networks that the new entrants need to compete.
[[Page H 8465]]
The bill also contains other checks and balances to ensure that
competition occurs in local and long distance growth. The Justice
Department still has the role that was granted to it under the Sherman
and Clayton Acts, and other antitrust laws. Their role is to enforce
the antitrust laws and ensure that all companies comply with the
requirements of the bill.
The Department of Justice enforces the antitrust laws of this
country. It is a role that they have performed well. The Department of
Justice is not, and should not be, a regulating agency. It is an
enforcement agency.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra], a very able member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the Ma Bell
operating company, AT&T was broken up because the company used its
control of local telephone companies to frustrate long-distance
competition. It was the Justice Department that pursued the case
against AT&T, through Republican and Democratic administrations, to
stop those abuses.
Mr. Chairman, the standard that is in the Conyers amendment, which is
the standard adopted and passed by the Committee on the Judiciary,
Republican and Democrats, except for 1 member voting for it, is the
standard that we are trying to get included now. It is a standard that
is softer than the standard that was passed by 430 to 5 last year by
this same House.
It is a standard that is softened for the regional operating
companies to be able to pursue and it is a very rigorous standard that
the Justice Department must meet in order to be able to stop a local
company from coming in.
Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the Republican Congress is
trying to eliminate the FCC, and now they are asking the FCC to be the
watchdog for consumers in this area. We should have a safety net for
consumers and ratepayers.
Vote for the Conyers amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Roanoke, VA [Mr. Goodlatte], a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Conyers amendment.
Mr. Chairman, when Congress acts to end the current judicial consent
decree management of the telecommunications industry, the Department of
Justice should not simply take over. H.R. 1555 preserves all of the
Department of Justice's antitrust powers. I agree with the chairman of
my committee that when there are antitrust violations, the Department
of Justice should step in.
Mr. Chairman, the Conyers amendment would dramatically increase the
Department's statutory authority to regulate the telecommunications
industry, a role for which the Department of Justice was never
intended.
Currently, the Federal Communications Commission and the public
service commissions in all 50 States and the District of Columbia
regulate the telecommunications industry to protect consumers.
This combination of Federal and State regulatory oversight is
effective and will continue unabated under both the House and the
Senate legislation. There is no reason why two Federal entities, the
Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, should
have independent authority in this area once Congress has set a clear
policy.
The Department of Justice seeks to assume for itself the role
currently performed by Judge Greene. The Department, in effect, wants
to keep on doing things the way they are, but they are going to replace
Judge Greene with themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I voted for the separate standard for the Department of
Justice in the Committee on the Judiciary, but that was presuming, as
the chairman of the committee informed us, it would be the sole
separate standard. Now, they are seeking to impose that standard on top
of the authority provided to the Federal Communications Commission in
the bill.
All of the tests, one after the other, that the FCC will require,
will have to be met and then a dual review will be imposed where the
Department of Justice will step in at the end.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment and support for the
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.
Statement of Representative Goodlatte on H.R. 1555, August 2, 1995
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1555.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairmen Hyde, Bliley and
Fields for their able leadership in bringing this important
legislation to the House floor. The American people will
benefit from the increased availability of communications
services, increased number of jobs, and a strengthened global
competitiveness from this bill.
Throughout the debate on this legislation, I have aimed at
bringing these benefits to Americans as soon as possible. I
continue to believe that this goal can best be achieved by
lifting all government-imposed entry restrictions in all
telecommunications markets at the same time. Whether they are
State laws that pervent cable companies or long distance
companies from competing in the local exchange or the AT&T
consent decree that prevents the Bell companies from
competing in the long distance market, these artificial
government-imposed restraints all inhibit the development of
real competition.
Under this legislation, State laws that today prevent local
competition will be lifted. Upon enactment, the local
telephone exchange will be legally opened for any competitor
to enter.
But the bill does not stop here and merely trust to fate.
It goes further. It requires the Bell companies and other
local exchange carriers such as GTE and Sprint-United to
unbundle their networks and to resell to competitors the
unbundled elements, features, functions, and capabilities
that those new entrants need to compete in the local market.
It also requires State commissions and the FCC to verify that
the local carriers meet these obligations.
It gives new entrants the incentive to build their own
local facilities-based networks, rather than simply
repackaging and reselling the local services of the local
telephone company. This is important if the information
superhighway is to be truly competitive.
The bill also contains cross checks to ensure either that
facilities-based competition is present in the local exchange
or that the Bell companies have done all that the bill
requires of them before they will be permitted to offer
interLATA services and to manufacture. This is a strong
incentive for them to comply with the requirements of this
legislation.
It will take time for the Bell companies to satisfy all of
the conditions in the bill. This built-in delay will provide
the long distance and cable companies a head start into the
local exchange.
The bill recognizes that there are several significant
problems with such a government-mandated head start. And, it
deals with those issues. While the bill does not create the
simultaneity of entry that the Bell companies have requested,
it also does not impose the artificial delay sought by the
long distance companies.
This bill achieves a sound public policy. First, it gets
the conditions right. Second, it requires verification that
the conditions have been met. Third, it assures that they
have begun to work. Then, fourth, it lets full competition
flourish by lifting the remaining restrictions on the Bell
companies.
You don't have to take my word on the soundness of this
approach. None other than the Department of Justice advocated
it 8 years ago.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been
following this particular matter for several years. In 1987
the Department filed its first and only Triennial Review with
the Decree Court. It recommended that if a Bell company shows
that an area in its region is free of regulatory barriers to
competition, then the interLATA restrictions should be
lifted, even if--the Department noted--a residual core of
local exchange services remains a natural monopoly at that
time. That is, when there are no restrictions on either
facilities-based intraLATA competition or on resale of Bell
company services, interLATA relief should be granted.
The Department acknowledged that, with the removal of entry
barriers and the requirement for resale of local exchange
services, a majority of customers would likely stay with
local exchange carriers and some areas of local exchange
might remain natural monopolies. Nevertheless, it believed
that the potential for discrimination would be significantly
reduced because of (1) increased alternatives, especially for
higher volume customers, and (2) increased need for Bell
companies to interconnect with private networks.
Bell companies, according to the Department, immediately
would be subject to substantial competitive pressures. The
threat or
possibility of competition would be sufficient that the
residual risk posed by the Bell companies could be
contained effectively through regulatory controls,
according to the DOJ.
Noting that competition will reduce intraLATA toll and
private line rates, the Department correctly concluded that
only basic local exchange service and residential
[[Page H 8466]]
exchange access would remain as services capable of being inflated to
cover misallocated costs of competitive activities. Indeed,
intraLATA toll competition has been and is allowed in
virtually every state and has already significantly eroded
the Bell companies' market share of these services. Moreover,
competition in the exchange access market also has grown
significantly as the successes of companies like Teleport and
MFS attest.
And, some very powerful and well-financed companies have
targeted the local telephone market for competition.
Companies like MCI are investing in local networks. So are
cable companies that already have strong local presences.
Significantly, AT&T has spent billions to move back into
local telephony through its acquisition of McCraw Cellular
and its success in bidding on PCS licenses.
As the Department prognosticated, this leaves only local
services as a potential source of subsidy. However, as it
also correctly recognized, basic local exchange and
residential services are a very unlikely source of subsidy.
Those rates have been and are currently subsidized by other
rates (i.e., residential rates are below costs and therefore
cannot subsidize other services). And, they are beyond the
unilateral power of the Bell companies to raise.
State regulators have clearly demonstrated over the years
that they are unwilling to let basic residential charge rise.
It is important to note that this bill preserves the State's
ability to prevent the Bell companies from raising local
exchange rates.
The bill also prevents interconnection rates from being the
source of subsidy as it requires those rates to be just and
reasonable before the Bell companies get intraLATA relief. It
eliminates the Bell companies' ability to use their local
exchange networks in a discriminatory fashion to impede their
competitors.
This legislation achieves the conditions that DOJ set forth
eight years ago, and in my view goes even further by
requiring regulatory verifications before the Bell companies
are actually relieved of the intraLATA restriction. First,
upon enactment, it lifts all state and local laws that have
previously barred cable and long distance companies from
competing in the local exchange services market. In other
words, it will ensure that there are no legal barriers to
facilities-based competition.
Second, it not only requires the Bell companies to resell
their local services, but it also identifies the elements,
features, functions and capabilities that the Bell companies
and other local exchange carriers will have to unbundle for
their competitors. Although AT&T was required to resell its
long distance services to its competitors in order to spur
long distance competition, it was not required to make new
services for its competitors through unbundling. Moreover,
the bill's requirements on unbundling and resale are far more
detailed and precise and therefore more enforceable by the
commission, courts and competitors than the Department's
general resale condition.
In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, I support this bill
because it strikes a balance that will bring competition in
cable and telephony to the American people. It may not come
as soon as some want or, indeed, as soon as I want, but it
won't be delayed as long as others desire.
I am comforted as well that I do not have to take all of
this on blind faith. I believe that the FCC and the State
commissions will make sure the competition rolls out quickly
and fairly and that local rate payers will not foot the bill.
I am also sure that the Department of Justice is fully
capable under this legislation of not only monitoring these
developments but of playing an active role in the continued
enforcement of the antitrust laws to shape the most robustly
competitive telecommunications market in the world.
The American people deserve nothing less. We should not
disappoint them. We should delay no further.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I have heard
from Baby Bells, long-distance carriers, until I am really tired of
hearing from them. What I have done is call Silicon Valley, who
basically does not care about the Bells or the long-distance carriers.
They do care about competition.
Mr. Chairman, the advice I have gotten is that there should be a
little role for the Department of Justice. I realize that there are
some on the Democratic side of the aisle, including the White House,
who feel that this measure is way too weak; that we should have a much
bigger role. Honestly I disagree with them.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] got it exactly right. A very high
threshold, a 180-day turnaround, and a break in case things do not turn
out the way we hope.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], a member of the Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have with me a small chart that shows the
result of judge-made law when it comes to telecommunications. What we
just debated on the manager's amendment was to end the system of the
LATA lines, the lines on the map drawn by the judge regulating
communications policy in America.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of those LATA lines, a line of restriction
of competition. This line runs through Louisiana, through one of my
parishes in Louisiana, separating the town of Hornbeck and Leesville.
Mr. Chairman, they are in the same parish. The school board in that
parish, in order to communicate from one office to the other, has to
buy a line that runs from Shreveport to Lafayette back to Leesville at
a cost per year of $43,000 more than they would have to pay if they
could simply call 16 miles across these two communities.
Mr. Chairman, the court-ordered line has cost that school board
$43,000. This is the kind of court-made law we avoid in this bill. Let
us not give it back to the Justice Department. Let us write
communications law in this Chamber.
{time} 1000
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would really like to thank the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] for their leadership and for their bipartisan approach to this
amendment. I think that we should not be looking at the long-distance
providers on one side and the regional Bells on the other side.
Really, what the input of the Committee on the Judiciary in this
amendment is, is to simply go right down the middle in dealing with
competition, by enhancing the opportunity for competition. In fact,
unlike my colleagues who have opposed it, this is not a override. This
equates to the Department of Justice and the FCC working together and
complementing each other.
Mr. Chairman, what it says is, there will not be a limitation, there
will not be a prohibition of the Antitrust Division of the DOJ from
reviewing for acts that impede competition. The FCC and DOJ will work
together, and the dual responsibility will not hinder the other. The
DOJ will not delay the regional Bell's entry into other markets, for
there is a time frame in which they must respond; and the courts are
not there to inhibit, but are there to give the opportunity for any
judicial review that either party to access. This is a fair amendment.
I believe that we must get away from who said what in this debate,
and focus on competition for the consumers. Let us make this a better
bill and support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I must rise in support of a strong role of the Justice Department to
help ensure that the telecommunications industry is truly competitive.
The telecommunications industry is a critically important industry as
we enter the 21st century. The Conyers amendment provides a reasonable
role for the Justice Department to determine whether competition exists
in the telecommunications markets. The Justice Department, through its
Anti-trust Division, has considerable experience in carrying out this
important function. The Justice Department needs and deserves more than
a consultative role that is envisioned in the manager's amendment to
H.R. 1555.
The standard of review proposed in this amendment is a medium
standard that allows the Justice Department to prohibit local telephone
companies from entering long-distance services or manufacturing
equipment if ``there is a dangerous probability that the Bell company
or its affiliates would successfully use market power to substantially
impede competition'' in the market. The amendment also provides the
right to judicial review. This standard was overwhelmingly approved in
the
[[Page H 8467]]
House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 29 to 1. Let us ensure
competition by supporting this amendment. The Conyers amendment will
help the regional Bells, the long-distance providers, and most of all,
our consuming public.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters], who has followed this matter with great
interest.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment.
Just once this year, we should do something that protects consumers;
this amendment would accomplish that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, we are entering a brave new world in telecommunications
law. In theory, the deregulatory provisions contained in this
legislation will unleash a new era of competition between local and
long-distance carriers, as well as between the telecommunications and
cable industries.
However, free market competition is predicated on nonmonopolistic
power relationships between competing firms. The Conyers amendment
would ensure that local telephone companies would not impede
competition through monopoly behavior.
The Conyers compromise language would perfect language currently in
the bill. It would preserve the Justice Department's traditional role
as the primary enforcer of antitrust statutes. It would do so
alongside, not in conflict with, the regulatory responsibilities of the
FCC.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is an experiment. No one knows for sure what
the outcome will be as we enter the 21st century telecommunications
world. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Flake].
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and rise in support of
the Conyers amendment.
This amendment will protect consumers of the long-distance market
from potential anticompetitive conduct by Bell companies which
currently monopolize local telephone service, but without the consuming
bureaucratic requirements unfairly tying up the Bell companies. An
active Department of Justice role will not delay a Bell entry into the
market because the Justice Department would be required to reach its
decision within 3 months.
Because the Conyers amendment is a balanced amendment designed to
protect America's consumers from the dangers of anticompetitive
conduct, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
Conyers amendment. It is in the best interest of the consumer.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conyers
amendment to referee the gigantic money interests who have their hands
in the pockets of the American people.
There has been enough money spent on lobbying this bill to sink a
battleship.
I wish to insert in the Record a partial list of what over $40
million in lobbying contributions has bought. I leave it to the
American people to make their own judgments. This bill is living proof
of what unlimited money can do to buy influence and the Congress of the
United States.
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY REGIONAL BELL OPERATING COMPANIES [RBOC] HARD
MONEY PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS YEAR TO DATE 1995 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats Republicans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameritech....................................... 38,950 113,588
Bell Atlantic................................... 2,100 12,466
Pacific Telesis................................. 10,500 27,949
Southwestern Bell............................... 29,600 48,200
-----------------------
Partial total YTD......................... 78,150 202,203
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Several of the RBOC's have chosen to report their contributions less
frequently than once a month, as the law allows. Figures are not
available for Bellsouth, NYNEX, or U.S. West.
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY REGIONAL BELL OPERATING COMPANIES [RBOC] SOFT
MONEY FIRST QUARTER 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Democratic Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameritech....................................... 250 0
Bell Atlantic................................... 3,000 25,000
BellSouth....................................... 0 15,000
Nynex........................................... 20,000 25,000
Southwestern Bell............................... 0 0
Pacific Telesis................................. 250 22,000
US West......................................... 0 15,000
-----------------------
Total..................................... 23,500 122,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Excerpts from Common Cause newsletter, June 5, 1995]
``Robber Barons Of The '90s''
Telecommunications industries, which stand to gain billions
of dollars from the congressional overhaul of
telecommunications policy, have used $39,557,588 in political
contributions during the past decade to aid their fight for
less regulation and greater profits, according to a Common
Cause study released today.
The four major telecommunications industries involved in
this legislative battle--local telephone services, long
distance service providers, broadcasters and cable
interests--contributed $30.9 million in political action
committee (PAC) funds to congressional candidates, and $8.6
million in soft money to Democratic and Republican national
party committees, during the period January 1985 through
December 1994, the Common Cause study found.
Top telecommunications industry PAC and soft money contributors, 1985-
1994
AT&T.........................................................$6,523,445
BellSouth Corp................................................2,928,673
GTE Corp......................................................2,899,056
Natl Cable Television Assn....................................2,211,214
Ameritech Corp................................................1,936,899
Pacific Telesis...............................................1,742,512
US West.......................................................1,666,920
Natl Assn Of Broadcasters.....................................1,629,988
Bell Atlantic.................................................1,559,011
Sprint........................................................1,531,596
``A strong case can be made that the war over
telecommunications reform has done more to line the pockets
of lobbyist and lawmakers than any other issue in the past
decade.''--Kirk Victor, National Journal
Among the key findings of the Common Cause study:
Local telephone services made $17.3 million in political
contributions during the past decade. Long distance providers
gave $9.5 million in political contributions; cable
television interests gave $8 million; and broadcasters gave
$4.7 million.
The biggest single telecommunications industry donation
came from Tele-Communications Inc, the country's biggest
cable company. The company gave a $200,000 soft money
contribution to the Republican National Committee five days
before the last November's elections.
Telecommunication PACs were especially generous to members
of two key committees that recently passed bills to rewrite
telecommunication regulations. House Commerce Committee
members received, on average, more than $65,000 each from
telecommunications PACs; Senate Commerce Committee members
received, on average, more than $107,000 each.
Two-thirds of House freshmen received PAC contributions
from telecommunications interests immediately following their
November election wins. Between November 9 and December 31,
1994, telecommunications PACs gave new Representatives-elect
a total $115,500.
In January, top executives of telecommunications companies
that gave a total $23.5 million in political contributions
during the past decade were invited to closed-door meetings
with Republican members of the House Commerce Committee.
Consumer and rate-payer groups--who were not major political
donors--were not invited to the special meetings.
Lobbyists for the telecommunications industry represent a
wide array of Washington insiders. For example, former Reagan
and Bush Administration officials represent long distance
providers, while a former Clinton official represents local
telephone interests. Lobbying on behalf of broadcast
interests are former aids to both Republican and Democratic
Members of Congress.
In addition to their political contributions during the
past decade, telecommunications interests contributed
$221,000 in soft money to the Republican National Committee
during the first three months of 1995. (Democratic National
Committee soft money information for the first six months of
1995 will be available in July.)
House Commerce Committee Members Receive On Average $65,000 Each From
telecom Pacs--Double The House Average
Telecommunications industry lobbyists ``have seldom met
more receptive lawmakers,'' than the members of the House
Commerce Committee.--The New York Times
Telecommunications industry Pacs gave a total $6,676,147 in
contributions to current Senators during the past decade, an
average $66,761 per Senator, according to the Common Cause
study.
Senate Commerce Committee Members Receive On Average $107,000 Each from
Telecom Pacs
The Common Cause study found that members of the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee received
nearly twice as much PAC money on average from
telecommunications interests during the past decade as other
Senators--an average of $107,730 compared to $57,152 received
by Senators not on the committee.
``Robber Barons of the '90s''
``By and large, the public is not represented by the
lawyers and the lobbyists in Washington. The few public
advocates are overwhelmed financially. It's all very fine to
say that you are in favor of competition. I am. The
Administration is. Congress is. But competition won't give
you everything the country needs from communications
companies. We've got to be able to stand up to
[[Page H 8468]]
business on certain occasions and say, `It's not just about
competition, it's about the public interest.' ''--Reed Hundt,
Federal Communications Commission Chair as quoted in The New
Yorker
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins].
(Miss COLLINS of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Conyers amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Many have argued during this debate that we must deregulate the
telecommunications industry, and by eliminating any role for the
Department of Justice in determining Regional Bell operating company
entry into long distance, we are working toward and goal. Well I think
you are making a terrible mistake if you confuse forbidding the proper
anti-trust role of the Department of Justice with deregulation.
The Republicans in this body should recall it was under the Reagan
administration that the Department of Justice broke up the Bell system
over a decade ago. That decision has been an undisputed success.
Without the role played by the Department of Justice, consumers would
still be renting large rotary black phones and paying too much for long
distance services. The Department of Justice actions promoted
competition, not regulation.
Without the Department of Justice role, we can expect those
communication's attorneys to be in court, fighting endless anti-trust
battles. The role we give the Department of Justice in this amendment
will make it less likely that we will end up back in court, and the
Department will ensure that anti-trust violations would be minimal,
prior to the decision granting a Bell operating company the ability to
offer long distance service.
Calling this amendment regulatory, is doing a disservice to the
potential for true deregulation--which is full competition in all
markets. The structure provided by the Department of Justice ensures
that the markets will develop quickly, and with less litigation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill has been described as a clash
between the super rich and the super wealthy. That Is unquestionably
true, but in the clash of these titans, the question is, who stands for
the American public?
The answer to that question is, without the Conyers amendment, no
one. The American people stand naked before the potential excesses of
these giants unless we have some protection from them offered by the
Justice Department.
There is an incredibly high standard in this bill, Mr. Chairman.
There must be a dangerous probability of substantially impeding justice
before the Justice Department comes in. Let us pass the Conyers
amendment and protect the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] for yielding the time.
The FCC is essentially the agency that would be able to consult with
the Department of Justice under the manager's mark that we passed this
morning. But when we talk about going from a monopoly industry, which
telecom was after 1934, to a competition-based industry, the
competition agency, those who keep the rule, those who decide if there
is a dangerous probability, if those gigantic billionaires players are
being fair, is the Department of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, I simply say that the Conyers amendment makes sure that
fairness is done, that the referee is in place. I urge my colleagues to
support the Conyers amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for purposes of closing the debate on our side.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Conyers
amendment. This bill in all of its forms does not repeal the Sherman
Act. We have had the Sherman Act for over 100 years.
It does not repeal the Clayton Act passed in 1914. Anticompetitive
behavior will be reviewed by the Justice Department, whether it is the
telecommunications industry or whether it is the trucking industry or
any other kind of industry that we are talking about. The Justice
Department is not going away.
What we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, or what the Conyers amendment
seeks to do, is basically replace one court with another, except a
different standard.
This amendment guts the underlying concept of this bill, which is
pure competition, and the idea to get Congress back into the
decisionmaking process. How long do we have to have telecommunications
policy made by an unelected Federal judge who has no accountability to
anyone; when are we going to get back to providing the kind of
responsible decisionmaking that we are elected to do?
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that the underlying bill
provides that kind of ability and accountability for the duly elected
representatives of the people.
This amendment creates needless bureaucracy by having not one, but
two Federal agencies review the issue of Bell Co. entry into long
distance. The purpose of this legislation is to create conditions for a
competitive market and get the heavy hand of Government regulation out
of the way. This Conyers amendment is inconsistent with that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, this is a huge opportunity to provide competitive
forces in the marketplace away from Government. If we believe that
competition and not bureaucracy is the answer to modernizing our
telecommunications policy, to providing more choice in the marketplace,
to providing lower prices, to making America the most competitive
telecommunications industry in the entire world, we will vote against
the Conyers amendment and support the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to the
Conyers amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], as modified.
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], as
modified, will be postponed until after the vote on amendment 2-4 to be
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
It is now in order to consider the amendment, No. 2-3, printed in
part 2 of House Report 104-223.
amendment offered by mr. cox of california
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 2-
3.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment number 2-3 offered by Mr. Cox of California:'
Page 78, before line 18, insert the following new section
(and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 104. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF
OFFENSIVE MATERIAL; FCC REGULATION OF COMPUTER
SERVICES PROHIBITED.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
``(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
interactive computer services available to individual
Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the
availability of educational and informational resources to
our citizens.
``(2) These services offer users a great degree of control
over the information that they receive, as well as the
potential for even greater control in the future as
technology develops.
``(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
avenues for intellectual activity.
``(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services
have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a
minimum of government regulation.
``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive
media for a variety of political,
[[Page H 8469]]
educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
``(1) promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive
media;
``(2) preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by State or Federal regulation;
``(3) encourage the development of technologies which
maximize user control over the information received by
individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and
other interactive computer services;
``(4) remove disincentives for the development and
utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that
empower parents to restrict their children's access to
objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
``(5) ensure vigorous enforcement of criminal laws to deter
and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment
by means of computer.
``(c) Protection for `Good Samaritan' Blocking and
Screening of Offensive Material.--No provider or user of
interactive computer services shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information provided by an
information content provider. No provider or user of
interactive computer services shall be held liable on account
of--
``(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to
restrict access to material that the provider or user
considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
or
``(2) any action taken to make available to information
content providers or others the technical means to restrict
access to material described in paragraph (1).
``(d) FCC Regulation of the Internet and Other Interactive
Computer Services Prohibited.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to grant any jurisdiction or authority to the
Commission with respect to content or any other regulation of
the Internet or other interactive computer services.
``(e) Effect on Other Laws.--
``(1) No effect on criminal law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223
of this Act, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110
(relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18,
United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.
``(2) No effect on intellectual property law.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law
pertaining to intellectual property.
``(3) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law
that is consistent with this section.
``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the
international computer network of both Federal and non-
Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
``(2) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive
computer service' means any information service that provides
computer access to multiple users via modem to a remote
computer server, including specifically a service that
provides access to the Internet.
``(3) Information content provider.--The term `information
content provider' means any person or entity that is
responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or
development of information provided by the Internet or any
other interactive computer service, including any person or
entity that creates or develops blocking or screening
software or other techniques to permit user control over
offensive material.
``(4) Information service.--The term `information service'
means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring,
storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or
making available information via telecommunications, and
includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use
of any such capability for the management, control, or
operation of a telecommunications system or the management of
a telecommunications service.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Cox] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will
be recognized for 10 minutes. Who seeks time in opposition?
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, given that no Member has risen
in opposition, would the Chair entertain a unanimous-consent request?
The CHAIRMAN. If no Members seeks time in opposition, by unanimous
consent another Member may be recognized for the other 10 minutes, or
the gentleman may have the other 10 minutes.
Let me put the question again: Is there any Member in the Chamber who
wishes to claim the time in opposition?
If not, is there a unanimous-consent request for the other 10
minutes?
Mr. WYDEN. There is, Mr. Chairman. Although I am not in opposition to
this amendment, I would ask unanimous consent to have the extra time
because of the many Members who would like to speak on it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin by thanking my
colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], who has worked so
hard and so diligently on this effort with all of our colleagues.
We are talking about the Internet now, not about telephones, not
about television or radios, not about cable TV, not about broadcasting,
but in technological terms and historical terms, an absolutely brand-
new technology.
The Internet is a fascinating place and many of us have recently
become acquainted with all that it holds for us in terms of education
and political discourse.
We want to make sure that everyone in America has an open invitation
and feels welcome to participate in the Internet. But as you know,
there is some reason for people to be wary because, as a Time Magazine
cover story recently highlighted, there is in this vast world of
computer information, a literal computer library, some offensive
material, some things in the bookstore, if you will, that our children
ought not to see.
As the parent of two, I want to make sure that my children have
access to this future and that I do not have to worry about what they
might be running into on line. I would like to keep that out of my
house and off of my computer. How should we do this?
Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we take the Federal
Communications Commission and turn it into the Federal Computer
Commission, that we hire even more bureaucrats and more regulators who
will attempt, either civilly or criminally, to punish people by
catching them in the act of putting something into cyberspace.
Frankly, there is just too much going on on the Internet for that to
be effective. No matter how big the army of bureaucrats, it is not
going to protect my kids because I do not think the Federal Government
will get there in time. Certainly, criminal enforcement of our
obscenity laws as an adjunct is a useful way of punishing the truly
guilty.
Mr. Chairman, what we want are results. We want to make sure we do
something that actually works. Ironically, the existing legal system
provides a massive disincentive for the people who might best help us
control the Internet to do so.
I will give you two quick examples: A Federal court in New York, in a
case involving CompuServe, one of our on-line service providers, held
that CompuServe
would not be liable in a defamation case because it was not the
publisher or editor of the material. It just let everything come onto
your computer without, in any way, trying to screen it or control it.
But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that
Prodigy, CompuServe's competitor, could be held liable in a $200
million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their
bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that
apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment
bank would go out of business and was run by crooks.
Prodigy said, ``No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or
edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of
these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you
cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us.''
The court said, ``No, no, no, no, you are different; you are
different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network.
You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking
software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who
are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind
of
[[Page H 8470]]
material away from your subscribers. You don't permit nudity on your
system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face
higher, stricker liability because you tried to exercise some control
over offensive material.''
{time} 1015
Mr. Chairman, that is backward. We want to encourage people like
Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft
network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us
control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our
house, what comes in and what our children see. This technology is very
quickly becoming available, and in fact every one of us will be able to
tailor what we see to our own tastes.
We can go much further, Mr. Chairman, than blocking obscenity or
indecency, whatever that means in its loose interpretations. We can
keep away from our children things not only prohibited by law, but
prohibited by parents. That is where we should be headed, and that is
what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and I are doing.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment will do two basic things: First, it will
protect computer Good Samaritans, online service providers, anyone who
provides a front end to the Internet, let us say, who takes steps to
screen indecency and offensive material for their customers. It will
protect them from taking on liability such as occurred in the Prodigy
case in New York that they should not face for helping us and for
helping us solve this problem. Second, it will establish as the policy
of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by
the Federal Government of what is on the Internet, that we do not wish
to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats
regulating the Internet because frankly the Internet has grown up to be
what it is without that kind of help from the Government. In this
fashion we can encourage what is right now the most energetic
technological revolution that any of us has ever witnessed. We can make
it better. We can make sure that it operates more quickly to solve our
problem of keeping pornography away from our kids, keeping offensive
material away from our kids, and I am very excited about it.
There are other ways to address this problem, some of which run head-
on into our approach. About those let me simply say that there is a
well-known road paved with good intentions. We all know where it leads.
The message today should be from this Congress we embrace this new
technology, we welcome the opportunity for education and political
discourse that it offers for all of us. We want to help it along this
time by saying Government is going to get out of the way and let
parents and individuals control it rather than Government doing that
job for us.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Cox-Wyden
amendment. In beginning, I want to thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Cox] for the chance to work with him. I think we all come here
because we are most interested in policy issues, and the opportunity I
have had to work with the gentleman from California has really been a
special pleasure, and I want to thank him for it. I also want to thank
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], our ranking minority member,
for the many courtesies he has shown, along with the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and, as always, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] have been very
helpful and cooperative on this effort.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the Internet is the shining star of the
information age, and Government censors must not be allowed to spoil
its promise. We are all against smut and pornography, and, as the
parents of two small computer-literate children, my wife and I have
seen our kids find their way into these chat rooms that make their
middle-aged parents cringe. So let us all stipulate right at the outset
the importance of protecting our kids and going to the issue of the
best way to do it.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I are here to say that we
believe that parents and families are better suited to guard the
portals of cyberspace and protect our children than our Government
bureaucrats. Parents can get relief now from the smut on the Internet
by making a quick trip to the neighborhood computer store where they
can purchase reasonably priced software that blocks out the pornography
on the Internet. I brought some of this technology to the floor, a
couple of the products that are reasonably priced and available, simply
to make clear to our colleagues that it is possible for our parents now
to child-proof the family computer with these products available in the
private sector.
Now what the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I have proposed
does stand in sharp contrast to the work of the other body. They seek
there to try to put in place the Government rather than the private
sector about this task of trying to define indecent communications and
protecting our kids. In my view that approach, the approach of the
other body, will essentially involve the Federal Government spending
vast sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to
lead to a flood of legal challenges while our kids are unprotected. The
fact of the matter is that the Internet operates worldwide, and not
even a Federal Internet censorship army would give our Government the
power to keep offensive material out of the hands of children who use
the new interactive media, and I would say to my colleagues that, if
there is this kind of Federal Internet censorship army that somehow the
other body seems to favor, it is going to make the Keystone Cops look
like crackerjack crime-fighter.
Mr. Chairman, the new media is simply different. We have the
opportunity to build a 21st century policy for the Internet employing
the technologies and the creativity designed by the private sector.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment offered by gentleman
from California [Mr. Cox] and myself, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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, Members of the House, this is a
very good amendment. There is no question that we are having an
explosion of information on the emerging superhighway. Unfortunately
part of that information is of a nature that we do not think would be
suitable for our children to see on our PC screens in our homes.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cox] have worked hard to put together a reasonable
way to provide those providers of the information to help them self-
regulate themselves without penalty of law. I think it is a much better
approach than the approach that has been taken in the Senate by the
Exon amendment. I would hope that we would support this version in our
bill in the House and then try to get the House-Senate conference to
adopt the Cox-Wyden language.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is a good piece of legislation, a good
amendment, and I hope we can pass it unanimously in the body.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. Danner] who has also worked hard in this area.
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. Wyden] in a brief colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's efforts, as well as
those of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], to address the
problem of children having untraceable access through on-line computer
services to inappropriate and obscene pornographic materials available
on the Internet.
Telephone companies must inform us as to whom our long distance calls
are made. I believe that if computer on-line services were to include
itemized billing, it would be a practical solution which would inform
parents as to what materials their children are accessing on the
Internet.
It is my hope and understanding that we can work together in pursuing
technology based solutions to the problems
[[Page H 8471]]
we face in dealing with controlling the transfer of obscene materials
in cyberspace.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DANNER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her comments, and
we will certainly take this up with some of the private-sector firms
that are working in this area.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. White].
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the House that,
as my colleagues know, this is a very important issue for me, not only
because of our district, but because I have got four small children at
home. I got them from age 3 to 11, and I can tell my colleagues I get
E-mails on a regular basis from my 11-year-old, and my 9-year-old
spends a lot of time surfing the Internet on America Online. This is an
important issue to me. I want to be sure we can protect them from the
wrong influences on the Internet.
But I have got to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, the last person I
want making that decision is the Federal Government. In my district
right now there are people developing technology that will allow a
parent to sit down and program the Internet to provide just the kind of
materials that they want their child to see. That is where this
responsibility should be, in the hands of the parent.
That is why I was proud to cosponsor this bill, that is what this
bill does, and I urge my colleagues to pass it.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I will bet that there are not very many
parts of the country where Senator Exon's amendment has been on the
front page of the newspaper practically every day, but that is the case
in Silicon Valley. I think that is because so many of us got on the
Internet early and really understand the technology, and I surf the Net
with my 10-year-old and 13-year-old, and I am also concerned about
pornography. In fact, earlier this year I offered a life sentence for
the creators of child pornography, but Senator Exon's approach is not
the right way. Really it is like saying that the mailman is going to be
liable when he delivers a plain brown envelope for what is inside it.
It will not work. It is a misunderstanding of the technology. The
private sector is out giving parents the tools that they have. I am so
excited that there is more coming on. I very much endorse the Cox-Wyden
amendment, and I would urge its approval so that we preserve the first
amendment and open systems on the Net.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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 Oregon [Mr.
Wyden] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of
the Cox-Wyden amendment. This will help to solve a very serious problem
as we enter into the Internet age. We have the opportunity for every
household in America, every family in America, soon to be able to have
access to places like the Library of Congress, to have access to other
major libraries of the world, universities, major publishers of
information, news sources. There is no way that any of those entities,
like Prodigy, can take the responsibility to edit out information that
is going to be coming in to them from all manner of sources onto their
bulletin board. We are talking about something that is far larger than
our daily newspaper. We are talking about something that is going to be
thousands of pages of information every day, and to have that
imposition imposed on them is wrong. This will cure that problem, and I
urge the Members to support the amendment.
{time} 1030
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Oregon and the gentleman from California for their amendment. It is a
significant improvement over the approach of the Senator from Nebraska,
Senator Exon.
This deals with the reality that the Internet is international, it is
computer-based, it has a completely different history and future than
anything that we have known thus far, and I support the language. It
deals with the content concerns which the gentlemen from Oregon and
California have raised.
Mr. Chairman, the only reservation which I would have is that they
add in not only content but also any other type of registration. I
think in an era of convergence of technologies where telephone and
cable may converge with the Internet at some point and some ways it is
important for us to ensure that we will have an opportunity down the
line to look at those issues, and my hope is that in the conference
committee we will be able to sort those out.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Fields].
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take the time to
thank him and also the gentleman from California for this fine work.
This is a very sensitive area, very complex area, but it is a very
important area for the American public, and I just wanted to
congratulate him and the gentleman from California on how they worked
together in a bipartisan fashion.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman for his kindness.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say that the reason that this
approach rather than the Senate approach is important is our plan
allows us to help American families today.
Under our approach and the speed at which these technologies are
advancing, the marketplace is going to give parents the tools they need
while the Federal Communications Commission is out there cranking out
rules about proposed rulemaking programs. Their approach is going to
set back the effort to help our families. Our approach allows us to
help American families today.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond briefly to the important
point in this bill that prohibits the FCC from regulating the Internet.
Price regulation is at one with usage of the Internet.
We want to make sure that the complicated way that the Internet sends
a document to your computer, splitting it up into packets, sending it
through myriad computers around the world before it reaches your desk
is eventually grasped by technology so that we can price it, and we can
price ration usage on the Internet so more and more people can use it
without overcrowding it.
If we regulate the Internet at the FCC, that will freeze or at least
slow down technology. It will threaten the future of the Internet. That
is why it is so important that we not have a Federal computer
commission do that.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Congress has a responsibility to help
encourage the private sector to protect our children from being exposed
to obscene and indecent material on the Internet. Most parents aren't
around all day to monitor what their kids are pulling up on the net,
and in fact, parents have a hard time keeping up with their kids'
abilities to surf cyberspace. Parents need some help and the Cox-Wyden
amendment provides it.
The Cox-Wyden amendment is a thoughtful approach to keep smut off the
net without government censorship.
We have been told it is technologically impossible for interactive
service providers to guarantee that no subscriber posts indecent
material on their bulletin board services. But that doesn't mean that
providers should not be given incentives to police the use of their
systems. And software and other measures are available to help screen
out this material.
Currently, however, there is a tremendous disincentive for online
service providers to create family friendly services by detecting and
removing objectionable content. These providers face the risk of
increased liability where they take reasonable steps to police their
systems. A New York judge recently sent the online services the message
to stop policing by ruling that Prodigy was subject to a $200 million
libel suit simply because it did exercise some control over profanity
and indecent material.
The Cox-Wyden amendment removes the liability of providers such as
Prodigy who currently make a good faith effort to edit the smut
[[Page H 8472]]
from their systems. It also encourages the online services industry to
develop new technology, such as blocking software, to empower parents
to monitor and control the information their kids can access. And, it
is important to note that under this amendment existing laws
prohibiting the transmission of child pornography and obscenity will
continue to be enforced.
The Cox-Wyden amendment empowers parents without Federal regulation.
It allows parents to make the important decisions with regard to what
their children can access, not the government. It doesn't violate free
speech or the right of adults to communicate with each other. That's
the right approach and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Chairman. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cox].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] will be
postponed until after the vote on amendment 2-4 to be offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2-4 printed in part 2 of
House Report 104-223.
amendment no. 2-4 offered by mr. markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 2-4.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts: page 126,
after line 16, insert the following new subsection (and
redesignate the succeeding subsections and accordingly):
(f) Standard for Unreasonable Rates for Cable Programming
Services.--Section 623(c)(2) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 543(c)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Standard for unreasonable rates.--The Commission may
only consider a rate for cable programming services to be
unreasonable if such rate has increased since June 1, 1995,
determined on a per-channel basis, by a percentage that
exceeds the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers (as determined by the Department of
Labor) since such date.''.
Page 127, line 4, strike ``or 5 percent'' and all that
follows through ``greater,'' on line 6.
Page 129, strike lines 16 through 21 and insert the
following:
``(d) Uniform Rate Structure.--A cable operator shall have
a uniform rate structure throughout its franchise area for
the provision of cable services.''.
Page 130, line 16, insert ``and'' after the semicolon, and
strike line 20 and all that follows through line 2 on page
131 and insert the following:
``directly to subscribers in the franchise area and such
franchise area is also served by an unaffiliated cable
system.''.
Page 131, strike line 6 and all that follows through line
21, and insert the following:
``(m) Small Cable Systems.--
``(1) Small cable system relief.--A small cable system
shall not be subject to subsections (a), (b), (c), or (d) in
any franchise area with respect to the provision of cable
programming services, or a basic service tier where such tier
was the only tier offered in such area on December 31, 1994.
``(2) Definition of small cable system.--For purposes of
this subsection, `small cable system' means a cable system
that--
``(A) directly or through an affiliate, serves in the
aggregate fewer than 250,000 cable subscribers in the United
States; and
``(B) directly serves fewer than 10,000 cable subscribers
in its franchise area.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] seek the time in
opposition?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself at this point 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the consumers of America should be placed upon red
alert. We now reach an issue which I think every person in America can
understand who has even held a remote control clicker in their hands.
The bill that we are now considering deregulates all cable rates over
the next 15 months. But for rural America, rural America, the 30
percent of America that considers itself to the rural, their rates are
deregulated upon enactment of this bill.
Now, the proponents are going to tell you, do not worry, there is
going to be plenty of competition in cable. That will keep rates down.
For those of you in rural America, ask yourself this question: In two
months do you think there will be a second cable company in your town?
Because if there is not a second cable company in your town, your rates
are going up because your cable company, as a monopoly, will be able to
go back to the same practices which they engaged in up to 1992 when
finally we began to put controls on this rapid increase two and three
and four times the rate of inflation of cable rates across this
country.
The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I have an amendment
that is being considered right now on the floor of Congress which will
give you your one shot at protecting our cable ratepayers against rate
shock this year and next across this country, whether you be rural or
urban or suburban.
We received a missive today from the Governor of New Jersey,
Christine Whitman. She wants an aye vote on the Markey-Shays bill.
Christine Whitman. She does not want her cable rates to go up because
she knows, and she says it right here, there is no competition on the
horizon for most of America.
So this amendment is the most important consumer protection vote
which you will be taking in this bill and one of the two or three most
important this year in the U.S. Congress.
Make no mistake about it. There will be no competition for most of
America. There will be no control on rates going up, and you will have
to explain why, as part of a telecommunications bill that was supposed
to reduce rates, you allowed for monopolies, monopolies in 97 percent
of the communities in America to once again go back to their old
practices.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The Markey amendment, Mr. Chairman, tracks the disastrous course of
the 1992 cable law by requiring the cable companies to jump through
regulatory hoops to escape the burdensome rules imposed on them after
the law was enacted.
The Markey amendment fails to take into account the changing
competitive video marketplace that has evolved in the last 2 years.
Direct broadcast satellite has taken off, particularly in rural areas,
and there will be nearly 5-million subscribers by the end of the year.
With the equipment costs now being folded into the monthly charge for
this service, this competitive technology will explode in the next few
years.
The telephone industry will be permitted to offer cable on the date
of enactment and will provide formidable competition immediately. There
are numerous market and technical trials going on now to ramp up to
that competition.
The Markey amendment turns back the clock. It seeks to continue the
government regulation and micromanagement that has unfairly burdened
the industry over the past several years.
Vote ``no'' on Markey and duplicate the Senate, they overwhelmingly
voted it down over there.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, it's Christmas in August in Washington. On
the surface, the Communications Act of 1995 looks like a Christmas gift
to the people and the communications industries. You've heard the buzz
words: competition, lower rates, and more choices. But a closer look
reveals another story.
While the cable provisions in the bill will give a sweet gift to the
cable industry, the American consumer, and especially those in rural
America, will wake up on Christmas morning to nothing more than less
competition, higher cable rates, and less choice.
The bill as it stands immediately deregulates rate controls on small
cable systems--those which serve an average of almost 30 percent of
cable subscribers in America and account for at least 70 percent of all
cable systems. This bill discourages competition in these markets
because it deregulates these cable companies regardless of
[[Page H 8473]]
whether they face substantial competition in the marketplace.
In some cases, the bill immediately removes cable rate controls for
systems serving over 50 percent of subscribers. In my home State of
Tennessee, cable systems reaching more than 30 percent of subscribers,
or 348,027 subscribers, would see immediate deregulation, and these
subscribers would see nothing but higher rates and no choice.
That's the reason I am proud to support the Markey-Shays cable
amendment to the Communications Act of 1995. This amendment would
protect consumers from cable price-gouging by keeping rate regulations
on small cable companies until effective cable competition in the
marketplace offers consumers a choice.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Otherwise, Congress
will give their constituents a Christmas gift they will not forget.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment. When we reregulated cable 3 years ago, I was absolutely
opposed to that. I voted against it in subcommittee, I voted against it
in full committee, and I voted against it on the floor, and I voted to
sustain the President's veto when he tried to veto the legislation.
We do not need to be regulating cable rates. Cable is not a
necessity. The Federal Government has absolutely no right to be setting
prices for cable television. The amendment that is before us would do
that.
We have wisely in the legislation deregulated 90 percent of the cable
industry. We should keep the bill as it is, we should vote against the
Markey amendment.
I would vote against it two times, three times, four times if I had
the constitutional authority to do so, but I am going to vote against
it once.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for the good work that he has
done on behalf of the consumers of America.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Shays amendment for the
simple reason that I do not want to return to the days when the cable
companies of this country were increasing their prices at three times
the rate of inflation while dramatically reducing their services.
Since the passage of the 1992 Cable Act, the American consumer has
finally seen relief in the form of significantly reduced cable rates.
In my district alone, millions of dollars have been saved by cable
subscribers. But the bill we are debating here this morning would
severely threaten the consumer protection that was established by the
1992 act.
In its current form, H.R. 1555 would abolish FCC regulation of cable
systems thereby allowing cable companies to once again raise rates
arbitrarily. It would open a window of opportunity for cable owners to
cash in one last time at the expense of the American consumer. We
cannot allow this to happen.
The Markey-Shays amendment would continue FCC regulation of cable
systems until effective competition is established. It is a proconsumer
amendment that would protect millions of Americans from an unnecessary
rate hike and I strongly urge its passage.
{time} 1045
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the Markey cable amendment embodies all that is wrong
with Government regulation. It sets prices for a private industry,
cable television. It lowers the threshold for price controls to systems
with 10,000 or fewer subscribers. It lowers the complaint threshold
from 5 percent of subscribers to 10--yes 10, individual subsbribers--to
which the FCC can respond with a rate review. Mr. Chairman, I have seen
the amount of paperwork a cable operator can be asked to provide the
FCC in response to a complaint. It is absolutely unbelievable. And this
amendment would make it more likely that cable operators would have to
fill out these massive forms for the FCC. H.R. 1555 promotes
deregulation and competition in all telecommunications industries,
including cable. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject
this effort at price control and regulation of the cable industry.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-
Shays amendment to protect Americans from unaffordable cable rate
increases.
Cable rates hit home with consumers in Connecticut and across the
country. That is why the only bill Congress passed over President
Bush's veto was the 1992 Cable Act to keep TV rates down. Now is not
the time to backtrack on that progress.
We would all like to see competition pushing cable rates down, but
the telecommunications bill before us will remove protections against
price increases before there is any guarantee of competition. Under
this bill, every time you hit the clicker, it might as well sound like
a cash register recording the higher costs viewers will face. Consumer
groups estimate that this bill will raise rates for popular channels
such as CNN and ESPN by an average of $5 per month.
The Markey-Shays amendment will protect television viewers from
unreasonable rate increases until there truly is competition in the
cable TV market. The amendment will also retain important safeguard
that protect the right of consumers to protest unreasonable rate hikes.
I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Shays amendment so that
hard-working Americans will not be priced out of the growing
information age.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], a member of the committee.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. In 1992
we fought a royal battle on the floor of this House, a battle designed
clearly to begin the process of creating competition in the cable
programming marketplace. The problem in 1992 was not the lack of
Government regulation, although that contributed to the problem in
1992. The problem was that because cable monopoly companies vertically
integrated, controlled by the programming and the distribution of cable
programming, cable companies could decide not to let competition
happen. They could refuse to sell to direct broadcast satellite, they
could refuse to sell to microwave systems, they could refuse to sell to
alternative cable systems. The result was competition was stifled. The
demand rose in this House for reregulation.
The good news is that in 1992, despite a veto by the President, this
House and the other body overrode that veto, adopted the Tauzin program
access provision to the cable bill, and created, for the first time in
this marketplace, real competition.
Mr. Chairman, are you not excited by those direct broadcast
television ads you see on television, where you see a direct satellite
now beaming to a dish no bigger than this to homes 150 channels with
incredible programming? Are you not excited in rural America that you
have an alternative to the cable, or, where you do not have a cable,
you now have program access? Are you not excited when microwave systems
are announced in your community and when you hear the telephone company
will soon be in the cable business?
That is competition. Competition regulates the marketplace much
better than the schemes of mice and men here in Washington, DC.
Consumers choosing between competitive offerings, consumers choosing
the same products offered by different suppliers, in different stores,
in the same town. Keep prices down, keep service up. Competition, yes;
reregulation, no.
[[Page H 8474]]
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, competition, yes. Competition, yes. But now
we do not have competition. Ninety-seven percent of all systems do not
have competition. And this bill, unamended, allows for those companies,
most of them, nearly 50 percent of them, to be deregulated.
We say yes, we are going to allow the small companies to be
deregulated, the small ones, under 600,000 subscribers. Six hundred
thousand subscribers is small? That system is worth $1.2 billion.
We do not have competition now. Deregulate when you have competition.
There are 97 percent of the systems that do not have competition. The
whole point here is to make sure that companies that are not competing,
that have a monopoly, are not allowed to set monopolistic prices.
One of the reasons why we overrode the President's veto, 70 of us on
the Republican side, we recognized that consumers were paying
monopolistic prices. Deregulate when you have competition. The bill in
1992 said when you had competition, there would not be regulation. The
reason why we have regulation is these are monopolies.
I know Members have not had a lot of sleep, but I hope the staff that
is listening will tell their Members that we are going to deregulate
these companies and they are going to set monopolistic prices, and they
are going to come to their Congressman and say, ``Why did you vote to
deregulate a monopoly?''
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Manton], a member of the committee.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey
amendment.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and would like to
take this opportunity to commend him for his fine work on this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the cable television industry is poised to compete with
local telephone companies in offering consumers advanced communications
services. Yet to make that happen, we must relax burdensome and
unwarranted regulations that are choking the ability of the cable
industry to invest in the new technology and services that will allow
them to compete.
The proponents of the Markey amendment said in 1992 that rate
regulation was a placeholder until competition arrived in the video
marketplace.
Well, that competition is here. Today, cable television is being
challenged by an aggressive and burgeoning direct broadcast satellite
industry and other wireless video services. And with the enactment of
H.R. 1555, the Nation's telephone companies, will be permitted to offer
video services directly to the consumer.
Mr. Chairman, it is also important for my colleagues to understand
what H.R. 1555 does not do. It does not repeal the 1992 Cable Act.
Cities will retain the authority to regulate rates for basic cable
services and to impose stringent customer service standards. H.R. 1555
does not alter the program access, must carry or retransmission consent
provisions of the 1992 Cable Act.
Quite modestly, H.R. 1555 will end rate regulation of expanded basic
cable entertainment programming 15 months after the enactment of the
legislation, plenty of time for the telcos to get into the video
business.
Mr. Chairman, cable programming is an enormously popular and valuable
service in the world of video entertainment. But just because it's good
and people like it, doesn't mean the Federal Government should regulate
it.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Markey amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch], a member of the committee.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the
committee for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the crux of this issue is, is there competition in this
industry at this time on the issues of this amendment? I think the
answer to that is that there is.
Let us be very specific about what the amendment does. The amendment
would keep regulation on nonbasic services. Basic service would
continue regulation beyond the 15-month period. For nonbasic service,
for HBO, Cinemax, and things like that.
There is competition today in just about any place in this country,
and I know for a fact in my community you can buy a minisatellite dish.
You can go to Blockbuster Video and rent a video. Many people choose
that. Cable passes 97 percent of the homes in this country, yet only 60
percent of those homes choose to purchase cable systems.
What this bill does is it gives an opportunity for this country to
enter a new age, an age for competition throughout our
telecommunications. The major opportunity is there for the phone
systems for competition through the cable system.
Again, in my own area of south Florida, cable systems are actively
marketing competition in commercial lines, today, against phone
systems. That is something they want to do in the short term, tomorrow.
If this bill has any chance of creating this synergism, the new
technologies, the things that will be available that are beyond our
imagination, the opportunity of cable systems to be part of that
competition is a necessary component.
If we can think back 15 years ago when none of us could have imagined
the change in the technologies that have evolved, this is a case of
hope versus fear.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with great excitement about the technology that
is offered through this cable miracle. I only hope that the consumers
can be excited as well. I stand here before you as a former chairperson
of a local municipality's cable-TV committee, and I realize that basic
rates have been regulated. But maybe the reason why so many do not opt
in for cable TV is because of the rates on the other services.
So I think the Markey-Shays amendment is right on the mark. It
acknowledges the technology, but it also comes squarely down for
competition, and it responds to the needs of consumers in keeping the
lid on what is a privilege held by the cable companies. It is a
privilege to be in the cable TV business. It is big business. It is
going to be more big business in the 21st century, and I encourage
that. But at the same time, I think it is very important to have a
system that provides for the regulation of rates so that we can have
greater access to cable by our schools, for our public institutions,
and, yes, for our citizens in urban and rural America. The rates are
already too high!
Mr. Chairman, this amendment also allows the subscriber to more
easily make complaints to the FCC. The real issue is to come down on
the side of the consumer and to come down on the side of viable
competition. Support the Markey-Shays amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Shays amendment to H.R.
1555 because it provides reasonable and structured plan for
deregulating cable rates for an existing cable system until a telephone
company is providing competing services in the area.
This amendment is critically important because in many areas of the
country, one cable company already has a monopoly on cable services. I
am sure that many of my colleagues can attest to the complaints by
constituents with respect to high rates and inadequate service when no
competition exists in the local cable market.
This amendment is also necessary because it would eliminate rate
regulation for many small cable systems with less than 10,000
subscribers in a franchise area and less than 250,000 subscribers
nationwide.
Finally, this amendment provides an opportunity for consumers to
petition the FCC to review rates if 10 subscribers complain as opposed
to the bill's requirement that 5 percent of the subscribers must
complain in order to trigger a review by the FCC.
I urge my colleagues to support true competition in the cable market
by voting in favor of the Markey-Shays amendment.
[[Page H 8475]]
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, while I applaud the leadership of the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], incredible leadership on
telecommunications issues, I must oppose this amendment, because
Federal regulation of cable which began in 1993 has not worked.
Regulation has resulted in the decline of cable television programming
and hurt the industry's ability to invest in technology that is going
to improve information services to all Americans.
{time} 1100
Because cable companies have information lines in home, cable has the
potential to offer our constituents a choice in how to receive
information. Cable systems pass over 96 percent of American homes with
cables that carry up to 900 times as much information as the local
phone company's wires.
Exensive regulations prevent the cable industry from raising the
capital needed to make the billion dollar investments needed to upgrade
their systems. Cable's high capacity systems can ultimately deliver
virtually every type of communications service conceivable, allow
consumers to choose between competing providers, voice, video, and data
services.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the Committee on
Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
While many of us differ about parts of the bill, one thing is clear.
H.R. 1555 deregulates cable before consumers have a competitive
authorization alternative. The provisions of the bill very simply see
to it, first of all, that so-called small systems are deregulated
immediately and define a small system as one which has 600,000
subscribers. That is a market the size of the city of Las Vegas. So
there is nothing small about those who will be deregulated immediately.
Beyond this, the provision will deregulate cable rates for more than
16 million households, nearly 30 percent of the total cable households
in America, and it will do so at the end of the time it takes the
President to sign this.
The bill will deregulate all cable rates in Alaska immediately, and
more than 61 percent of rates in Georgia, and the rates of better than
half of the subscribers in Arkansas, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Minnesota, Nevada, and other States.
But there is more. This bill will deregulate by the calendar. What
happens is that at the end of 15 months, whether there is competition
in place or not, deregulation occurs. At that point, what protection
will exist for the consumers of cable services in this country who do
not have competition?
This amendment returns us to the rather sensible approach which we
had when we passed the Cable Regulation Act some 2 years ago. It
provides protection for the consumers. I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley], a member of the committee.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, since the passage of the 1992 Cable Act, the
PCC staff has increased some 30 percent, making it one of the largest
growing Federal bureaucracies in Washington. Most of the growth is due
to the creation of the Cable Services Bureau.
Listen to this: When established, the Cable Service Bureau has a
staff of 59. Since the passage of the Cable Act of 1992, it has
increased and has quadrupled in size. The 1995 cable services budget
stands at $186 million, a 35-percent increase from the Cable Act.
We do not need more bureaucrats telling the American public what they
can and cannot pay for MTV and other cable services. It seems to me
that the potential is clearly there for more and more competition. If
we get bureaucracy in the way of competition, the bureaucracy always
wins. It is important to understand the negative effects of the Cable
Act of 1992. This amendment would exacerbate the terrible things that
have happened since 1992.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we gave away cable franchises in the early
1970s and made millionaires out of cable franchise owners. In 1984, we
deregulated and made billionaires out of these organizations.
The argument that since deregulation bad things have happened to
cable is simply not true. Their revenues have grown from 17 billion in
1990 to 25 billion in 1995. Their subscribers have grown from 54
million to 61 million during that same time period. Cable companies are
making money. They are presently without competition. We should
deregulate when we have competition, not before. That is the crux of
this argument.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
and in support of H.R. 1555.
In 1992, I voted against the cable act because it was unjustified and
would slow the growth of a dynamic industry. In fact, the 1992 act
stifled the cable industry's ability to upgrade its plants, deploy new
technology and add new channels. It also put several program networks
out of business and delayed the launch of many other networks in this
country.
Without some changes to the cable act, Congress will delay the
introduction of new technologies and services to the consumer and will
jeopardize the growth of competition in the telecommunications
industry.
The Markey-Shays amendment should be rejected for two reasons: First,
it looks to the past; second, it is bad policy.
H.R. 1555 is looking to the future. It will establish new competition
between multiple service providers offering consumers greater choices,
better quality and fairer prices.
The Markey-Shays amendment is based on outdated market conditions
from the 1980's, and it seeks to shackle an industry that promises to
deliver every conceivable information age service as well as local
phone service.
The proposed amendment represents a last ditch effort to keep in
place a failed system of regulation that has no place in the
marketplace today.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] have argued that without their amendment cable
prices would jump significantly and without justification. This simply
is not true.
First, for most cable systems, the vast majority of cable subscribers
rate regulations will remain in place for 15 months after 1,555 is
enacted. This will provide ample time for more competition to develop.
Competition, not extensive Federal regulation, is the best way to
constrain prices that we have today.
Second, the sponsors of the pending cable rate amendment have
overstated the history of cable prices after deregulation. For example,
Mr. Markey has repeatedly cited a GAO statistic which suggests that
cable rates tripled between deregulation in the mid 1980s and
reregulation in 1992. What he ignores is that the number of channels
offered by the cable system has also tripled.
As this chart very well explains it, back in the deregulation era,
here we had between 1986, 58 cents per channel. And as you go to 11/91,
58 cents per channel. No changes.
The chart demonstrates the average cost of cable television. It
remained constant over the particular time. And I would just say, by
tying future cable rates to CPI, as the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] are
proposing, Congress will choke off the explosion of services and
programs to our consumers. The time for total deregulation is there; 13
hundred pages of FCC regulations and 220 bureaucrats are running this
system,
[[Page H 8476]]
the cable bureau in this country under FCC. It is harming consumers by
delaying introduction of new technology and services. Such regulations
will also impede the cable industry's ability to offer other consumer
advantages in this market.
I would just say that if we really want cable to be a part of this
whole information highway, defeat the Markey-Shays amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we are now 3 minutes from casting the one vote that
every consumer in America is going to understand. They may appreciate
that you are going to give them the ability to have one more long
distance company out there, but they have already, in fact, enjoy
dozens of long distance companies in America. But every cable consumer
in America knows that in their hometown there is only one cable
company, and the telephone company is not coming to town soon.
Under Shays-Markey, when the telephone company comes to town, no more
regulation. What the bill says right now is, even if the telephone
company does not come to town, the cable companies can tip you upside
down and shake your money out of your pockets.
So you answer this question: When cable rates go from $25 a month to
$35 a month, every month, are you going to be able to explain that
there is competition arriving in 3 or 4 years?
Keep rate controls until the telephone company shows up in town, then
complete deregulation. That is what this bill is all about,
competition. When the telephone company begins to compete, if it ever
does, no rate control. But until they get there, every community in
America for all intents and purposes is a cable monopoly. They are
going right back to the same practices once you pass this bill.
Support the Shays-Markey amendment. Protect cable consumers until
competition arrives.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has 1 half
minute to close.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is a reregulatory dinosaur.
Basic cable rates continue to be regulated under this bill.
We deregulate expanded basic in 15 months, when telephone will be
competing with cable. But very importantly, in terms of competition
with telephone companies, the only competitor in the residential
marketplace will be the cable company. If you place regulations on
cable, they will not be able to roll out the services so they can truly
compete with telephone, which is what we want. It is a desired consumer
benefit.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey cable re-regulation
amendment. Today, we will hear from my friend from Massachusetts that
there is not enough competition in the cable services arena and,
therefore cable should not be deregulated. So one might ask, why would
we want to limit one industry and place regulations which will prohibit
cable from competing with the others?
The checklist in title 1 envisions a facilities-based competitor
which will provide the consumer with an alternative in local phone
service. The cable companies are ready to be that competitor; however,
they cannot fully participate in the deployment of an alternative
system if they must operate under the burdensome regulations imposed by
the 1992 cable act. The truth is that cable companies are facing true
competition. With the deployment of direct broadcast satellite systems
and telephone entry into cable, the competitors have come.
H.R. 1555 takes a moderate approach toward deregulating cable. The
basic tier remains regulated because that has become a lifeline
service. The upper tiers, which are purely entertainment, are
reregulated because consumers have a choice in that area.
We should not be picking favorites by keeping some sectors of the
industry under regulations. It is time to allow everyone to compete
fairly and without Government interference. I strongly urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
statement on must carry/advanced spectrum
Section 336(b)(3) of the Communications Act, added by
section 301 of the bill, makes clear that ancillary and
supplemental services offered on designated frequencies are
not entitled to must carry. It is not the intent of this
provision to confer must carry status on advanced television
or other video services offered on designated frequencies.
Under the 1992 Cable Act, that issue is to be the subject of
a Commission proceeding under section 614(b)(4)(B).
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that it will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair
has postponed further proceedings. This is a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148,
noes 275, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 628]
AYES--148
Abercrombie
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bishop
Boehlert
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Torres
Torricelli
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--275
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
[[Page H 8477]]
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Andrews
Bateman
Coburn
Hutchinson
Moakley
Ortiz
Reynolds
Scarborough
Thurman
Williams
Young (AK)
{time} 1133
Messrs. MONTGOMERY, MARTINEZ, PAYNE of New Jersey, and BEVILL changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the
following order: Amendment No. 2-1 offered by the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Stupak], Amendment No. 2-2 as modified, offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and Amendment No. 2-3 offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
amendment no. 2-1 offered by mr. stupak
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 338,
noes 86, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 629]
AYES--338
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Armey
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Chambliss
Chapman
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOES--86
Allard
Archer
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bilbray
Bliley
Boehner
Bono
Boucher
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coleman
Combest
Cox
Crapo
Cremeans
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Ganske
Gillmor
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Houghton
Inglis
King
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
McCrery
McInnis
Metcalf
Mica
Norwood
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Schaefer
Shadegg
Skeen
Souder
Stump
Talent
Tate
Thornberry
Vucanovich
Walker
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Andrews
Bateman
Hutchinson
Moakley
Ortiz
Reynolds
Scarborough
Thurman
Williams
Young (AK)
{time} 1142
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania and Mr. SHADEGG changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ROBERTS, QUINN, and BILIRAKIS, and Mrs. SMITH of Washington
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2-2, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Conyers
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment 2-2. as modified, offered by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 151,
noes 271, not voting 12, as follows:
[[Page H 8478]]
[Roll No. 630]
AYES--151
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bono
Borski
Brown (CA)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Canady
Cardin
Chabot
Chapman
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Edwards
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goss
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Heineman
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Myers
Nadler
Neumann
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rogers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thomas
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
NOES--271
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Andrews
Bateman
Bishop
Hutchinson
McHugh
Moakley
Ortiz
Reynolds
Scarborough
Thurman
Williams
Young (AK)
{time} 1150
So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. cox of california
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420,
noes 4, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 631]
AYES--420
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
[[Page H 8479]]
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--4
Hunter
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Wolf
NOT VOTING--10
Andrews
Bateman
Moakley
Nethercutt
Ortiz
Reynolds
Scarborough
Thurman
Williams
Young (AK)
{time} 1156
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I was not recorded on rollcall vote No.
631. The Record should reflect that I would have voted ``aye.''
amendment offered by mr. markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 150, beginning on
line 24, strike paragraph (1) through line 17 on page 151 and
insert the following:
``(1) National audience reach limitations.--The Commission
shall prohibit a person or entity from obtaining any license
if such license would result in such person or entity
directly or indirectly owning, operating, controlling, or
having a cognizable interest in, television stations which
have an aggregate national audience reach exceeding 35
percent. Within 3 years after such date of enactment, the
Commission shall conduct a study on the operation of this
paragraph and submit a report to the Congress on the
development of competition in the television marketplace and
the need for any revisions to or elimination of this
paragraph.''
Page 150, line 4, strike ``(a) Amendment.--''.
Page 150, line 9, after ``section,'' insert ``and
consistent with section 613(a) of this Act,''.
Page 154, strike lines 9 and 10.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member in opposition
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment which we are now considering addresses
one of the most fundamental changes which has ever been contemplated in
the history of our country. The bill, as it is presented to the floor,
repeals for all intents and purposes all the cross-ownership rules, all
of the ownership limitation rules, which have existed since the 1970's,
the 1960's, to protect against single companies being able to control
all of the media in individual communities and across the country.
{time} 1200
In this bill it is made permissible for one company in your hometown
to own the only newspaper, to own the cable system, to own every AM
station, to own every FM station, to own the biggest television station
and to own the biggest independent station, all in one community. That
is too much media concentration for any one company to have in any city
in the United States.
This amendment deals with a slice of that. The amendment to deal with
all of it was not put in order by the Committee on Rules when it was
requested as an amendment, but it does deal with a part of it. It would
put a limitation on how many television stations, CBS, ABC, NBC, and
Fox could own across our country, how many local TV stations, and
whether or not in partnership with cable companies individual TV
stations being owned by cable companies at the local level could
partner to create absolutely impossible obstacles for the other local
television broadcasters to overcome.
Who do we have supporting our amendment? We have just about every
local CBS, ABC, and NBC affiliate in the United States that supports
this amendment. We do not have ABC, CBS, and NBC in New York because
they want to gobble up all the rest of America. This would be
unhealthy, it would run contrary to American traditons of localism and
diversity that have many voices, especially those at the local level
that can serve as well as a national voice but with a balance.
Vote for the Markey amendment to keep limits on whether or not the
national networks can gobble up the whole rest of the country and
whether or not in individual cities and towns cable companies can
purchase the biggest TV station or the biggest TV station can purchase
the cable company and create an absolute block on other stations having
the same access to viewers, having the same ability to get their point
of view out as does that cable broadcasting combination in your
hometown.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] restricting the national
ownership limitations on television stations to 35 percent of an
aggregate national audience reach.
The gentleman's amendment would limit the ability of broadcast
stations to compete effectively in a multichannel environment. Indeed,
the Federal Communications Commission on this issue in its further
notice of proposed rulemaking issued this year, the FCC noted that
group ownership does not, I repeat does not result in a decrease in
viewpoint diversity. According to the FCC the evidence suggests the
opposite.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to look at their own broadcast
situation. Who owns your local ABC, NBC, CBS affiliate? Is it local? I
venture to say that 90 percent of us the answer is no, they are owned
by somebody else out of town. So it is a nonissue.
As to what the gentleman says about cross ownership and saturation, I
invite the Members to read page 153 of the bill. The commission may
deny the application if the commission determines that the combination
of such station and more than one other nonbroadcast media of mass
communication and would result in a undue concentration of media voices
in the respective local market. This amendment is not needed. Vote it
down.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Markey's amendment
restricting the national ownership limitations on telephone stations to
35 percent of an aggregate national audience reach. Mr. Markey's
amendment would limit the ability of broadcast stations to compete
effectively in a multichannel environment. Mr. Markkey's amendment
would limit the ability of broadcast stations to compete effectively in
the multichannel environment. Mr. Markey
defends the retention of an arbitrary limitation in the name of
localism and diversity. The evidence, however, does not support his
claim.
I would simply refer Mr. Markey to the findings of the Federal
Communications Commission on this issue in its further notice of
proposed rulemaking issued this year. The FCC noted that group
ownership does not result in a decrease in viewpoint diversity.
According to the FCC, the evidence suggests the opposite, that group
television station owners generally allow local managers to make
editorial and reporting decisions autonomously. Contrary to Mr.
Markey's suggestion that relaxation of these limits are
anticompetitive, the FCC has found that in today's markets, common
ownership of larger numbers of broadcast stations nationwide, or of
more than one station in the market, will permit exploitation of
economies of scale and reduce costs and permit improved service.
Finally, I would note that in its notice of proposed rulemaking, the
FCC questioned whether an increase in concentration nationally has any
effect on diversity or the local market. Most local stations are not
local at all, but are run from headquarters found outside the State in
which the TV station is located. Moreover,
[[Page H 8480]]
many local stations are affiliated with networks. As a result, even
though these stations are not commonly owned, they air the identical
programming for a large portion of the broadcast day irrespective of
the national ownership limits.
For these reasons, the amendment proposed by Mr. Markey is
anticompetitive and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose his
amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that media is a major
force in our society. Some people even blame our crime problems, our
moral decay on the media. Now, I am not willing to go that far, but I
am concerned about putting the control of our ideas and messages in the
hands of fewer and fewer people in this country.
Right now the national audience capture is 25 percent. That seems
appropriate to me in light of the fact that there is no network that
reaches 25 percent, but certainly 35 percent is a reasonable
compromise. There is no reason to double the concentration to 50
percent. I think 35 percent is certainly appropriate.
We talk about small business. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes in the
exact opposite direction. Even big businesses may not be able to get
into the market if we pass this legislation. It is clearly a barrier to
market interests. In fact, 10 years ago if this bill had been in place
Fox television probably could not have gotten started. It represents a
threat to local broadcast decisions. Please vote with the Markey
amendment.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey
amendment.
The rules regulating broadcasters were written in the 1950's. but the
world for which those broadcast provisions were necessary doesn't exist
anymore. It's gone. Most of us have recognized that fact and bidden it
a fond farewell.
But not the supporters of this amendment. They would take the U.S.
broadcasting industry back to the days of the 1950's. This amendment
would ensure that while every other industry in America surges ahead,
U.S. broadcasters remain mired in rules written when the slide rule was
still state-of-the-art technology.
We should be thankful that we didn't impose the same regulations on
the computer industry as we have on the broadcast industry. If we had,
we'd all still be using mechanical typewriters.
The Markey amendment is the equivalent of trying to stuff a full-
grown man into boys clothes--they simply won't fit anymore. The
broadcast industry has outgrown the rules written for it when it was
still a child.
If I could direct your attention to the graph, you will see that to
reach that 50 percent limit, one would have to buy a station in more
than each of the top 25 markets out of the 211 television markets. That
in itself is no small feat. But keep in mind the result: Broadcasters
would own a mere 30 stations out of the 1,500 TV stations nationwide.
Who has this money, the financing, for that would be mind boggling.
On the question of localism--it isn't lost. Networks and group-owned
stations typically air more local coverage. Covering local news simply
makes good business sense--give viewers what they want or go out of
business. Business succeed by making people satisfied.
Opponents will also tell you we will lose diversity in the local
market with this bill. That is simply not true. Just keep in mind the
following:
The FCC can deny any combination if it will harm the preservation of
diversity in the local market; and under no circumstance will the FCC
allow less than three voices in a market.
We must reject this backward-looking amendment. We must reject the
advice of the Rip Van Winkles of broadcasting who went to sleep in the
1950's and think we are still there.
If the supporters of this amendment had their way, smoke signals
would still be cutting-edge technology.
The dire predictions about the harm of lifting broadcast restrictions
remind me of Chicken Little's warning that the sky is falling. Ladies
and gentlemen, the sky is not falling. Freeing broadcasters from
outdated ownership rules will do us no harm. If I can steal from
Shakespeare, the Markey amendment is ``full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.''
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pittsburgh, PA [Mr. Klink].
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, the Markey amendment is really very
important to this bill. I will tell you that for us to have a free
Nation, for people who are going to elect those of us who are their
representatives in Government, they have to have different points of
views.
I have had some experience in the broadcast industry for 24 years,
and in fact I worked for Westinghouse, which is one of the companies
who just this last week made national history in buying CBS, ABC is
being bought by Disney.
I am talking to my colleagues in the business. They said, look, we
are already merging news rooms. You have four or five different
entities, radio and TV owned by Westinghouse and by CBS, we are merging
news rooms, so before as a Member of Congress or as any public servant
you may have three or four different people there gathering points of
view you now have one.
So this is not a divergence of viewpoints. We are bringing all the
viewpoints in there. We are creating information czars. We are creating
a situation where a handful of people will in fact be able to control
the opinions across this Nation, and what we are saying is, no, we do
not want that, we want free broadcast, we want the broadcast signals
which are owned by the people of this Nation, which are licensed by the
FCC for these large corporations to broadcast on to continue.
I urge you to support the Markey amendment.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon].
Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, one of the major fallacies of Mr. Markey's
arguments is that the broadcast ownership reform provisions will harm
local ownership of broadcast stations.
There is an unfounded fear that networks or broadcasting groups will
buy up local stations and drop local programming in favor of network
programs or a bland, national fare--and that is just plain wrong.
First, under today's restrictive broadcast ownership provisions, 75
percent of television stations are owned by broadcast corporations, and
of those companies, 90 percent are headquartered in States other than
where their individual stations are located.
Second, networks cannot currently force an affiliate to air any
specific network program. Local stations today enjoy the ``right of
refusal'' which means they can air a local program instead of a network
program. Nothing in H.R. 1555 will change this right of refusal.
Finally, and perhaps most important to
broadcasters, is the fact that local programming is profitable. Good
business sense dictates that broadcasters address the needs of the
local community.
There will always be demand for local programming, especially local
news, weather forecasts and traffic reports, since this is something
that the networks just can't match.
In conclusion, we must also remember that H.R. 1555 does nothing to
weaken existing antitrust laws regarding undue media concentration.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the amendment by
Mr. Markey.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally to receive a
message.
____________________