[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.


                          ____________________