[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 129 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8481-H8507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page H 8481]]


                              {time}  1213
                       COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Klink-
Montgomery amendment. This amendment blocks national networks from 
owning local TV stations to control 50 percent of all the viewing 
audience. This would be a terrible thing, Mr. Chairman, to let ABC, 
Disney, NBC, CBS, Fox, own more local TV stations.
  The ABC affiliate in my hometown is privately owned. When violent 
programs are produced, the manager of this station will not show those 
violent programs. If this was a network-owned station, those programs 
would be shown.
  Let us face it, Mr. Chairman: Companies like ABC, they have no 
respect for Members of Congress. Now, if you want the big networks in 
New York City to own your local station and beat up on Members of 
Congress, then you ought to vote against us. But if you want TV 
stations to stay in private ownership, then we ask for an ``aye''  vote 
on the Markey-Klink-Montgomery amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Frisa].
  Mr. FRISA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, because, 
curiously, and we have not heard this yet, there is a special carve-out 
for those wonderful, warm, local hometown newspapers such as the 
Washington Post. The sponsor of the amendment did not tell us there is 
a special provision allowing the Washington Post to have cross-
ownership. Also that other wonderful local hometown newspaper, that 
warm and fuzzy New York Times, gets a special carve-out in this 
amendment. We did not hear that from the sponsor of this measure as 
well.
  This amendment is disingenuous. Localism will be dictated by the 
marketplace. A business entity will not be successful unless it appeals 
to each local market, to the folks next door. This amendment should be 
defeated because it does not tell it like it is, and I think it is high 
time the Government got out of the business of shackling the hands of 
competition.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment which 
would preserve cross-ownership restrictions on cable and broadcast 
television in local markets, as well as limit the percentage of viewers 
to which one media company could have access nationwide.
  There's a single phrase that defines the unique character of American 
society and democracy. It's a phrase that we learn as children and 
carry with us every day, yet seldom pause to reflect upon: ``E Pluribus 
Unum,'' or ``Out of Many, One.''
  This phrase helps explain why the Markey amendment is so important.
  It reminds us that America is not monolithic. We are a nation that 
draws its strength from diversity, that prides itself on pluralism, 
that relishes the free flow of ideas.
  From the earliest days of the days of this country's existence, 
America has been a calliope of different voices, opinions, and 
convictions. We've revelled in our pluralism, encouraged robust debate, 
and fostered an aggressive national press to facilitate free speech.
  Public debate is not necessarily convenient for governing, but it's 
essential for democracy. It allows us to consider all sides of an 
issue, make sound decisions, and move ahead as one nation with firmness 
and resolve.
  ``E Pluribus Unum.'' It's a promise that all points of view will be 
aired--a sign that democracy is alive and well in the United States.
  The Markey amendment will ensure that many voices will continue to be 
heard in this Nation, that no one will be granted a monopoly on 
espousing ideas in our communities, that we will continue our proud 
tradition of vigorous public debate.
  In short, the Markey amendment will help preserve the diversity of 
opinion that is so vital to American democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the proponents of the Markey amendment continue to 
claim that the broadcast provisions of H.R. 1555 threaten diversity and 
localism, and will lead to an undue concentration of media power in the 
hands of a few corporations. These charges are simply untrue and 
unfounded.
  H.R. 1555 simply allows one entity to compete in markets that reach 
up to 50 percent of all the viewers in the country. And in those 
markets they will be competing with other network-owned or affiliated 
stations, several independent television stations, up to 100 cable 
networks, direct broadcast satellites, and the telephone company's 
video platform.
  That sounds like competition and diversity to me.
  The contention that H.R. 1555 will harm localism is even more 
egregious. If that were true, localism would be at risk today. Seventy-
five percent of the stations in the country are group owned. And more 
than 90 percent of those are owned by groups headquarted in cities 
other than where their stations are located.
  Station managers provide local news and information programming 
because it affects their bottom line. The four major networks own and 
operate stations in New York City. Yet they are fiercely competitive in 
the area of local news, information and sports programming. The same is 
true across the country--no matter who owns the station. Because if 
they want to keep owning the station, they must provide quality local 
programming. Why? Because that is what the viewer demands.
  Finally, despite the rhetoric you have heard today H.R. 1555 will not 
set the stage for one giant conglomerate to control all of the mass 
media outlets in a single market. The bill specifically bars the FCC 
from approving any acquisition that would result in fewer than three 
independent media voices in a market. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the Markey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is one area in which we do 
not need to argue about what would happen if we did not adopt the 
Markey amendment and left the bill as it is, because there was a time 
only about 25 years ago when that was the situation in America. What 
happened? There were not any rules, and we saw these enormous 
conglomerations of ownership of media arise all over the country.
  The rules that the bill is trying to change were rules that came out 
of the early 1970's, under the Nixon-Ford administration. These were 
not some wild-eyed liberal scheme. They were designed to deal with the 
fact, and particularly the fact that in Atlanta, GA, one company owned 
every single type of news media.
  I think it is astonishing that we Democrats complain about the way in 
which the national media ownership fosters violence on television, and 
you Republicans talk about how the liberal media is nothing but 
trouble, yet all at the same time both sides are busy trying to give 
the same guys that own all of these stations more and more power to own 
more and more and control more and more.
  For goodness' sake, either we are both being hypocrites with our 
complaints, or else we should not be in favor of this bill unless it is 
amended. Vote for the Markey amendment and stick up for localism.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I think my colleague 
from Massachusetts has got half of this amendment right, and that if 
you look, we understood as a country there was a problem when oil 
companies controlled 

[[Page H 8482]]

the oil fields and the refineries and the gas stations. That created a 
monopoly situation.
  You have the same kind of potential, frankly, under the language 
under the bill itself, if you own TV production facilities, the network 
to distribute it, and, finally, the stations to broadcast it. I think 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] is correct, and we would 
be much better off with a provision in the bill that says 25 percent, 
not 50 percent, when it comes to station ownership.
  But I have to tell you I think my colleagues has gone off the deep 
end in this bizarre firewall between cable TV stations and broadcast 
facilities. You can own a newspaper and a TV station presently, as the 
Milwaukee Journal and the Washington Post do; you can own a magazine 
and a TV station, as Post-Newsweek does; or you can own a radio 
station. In fact, you can own several radio stations in the same 
community and a television station. You can own a billboard company, a 
shopping magazine. You can own anything in the world except a cable 
television operation.
  Cable is not evil. We should allow cable to compete. I urge the 
rejection of the Markey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, for 7 months now, I have tried to be guided in this 
House by my belief that to complete the transition in this country that 
we needed to go through, we needed to strengthen the community. That we 
needed to rely on communities to step up and to become individually 
responsible for some of the problems that we have in this country.
  In fact, as this bill is currently written, I believe that we 
threaten community values, that it undermines localism and the 
diversity in the local television markets. In fact, we do need to 
change the 25-percent law that currently stands on the book for 
ownership of network TV. But in fact, as it stands in this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, it will significantly reduce the availability of local 
programming in my district.
  In my district alone, things that might be affected would include the 
Billy Graham Special, where networks may not see that as a replacement 
for their prime time viewers; or maybe the tribute to the late Jim 
Valvano, the great basketball coach from North Carolina State; and a 
tradition in the South, Christmas parades, local parades, not the 
Macy's Parade in New York; telethons, that have become a tremendous 
impetus behind the fund-raisers for the United Negro College Fund; or 
started in Raleigh, NC, a program called Coats for Kids a telethon 
which raised $60,000 its first year; and the greatest love in the 
south, ACC basketball. Heaven forbid that would be banned because the 
national networks said you cannot preempt our programming.
  While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I disagree, 
and we may argue about network ownership, the fact is we have to 
provide local programming. Vote to increase local ownership, but do not 
kill network programming. Vote for the Markey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Shays amendment to 
retain regulation of cable rates until cable systems face actual 
competition.
  Following defeat of the Conyers amendment to ward off concentration 
of competition-stifling economic power in the marketplace, the point we 
have reached in consideration of this legislation is very similar to 
where we were with airline deregulation in 1978. In the rush to 
deregulate aviation, Congress and the administration kept the Justice 
Department on the sidelines, in an advisory capacity to the Department 
of Transportation on antitrust and monopoly issues arising out of 
proposed airline mergers and acquisitions.
  The result of this bifurcation of authority--the Justice Department 
making recommendations, but the DOT making the final decisions on 
antitrust matters--was that virtually no antitrust action was taken by 
either Department to sustain competition by preventing monopoly-
producing mergers and acquisitions. Within 5 years of passage of the 
Airline Deregulation Act, there were 22 new entrants into air carrier 
competition; but, within 10 years, only 1 of those new competitors 
remained--all the others were either swallowed up by the major 
carriers, driven into bankruptcy, or reduced to a minor regional 
carrier status.
  In the consideration of legislation to chart the future of the 
multibillion dollar telecommunications sector, we should learn the 
lessons of the past. We should not allow in this legislation the same 
opportunities for concentration of cable TV market power, rate gouging, 
and the potential for control of all news media in selected markets as 
we allowed for the airline industry to swallow up competition and 
create fortress hubs with such great economic power that they can deny 
market entry to any new potential competitor.
  The Communications Act of 1934 clearly has been surpassed by both 
events and technology and needs to be updated. While technology has 
changed with astonishing rapidity, human nature has not changed. The 
1934 act was more about constraining human avarice and the tendency of 
power to corrupt than it was about regulating technology.
  We need to keep America on the cutting edge of technology; we need to 
assure that all regions of this country, small, rural communities, as 
well as major urban centers, can be connected to the entire world 
through fiber optic cable--the whole paraphernalia of cyberspace--so 
that anyone can set up business in a community as small as my hometown 
of Chisholm, MN, and have full access to the worldwide communications 
network.
  The key to realizing that goal is to assure access for all people at 
affordable prices--and that means protection against the evils of 
monopolistic control of economic power in the marketplace, the central 
principle of the 1934 Communications Act.
  The underlying principle of communications law has always been to 
assure universal access, diversity of technology, and local options. 
This bill, absent the Conyers amendment and the Markey-Shays amendment, 
will not have enough regulatory power to prevent either the long-
distance companies, or the regional Bells from dominating markets in 
both the broadcast and cable media. This bill opens the way to rapid 
and massive media market domination by a few economic powerhouses who 
will quickly gain control of cross-media mergers.
  I have great fear that, just as commercial aviation in the 
deregulation era has bypassed small communities, denying them even 
essential air service, the same small communities will be bypassed in 
the communications field, denied adequate universal service, or have to 
pay exorbitant fees for such service and, in fact, be isolated. 
Although the bill does include some exemptions for small phone and 
cable companies from competitive requirements. They are hardly 
sufficient to protect small rural communities from monopolistic 
practices. I have heard the appeals of small radio and cable TV 
stations, expressing the fear that they'll either be bought out or 
swamped by the competition and I concur with them.
  Telecommunications technology is becoming one of the cornerstones of 
freedom of speech in our society. The information and access to the 
marketplace of ideas provided by telecommunications and the ability 
through it to conduct business, to enjoy entertainment anywhere, 
however remote in this country, is so crucial to a free society that, 
if we are going to tinker with the Communications Act, then we ought to 
do it right, rather than live to see monopolies dominate the 
marketplace of communication and regret today's legislative action.
  My conclusion, Mr. Chairman, is that, absent the protections of the 
Conyers and Markey amendments, the effect of this bill will be 
monopolistic consolidation of economic power and technological control 
of the future of telecommunications, producing the 

[[Page H 8483]]
very antithesis of a free and open society.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey 
amendment. In this bill, we have to be very, very careful, that while 
we open up competition on one hand, we do not shut down voices on the 
other hand. We all know that in America the people are supposed to be 
the ones who own the airwaves. But the faster we rush into this 
telecommunication age, the more we increase the chances that a few 
wealthy people will control everything that we read, that we hear, that 
we see, and that indeed is dangerous.
  We have laws in this country that say no one person or company can 
own media outlets that reach more than 25 percent of the American 
public. We passed that law to promote the free exchange of ideas so no 
one person could monopolize the airwaves.
  But the telecommunication bill as it is currently written changes all 
that. This bill would literally allow one person to own media outlets 
that reach 50 percent of the American households. Under this bill, one 
media mogul could control TV news stories, newspaper headlines, radio 
ads, cable systems, TV shows, and the information that reaches half of 
the American households. That is dangerous and it contradicts the very 
democratic principles that this Nation is based on. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has proposed an amendment that would set 
that ownership limit at 35 percent. It is a good amendment. I wish it 
would have gone farther, but this is the best that we could possibly 
get in this debate, and I hope it is successful.
  I would have liked to have seen it address broader questions, who 
controls our radios, newspapers, networks, and the who controls the 
information that controls the lives of American citizens. But this is 
an important amendment. It improves the bill, it improves access to the 
American public, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Markey 
amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 1 minute 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 want to commend the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for the cooperation and the concessions which he 
extended to me and express my good wishes to him. Those changes are 
good, because they deal with concentration at the local level.
  That problem, however, is not addressed in the bill itself now with 
regard to the national level. The question here is are we are going to 
have real diversity of expression on air waves that are owned by the 
public and whose operation is licensed in the public interest by the 
FCC? With the Markey amendment, that will happen. Without the Markey 
amendment, that will not happen.
  It is important that we see to it that the marketplace of ideas in 
this country is as broad and diverse as we can make it, and that all 
persons have access to it. Without that principle being applied, our 
government is weakened and hurt, and the public debate on great 
national issues and discussion of matters of concern to this people are 
hurt.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Markey amendment. I would 
say that that is the best way that we can keep in place the diversity 
of view which is so important in consideration of important national 
issues.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, to close debate, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 6\1/2\ 
minutes.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was given the charge by our 
Speaker and the chairman of the full committee to move our country 
relative to telecommunication policy into the 21st century, not to 
crawl back into the 1950's. These rules were written when I was 2 years 
old, when President Eisenhower was President, and many Americans did 
not even own a television set.

                              {time}  1230

  ABC, NBC, CBS were the only viewing options. There was no CNN, no 
HBO, no ESPN. Individual American citizens were not even allowed to own 
satellite dishes without government authorization.
  That was real media concentration. Today's media world is fiercely 
competitive. Viewers have never had more choices with 100 cable 
networks, direct broadcast satellites, a fourth network and the 
beginnings of a fifth and a sixth network. H.R. 1555 unleashes the 
local telephone companies with combined revenues exceeding $100 billion 
annually to compete in the television video business.
  The rules that were appropriate when black and white television sets 
were the state-of-the-art technology are not appropriate today. The 
Committee on Commerce dusted off the 40-year-old broadcast ownership 
rules. We reviewed them. We revised them to fit today's highly 
competitive telecommunications world. With the few minutes that I have, 
I want to debunk some of the myths that have been brought to this floor 
today.
  Myth No. 1, that H.R. 1555 will allow only one entity to own every 
media outlet in a community. The
 fact is antitrust laws prohibit concentration of ownership in any 
business sector, including telecommunications. In fact, our bill goes 
further. H.R. 1555 flatly prohibits acquisitions which result in fewer 
than three independent media voices in a market.

  You should not be fooled by this particular amendment. This amendment 
does not address radio cross-ownership, newspaper ownership, or 
ownership of multiple local television stations in one market. This 
amendment does prohibit, under any circumstances, the ownership of a 
cable system and a TV station in the same market. That is it, plain and 
simple. H.R. 1555 prevents concentration or loss of diversity while 
this amendment addresses only one particular ownership combination.
  Myth No. 2: H.R. 1555 would allow one entity to buy 50 percent of the 
television stations in the United States.
  There are approximately 1,500 television stations in our country. 
Under our bill, a broadcaster would reach the station ownership cap 
upon buying only one station in each of the top 30 television markets. 
That is 30 television stations out of 1,500 nationwide.And there is a 
difference between audience reach and actual market share. You can, 
under our amendment, touch 50 percent of the population, but you do not 
necessarily have 50 percent of that audience share.
  Myth No. 3: H.R. 1555 will harm localism.
  Let me use my own personal example. In Houston, TX, the NBC affiliate 
is owned by Post-Newsweek, who by the way is supporting the Markey 
amendment, a small mom and pop operation. The ABC affiliate is owned by 
Cap Cities; the CBS, by the Belo Corp. out of Dallas. We have a Fox 
station and we have a Viacom station.
  Our localism has gone up because you have those broadcasters 
competing for viewers to protect their investment. The only way they 
can protect their investment and attract advertisers is to have 
audience share. They get that by having good localism. So to think 
localism is not enhanced when you have openness and have free markets 
is absolutely wrong.
  Broadcasters have the ability to provide local news and other local 
programming as a major advantage over national delivered cable and 
satellite services.
  This particular amendment is a sweetheart deal. When you really bear 
down and you look at what is happening, you have got people who want to 
limit the participants in the acquisition market. When you look at who 
is sending around these letters, McGraw-Hill, a small mom and pop 
operation, AFLAC Broadcast Group, that major insurance conglomerate out 
of Georgia, Post-Newsweek, Pulitzer Broadcasting.
  What is this amendment really all about? It is about limiting the 
participants in the acquisition market. It is not about localism. By 
the way, there is a benefit to the Washington Post, the New York Times, 
the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Constitution, because 

[[Page H 8484]]
under the Markey amendment those newspapers can continue to add to 
their media ownership, their broadcast station ownership. That is not 
addressed in this particular amendment.
  Do not be fooled into thinking that this amendment helps struggling 
mom and pop operations. It does not. The Speaker has given us the 
charge to push the deregulatory envelope, to move this country into the 
21st century, not crawl back into the 1950's. We need to recognize that 
technology has changed. There are new combinations. There is a need for 
economy of scale. This amendment needs to be defeated.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
broadcast amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Markey of 
Massachusetts. A lot of hard work and many long hours have been spend 
providing a delicate balance to all the competing interests in the 
communication's field. This has not been an easy task. With legislation 
as encompassing as this, it would be next to impossible to totally 
please everyone involved. I commend Chairman Bliley, Chairman Fields, 
ranking members Dingell and Markey on fashioning a bill that guarantees 
that the American telecommunications industry remains the most open, 
competitive, and innovative in the world.
  Increasing the national ownership cap to 35 percent, which I support, 
is a 10-percent increase in what is currently allowed under the law. 
The bill that we are considering would begin with the 35 percent cap, 
but then would expand this cap to 50 percent in the second year. I fear 
that this increase would be detrimental to our local stations and the 
idea of local control.
  If local stations do not have the freedom to select programs other 
than those provided by their network owners, this could result in too 
much concentration on network control of the distribution system, which 
I fear would result in network bullying of small affiliates. 
Additionally, it would be difficult for new networks--or new national 
competitors--to develop. We must preserve the right of our local 
television stations to choose their programming, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. 
As I noted earlier in this debate, this amendment is necessary to 
correct a deficiency in this bill.
  The Markey amendment amends the Stearns' amendment that was adopted 
by the committee. While Mr. Stearns was unwilling to compromise on the 
language of his amendment that repealed the national ownership and 
cross ownership limitations, we did reach an agreement on the issue of 
local concentration. That agreement, which is now incorporated in the 
bill before us, guarantees that there will never be fewer than two 
independent media voices in even the smallest markets in the country. 
It further permits the FCC to deny license assignments, transfers or 
renewals if the Commission determines that the granting of the 
assignment, transfer or renewal would in combination with a non-
broadcast media, result in an undue concentration of media voices in 
the local market. This is good law, and I would like to commend the 
gentleman from Florida for his willingness to work with me on this.
  But while there are safeguards at the local level, H.R. 1555 goes 
overboard with respect to national limits and cross-media restrictions. 
The Markey amendment will permit the type of expansion that I think we 
all agree the networks need. But is does so in a manner that will 
preserve the local decision-making about programming decisions that has 
served our Nation well.
  The Markey amendment also retains the broadcast/cable cross ownership 
prohibition. This provision is necessary because it ensures that if the 
``Must Carry'' provisions of the 1992 Cable Act are struck down by the 
courts, cable operators aren't in a position to purchase local 
broadcast stations and then deny carriage to the other broadcasters in 
a community. It is a provision that is important to our local 
broadcasters, and important to preserve the public's access to diverse 
sources of information.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are many Members who want to speak in a 
limited period of time. I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. I 
thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this 
amendment which would correct the provision within H.R. 1555 that 
increases TV broadcast ownership.
  As you know, this amendment would limit to 35 percent the percentage 
of households nationwide that may be reached by TV stations owned by a 
single network. It also restores the cross-ownership limit which 
prohibits owners of local TV stations from owning a cable system in the 
same local market.
  However, I still have concerns about the problems facing radio 
ownership limits. H.R. 1555 would eliminate current FCC rules that 
limit national ownership of radio stations to 40 stations (20 AM and 20 
FM) and which limits local ownership of radio stations to four (2 AM 
and 2 FM).
  All broadcast ownership limitations were instituted to ensure that 
the public does not receive its news and editorial programming from a 
select group that controls the Nation's airwaves.
  Rather, the present allocation scheme has allowed a diverse set of 
broadcast owners in each market and has fostered an assortment of news, 
public affairs and editorial programming.
  I fear that the elimination and relaxing of local ownership limits 
has the potential of deterring future minority participation.
  Currently, African-Americans own only 178 of the approximately 10,000 
commercial radio stations operating in the country.
  The overall effect of this bill is to squeeze minorities, who usually 
own only one or two small stations, out of the industry.
  Repeal of ownership limitations will certainly make it more difficult 
for small and medium sized firms to grow.
  Consolidation will make it very difficult for prospective owners, 
particularly African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, to enter the 
industry.
  This bill unfairly benefits the large broadcast owners at the expense 
of the smaller companies.
  H.R. 1555 will allow media to consolidate in the hands of a few large 
companies creating an unhealthy concentration of power.
  While many argue that deregulation is the best means to bring forth 
competition, in this case, deregulation would actually decrease 
competition.
  While I would like to have seen current radio broadcast ownership 
limitations reinstated, I do, however, lend full support to the Markey 
amendment which would restore some of the limitations eliminated by 
this bill.
  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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 195, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 632]

                               AYES--228

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Camp
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson

[[Page H 8485]]

     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--195

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Gekas
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Reynolds
     Scarborough
     Thurman
     Volkmer
     Williams
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1256

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Andrews for, with Mr. Scarborough against.

  Ms. DANNER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DAVIS, FOGLIETTA, and PARKER changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today during consideration of H.R. 
1555, Communications Act of 1995, I missed rollcall vote No. 632. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                amendment no. 2-6 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 157, after line 21, 
     insert the following new section (and redesignate the 
     succeeding sections and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 304. PARENTAL CHOICE IN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television influences children's perception of the 
     values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (2) Television station operators, cable television system 
     operators, and video programmers should follow practices in 
     connection with video programming that take into 
     consideration that television broadcast and cable programming 
     has established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of 
     American children.
       (3) The average American child is exposed to 25 hours of 
     television each week and some children are exposed to as much 
     as 11 hours of television a day.
       (4) Studies have shown that children exposed to violent 
     video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for 
     violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children 
     not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video 
     programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are 
     acceptable behavior.
       (5) Children in the United States are, on average, exposed 
     to an estimated 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on 
     television by the time the child completes elementary school.
       (6) Studies indicate that children are affected by the 
     pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on 
     television, eroding the ability of parents to develop 
     responsible attitudes and behavior in their children.
       (7) Parents express grave concern over violent and sexual 
     video programming and strongly support technology that would 
     give them greater control to block video programming in the 
     home that they consider harmful to their children.
       (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     empowering parents to limit the negative influences
      of video programming that is harmful to children.
       (9) Providing parents with timely information about the 
     nature of upcoming video programming and with the 
     technological tools that allow them easily to block violent, 
     sexual, or other programming that they believe harmful to 
     their children is the least restrictive and most narrowly 
     tailored means of achieving that compelling governmental 
     interest.
       (b) Establishment of Television Rating Code.--Section 303 
     of the Act (47 U.S.C. 303) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(v) Prescribe--
       ``(1) on the basis of recommendations from an advisory 
     committee established by the Commission that is composed of 
     parents, television broadcasters, television programming 
     producers, cable operators, appropriate public interest 
     groups, and other interested individuals from the private 
     sector and that is fairly balanced in terms of political 
     affiliation, the points of view represented, and the 
     functions to be performed by the committee, guidelines and 
     recommended procedures for the identification and rating of 
     video programming that contains sexual, violent, or other 
     indecent material about which parents should be informed 
     before it is displayed to children, provided that nothing in 
     this paragraph shall be construed to authorize any rating of 
     video programming on the basis of its political or religious 
     content; and
       ``(2) with respect to any video programming that has been 
     rated (whether or not in accordance with the guidelines and 
     recommendations prescribed under paragraph (1)), rules 
     requiring distributors of such video programming to transmit 
     such rating to permit parents to block the display of video 
     programming that they have determined is inappropriate for 
     their children.''.
       (c) Requirement for Manufacture of Televisions That Block 
     Programs.--Section 303 of the Act, as amended by subsection 
     (a), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(w) Require, in the case of apparatus designed to receive 
     television signals that are manufactured in the United States 
     or imported for use in the United States and that have a 
     picture screen 13 inches or greater in size (measured 
     diagonally), that such apparatus be equipped with circuitry 
     designed to enable viewers to block display of all programs 
     with a common rating, except as otherwise permitted by 
     regulations pursuant to section 330(c)(4).''.
       (d) Shipping or Importing of Televisions That Block 
     Programs.--
       (1) Regulations.--Section 330 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 330) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (B) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person 
     shall ship in interstate commerce, manufacture, assemble, or 
     import from any foreign country into the United States any 
     apparatus described in section 303(w) of this Act except in 
     accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission pursuant 
     to the authority granted by that section.
       ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to carriers 
     transporting apparatus referred to in paragraph (1) without 
     trading it.
       ``(3) The rules prescribed by the Commission under this 
     subsection shall provide for the oversight by the Commission 
     of the adoption of standards by industry for blocking 
     technology. Such rules shall require that all such apparatus 
     be able to receive the rating signals which have been 
     transmitted by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking 
     interval
      and which conform to the signal and blocking specifications 
     established by industry under the supervision of the 
     Commission.
       ``(4) As new video technology is developed, the Commission 
     shall take such action as the Commission determines 
     appropriate to ensure that blocking service continues to be 
     available to consumers. If the Commission determines that an 
     alternative blocking technology exists that--
       ``(A) enables parents to block programming based on 
     identifying programs without ratings,
       ``(B) is available to consumers at a cost which is 
     comparable to the cost of technology that allows parents to 
     block programming based on common ratings, and
       ``(C) will allow parents to block a broad range of programs 
     on a multichannel system as effectively and as easily as 
     technology that allows parents to block programming based on 
     common ratings,


[[Page H 8486]]

     the Commission shall amend the rules prescribed pursuant to 
     section 303(w) to require that the apparatus described in 
     such section be equipped with either the blocking technology 
     described in such section or the alternative blocking 
     technology described in this paragraph.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 330(d) of such Act, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking 
     ``section 303(s), and section 303(u)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``and sections 303(s), 303(u), and 303(w)''.
       (e) Applicability and Effective Dates.--
       (1) Applicability of rating provision.--The amendment made 
     by subsection (b) of this section shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, but only if the 
     Commission determines, in consultation with appropriate 
     public interest groups and interested individuals from the 
     private sector, that distributors of video programming have 
     not, by such date--
       (A) established voluntary rules for rating video 
     programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent 
     material about which parents should be informed before it is 
     displayed to children, and such rules are acceptable to the 
     Commission; and
       (B) agreed voluntarily to broadcast signals that contain 
     ratings of such programming.
       (2) Effective date of manufacturing provision.--In 
     prescribing regulations to implement the amendment made by 
     subsection (c), the Federal Communications Commission shall, 
     after consultation with the television manufacturing 
     industry, specify the effective date for the applicability of 
     the requirement to the apparatus covered by such amendment, 
     which date shall not be less than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to 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.
  Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] rise in opposition?
  Mr. BLILEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate over how many more hundreds of 
thousands of miles of fiberoptic may be laid or how many gigabits of 
additional computer power may be established. All that is find and 
well, but you cannot measure a nation, you cannot measure a people, by 
how many gigabits or feet of fiberoptic they have as a country.
  You measure a country by its values. You measure a country by who 
those people are, and that is what this debate is going to be all 
about, and why the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt], and I and many others have been working so hard on this issue 
over the last month.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will give every parent in the United 
States a violence chip in their television set, so that they will be 
able to block out excessively violent and sexually explicit programming 
that they believe is inappropriate for their 2-year-old, 3-year-old, 4-
year-old, 6-year-old, 8-year-old and adolescent children.
  All of the ratings will be done voluntarily by the broadcasters. 
There is no mandate. There is no enforcement mechanism. There is 
absolutely no connective tissue between this bill and any first 
amendment violation. The only objective we have is to give power to 
parents in their own living rooms, not ``big brother'' in New York 
City, programming hundreds of television programs a week, but ``big 
mother'' and ``big father'' in every living room, protecting their own 
children every day of the week.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Paxon], a member of the committee.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey 
mandate amendment and in support of the Coburn-Tauzin substitute. If 
adopted, the Markey amendment would quickly become known as the Full 
Employment Act for Government Bureaucrats. If the Markey mandate 
prevails--a huge new Government Office of Television Ratings may soon 
be established--because a mandated V-chip just doesn't work without a 
rating system.
  It would require thousands of bureaucrats, costing hundreds of 
millions of dollars, to view and rate the 10,000 individual shows on 
2,000 stations, encompassing 150,000 hours of local and national 
broadcast programming. Of course, the ratings would be subjective. What 
is rated as offensive would be decided by Government censors based on 
their personal interpretation.
  The end result, giving the Federal Government unprecedented power to 
establish standards of morality and decency in the media, unbridled 
power to the very government many Americans believe has already 
contributed greatly to the breakdown of values in our land.
  My colleagues, I'm certain we are all in agreement, the televised 
violence and sexual content that daily bombards our homes is harmful to 
children and society. However, tonight's discussion is not about 
agreeing on the problem but agreeing on the methods for solving it.
  The sound-bite solution suggested by the President--the mandated V-
chip--sounds innocuous enough. But, on inspection, it is simply another 
big-government band-aid that does nothing to address the underlying 
problem.
  First, as we discussed, the Markey chip mandate cannot work without a 
bureaucratically driven, Government-mandated rating system.
  Second, the V-chip will only be installed on new TV's, meaning 
widespread usage won't be in place until well into the 21st century. So 
much for fast action to combat televised violence and sexual 
explicitness.
  Third, approval of a V-chip means Congress has chosen one narrow 
piece of technology over all other parental blocking options. That 
means the scores of other technologically driven, parental controlled 
blocking devices now under development may fall by the wayside, further 
limiting choice and immediate use by families.
  There is good news, however, for parents who want help today to 
control television, and who don't want a more intrusive, big-government 
involvement in their families. Here's a list of 160 of the 220 
currently available TV models, each with parental control features.
  In addition there are scores of blocking units under development, 
many ready to go into production within months, that will economically 
allow parents to blank out channels, time slots, or individual 
programs.
  It is anticipated that very shortly, these units will move to the 
next generation using card or diskette readers so families can 
subscribe to ratings services and easily censor their kids programming.
  Then every non-government group that desires can issue their own 
ratings, maybe the Christian Coalition, or United We Stand, or the 
ACLU--whomever.
  All this well before the Markey mandated V-chip makes its way into a 
single living room. And, in the case you want an even faster, easier 
and cheaper way to control kids access to TV, here it is, a $19.95 
lockout device. All of these products are relatively new to the 
marketplace developed in response to growing demands from parents.
  Unfortunately, many of these private sector solutions are jeopardized 
by the one-size-fit-all, Markey mandate. There is another choice. The 
Coburn-Tauzin substitute would not pick a technology winner but would 
be the quickest way to get better, more parent friendly blocking 
devices to market.
  Our approach would call on the industry to: First, establish a fund 
to allow entrepreneurs to develop units to let parents block 
inappropriate programming, and second, report to the public on the 
status of these technologies and new improvements.
  On the first front, that fund has recently been established and 
already totals over $2 million. These funds will be used for 
production, advertising and market research to get blocking products 
into parents hands.
  Third, our substitute requires the GAO to report to Congress on new 
technologies for blocking, whether they are parent friendly, and the 
relative availability to the public, and fourth, finally, our 
substitute strikes the mandate and bureaucracy features of Markey.
  My colleagues, tonight the choice is clear. It's Coburn-Tauzin to 
keep decisions in the hands of parents not government. Or, it's the 
Markey Mandate Bill which gives a huge new government bureaucracy more 
power than 

[[Page H 8487]]
ever to inflict their Beltway values on the rest of America.
  Vote ``yes'' on Coburn-Tauzin and ``no'' on the Markey Mandate.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if, under the rules, 
it is permissible for me to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton] and then allow him to disburse that time as he 
sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield the time by unanimous consent 
and the gentleman from Indiana may yield from that time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Indiana be yielded 7\1/2\ minutes, and that he be given 
control of that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized 
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes.
   Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this amendment is not just the 
Markey amendment. It is the Markey-Burton-Wolf-Hunter amendment and a 
lot of other Republican's amendments. It crosses party lines.
   Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked that this be left up here is 
because what my predecessor at this microphone just said is true, these 
models will allow parents to block out a channel, but we are in a 
technology explosion. Almost everybody that has cable or a satellite 
can receive at least 50 channels and there are going to be 300, 400, 
500 channels before long. Can my colleagues imagine a parent blocking 
out one channel and going to work and thinking their child is going to 
be safe from pornography and violence on TV? Of course not.
  So we need a system where a parent can block out a whole category of 
violence and sexually explicit programs if they want to, so that a two-
parent working family can go to work and know their children, even when 
they channel surf, while their parents are gone, are not going to see 
two women, two men, a whole bunch of people having sexual experiences, 
or see horrible violence in the home.
  All we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is give the parents, not government, 
but the parent the control over what their children see. Ninety percent 
of the people in the country want that. This does not cut it. This does 
not cut it because it will only handle one program, one time slot at 
one time; and it will not protect any child from that kind of violent 
or sexually explicit material.
   Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, there is no bureaucracy that is 
going to be created, no huge bureaucracy. This is a voluntary rating 
system that is submitted, if the networks do not come up with one on 
their own, a voluntary rating system that is recommended. We hope that 
the parents of this Nation will put pressure on the networks to have 
them adopt a system, but regardless of what the system happens to be, 
the total control is in the hands of the parents.
  I say to all my colleagues, ``The total control is in the hands of 
parents in their own home.'' If they do not want certain programs to 
come in, they block out that category; if they want them to come in, 
they leave them there. They have got a little pick system in there like 
a bank money machine.
   Mr. Chairman, this is something that vital for the moral well-being 
of the Nation.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I had an interesting experience about a week 
and a half ago. I was on the phone in the kitchen and suddenly heard 
frantic activity in the den just outside and heard a lot of hollering 
and shouting and things falling off the table and could not figure out 
what was going on. I went into the room and discovered, there was my 
3\1/2\ year old, Colin, obviously concerned and upset because as he was 
watching TV, one cartoon he was watching ended and on came Ren and 
Stimpy.
  My son knows, under orders from mom and dad, that it is off limits 
for him; and Beavis and Butthead is off limits for his brothers, and 
NYPD is not appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I walked into the den and used a marvelous technology 
so he couldn't watch that show, and it is called the off button. Every 
television set in America comes with one, and if you do not want your 
children to watch something, you get off the couch and you turn it off.
  Mr. Chairman, for my Republican colleagues, I thought part of last 
November's election was about personal responsibility, and I as a 
parent have the responsibility to tell my children what programming is 
responsible and what programming is not responsible.
  If we want to buy this, we can buy it; and if we want to buy the V-
chip and it is available on a voluntary basis, absolutely. But it seems 
to me, again, we are sending the wrong signal, because the signal is, 
parents are not capable of making these decisions; technology is going 
to solve it for them. They cannot control what their children watch; 
the government has got to do it for them.
  If we do not like what is on TV, and we want to make sure that our 
children are protected, we do not need new technology. We need 
technology as old as the television set itself. We need only get up off 
the couch, walk 15 feet across the room, and just turn it off.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Moran-Burton-Spratt V-
chip amendment. Many of the issues that we deal with in Congress are 
propagated right here inside the beltway and then they are exported 
back home where one group or another stirs up support for them.
  Concern about this issue, trouble about this issue, constant 
indiscriminate violence on our television airwaves, has grown from the 
grassroots up. If my colleagues do not believe it, they should go home 
and listen to their constituents and read just about any poll that has 
been taken on this subject.
  Mr. Chairman, vast majorities of the American people and the 
overwhelming number of our citizens say, it is time we do something to 
curb the violence on television. According to the American 
Psychological Association, children see over 8,000 killings on 
television by the time they reach the seventh grade. The American 
people quite simply want us to stop this outrage.
  They do not want us to stop it completely. If they want to watch it, 
if they want their children to
 watch it, then this bill says they can continue to watch it. But these 
parents, and particularly parents who work and children who are coming 
home in the afternoon or are there by themselves, they want devices for 
parents to control the entertainment in their own households, to 
control the violence and vulgarity that comes in over their televisions 
sets.

  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about parental empowerment, about 
controlling the conduct of their own children in their homes. These 
ratings and this V-chip is not going to purge violence or sex from 
television. They are not even intended to do that. But they will give 
parents more power over the television set and the type of viewing that 
comes into their own homes.
  Many parents, frankly, may choose not to exercise it. This does not 
make them use the V-chip. Nonetheless, those who do will send a message 
to the broadcasters and the producers. It will have an inhibiting 
effect, I think, on the kind of scripting that they do today; and they 
will think twice about putting some extra indiscriminate, wanton 
violence and vulgarity in.
  I think it will have a salutary effect. Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Coburn substitute.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H 8488]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coburn amendment, and I rise 
in respect also of the Markey amendment, understanding that the 
intentions of that amendment are well intended.
  I think what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is an issue where we are 
trying to clean up America and clean up the values in America. That is 
not the question. The question is, how do we do it, and I think what we 
have is a device called the V-chip. It is a one-size-fits-all-type 
device.
  It is not going to work for everybody. An adult, for example, who 
does not have any children, would be mandated to go out and get, if 
they wanted to get a 13- or 19-inch television set, a set with a V-
chip. It could cost them up to $79 extra to get that. But for those of 
us who have children and who want to see the programming cleaned up, 
there are alternatives.
  Mr. Chairman, just yesterday, the four major networks came out and 
said that they have an alternative plan. What the Coburn-Tauzin 
amendment is saying is, we want to come up with the best technology to 
do that.
                              {time}  1315

  We will come up with that technology in the next year, and we will 
evaluate it and set out the standards and procedures necessary. The GAO 
will come back with a report no later than 18 months.
  Mr. Chairman, with a V-chip my colleagues can have one TV in their 
house that is V-chip mandated, and the kid can go upstairs into the 
next room and watch the TV without the V-chip. So the V-chip in and of 
itself does not solve the entire problem, but what we have is a mandate 
here by this Coburn amendment that will empower the country and empower 
the parents to come up with the best technology to solve the problem.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, with the balance of my time let me 
reiterate a point. Ninety percent of Americans in the USA polls say 
they are concerned about violence. I think 100 percent of us in this 
Chamber certainly ought to be concerned about the violence on 
television, but there are technologies for parents to use right now. 
Here is one, the Telecommander, and there are others where parents can 
buy equipment to put on all the televisions, the old ones and the new 
ones, not just the new ones that are going to be sold, and, if my 
colleagues do not plan to handcuff their kids to the new television 
when they leave the house, the V-chip is not going to do them any good.
  There are other technologies on the market. The networks are prepared 
to help these inventors, these patenters, to bring to us products like 
this where we can program our set, where the Government is not setting 
a program for us, but where parents are doing it, and, when we come 
right down to it, the choice between the Markey amendment and the 
Coburn-Tauzin amendment and the Molinari amendment is whether or not my 
colleagues believe parents ought to be making the choice about what 
their children see or whether my colleagues believe the Government 
ought to be doing that with a V-chip installed in every new set that 
will not work anyhow unless somebody is willing to chain their children 
to the old set.
  Mr. Chairman, kids are pretty smart. As my colleagues know, most know 
how to program these things better than we do, but, more importantly, 
they are smart enough to know, if only the new set has that control on 
it, they can just go into the second room and watch the old set.
  The truth is the technology is there for parents to control all the 
sets in their house. Parents have that responsibility today. The 
technology is being developed over 17 years for this patent alone. The 
technology is on the market, will be more available on the market in 
the years to come, and, if my colleagues believe that parents ought to 
make those choices, that Government ought not be involved in censorship 
and deciding what kind of programming is going to be available for 
children, then, my colleagues, vote with the Coburn-Tauzin-Molinari 
amendment. If my colleagues believe Government has that role, if my 
colleagues trust Government to decide what is offensive to our 
families, then vote with the Markey amendment. It is that simple. If my 
colleagues want something that really works, go with the new 
technologies, go with the programs that allow parents to control all 
the sets in their house, not just the one set that the Markey amendment 
will impose the Government standard on.
  Mr. Chairman, it is that simple a choice. Vote for parents' control 
rather than Government control. Vote for the Coburn-Tauzin-Molinari 
amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman 
from Virginia, I yield myself 10 seconds. In the 10 seconds I want to 
say that it does not cost $78. It costs between 7 and 20 cents to add 
to already technology that is in the sets now for closed caption for 
the hearing impaired. This is a bogus argument. It is not $78. It is 28 
cents to bring this technology forth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, 20 cents to empower the parents of this 
country to do what every one of them does with their children today 
when they ask if they can go to a movie theater, give them a limited 
number of choices to help them make decisions that they cannot be in 
that movie theater when their child asks them to go with another friend 
to see a movie: G, PG, PG-13, R, and C-17, X, and not rated. The V-chip 
will give them a similar opportunity to do something with television 
that they cannot possibly do just by reading the newspaper ads.
  Mr. Chairman, we have 50 channels on the cable system in Roanoke 
today. It is going to grow to 100 to 200 in cities across this country. 
Today the only way parents can exercise that same rating opportunity is 
to have a technological way to do it built into the television set. The 
V-chip will give them the opportunity to do that. It is not Government 
censorship. There is nothing in this bill that empowers the Federal 
Government in any way to impose these ratings on any of the networks.
  But do my colleagues know what is going to happen? Public pressure is 
going to bring that about because, as soon as one or two of the cable 
channels, Nickelodeon, or the Disney Channel, or the Family Channel, 
decides that they are going to put this signal out on their cable 
channel, and a parent who wants to leave their children alone during 
the day while they are working will be able to say, ``Only allow those 
channels to come through on my kid's set that have a rating. Screen out 
all the ones that are not rated.'' Once we do that, that forces the 
other networks that are resisting their responsibility. It is their 
responsibility, not the Government's, and all we are doing is aiding 
them in the process.
  Support the Burton-Markey V-chip amendment. Empower the parents of 
this country to do what is right, and let us bring about real reform in 
the television communications industry of this country.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a crisis in our society. The 
violence that we see on television each day is part of an overall trend 
of desensitization toward the violence that exists on our streets. This 
violence has transformed American society into a place where violence 
rules our communities, and law-abiding citizens are afraid to be 
outside their homes.
  Clearly, violence on television is not solely responsible for this 
breakdown in American society; but it does contribute to it. Our 
children are assaulted by a barrage of violent, sexually explicit, and 
otherwise obscene images each night on television. This constant stream 
of morally reprehensible acts being committed by their favorite 
characters on their favorite shows has a very real and a very 
frightening effect on them. Our children are becoming numb to real acts 
of violence through such constant exposure to ``fantasy'' violence on 
television. It is time that we take real steps to stop this trend. It 
is time for the V-chip.
  I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that as a mother of three and a former 
PTA president, I wish I had a V-chip in my TV when my kids were growing 
up. The V-chip will help to stem this dangerous tide by allowing 
parents to stop their 

[[Page H 8489]]
children from viewing violent programs on TV. But make no mistake, the 
V-chip is not about censorship, and it is not about legislating 
morality. It is about parental responsibility. And it is about giving 
parents the choice to protect their children from the harmful effects 
of violent television programming.
  There are very few people left who dispute the notion that violence 
on television is hurting our children. For 25 years, we have been 
hearing about the negative consequences of broadcast violence, and 
today we have the chance to take a real and important step toward 
solving this problem. The V-chip puts responsibility in the hands of 
parents to determine what their children should and shouldn't see on 
TV. It lets parents decide whether they want their children to be 
exposed to violence. And it will finally tell broadcasters, in very 
real terms, that violence and pornography and obscenity are not what we 
want to see on television.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a heavy heart against the 
violence chip. I am still thinking it through.
  Mr. Chairman, my conservative colleagues who support the V-chip 
amendment should be reminded of a bit of recent history. Many of you 
who have served here a spell will remember our good friend Bill 
Dannemeyer. I doubt a more principled Member of Congress has ever 
served. I used to call him the ``last honest man in Congress.''
  If Bill were here today he would respectfully oppose this amendment. 
I know this because I remember a time when Bill, clearly with tongue in 
cheek, offered an amendment to the clean air amendments being debated 
in the full Commerce Committee. Dannemeyer was tired of Mr. Waxman's 
regulatory morass and the punitive penalties he would put on any 
business daring to fall out of compliance with Mr. Waxman's world view, 
so our friend Bill Dannemeyer thought he would give his colleague a 
taste of his own medicine.
  Bill drafted a ``clean airwaves amendment'' to the Commerce bill to 
rid television of the perverted sex and buckets of blood violence which 
pollute the minds of latchkey kids and finally offend our public 
sensibilities. The Dannemeyer amendment had high penalties for 
noncompliance, created a government-sponsored monitoring board to 
determine what is excessive sex and violence, and even promised to 
cancel the licenses of habitual law-breakers.
  Mr. Chairman, my point in mentioning this episode is that what our 
friend Bill Dannemeyer did as a joke, proponents of the V-chip are 
doing as a serious amendment. I can't support any proposal that gives 
any portion of respectability to the idea that the Federal Government 
can frame or force a rating system. And as for Hollywood--Oh Lordy--
they will use this to descend further into the pit, shrieking at 
families ``If you don't like our immoral product then get a V-chip!''
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Towns].
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coburn substitute. 
I understand what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] is 
trying to do, and of course it points out probably the frustration that 
has gone on as a result of the amount of violence that we have seen on 
television. But let me say to him and to those that support it, Mr. 
Chairman, it is the wrong thing to do at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that what we need to do is empower parents, and 
the way we empower parents would be to make it possible for them to 
control the situation. This is a great moment and a great opportunity. 
This is an issue that I have been involved in for quite some time, 
saying that there has been too much violence on television and that our 
children go to bed seeing killings, and they wake up in the morning 
seeing people killed, wake up seeing people destroyed, and sometimes I 
think they get confused in terms of reality because they see a person 
getting killed on one episode, and the next week he is starring on 
another episode. I think they are confused about this whole situation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that, yes, we must do something, but 
I am not sure that what is being proposed by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], that that is what we should do. There is 
affordable and practical technology available for parents that does not 
require the Federal Government to mandate the use of a V-chip. I 
strongly believe that broadcasters should decrease violence on the 
programs, but, as consumers, we can exercise choice in this matter of 
what our children watch.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I strongly support the Coburn amendment. It 
provides consumer choice and programming control. If we do not support 
this provision, it would leave us with no other alternative but to rush 
down the path of censorship, and I want to caution my colleagues as 
they rush down the path of censorship. I encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment. This is a way to protect our children and to 
empower our parents, and I think we should seize this moment by voting 
for Coburn and rejecting the Markey amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, during my campaign for the U.S. Congress many parents 
shared their concerns and disgust with the high level of sex and 
violence on TV. These parents are frustrated because producers of TV 
shows do not seem to care about what our children watch.
  Last fall, when the new TV shows were announced, a town in my 
district held a church parent ralley because of the sex and violence in 
the fall shows. Five hundred men and women marched that day. I ask my 
colleagues, ``Don't you think it is time that we give parents the 
authority they need to say what and when their children watch TV and 
what type of programs?''
  The Markey-Burton amendment meets all the constitutional questions, 
and, most important, it is pro-family. Let us give the choice to the 
parents.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey 
amendment. This is the last chance that we are going to have for a 
long, long while to give the parents a little bit of help to what their 
people watch on television, what their kids watch on television, and I 
am surprised at some of these former broadcasters that got up and made 
the statements they made.
  Mr. Chairman, I used to be a broadcaster. I spent about 12 years on 
television. I know a little bit about broadcasting. And guess who is 
going to have a big part in this so-called study under this substitute? 
The big three, the ones that gave us the situation where they planted a 
truck and put dynamite in it, and blew it up for credibility, went to 
North Carolina and did some planning with false employees. This almost 
destroyed a food chain down there that had worked so hard.
  Mr. Chairman, these are the kind of people that are going to be 
having input into this substitute that absolutely does nothing but 
another study, and in the meantime this is something that gives the 
parents one tool to help a little bit in this fight against pornography 
and degradation on television.
  Vote against the substitute and for the Markey bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey 
amendment.
  It is not the notion of requiring TVs to be equipped with a 
particular device which concerns me. After all, I strongly supported 
the Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, which requires circuitry for closed 
captioning for the hearing impaired.
  What troubles me is how this device works. I cannot support mandating 
technology which hinges on the Government assessing the content of 
communications protected by the first amendment. Yet that is what the 
V-chip does.
  Consider the task of rating ``Schindler's List.'' Is there violence 
in ``Schindler's List?'' You bet. But surely no government bureaucrat 
is going to say ``Schindler's List'' should be blocked by the V-chip, 
because that 

[[Page H 8490]]
great film has socially redeeming value in its depiction of the horrors 
of the Holocaust. But stop and think about this: Do we really want, and 
does the first amendment countenance, the Government deciding what 
constitutes socially redeeming value which takes programming out of the 
``V'' category? I certainly do not.
  I am concerned about what our children watch on television. But I 
want to empower parents, not a government commission, to decide what is 
and is not appropriate for our children to view.
  I am aware that technology is emerging, hopefully hastened by the 
Viewer Discretion Technology Fund announced this week by the 
broadcasting industry, which will give parents the opportunity to 
choose from among many rating alternatives, from the National Education 
Association, to the Christian Coalition, to the parents' own 
individually developed assessment, and to block programming 
accordingly.
  I would not hesitate to mandate this type of technology, although the 
indications are good that the industry is moving toward it voluntarily.
  Parents, and not a government commission, should be responsible for 
what their children watch. And I want to give parents the ability to 
exercise that responsibility. The Markey amendment fails to do so. I 
urge its defeat.
  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I speak today not really as a Member of 
Congress in the well; I speak as a parent of a 3-year-old and of a 7-
year-old. You bet I want to control what they watch. One of my 
colleagues earlier today said well, just use the off button.
  Mr. Chairman, because of this family-friendly schedule, I have be 
getting home most nights around midnight for the last month, and that 
will be again the case tonight when I return to Michigan.
  Tomorrow morning is Saturday, and like most parents of little kids, 
my 3-year-old and my 7-year-old are going to wake each other up about 
7, maybe 6:30, and they are going to go down those stairs and they are 
going to have that TV on when I wake up a little bit later. I have a 
feeling that I will not be up and I will not be able to block out what 
they may or may not watch.
  The argument that the Markey amendment is going to set up thousands 
of bureaucrats is wrong. It is false.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a story that ran in my local paper last week 
that I am going to read excerpts of and I will include the entire 
article in the Record, but it is headlined this way, ``Violence, Sex 
Fill The Airways.''

       I am a 14-year-old junior high Afro-American female from 
     Benton Harbor. I cannot help noticing the endless amount of 
     times people blame the media for boisterous behavior in teens 
     and young adults. I feel that everyone plays a role in 
     influencing children.
       As a teenager I can tell you a lot, that the TV is 
     responsible for much of this. But I have good parents and I 
     am a good kid. You see there are no bad kids, just misguided. 
     Parents needs to band together, stop talking about the 
     problem, and do something about it.

  That is what the Markey-Burton amendment does. Let us stop talking 
about this and oppose a simple study. We know studies are not going to 
solve this. The evidence is in.
  Do what the kids tell us as well as the parents, support the Markey-
Burton substitute.
  The article referred to follows:

               [From the Herald-Palladium, July 30, 1995]

                      Violence, Sex Fill Airwaves

                           (By Debbie Allen)

       I am a 14-year-old junior high Afro-American female from 
     Benton Harbor. I cannot help noticing the endless amount of 
     times people blame the media for boisterous behavior in teens 
     and young adults. I feel that everyone plays a role in 
     influencing children.
       As a teen-ager, I can tell you a lot of influences and 
     causes, including the media. For example, gangsta rap. Now 
     here you have so-called music that calls women ``bitches'' 
     and ``hoes,'' and that not being the worse part. It also 
     tells young boys that it's OK to kill someone.
       A prime example is Snoop Doggy Dogg. But you have to think 
     where did it get him? In prison. Need I say more?
       But it's only one factor. It's not the only factor. Any 
     video that calls a woman a bitch, especially the black queen, 
     then I don't want to watch it and I definitely don't buy it. 
     They give black people a bad name making it seem like all 
     black people do is sit up smoke blunts (marijuana) and drink 
     beer. Well, my family doesn't.
       Like Da Brat says, ``I love to get high, I mean way.'' I 
     bet her parents are proud. Movies also depict sex and 
     violence. They have young kids on there having sexual 
     intercourse, making it seem like everybody's doing it and 
     everybody's not.
       All through these movies the women are having sex, most of 
     the time with a different man each time, and you never see 
     them use contraceptives.
       Then you have violence on the other hand. If you like 
     violence just watch any movie with Arnold Swarzenegger, 
     Steven Seagal, Jean Claude Van Damme or Bruce Willis. For 
     profanity, watch movies or turn to HBO for Deff Comedy Jam or 
     just pop in a Snoop Dogg or Dr. Dre tape.
       But television is also to blame. You turn on the soap 
     operas you see teens having sex, or shall I say rolling 
     around the bed? You see adults doing the same thing. I like 
     soap operas, but I also have to turn because that sickens me. 
     Another example: Beavis and Butthead.
       Even talk shows. Just two weeks ago I was watching Charles 
     Perez and the topic was strippers who can't get a date. I saw 
     all these male and female strippers on there dancing and 
     stripping for the audience and the audience putting money in 
     their underwear and their putting their butts in their faces. 
     I mean, come on. My 4-year-old nephew and 3-year-old niece 
     were getting a kick out of this.
       But worst of all, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. The whole 
     half hour they're fighting. They're kids' idols.
       ``Cosby,'' ``Family Matters,'' ``Different World,'' ``Under 
     One Roof'' and ``On Our Own'' are all fabulous shows. They 
     teach morals.``Family Matters'' is still hanging strong, 
     thank God, but I'm sorry I cannot say the same for the 
     others. Those were all taken off. Why? Only God knows.
       Don't get me wrong, there are also good white shows, like 
     ``Full House'' and ``My So-Called Life.'' But you see rock 
     videos also promote constant violence and sex, not to mention 
     if you listen to them too long you get a headache.
       But those are just a few causes. Kids need more role models 
     like Martin Lawrence, Usher Raymond, Michael Jackson, Brandy 
     and Willie Norwood and Monica Arnold. Parents need to take 
     control of their children and be good role models, but they 
     need the help of other parents, police officers and 
     especially the media, rappers and stars.
       But I have good parents and I'm a good kid. You see there 
     are no bad kids, just misguided.
       Parnets need to band together. Stop talking about the 
     problem and do something about it.
       Debbie will be a ninth-grade student this fall at Coloma 
     Junior High School. She lives in Benton Harbor with her 
     parents, Albert and Labralla Allen.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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 know that many people are well 
meaning. I know the gentleman from Indiana may be well meaning, but I 
think there is a lot of fraud being played in the House.
  I tell you I heard the gentleman talk about a 3- and 7-year-old. I 
have got a 9-year-old. The 9-year-old is curious and bright, and I can 
tell you that it is not 6:30 in the morning, it may be 8:00 at night, 
and 8:00 at night you do not know what you might be seeing.
  This is not something that is compulsory; it allows the parents to 
choose. But what it does say, it takes away the fraud of suggesting we 
are going to study it, and it helps the broadcasters.
  The broadcasters have a year to get together and talk about the 
various rating systems. We want them involved, we expect their 
expertise. Only if they do not do the job does the FCC get involved. I 
want my bright 9-year-old to be able to sit there and learn and 
understand and see the world, but I tell you, there are some things 
that come on that I am sure that you would not want anyone to see.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to protect the children. What about you? Stand 
up for the Markey amendment.
  Vote the other one down.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not get it. How does giving more power 
to parents mean less responsibility on their part? Does a remote 
control mean less responsibility? More stations only increases the need 
to equip parents.
  I am fed up with TV violence. Support the Markey-Burton amendment.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, to close debate on our side, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, from the home office of the Family 

[[Page H 8491]]
  Empowerment Coalition, the top 10 unintended consequences of the Markey 
V-chip mandate:
  No. 10, bureaucrats will be able to pick the shows your kids watch, 
but will not read them a bedtime story.
  No. 9, rating tens of thousands of hours of shows each year is fun, 
easy, and fat free, but it will not be cheap.
  No. 8, the viewer is upset that V-chip is not as good as the original 
show with that Ponch guy.
  No. 7, Oh, I am sorry, No. 7 has been blocked out by Government 
censors.
  No. 6, Angela Lansbury now stars in ``Jaywalking, She Wrote.''
  No. 5, provides jobs for unemployed Federal bureaucrats.
  No. 4, will not work on that old out-of-date TV you bought last week.
  No. 3, brings back all the intrusive Big Government attitude that we 
all miss.
  No. 2, C-SPAN's annual NEA debate blocked out for sexual content.
  And the No. 1 unintended consequence of the Markey V-chip: blocks 
Regis, spares Kathie Lee.
  No on Markey, yes on Coburn.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Burton 
amendment to H.R. 1555 because I believe that there is too much 
violence on today's television programs. V-chip technology will give 
parents greater control over the type of programming that their 
children can watch.
  This amendment is important to the parents of America because most 
parents work long hours and are unable to monitor the type of 
programming that their children are watching.
  This amendment helps promote freedom--freedom of what you choose to 
look at.
  The FCC is the appropriate agency to recommend guidelines and 
standards for violent and indecent material so that parents can make an 
intelligent and informed decision. It is critical for the Government to 
assume this role when the television industry shows little effort to 
get involved.
  I admit that this amendment will not solely resolve the issue of 
violence on television but it is an important step in the right 
direction. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Burton amendment 
and help contribute to a better television viewing environment for our 
young people.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey V-
chip amendment. While well-intentioned, we don't want the Government 
involved in ratings. This is exactly what the Markey amendment does, 
and as such it runs afoul of the first amendment.
  I think we all agree that parents should be able to control what 
their children see on television. With more and more channels, this 
responsibility is more and more challenging. No matter how challenging, 
however, we should never give up our first amendment rights.
  But the V-chip would do just that. It would force the broadcasters to 
produce programs that are acceptable only to society as a whole. And if 
broadcasters choose not to rate the tens of thousands of programs they 
produce each year, the V-chip legislation allows the Federal 
Commuunications Commission to withhold their license renewals. Let me 
remind you this is the provision the V-chip supporters are referring to 
as ``voluntary.''
  We need a solution to television violence. There are technologies 
available to parents--they can go to their local electronics store and 
purchase them if they wish. There are no first amendment problems with 
that.
  But there are first amendment problems with the V-chip. We can, and 
should, encourage the electronics industry to continue to provide 
solutions to assist parents in guiding their children's viewing. And we 
can, and should, encourage broadcasters to be responsible in their 
programming. But we should never pass legislation which restricts 
freedom of speech. This is why I oppose the Markey V-chip, and I hope 
my colleagues will do the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider substitute amendment No. 
2-7 printed in part 2 of House Report 104-223.


 amendment no. 2-7 offered by mr. coburn as a substitute for amendment 
                     no. 2-6 offered by mr. markey

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment 
is as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 157, after line 21, 
     insert the following new section (and redesignate the 
     succeeding sections and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 304. FAMILY VIEWING EMPOWERMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television is pervasive in daily life and exerts a 
     powerful influence over the perceptions of viewers, 
     especially children, concerning the society in which we live.
       (2) Children completing elementary school have been exposed 
     to 25 or more hours of television per week and as many as 11 
     hours per day.
       (3) Children completing elementary school have been exposed 
     to an estimated average of 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of 
     violence on television.
       (4) Studies indicate that the exposure of young children to 
     such levels of violent programming correlates to an increased 
     tendency toward and tolerance of violent and aggressive 
     behavior in later years.
       (5) Studies also suggest that the depiction of other 
     material such as sexual conduct in a cavalier and amoral 
     context may undermine the ability of parents to instill in 
     their children responsible attitudes regarding such 
     activities.
       (6) A significant relationship exists between exposure to 
     television violence and antisocial acts, including serious, 
     violent criminal offenses.
       (7) Parents and other viewers are increasingly demanding 
     that they be empowered to make and implement viewing choices 
     for themselves and their families.
       (8) The public is becoming increasingly aware of and 
     concerned about objectionable video programming content.
       (9) The broadcast television industry and other video 
     programmers have a responsibility to assess the impact of 
     their work and to understand the damage that comes from the 
     incessant, repetitive, mindless violence and irresponsible 
     content.
       (10) The broadcast television industry and other video 
     programming distributors should be committed to facilitating 
     viewers' access to the information and capabilities required 
     to prevent the exposure of their children to excessively 
     violent and otherwise objectionable and harmful video 
     programming.
       (11) The technology for implementing individual viewing 
     choices is rapidly advancing and numerous options for viewer 
     control are or soon will be available in the marketplace at 
     affordable prices.
       (12) There is a compelling national interest in ensuring 
     that parents are provided with the information and 
     capabilities required to prevent the exposure of their 
     children to excessively violent and otherwise objectionable 
     and harmful video programming.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
       (1) encourage broadcast television, cable, satellite, 
     syndication, other video programming distributors, and 
     relevant related industries (in consultation with appropriate 
     public interest groups and interested individuals from the 
     private sector) to--
       (A) establish a technology fund to encourage television and 
     electronics equipment manufacturers to facilitate the 
     development of technology which would empower parents to 
     block
      programming they deem inappropriate for their children;
       (B) report to the viewing public on the status of the 
     development of affordable, easy to use blocking technology; 
     and
       (C) establish and promote effective procedures, standards, 
     systems, advisories, or other mechanisms for ensuring that 
     users have easy and complete access to the information 
     necessary to effectively utilize blocking technology; and
       (2) evaluate whether, not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, industry-wide procedures, 
     standards, systems advisories, or other mechanisms 
     established by the broadcast television, cable satellite, 
     syndication, other video programming distribution, and 
     relevant related industries--
       (A) are informing viewers regarding their options to 
     utilize blocking technology; and
       (B) encouraging the development of blocking technologies.
       (c) GAO Audit.--
       (1) Audit required.--No later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to Congress an evaluation of--
       (A) the proliferation of new and existing blocking 
     technology;
       (B) the accessibility of information to empower viewing 
     choices; and
       (C) the consumer satisfaction with information and 
     technological solutions.
       (2) Contents of evaluation.--The evaluation shall--
       (A) describe the blocking technology available to viewers 
     including the costs thereof; and
       (B) assess the extent of consumer knowledge and attitudes 
     toward available blocking technologies;
       (3) describe steps taken by broadcast, cable, satellite, 
     syndication, and other video programming distribution 
     services to inform the public and promote the availability of 
     viewer empowerment technologies, devices, and techniques;
       (4) evaluate the degree to which viewer empowerment 
     technology is being utilized;
       (5) assess consumer satisfaction with technological 
     options; and
       (6) evaluate consumer demand for information and 
     technological solutions.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] seek recognition 
in opposition?

[[Page H 8492]]

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 7\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana. [Mr. Burton], and that he be 
allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/4\ minutes.
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is another one of the debates in the 
House where everybody wants to accomplish the same purpose. The 
discussion, Mr. Chairman, is about how we go about doing that, and 
whether or not we violate principles that have dealt us well since we 
have been a Nation.
  This amendment is a worthwhile alternative to the V-chip. It puts 
parents, not the Federal Government, in the driver's seat on the 
subject of television program viewing choices.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] 
assumes only that a congressionally mandated board will know best. The 
Markey amendment calls on Government to choose one technology over 
another, not the marketplace. I thought that was what this was all 
about, the marketplace deciding how we make these decisions.
  His amendment calls on the Government to mandate a single technology 
and develop rating systems and require the transmission of those 
ratings. Whether it is a Government agency or a Government-mandated 
board, it is still the same. My amendment says that the market knows 
best.
  With dozens of devices alreadly on the market and dozens more in the 
development stage, the Federal Government should not be in the business 
of forcing a single solution on consumers. A statutory mandate will 
develop much more advanced, better technologies that will empower 
parents better and further.
  There is no question that television is a powerful influence in our 
society. That is one of the very important reasons why it sould be 
parents' decision, not the Government. The parents should be making the 
decisions based on individual family values, not a politically balanced 
advisory committee.
  Broadcasters, too, have a responsibility to assess the impact of 
their work, and understand the damage that it causes to our youth and 
our society. This industry must continue to take actual tangible steps 
towards addressing violence and sexual illicitness.
  This amendment, this substitute amendment, will drive that change to 
empower parents with the latest technology, with the broadest 
technology to exclude what they decide is inappropriate.
  The provisions in my amendment are real, they are tangible steps that 
will allow the industry and the families through free enterprise and 
competition to decide what is best for their children.
  My amendment would call on the broadcast television cable satellite 
syndication and other video programming distributors and related 
industries to, one, establish a technology that empowers parents, not 
the Government to block programming they deem inappropriate; to 
establish and promote effective procedures for informing the viewing 
public as to the affordability and the development of blocking 
technology; and to evaluate no later than 1 year after date of 
enactment of this act industry-wide procedures, standards, and 
advisories or other mechnanisms to inform the viewers regarding 
available blocking devices.
  I am pleased to announce that this fund has been developed and that 
we will see in the very near future and we do have now technology 
available to do this on any old or on any new TV, any old or any new 
TV. Every TV in the home, not just the new one.
  Let me be clear. I am not opposed to providing parents with the 
ability to block programs that they deem inappropriate. Everyone that 
knows me knows that that is true. I think they should have the 
responsibility, but it should be the parents' responsibility, not a 
Government agency, not a Government mandate.
  I urge Members to support the Coburn-Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague who just spoke. The parents 
should be the ones who make the decision, but they need the tools with 
which to implement that decision, and they do not have it right now.
  With 50 or 100 channels, there is no way they can block out the 
objectionable material that is coming across the airwaves. They can 
block out one channel, one station, one period of time, but they cannot 
block out the myriad of channels and the myriad of time slots and the 
myriad of pornography and violence that is coming across the airwaves 
unless they have this V-chip in their set.
  All we are saying is that for 15 or 20 or 30 cents it can be put in a 
set because that technology is already there. It is in there with the 
closed captions for the hearing impaired. This Congress demanded that 
several years ago. So the technology is there.
  Now, let me just tell you about the networks. The networks came 
around to see me, and they said, we will put $2 million. Do you want 
more? We will put $5 million into a fund to study this, to study this.
  Why do they want to study it? Because they know when the ratings 
start going down on a show because the parents will block it out, the 
money goes down, and when the money goes down, then the advertisers do 
not buy the advertising, and when that happens, Mr. Chairman, you send 
a message to Hollywood really clearly: You clean up your act, and you 
stop this violence and sex that is coming into the homes, or you will 
not get the money for it.
  That is where we are going to hit them. There have been boycotts in 
the past that have not worked. This is the greatest boycott in the 
world because the parents in the home controls what is coming into 
their homes, what their children are seeing, and if they block that 
out, then by gosh we are going to see some changes in this country.
  The violence we see in our streets, the sex we see, the sex crimes 
are directly related to what our kids are consuming on television, and 
here is a chance not for Government but for the parents to control it.
  For God's sake, we have been talking about this for years. It is time 
we gave the parents the tools, and this study he is talking about, the 
Coburn study, 3 years we will be talking about this. The Coburn study 
will not do a darn thing. Vote down the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need any more studies in this area. No longer 
can we question that violence and sex that is on TV harms our children 
and weakens the moral strength of this Nation. Our kids are just not 
prepared for what is on the airwaves these days.

                              {time}  1345

  We have all heard the refrain, ``Don't control what is on my TV. Let 
parents decide what their children can watch.'' That is exactly what 
the V-chip will do, allow parents to decide. Parents have got to be in 
the position to direct their children, to reinforce the right values, 
and the V-chip promotes family values, and it does it without 
infringing and impinging on first amendment rights.
  The sweeping telecommunications bill before us touches nearly every 
single aspect of our communications landscape, but will fail to address 
parents' number 1 concern, and that is protecting their children from 
harmful programming. Give the power and strength back to parents. Vote 
down the Coburn amendment and vote for the Markey-Burton amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most important points is to 
recognize that this technology is available today, it is being 
encouraged. But here is the technology that is not going to be 

[[Page H 8493]]
available if in fact we have the Markey V-chip. We are not going to 
have interactive television listings. We are not going to use other 
devices and technologies. We are not going to have set top technology. 
We are not going to allow the marketplace to come and bring a better 
method than a government-designed method.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of conservatives on both 
sides of this question, and I have a lot of respect for the gentleman 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, as well as my great friend, the gentleman 
from Indiana, Dan Burton. But I think we are talking about here not a 
government mandate. It is no more a mandate for parents to be able to 
have a tool to use to decide what their kids are going to see than to 
have a PG rating or an R rating. That is put out by at least a quasi-
governmental board, and yet it is something that is available in the 
absence of anything else.
  The best thing in the world is for a parent to have seen a show and 
say that show is okay for my kids. That is how we do with the movies 
generally. But you cannot do that now with this giant menu of shows 
that are available. There is no working parent in the country who can 
go through 300 television shows before they leave for work and say I 
think these are good for the kids. So in the absence of that, with the 
mom or the dad running out the door to make their second job, they at 
least, if they want to, can click this V-chip in and perhaps restrain 
some of the violence.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense. Vote for the Burton amendment 
and vote against the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, delay it; study it; review it: How many times has 
Congress dragged its heel and sidetracked legislation that the people 
of this country want, but well-placed inside lobbyists are desperately 
trying to stop?
  That is what the Coburn amendment represents, because the people of 
this country want more control over what is coming into their living 
rooms, but the Hollywood lobbyists are desperately trying to sidetrack 
the Markey amendment.
  The Coburn amendment is a diversion, political cover for those who 
otherwise would not have any good reason to tell the parents that they 
represent here in Congress why they voted against giving them the tool 
to keep pornography, to keep violence, to keep sex, off of the TV and 
the television programming coming into their living room.
  I have a little girl. There is so much I will not be able to protect 
her about, bad drivers, getting taunted in school. I can protect with 
the V-chip the television programming in my living room. Vote down the 
Coburn amendment, vote for the Markey amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Frisa].
  Mr. FRISA. Mr. Chairman, American families are being asked to buy a 
bag of goods, and what they are being asked to buy is called the censor 
chip. Now, it might look good, and it might even smell good, but if you 
really think about it, censorship is a bad idea.
   Let us keep the feds out of the family room, and let us stop and 
prevent a government-issue TV guide, because, after all, mom and dad 
know better than any Washington censor.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote for the Coburn amendment because the 
censor chip crumbles when you read the fine print.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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 support of the Coburn 
substitute. It promotes core Republican principles of smaller 
government, less intrusive regulation, and private sector solutions. It 
puts parental responsibility where it belongs--in the hands of parents.
  This substitute will do more to protect children from objectionable 
programming than the Markey amendment. The Markey amendment is unfair. 
While two-thirds of American households do not have children under 18, 
the Markey amendment requires all TV purchasers to pay for the mandated 
V-chip.
  The Markey amendment is flawed because it still does not protect 
children as intended. Since most houses have more than one TV set, 
children will still have access to TV sets not containing the V-chip.
  The Markey amendment is also punishes consumers. Approximately 20 
million TV sets are sold in the United States annually. Since the V-
chip is
 estimated to add between $5 and $40 to the cost of every TV, American 
consumers could have to pay an additional $800 million for a feature 
that two-thirds do not need.

  Legislative proposals to curb objectionable TV content, no matter how 
well intentioned, mean government control on what Americans see and 
hear. By contrast, the Coburn amendment recognizes that parental 
responsibility coupled with private industry cooperation is the only 
viable solution.
  The broadcasting industry recognizes that its impact is vast, 
influencing our lives socially, economically, and politically. That is 
why it is willing to do more and fully endorses the Coburn amendment.
  The broadcasting industry has been working to find solutions. In 
1992, the networks adopted joint standards for the depiction of 
violence. In 1993, the four networks agreed to increase the use of 
violence advisories. In 1993, ABC launched a 1-800 hotline to inform 
parents of upcoming programs carrying advisories. In 1994, the four 
networks also agreed to an analysis of network programming.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment that leaves TV 
content control where it belongs, in the hands of parents--and more 
importantly--keeps it out of the hands of government.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, encourage it, study it, review it, delay 
it. America needs to move on this issue, and I rise in strong 
opposition to the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think all of us recognize that there is too much sex 
and there is too much violence on television today. I think we all 
agree that parents should have more control over the garbage that is 
flowing into their living rooms. But the question is, What are we going 
to do about it?
  All over America parents are taking responsibility. They are coming 
home and turning the TV set off. But we all know they cannot be there 
all the time, and they need help, and the V-chip will give them that 
help.
  This is not about censorship. This is not about big government. This 
is about giving parents the tools they need to stop the garbage from 
flowing into their living rooms and polluting the minds of their 
children.
  The V-chip is based on a very simple principle, that it is parents 
who raise children, not government, not advertisers, not network 
executives, and parents should have a more powerful voice in the 
marketplace.
  That is what the Markey amendment does. I do not come to this floor 
today and advocate the Coburn amendment, because the Coburn amendment 
does not do that. We all know it is a fig leaf. It does nothing to give 
parents control and it does nothing to stop sex and violence. It does 
nothing to force the industry to change. All it does is kill the V-
chip, which is an idea supported by over 90 percent of the American 
public.
  So if you want to endorse the status quo, vote for the Coburn 
amendment. But if you think parents should have more control, if you 
think it is values of the family we should be promoting, I urge Members 
to support the Markey-Burton amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation in a tougher form, in a tougher form, 
passed the Senate with 73 Members of that body voting for it. Members 
who were here before, conservatives, liberals, moderates, they are not 
for Government censorship. They would not 

[[Page H 8494]]
vote for it. People you guys and I respect.
  This is not Government censorship; this is very, very simply a tool 
that we are going to give parents to protect their kids from the filth 
that is coming across the airwaves.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the committee.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Mr. Coburn. This amendment replaces the simplistic Government-
sanctioned solution of mass blocking of television choices with one 
that relies on individual responsibility.
  More importantly, the Markey amendment sets a dangerous precedent of 
rating the content of programming by a Government appointed board. One 
can only imagine where such a precedent might lead.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 
Finance held no fewer than eight hearings on the issue of violence in 
television. What became increasingly clear during these hearings was 
that the V-chip solution was unnecessary because inexpensive software 
and set-up technology is available now or will be shortly in the 
marketplace and second the V-chip only focused on only one segment of 
the industry--broadcast and cable--and did not address other 
technologies such as satellite-delivered programming. Finally, the V-
chip, combined with a ratings system, raise serious constitutional 
questions.
  The Coburn amendment takes a more reasonable approach by encouraging 
the deployment of inexpensive technology to enable parents to block any 
programming they deem unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Markey approach and endorse the 
Coburn amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, read this substitute. Coburn huffs and puffs for three 
long pages, and then, and then it blows out of steam. It does not even 
decree a report. In a long convoluted sentence, what it does is say it 
is the policy of the United States to encourage the industry to 
establish a fund to explore the problem further.
  This would be laughable if it were not so serious. What this is, this 
Coburn substitute, is another in a long line of red herrings. It is 
another attempt to derail and sidetrack a solution to this problem. We 
have a solution before us, but we will not have an opportunity to vote 
upon it unless we defeat Coburn first, because Coburn is a substitute 
and everyone should understand it. It, too, is a V-chip which will 
block our opportunity to have an opportunity to vote upon the V-chip 
amendment that many Members of this House on both sides of the aisle 
support and parents in this country desperately want.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that the gentleman from Indiana 
referred to the Senate because here is what the Senate bill does. It 
establishes five commission members appointed by the President at 
salaries of $115,000 a year. It will be an executive branch commission. 
It may hire staff without regard to Civil Service laws. The salaries 
are not to exceed $108,000 a year. They can appoint additional 
personnel as may be necessary to do the 105,000 television shows per 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey 
V-chip amendment.
  I realize the authors of this amendment are well-meaning. They see 
the importance of providing family viewing for American children. My 
gosh, we all would agree with that. We all share in that goal. That is 
the one vote that could get 435 votes for that. We do not want any more 
violence on television.
  The debate is about the solution. I disagree with the solution of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. A censorship commission run 
by Federal bureaucrats is a horrendous idea. The V-chip will only block 
programs rated as violent or indecent by the rating commission.
  Read the Senate language. We will replace parental choice with a 
Federal bureaucrat, and I do not trust a bureaucrat in this town to 
make a sensible decision where ratings are concerned.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Markey V-chip amendment and 
vote for the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one-half minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma just made reference to the 
Senate bill and knows that that is not the House bill. The House bill 
does not have any Government censorship. At no time are broadcasters 
mandated to do any ratings. We mandate that a violence chip be built 
into television sets, but at no time do broadcasters in fact have to 
rate their own shows. If they do not do it, they do not do it. But we 
give them the V-chip.
  The Coburn amendment is nothing more than the Hollywood and New York 
producers wish, that there be no protection for children. Vote no on 
the Coburn amendment or else the V-chip dies.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. White].
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, let us make it perfectly clear. There are 
two good reasons why the V-chip is a bad idea. The first one is the 
same old problem we are dealing with in this bill all across the board. 
The Government picks the technology to solve this problem. When are we 
going to learn this lesson? We do not need a V-chip. We need a C-chip 
to keep Congress from choosing the technology that is going to solve 
all these problems.
  Second, let us face it; ultimately the reason there is some coercion 
in this bill is because the Government is involved. I have got four 
young children. I spend a lot of time negotiating with my wife over 
what our children should watch on television. We do not always agree, 
but I do not mind negotiating with my wife. I do mind negotiating with 
a bureaucrat in Washington, DC.
  Defeat the Markey V-chip amendment. Vote for the Coburn substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that each side has one remaining 
speaker. The order will be the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
first, who has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], one of the most respected 
Members of the House.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Coburn because 
it will do nothing--everyone knows that--and for the Markey-Burton 
amendment.
  The eye is the gate to the mind. It says it in the Bible. It says it 
in many other places. Garbage in, garbage out. Good things in, good 
things out. When I go see the Chariots of Fire, I leave the movies 
feeling good. But if you go see the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, you go 
out of the movies feeling not very good.
  The working parents are not around all the time. Ozzie and Harriet do 
not live in America all the time in every house, and they are not 
around. But many times no one is around, and it has been said that more 
young women become pregnant in their own house between the hours of 3 
and 5 because no one is home. So face the reality. I wish it were 
different, but it is not that way.
  Second, if you try to block out, what show would you block out? Would 
you block out Married with Children? Would you block out Melrose Place? 
What about Beverly Hills 90210 or Beavis and Butt-head, that stupid 
show? Or would you block out the afternoons? What afternoon show would 
you do? Geraldo? We do not know how to get Geraldo, but how about Jenny 
Jones? Well, Jenny Jones; is that the show that the guy killed the 
other person on? What about Ricki Lake? It goes on, and it goes on.
  Lastly, to the conservations on this side, back in 1985, I came with 
the idea to create a national commission on pornography, and it worked. 
Let me tell you who served on one of those national commissions that 
the gentleman 

[[Page H 8495]]
from Washington [Mr. White] just ridiculed, Dr. James Dobson. And we 
set up a standard to bring about prosecution because, under the first 
term of the Reagan administration, there were no prosecutions of 
pornographers. But, for that national commission, we changed it around.
  Somebody says this is censorship. Who were the Senators, Senator Dan 
Coats, we all know Dan Coats. He was one of the finest Members that 
ever served in this Congress. Very conservative. He supported this over 
in the Senate.
  Thad Cochran, real flaming liberal over there from Mississippi. He is 
conservative. Mike DeWine, nobody was tougher on crime than Mike 
Dewine.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should be advised not to make references 
to individual Members of the other body.
  Mr. WOLF. These were Members who voted when they had an opportunity 
to do it and voted the other way.
  I want to look at a quote. This is what it says: ``Unless and until 
there is unmistakable proof to the contrary, the presumption must be 
that television is and will be a main factor in influencing the values 
and moral standards of our society. Television does not, and cannot, 
merely reflect the moral standards of our society. It must affect them, 
either by changing or by reinforcing them.''
  If we miss this opportunity, it will never come back. The moms and 
the dads of our districts did not have any lobbyists hanging outside 
for the last week. They were so busy working, trying to do it, a single 
parent has the toughest job in the world. This is a good opportunity. 
If it can be perfect when we go to conference, let us perfect it.
  I strongly urge, on behalf of all the kids that are going to come 
home and watch this garbage, a ``no'' vote on Coburn and an ``aye'' 
vote for Burton.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is not a contest between liberals and 
conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Frankly, this is a contest 
between parental control and corporate PAC's.
  There is no parent PAC to protect their interests. Ninety percent of 
parents in this country support what the V-chip amendment does. But 
they do not have the means to buy influence over us. They have to rely 
upon us to do the right thing for them and for our own families.
  We enable parents to get the kind of information they need so they do 
not feed toxic foods into the bodies of their children. Should we not 
enable them to control the poison that is being pumped into the minds 
of our Nation's children every single day? That is all this amendment 
does.
  What does the Coburn corporate amendment do that is not currently 
being done? It mandates an 18-month Government study and then 
encourages the broadcast industry. That is the extent of it.
  Our amendment does not control what parents see or anyone can see. 
All it does is enable parents to control what their children see.
  What we do is to ask the broadcast industry to rate their own 
programs. Government does not rate their programs. In fact, if a new 
technology that is as affordable as the V-chip and is as easy to use by 
parents as the V-chip comes along, fine, it authorizes that as well. 
Government does not block any programs. It does not even rate them.
  My colleagues, we have to vote against the Coburn amendment in order 
to be able to vote for parents by voting for the V-chip amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is recognized for 
2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let us start at the beginning. I love 
children and I hate smut. I love parents that love their children. I 
think good parents exercise direction over their children. That is the 
way it is.
  When I was a boy, it was Playboy magazines. We did not have TV. My 
parents did not need the Government to say whether Playboy should be 
rated this way or that way. My dad looked at one. He said: Son, you 
will not buy that anymore. He says: If you buy that anymore, you will 
not have any money to buy anything with anymore. If you buy it a second 
time, if you buy it a second time, you will not be able to buy one for 
a while, and you will not be able to sit down.
  My dad was very clear. He told me what was right. He told me what was 
acceptable. He said: Do not do it; you do it again you are going to be 
in trouble with your dad because your dad loves you and does not want 
you reading stuff.
  I grew up. I raised five kids. We had a VCR. It has a little clock on 
it. Nobody could set the clock except the kids. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] says I am going to get something called a V-
chip for my grandchildren. And the Government is going to tell me what 
is good and what is not bad, what is smut and what is not smut. Thank 
God for that because I never figured it out.
  The Government has a system. They will tell me what it is. Now I have 
to take the time to read the Government report, find what is smut, what 
is not smut. Then I have got to deal with some new modern electronics. 
I cannot even use my TV. I do not know how to make the clicker work. 
But now I am going to find the wonders of the V-chip, and I am going to 
be smart enough to program it, and so smart that my kids cannot?
  Do you think there is a parent alive today that will understand the 
V-chip better than their kids? I promise you right now, in 60 percent 
of the homes today it will be only the kids that will be able to 
program it. But we will all have the great privilege of buying it. The 
Government will have the power of pretending it is protecting our kids.
  There is no way you get to this point, my colleagues, if you accept 
the responsibility and the privilege, the honor and the joy of having 
children, you accept the fact that you will determine what it is
 they watch and what they do not watch. You will give the supervision.

  You say both parents work out of the house. My mom and my dad worked 
out of the house every day of my life. I came home every night after 
school. I went and I listened to Spiderman on the radio, and I did not 
read Playboy. My mom and my dad would not tolerate it. They never 
depended upon any Government-mandated technology or any Government 
advisory forum. You cannot get away from it.
  The parents and only the parents can protect the children. You can 
make everybody buy the technology. You can put the Government panel out 
there to make the decisions what is or what is not smut. Lord knows, 
they have done it, a heck of a job with the NEA. I mean, we have 
reliable indications that the Government's judgment is dependable. And 
then we can read the Government reports, and then we can read the 
manuals and then we can program the set. We can go off to work. I will 
guarantee you those kids will have used the V-chip to hack into the 
Pentagon's computer before midnight.
  Do not kid yourselves about that. Kids will be kids. They will be 
unruly unless parents are parents. The Government cannot do it.
  You can buy into that old line that my momma taught me to avoid: 
Trust me; I am from the Government. Do what I mandate of you, and your 
children will be safe. And take your chances with that at more cost, 
more expense, more confusion and more Government control through more 
big Government.
  Or you can just simply say: I am your mom. I am your dad. You are the 
kid. I am the parent. You will do what I tell you to do, as parents 
have done for years.

                              {time}  1515

  Frankly, most of the kids have worked out pretty well without the 
Government.
  It is a very simple thing. It is about control by the Government, 
mandate by the Government, or freedom and responsibility for loving 
parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I say vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment; vote ``yes'' 
on the Coburn amendment. Dare to try a public policy that bets on the 
goodness of the American people, rather than the guile of the Federal 
Government.

[[Page H 8496]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is wide agreement in this country 
that violent and sexually explicit programming desensitizes children 
and can influence their behavior and emotional development. But changes 
in society and technology have made it more difficult for parents to 
monitor their children's exposure to television programming. The 
challenge we have today is to provide parents with new and better tools 
without involving the Government in the determination and distribution 
of content.
  If we give the Federal Government the authority to establish a 
ratings committee, to determine its members, and to assess the adequacy 
of the ratings that are established, we will be in violation of the 
first amendment. Such a process will inevitably become politicized by 
Members of Congress dissatisfied with the ratings that are established 
and they will want to impose their own judgment on content regulation. 
This approach will result in years of litigation and ultimate rejection 
by the Federal courts.
  As much as the American people resent unwanted exposure to offensive 
programming, they have a strong belief in protection against Government 
censorship. I urge my colleagues to oppose a mandatory system that 
would undermine the first amendment and instead work to craft a policy 
that balances our desire to help parents protect their children with 
the fundamental right of free speech.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] as a substitute for 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. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announced that in the event a recorded vote 
is ordered on the underlying Markey substitute, that vote will be 
reduced to 5 minutes.
  This is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 201, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 633]

                               AYES--222

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burton
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Scarborough
     Thurman
     Williams
     Young (AK)
                              {time}  1436

  Mr. MINGE and Mr. DORNAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. METCALF, McHALE, GREENWOOD, HOUGHTON, LEWIS of Kentucky, 
MATSUI, HOLDEN, CHAPMAN, and Mrs. VUCANOVICH changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition 
to H.R. 1555. The initial aim of this legislation was just to 
deregulate the communications industry, create completion, lower prices 
and improve telecommunications services. What we have before us today 
is actually the opposite. It stifles competition and is anti-consumer 
and creates monopolies.
  H.R. 1555, with its manager's amendment, promotes monopolies at the 
expense of competition through mergers and concentrations of power.
  H.R. 1555 allows local exchange carriers that compete in the long-
distance market to discriminate against long-distance competitors by 
giving preferential treatment to its own long-distance operations in 
pricing and providing access services. In the overwhelming majority of 
markets today, local exchange carriers maintain control over the 
essential facilities that are needed to complete telephone services. 
The inability of other service providers to gain access to the local 
phone carrier's equipment will inhibit fair competition.
  When you allow an excessive number of in-region buyouts between 
telephone companies and cable operators and permit the acquisition of 
an unlimited number of radio stations and newspapers, you stifle 
competition and suppress the diversity of content and viewpoints. 

[[Page H 8497]]
Instead of generating competition, H.R. 1555 would let cable and phone 
companies merge in communities of less than 50,000. As a result, nearly 
40 percent of the Nation's homes could end up being served by cable and 
phone monopolies. This will limit access and stifle diversity of 
content and orchestrate conformity of viewpoint. Allowing one 
individual to own up to 50 percent of an industry destroys competition 
and filters the amount of information that citizens receive. This is 
contrary to our sacred rights of freedom and cripples diversity.
  In 1984, Congress enacted omnibus cable legislation which, in 
essence, deregulated the cable industry. While this deregulation 
encouraged further expansion of the industry, it also gave many cable 
operators the opportunity to exploit their monopoly status and raise 
rates on subscribers. In response to consumer complaints, Congress 
passed the 1992 Cable Act to restrain monopoly price hikes and 
encourage the development of competition by making access to cable 
programming available to competitors. As a result of the 1992 act, 
cable rates stabilized and costs to consumers for equipment and 
installation dropped in many locations. But now, passage of H.R. 1555 
threatens the affordability and quality of basic service for all cable 
subscribers. Do we really want to return to those days when cable 
companies charged consumers exorbitant rates?
  Perhaps the most detrimental effect of this bill is eliminating the 
authority of the Justice Department to review anti-trust practices. Not 
allowing the Department of Justice to evaluate a request to enter the 
long distance market increases the probability that a phone company, 
like the Bell operating company or its affiliates, could use market 
power to substantially impede competition in the manufacturing or long-
distance market. We need the Justice Department to be involved in this 
process to ensure adequate competition and protect the rights of 
consumers.
  H.R. 1555 needs to deal with the issue of harmful, violent, 
pornographic, obscene programming our children are exposed to. I favor 
including V-chips on TV sets because parents, not the Government should 
decide what to block. Under this plan, cable programmers decide what 
ratings will be attached to a particular show and parents then can 
choose if the material is suitable for their children through the use 
of the V-chip. This is not censorship; this is the right to protect our 
children.
  This bill makes sweeping changes to current telecommunications laws. 
Instead of creating more choices for consumers, this bill creates 
monopolies and stifles competition. We must not allow this kind of 
concentration of telecommunications. Instead we should be finding ways 
to provide universal service in all aspects of telecommunications. What 
we should be doing is promoting competition so there will be choices; 
so that the consumers will have the ability to pick and choose. This 
bill harms consumers and I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 
1555.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this telecommunications bill cripples 
consumer protections and should be soundly rejected. It is being touted 
as pro consumer when, in reality, it will cause inflated rates and will 
limit consumer choice. It is touted as pro-competition when it actually 
promotes mergers and the concentration of power.
  It ignores the success of the 1992 cable regulations which provided 
some $3 billion in savings to cable consumers. It deregulates cable 
rates within 15 months and immediately deregulates cable companies that 
serve about 47 percent of Vermont's cable subscribers. In rural areas 
there just aren't enough customers to sustain more than one or two 
local cable companies. Without sensible regulation, these companies 
would be able to raise rates on their captive consumers.
  Furthermore, if this bill becomes law, the FCC would no longer be 
allowed to review rate increases when it receives a customer complaint. 
The greater of 10 subscribers or 5 percent of the subscribers must 
complain before the FCC can review a rate hike.
  This bill also substantially weakens laws that prevent media 
monopolies and removes the law that prohibits one owner from 
controlling the major newspapers, networks, and cable stations that 
serve a community. It makes it easy for a handful of media moguls to 
buy up every source of news, especially in rural areas. This would lead 
to less diversity of opinion, more prepackaged programming, and less 
local programming.
  This bill has been widely criticized by virtually all consumer 
advocacy groups, President Clinton has threatened a veto, and I 
strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my comments on H.R. 
1555, the Communications Act of 1995.
   I support reforming our telecommunications industry so that it can 
move into the future and help all American consumers. I consider this 
legislation one of the most important bills we will vote on this year, 
perhaps this entire session, since it will impact every single American 
consumer.
  From the beginning of this session, the intent of this legislation 
was to free up competition in local markets, to allow long-distance 
companies to begin competing with local Bell companies for local 
service, and allow the Bells to enter the long-distance market. That 
was the thrust of the legislation which was passed several weeks ago by 
the Commerce Committee.
  However, early this week, Speaker Gingrich directed the chairman of 
the Commerce Committee to alter the bill, in an amendment approved 
today. It makes drastic changes to the telecommunications legislation, 
changes which saw no hearing and upset the careful balance achieved by 
the committee bill.
  This legislation now repeals the regulations on cable companies which 
are intended to keep rates low, meaning we could see a return to the 
late 1980's and early 1990's when cable rates skyrocketed. In addition, 
it removes any role of the Justice Department, which should have a hand 
in ensuring that monopolies are not created by this bill.
  My intent is to pass legislation which enhances technology access and 
provides the consumer with a wider range of telecommunications 
opportunities at a reduced cost. However, this bill as written is 
weighted too heavily against balanced competition, which is essential 
to benefit the consumer, the Bell companies and the long-distance 
telephone companies.
   Mr. Speaker, I want telecommunications reform. However, I will vote 
against final passage of this bill in its current form.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1555, The 
Communications Act of 1995. This legislation benefits all Americans 
including those living in rural America. Those living on the ranches, 
farms and small towns of south and west Texas will benefit along with 
those living in San Antonio and other big cities. It is essential that 
our rural residents continue to have equal and affordable phone 
service.
  This bill protects universal service while promoting technological 
advances--rural Americans should share in the benefits of these 
technologies. I believe that this bill gives proper consideration to 
providing protection for rural communities where our consumers are 
spread thinner and the cost for providing services can be much higher. 
I'm pleased that this bill recognizes that our rural communities 
operate under unique service conditions which must be addressed.
  This bill broadly deregulates and opens markets to fair competition, 
while providing protections to rural local telephone companies. Low 
cost and availability of service have always been the concerns of rural 
telecommunications customers in communities like Alpine and Del City, 
TX. H.R. 1555 contains important protection for these communities 
including universal service principles that provide for comparable 
rural/urban rates and service, as well as a contribution to the support 
of universal service by all providers of telecommunications services.
  This bill establishes a Federal-State joint board to recommend 
actions that the Federal Communications Commission and States should 
take to preserve universal service. This joint board will evaluate 
universal service as our telecommunications market changes from one 
characterized by monopoly to one of competition. The board will base 
its policies for preservation of universal service on the concept that 
any plan adopted must maintain just and reasonable rates. It will work 
with a broad recommendation to define the nature and extent of services 
which comprise universal service. The board will also plan to provide 
adequate and sustainable support mechanisms and require equitable and 
non-discriminatory contributions from all providers to support the 
plan. The plan seeks to promote access for rural areas to receive 
advanced telecommunications services and reasonably comparable 
services. The board will also base its policies on recommendations to 
ensure access to advanced telecommunications services for students in 
elementary and secondary schools in our rural areas.
  The purpose of H.R. 1555 is to promote competition and reduce 
burdensome regulations in order to secure lower prices and higher 
quality services for all American consumers, including those that live 
in rural areas. Without the policy and direction provided in this bill, 
the transition for our rural communities into the information age would 
be restricted.
  The residents of all rural areas of our country, including the 23d 
District of Texas deserve nothing less than the chance to participate 
in the new technologies, services and market conditions that will 
affect us well into the next century. This bill gives them that 
opportunity. Let's not deny our rural residents this chance. I 
respectively urge you join me and vote for H.R. 1555, The 
Communications Act of 1995.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, independent directory publishers 
currently rely on local telephone companies, who hold over 96 percent 
of the telephone directory market and 

[[Page H 8498]]
have total control over access to subscriber list information. Section 
222(a) of H.R. 1555 requires carriers providing local exchange phone 
service to provide this information on a timely and unbundled basis, 
under nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions, to 
any person upon request.
  Independent publishers have pioneered many of the innovations in the 
directory industry, including coupons and zip code listings. Yet, 
because of problems in accessing subscriber listing information at 
reasonable rates, many independent publishers now find it extremely 
difficult to compete. In many States, independent publishers are forced 
to wait until the local carrier's directories are published before they 
can obtain the subscriber list information necessary to publish their 
own directories.
  Even when subscriber lists are available, independent publishers 
often encounter significant competitive obstacles. As the Commerce 
Committee report on this provision indicates, over the past decade, 
some local exchange carriers have charged excessive and discriminatory 
prices for subscriber listings. In one case in my area of the country, 
a jury awarded $15 million in damages when it found that a telephone 
company had raised listing prices by 200 percent in an effort to drive 
an independent publisher out of business.
  The Commerce Committee report makes it clear that (r)easonable terms 
and conditions include, but are not limited to, the ability to purchase 
listings and updates on a periodic basis at reasonable prices, by zip 
code or area code, and in electronic format. The report further 
indicates that section 222(a) should ensure that telephone companies 
will be fairly compensated. In order to avoid future excessive pricing, 
this statement incorporates the concept that prices be based on the 
incremental cost of providing the information to the independent 
publishers.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support many of 
the improvements to telecommunications law which are contained in H.R. 
1555, and I have worked long and hard to ensure open competition in the 
telecommunications marketplace. Nevertheless, I found it necessary to 
oppose H.R. 1555 on final passage.
  My rationale for opposing the bill stems primarily from my concern 
for small minority businesses in the industry. Often, a complete 
deregulation results in the larger, more well-established companies 
consuming those small businesses that have created a niche for 
themselves in an industry. H.R. 1555, in its current form, offers 
little protection for small minority businesses in the 
telecommunications industry. Minority ownership of telecommunications 
companies, most notably radio and television station ownership, is 
threatened by the bill, and out of respect for the minority media 
industry, I opposed the bill. Mr. Chairman, I hope that as we proceed 
to conference with the Senate on this legislation, we can focus more 
closely on the needs of minorities in the ownership of media 
organizations.
  Finally, I wish to stress that my vote today was not an objection to 
the inexorable progress of technology in the telecommunications 
industry. I realize that this progress is coming, and will be a part of 
our society in the future. I welcome this new technology, and hope that 
all Americans can be included in the promise this progress holds.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the cable 
television industry will be deregulated as a result of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1995. Many of the consumer safeguards that 
resulted from the 1992 Cable Act are being swept away as a result of 
this legislation. The 1992 Cable Act helped keep the cable operators 
honest and was effective in saving consumers approximately $3 billion. 
True competition is still a few years away and without the necessary 
protections, cable operators will very likely raise their rates and 
overcharge their costumers for service.
  From 1986-1992, when the cable industry was last deregulated, cable 
prices rose at three times the rate of inflation. Only when the 
Congress passed legislation in 1992 did the cable operators become more 
responsible. If cable regulations are removed, the consumers of this 
country will suffer.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1555, the ``Communications Act of 
1995'' makes major changes in our telecommunications industry. These 
changes will have a profound effect on consumers, on businesses, and on 
our society.
  While much of the focus of this bill has been on industry giants 
fighting for market share, a number of us in the House have been very 
concerned about the effect of these changes on the availability and 
affordability of access for all Americans to emerging technologies, 
through the Information Superhighway.
  As this bill made its way to the floor, it became apparent that the 
legislation simply did not contain adequate provisions to promote and 
ensure affordable access to this Information Superhighway for our 
Nation's elementary and secondary schools, public libraries, and rural 
hospitals.
  Therefore, I joined my colleagues Connie Morella of Maryland, Zoe 
Lofgren of California, and Bob Ney of Ohio in offering an amendment to 
the bill to address this important issue.
  We were of course disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to 
make our amendment in order. However, we were most heartened last night 
to hear the distinguished chairman of the House Commerce Committee 
acknowledge that such a provision is included in the Senate bill, and 
give his assurance that he will work to see this preserved, so that the 
intent our amendment will be carried out in the final legislation.
  I certainly understand how time constraints may have prevented the 
consideration of our amendment, as well as many other important 
amendments. However, I believe that our proposal has strong bipartisan 
support, and that it would have passed, if we had an opportunity to 
vote on this amendment.
  Therefore, the chairman's comments on the floor last night are most 
appreciated. They serve to clarify that the failure to have an 
affordable access provision in H.R. 1555 does not indicate a lack of 
support in the House for such a provision. And, combined with the 
provisions in the Senate bill, they give us strong hope that such 
provisions will be included in any conference bill we send to the 
President.
  Let me explain why this provision is so important. Almost everyone 
understands that the telecommunications revolution is changing our 
life, providing exciting new opportunities. Distance learning can 
provide tremendous opportunities to schools with limited resources. 
Access to the Internet can dramatically expand the resources of 
libraries. And the emergence of telemedicine holds hope for cost-
efficient advances in health care, especially for rural patients and 
hospitals.
  Yet, as our society increasingly takes advantage of the Information 
Superhighway, with its myriad applications, we face a very real danger 
that millions of Americans living in rural areas or of modest means may 
be left off. For example, today only 12 percent of the Nation's 
classrooms even have a telephone line, and just 3 percent are connected 
to the Internet. The danger is that we may create a society of 
information haves and have-nots.
  The Senate recognized the importance of this issue by approving the 
Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerry amendment to the Senate telecommunications 
bill, S. 652. Under the Senate bill, providers of advanced 
telecommunications services are required, upon a bona fide request, to 
provide such services to elementary and secondary schools and libraries 
at discounted and affordable rates. In addition, such services shall be 
provided to rural health care facilities and hospitals at ``rates that 
are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in 
urban areas.''
  In contrast, the House bill does not contain language which 
effectively addresses the issue of affordable access. Instead, there is 
only a weak reference to this issue in section 247, the section of the 
bill which provides for the preservation of universal service.
  Under this section, a joint Federal/State board is required to make 
recommendations to the FCC and State public utility commissions for the 
preservation of universal service. Subsection (b) goes on to identify 
principles that this joint board should base its recommendations on. 
Subsection 5 addresses the issue of access to advanced 
telecommunications services. Specifically, subsection 5 says this plan 
should include recommendations to ``ensure access to advanced 
telecommunications services for students in elementary and secondary 
schools.''
  In simple terms, advanced telecommunications services are the means 
of access to the Internet, the emerging Information Superhighway. As 
such, this language is clearly inadequate. By itself, ensuring access 
is an empty and meaningless proposition. Access to anything is 
generally available, at a certain price. To be meaningful, such access 
must be affordable.
  By way of illustration, 30 years ago, every American had access to 
college. That is, anyone could file an application, and probably pay 
the $20 or so application fee. However, without student loans and other 
financial assistance, such access was meaningless for millions of 
Americans. Only if access is affordable is it meaningful.
  Therefore, the Morella-Orton-Ney-Lofgren amendment would have 
addressed this issue by adding the word affordable to the access 
requirement in section 247(b)(5). Second, our amendment would have 
expanded the range of those institutions eligible for affordable access 
to the Information Superhighway to include public libraries and rural 
hospitals engaging in telemedicine.
  In offering this amendment, we had strong support from numerous 
organizations active in this area. At the end of my statement, I would 
like to include a letter of support from 33 organizations, including 
the National Association of 

[[Page H 8499]]
State Boards of Education, the National Education Association, the 
American Library Association, the International Telecomputing 
Consortium, and many others.
  To quote from this letter:

     without a national commitment to ensuring affordable access 
     to emerging telecommunications, the United States will fall 
     short in preparing all of its citizens to compete in the new 
     global, information-based economy. . . . Unfortunately, H.R. 
     1555 lacks strong language which makes that necessary 
     commitment. . . . We encourage you to adopt language in H.R. 
     1555 which ensures elementary and secondary schools and pubic 
     libraries affordable access to the telecommunications and 
     information technologies which are the future of American 
     prosperity.

  As we move to conference, I know I am joined by many others in the 
House who care deeply about the preservation of an affordable access 
provision. I am pleased to see strong provisions in the Senate bill, 
and heartened to hear the House Commerce Committee chairman's 
commitment to this issue in the House. Inclusion of this provision in a 
telecommunications conference bill which becomes law will be a critical 
step in making the technological advances of the 21st century available 
and affordable for all Americans.
 Support Affordable Telecommunications Access for Our Nation's Schools 
                             and Libraries

                                                  July 26, 1995.  
     Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The following organizations are 
     writing to ask for your support of the Orton/Morella 
     amendment providing for affordable access to the Information 
     Superhighway for schools, public libraries, and rural 
     telemedicine. This amendment is expected to be offered to 
     H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995.
       We cannot expect to increase the productivity of our 
     schools and increase the learning at the rates that are 
     needed without affordable access to technology. The Orton/
     Morella amendment includes provisions that will ensure that 
     all of our Nation's elementary and secondary schools and 
     public libraries have universal and affordable access to 
     telecommunications and information services.
       The National Information Infrastructure (NII) promoted by 
     H.R. 1555, and a technologically literate public, together 
     form the foundation of America's future competitiveness and 
     economic growth. However, without a national commitment to 
     ensuring affordable access to emerging telecommunications, 
     the United States will fall short in preparing all of its 
     citizens to compete in the new global, information-based 
     economy. And it is clear that commitment has not yet been 
     made. For example, less than three percent of American 
     classrooms and only 21 percent of our public libraries (13 
     percent in rural areas) have access to advanced 
     telecommunications services infrastructure for instructional 
     purposes.
       Unfortunately, H.R. 1555 lacks strong language which makes 
     that necessary commitment. First, the measure fails to 
     recognize the critical role of public libraries in providing 
     information services to the communities they serve. Perhaps 
     more importantly, though, it fails to recognize that unless 
     schools and libraries and the people they serve are able to 
     access the NII affordably, the tremendous resources available 
     on the Information Superhighway will not be utilized to their 
     fullest potential.
       We encourage you to adopt language in H.R. 1555 which 
     ensures elementary and secondary schools and public libraries 
     affordable access to the telecommunications and information 
     technologies which are the future of American prosperity.
       Specfically, we are requesting that the House Rules 
     Committee make the Orton/Morella amendment in order or that 
     the provisions of this amendment be included in a managers 
     amendment to H.R. 1555.
           Sincerely,
       American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), American 
     Association of School Administrators (AASA), American 
     Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Library Association 
     (ALA), American Psychological Association (APA), Association 
     for the Advancement of Technology in Education (AATE), 
     Association for Educational Communications and Technology 
     (AECT), Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development 
     (ASCD), Coalition of Adult Education Organizations (CAEO), 
     California DC Education Alliance: California Teachers 
     Association, Association of California School Administrators, 
     Urban School Districts in California, California Department 
     of Education, Center for Media Education (CME), Computer 
     Using Educators (CUE), Council for American Private Education 
     (CAPE), Coucil of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 
     Council for Educational Development and Research (CEDAR), 
     Council of Great City Schools (CGCS), Consortium for School 
     Networking (CoSN), Educational Testing Service (ETS), Far 
     West Laboratory (FWL), Federation of Behavioral Psychological 
     and Cognitive Sciences (FBPCS), The Global Village Institute, 
     Instructional Telecommunications Council (ITC), International 
     Telecomputing Consortium, National Association of State 
     Boards of Education (NASBE), National Association of 
     Elementary School Principals (NAESP), National Association of 
     Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Education 
     Association (NEA), National School Boards Association (NSBA), 
     Organizations Concerned about Rural Education (OCRE), Public 
     Broadcasting Service (PBS), Triangle Coalition for Science 
     and Technology Education (Triangle), U.S. Distance Learning 
     Association (USDLA), Western Cooperative for Educational 
     Telecommunications.

  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 
1555, the Communications Act of 1995.
  I am going to support H.R. 1555--but with reservations.
  I am concerned, for instance, over the very complicated relationship 
between long-distance carriers and the local companies.
  Over the past few weeks, after this bill was reported out of 
committee, this complex measure has been revised considerably.
  I have no doubt the extra work was necessary to some extent in order 
to level the playing field. H.R. 1555 is an exceedingly complex bill 
that will impact every American.
  It is always difficult to substantially change the landscape of 
entire industries--as H.R. 1555 does.
  My preference is that we take the time to continue to address what I 
see are problems with this legislation. If it takes a few extra weeks 
or months, so be it.
  The legislative process, however, is about compromise. And so in the 
end, I voted for final passage of H.R. 1555. It does promote additional 
competition, and opens up many barriers between telephone and cable 
services, and indeed, the entire telecommunications industry.
  It also corrects many of the problems with the Cable Act of 1993.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for this measure because, though I don't agree 
with all of its provisions, it accomplishes a great deal.
  We have moved forward with this bill. On balance, I believe it will 
be good for the American people.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this carefully 
crafted legislation because I think it will be good for the consumer. 
However, I do have some concerns about the impact of this bill on my 
constituents, who for more than a century have been provided with 
excellent telecommunications service by Cincinnati Bell. 
Notwithstanding its name, Cincinnati Bell is an independent--not a 
regional Bell--company. It has installed in our area one of the most 
modern and technologically sophisticated local networks. This benefits 
consumers in our area. In fact, because of Cincinnati Bell's strong 
commitment to serving the Greater Cincinnati area, we also have among 
the highest rate of universal service in the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the pending legislation. But, the Senate bill 
in some ways better recognizes the circumstances of a company like 
Cincinnati Bell, and the consumers they serve, than the legislation 
before us. That is why I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join 
me in urging our conferees to pay particular attention to the needs of 
the people served by independent companies like Cincinnati Bell when 
this legislation is considered in conference.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, although we are well into the Information 
Age, our Government's response to the need to revamp our national 
telecommunications policy lags behind. Technological advances make 
possible the formation of new and hybrid services that do not fit into 
traditional categories, creating for the first time the possibility of 
true competition in many telecommunication fields. Today we have the 
opportunity to make our national telecommunications policies respond to 
the dynamic age in which we live.
  I support final passage of this legislation because I believe it is 
critical for telecommunications policy in this country to move forward. 
If we proceed with the status quo, consumers will continue to be denied 
state-of-the-art services and products. U.S. competitiveness in 
telecommunications will continue to be in jeopardy due to antiquated 
restrictions on involvement in new technology. Industry and investors 
will not be able to effectively plan for the future. After years of 
debating this bill, it is time for Congress to step up to the plate.
  H.R. 1555 would lift the current restrictions that prevent the 
telephone, cable television, broadcast television and other companies 
from competing in each others markets. This legislation will pave the 
way for a new climate where competition would replace monopoly 
regulation in the communication sector. H.R. 1555 will allow our 
country to take an important leap forward in the information age, 
gradually allowing telecommunications companies into other 
communications technologies, while guaranteeing ample consumer 
protections. This new competition will provide long-term consumer 
benefits in terms of more competitive pricing and increased choice in 
service.
  However, it is with some reservation that I come to support final 
passage. I regret that some of the more contentious provisions of this 
bill were not resolved through the more 

[[Page H 8500]]
traditional committee process. I think it is important to note that 
just 1 year ago, this body passed a similar plan to revamp 
telecommunication law which gathered much broader support. I believe 
that this bill struck a more balanced approach, evidenced by the 
overwhelming vote of 430 to 3 in the House of Representatives.
  Nevertheless, the overall need for telecommunications reform demands 
that Congress act on H.R. 1555. As the millennium approaches, we must 
ensure that our Nation is equipped for the global challenges of the new 
information age. We must ensure our children have access to the 
information infrastructure that is rapidly developing. Passage of a 
comprehensive telecommunications reform measure is needed now.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express serious concerns over H.R. 
1555, the big telecommunications bill. Like a lot of the legislation 
that is considered by this body, this legislation has its good points 
and its bad points. After hearing from many of my friends on all sides 
of this issue and studying the ramifications of passing this 
legislation, I am convinced that H.R. 1555 needs to be sent back to 
committee for some reconstructive surgery. I understand that this 
legislation passed the Commerce Committee with a strong bipartisan 
vote. But that did not last. It appears that the manager's amendment is 
about to change the looks of H.R. 1555 a bit, in fact, quite a bit. In 
the process, it has all but ignored H.R. 1528, which the Judiciary 
Committee voted out 29 to 1 to give the Justice Department an active 
role.
  I have great respect for the Speaker of this House because of our 
shared interest in information technology and its utilization to 
guarantee the free flow of information. But I have greater respect for 
the process that we use to conduct business in this House of 
Representatives and I believe that the process that allowed H.R. 1555 
to come before us tonight has been flawed. This House can and should do 
better. Even some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
some real problems with being forced to vote on this bill at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have such an opportunity here to pass legislation 
that can really benefit the American people and be fair to all those 
concerned. I submit to you that Congress should not be in the business 
of picking winners and losers in the private sector, but that is 
exactly what we are doing if we do not spend more time fine tuning H.R. 
1555. If Congress gets it right we will have done a great
 deed for the American people--get it wrong and we have done them a 
great injustice.

  For those of us like myself who really want to see the passage of 
comprehensive telecommunications legislation we have only one real 
choice. Send this legislation back to the committee and let's get it 
right. Mark Twain said it years ago better than I: ``The difference 
between right and almost right is like the difference between a 
lightning bug and lightning''. This legislation is far too important to 
rush through in the middle of the night. Too many amendments were 
denied consideration on the floor, in an effort to adjourn by Friday. 
Let's send H.R. 1555 back to committee and craft a piece of legislation 
that can be ungrudgingly supported by all Members of this House.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks. I am pleased today to support H.R. 1555, the 
Communications Act of 1995. I know this has been a long, tedious 
process with a wide range of industries taking keen interest in every 
jot and title of this bill.
  But Mr. Chairman, as the Titans of industry have waged their battle 
over this piece of legislation, it is important to note that the 
primary beneficiary will be and ought to be the American consumer of 
telephone, cable and all communications services. As the markets open 
up in these areas and real competition is realized, just as we've seen 
in the video and computer industry, we will have better technology at 
lower prices.
  Mr. Chairman, I can't let this moment pass without commenting on the 
battle between the Bells and long distance that is raging still. As the 
gentlemen from Texas and Virginia have done, I had representatives from 
both interests in my office at the same time to talk with each other 
and try to resolve their differences. Perhaps at the end of this 
process we will finally see an agreeable solution. I realize that one 
party wants free access to all markets--which eventually I believe will 
happen--and the other is asking for a reasonable transition period of 
regulation so their markets are not taken away by the companies that 
own the phone lines. This bill, however imperfectly, does establish 
this balance.
  As my friend from Washington, Mr. White, has graciously reminded me 
throughout the process--I thank him for his advice and help--the 
Congress is the one entity that is trying to strike the most fair 
balance. The other parties own huge interests in getting their way, or 
at least getting a ``fair advantage,'' to borrow a phrase from the 
chairman from Virginia.
  I would also like to thank Mr. Bliley and Mr. Fields for their hard 
work on this bill and many long hours and still more frequent meetings 
and hearings that made this legislation possible. I appreciate their 
concern for the smaller rural phone companies that could have been 
severely hurt by much bigger companies during the transition period to 
deregulation.
  The chairmen also know my concern about the Federal Communications 
Commission's regulatory underbrush that still exists for common 
carriers. I appreciate the adoption of Mr. Boucher's amendment in the 
Commerce Committee that did lighten the load by removing regulations 
created for another era. Perhaps we can work on further regulatory 
relief in the future that would unburden common carriers even more. I 
am particularly concerned about the smaller carriers that may not have 
the resources or the legal staff to push the amount of paper that the 
FCC demands.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. A bill this large cannot be 
perfect. But it does get us way down the road to competition, free 
markets, better technology and lower prices for the consumer. I urge 
its passage.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the statements 
made on August 1, 1995 by my colleague, the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Eshoo] concerning H.R. 1555, the Communications Act.
  In her remarks about cable compatibility, she would have us believe 
that it is a classic disagreement between the evil, foreign television 
manufacturers and the good, domestic technology firms. I do not believe 
the 30,000 Americans, employed in the manufacturing of 14 million 
television receivers annually for domestic and foreign sales, would 
agree with her characterization. The percentage of imported computers, 
is nearly identical to that of imported TV's, about 30 percent.
  The gentlewoman would also like us to believe that her amendment 
would protect future technology. While it would protect the interest of 
proprietary technology, especially that of a home automation company in 
her home State, it would harm retailers, consumers, and that of 
television manufacturers. A wide variety of groups including the 
National Association of Retail Dealers and the National Consumers 
League have opposed the Eshoo amendment. I think it is especially 
significant when both retailers and consumers are on the same side of 
an issue as they are in this case.
  Cable compatibility is a very technical issue, and one which the 
industry has been considering for over 2 years. The gentlewoman's 
amendment, which has not had a hearing, would actually thwart market 
competition and stifle advancing technology.
  I would urge my colleagues who are conferees on this bill to take a 
closer look at what the Eshoo language does. I think you will find that 
real world technology is exactly the opposite of what Ms. Eshoo would 
have us believe.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1555. 
This vital legislation makes long overdue changes to current 
communications laws by eliminating the legal barriers that prevent true 
competition.
  I am particularly pleased that H.R. 1555 will break down barriers to 
telecommunications for people with disabilities by requiring that 
carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment make their 
network services and equipment accessible to and usable by people with 
disabilities. The time is past for all persons to have access to 
telecommunications services.
  H.R. 1555 assigns to the FCC the regulatory functions of ensuring 
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 to them the features, functions, and capabilities of the Bell 
companies' networks that the new entrants need to compete. It also 
contains other checks and balances to ensure that competition in local 
and long distance grows.
  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 anti-trust 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. Speaker, it is time to open our telecommunications market to true 
competition. This legislation is long overdue. I encourage my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1555.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
legislation, disappointed that such an important and necessary bill has 
fallen victim to the Republican leadership's knee-jerk acquiescence to 
the 

[[Page H 8501]]
profit-driven whims of corporate America at the expense of average 
America.
  I support comprehensive reform of our Nation's outdated 
communications laws. During the 103d Congress I voted in favor of 
legislation which passed this House 423 to 4 and would have gone a long 
way toward opening all telecommunications markets under equitable 
rules, promoting competition and protecting consumers. Believe me, H.R. 
1555 is a far cry from the sensible approach this body took last year 
on this issue.
  To begin with, H.R. 1555 guts the 1992 Cable Act, which has saved 
consumers $3 billion in inflated monopoly fee hikes. Despite the fact 
that 67 percent of consumers support rate regulation and 65 percent of 
cable customers still believe their bills are too high, H.R. 1555 lifts 
cable rate regulation on the most popular cable programming immediately 
for smaller cable operators and 15 months after enactment of this bill 
for the largest operators, regardless of the competitive nature of 
their markets. It is estimated that this bill will increase cable bills 
an average of $5 monthly per individual.
  Where is the sense Mr. Chairman? According to the General Accounting 
Office, deregulation of the cable industry prior to effective 
competition in 1984 resulted in a monumental rise in cable rates at 
three times the rate of inflation. Given the fact that effective 
competition exists in less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of all cable systems 
nationwide and affordable cable TV alternatives for 99.5 percent of 
consumers from phone companies or satellite providers is not yet fully 
feasible, swiftly opening up these markets can only spur price gouging.
  Ironically, on top of this, H.R. 1555 also raises the complaint 
threshold that it takes to trigger an FCC investigation of price 
gouging by a cable operator to a standard that has to date rarely been 
met by any community seeking such relief from the FCC. Talk about a 
bill that targets consumers in its crosshairs.
  But there's more. H.R. 1555's provisions on mass media ownership 
virtually guarantee that power will be concentrated among a select few 
communications megacorporations, sacrificing the key tenets of 
communications policy--community control and variety of viewpoints. 
This legislation repeals all ownership limits on radio stations, allows 
one network to control programming reaching 50 percent of all 
households nationwide, gives one major communications entity the 
ability to own newspapers, cable systems, and television stations in a 
single town. This type of excessive media control is not a healthy 
prescription for competition.
  All one has to do is read the recent newspaper headlines to realize 
that the industry Goliaths are making deals left and right, salivating 
in anticipation of this legislation's passage and the huge windfall it 
will bring them. Luckily, President Clinton has cited the unprecedented 
media concentration promoted by this legislation as a major stumbling 
block that would bring his veto.
  Over the last few weeks hundreds of my constituents have contacted my 
office to express their opposition to the aforementioned anticonsumer 
provisions of this legislation. I come to this floor today to represent 
their views by voting against H.R. 1555.
  However, I should note for the record that there are a few provisions 
beneficial to our Nation's small telecommunications providers included 
in this legislation that I do support and am glad the committee saw fit 
to advance.
  While we should all look forward to the opportunities presented by 
new, emerging technologies, we cannot disregard the lessons of the past 
and the hurdles we still face in making certain that everyone in 
America benefits equally from our country's maiden voyage into 
cyberspace. I refer to the well-documented fact that, in particular, 
minority- and women-owned small businesses continue to be extremely 
under-represented in the telecommunications field.
  In the cellular industry, which generates in excess of $10 billion a 
year, there are a mere 11 minority firms offering services in this 
market. Overall, barely 1 percent of all telecommunications companies 
are minority-owned. Of women-owned firms in the United States, only 1.9 
percent fall within the communications category.
  Some of the provisions included in this bill can make a first step in 
eradicating these inequities.
  I am very pleased to see that Representative Rush successfully 
offered an amendment in subcommittee mark-up similar to a provision I 
included in last year's telecommunications legislation that will help 
to advance diversity of ownership in the telecommunications 
marketplace. It requires the Federal Communications Commission to 
identify and work to eliminate barriers to market entry that continue 
to constrain all small businesses, including minority- and women-owned 
firms, in their attempts to take part in all telecommunications 
industries. Underlying this amendment is the obvious fact that 
diversity of ownership remains a key to the competitiveness of the U.S. 
telecommunications marketplace. Given the distorted mass media 
ownership provisions I previously discussed, Representative Rush's 
takes on heightened importance.
  In addition, I fully support the telecommunications development fund 
language included in Chairman Bliley's manager's amendment. This 
language ensures that deposits the FCC receives through auctions be 
placed in an interest-bearing account and the interest from such 
deposits be used to increase access capital for small 
telecommunications firms. This fund seeks to increase competition in 
the telecommunications industry by making loans, investments or other 
similar extensions of credit to eligible entrepreneurs.
  Finally, antiredlining provisions that prohibit carriers from 
discriminating against communities comprised of low-income and minority 
individuals address a genuine concern of mine that the information 
superhighway must not be allowed to bypass those communities most in 
need of its benefits.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, taken as a whole, the bad in this bill 
greatly outweighs the good and, despite what those on the other side of 
the aisle might say, the majority of our constituents know it. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1555.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the statements 
made on August 1, 1995, by my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Eshoo], concerning H.R. 1555, the Communications Act.
  In her remarks about cable compatibility, she would have us believe 
that it is a classic disagreement between the evil, foreign television 
manufacturers and the good, domestic technology firms. I do not believe 
the 30,000 Americans employed in the manufacturing of 14 million 
television receivers annually for domestic and foreign sales would 
agree with her characterization. The percentage of imported computers 
is nearly identical to that of imported TV's, about 30 percent.
  The gentlewoman would also like us to believe that her amendment 
would protect future technology. While it would protect the interest of 
proprietary technology, especially that of a home automation company in 
her home State, it would harm retailers, consumers, and that of 
television manufacturers. A wide variety of groups including the 
National Association of Retail Dealers and the National Consumers 
League have opposed the Eshoo amendment. I think it is especially 
significant when both retailers and consumers are on the same side of 
an issue, as they are in this case.
  Cable compatibility is a very technical issue, and one which the 
industry has been considering for over 2 years. The gentlewoman's 
amendment, which has not had a hearing, would actually thwart market 
competition and stifle advancing technology.
  I would urge my colleagues who are conferees on this bill to take a 
closer look at what the Eshoo language does. I think you will find that 
real world technology is exactly the opposite of what Ms. Eshoo would 
have us believe.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss several important 
issues surrounding H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. Today, 
the House is acting on a comprehensive telecommunications reform bill 
that some say is the most far-reaching legislation debated in recent 
memory. This bill would phaseout controls that inhibit open competition 
in the broadcast, local telephone, long-distance, cable, and cellular 
industries.
  The telecommunications industry is currently hampered by outdated 
restrictions and regulations that do not allow these innovative 
companies to enter each other's lines of business. Thus, consumers 
cannot benefit from increased competition and the companies are not 
fully able to develop new technologies that will benefit us all.
  This legislation is designed to allow companies to evolve while 
ensuring that consumers are not trampled in the process. Encouraging 
open and fair competition should be one of our highest priorities, and 
it is the best route to bringing the information superhighway up to 
speed.
  While I support the general direction of this bill and will vote for 
it on final passage, there are some important additions that will make 
this bill better. One such change is an amendment to protect consumers 
from cable rate increases by continuing regulation of existing cable 
systems until there is adequate competition. We must continue to 
protect consumers in this manner until true competition in the cable 
industry arrives.
  I also support an amendment that limits to 35 percent the percentage 
of households that may be reached by TV stations directly owned by a 
single network or ownership group. We must ensure that consumers will 
be able to receive a diversity of viewpoints from the media. The bill 
as currently written could threaten the independence of many local 
television stations across the country. In addition, I support an 
amendment to preserve the authority of local governments to be 
compensated for use of 

[[Page H 8502]]
public rights-of-way by telecommunications providers.
  These changes to H.R. 1555 are of critical importance, and I 
sincerely hope that fair consideration will be given to them during 
floor debate of this bill. One of my Republican colleagues has been 
quoted as saying ``this bill is not perfect, but close enough for 
government work.'' I disagree, and believe that, with the changes I 
have suggested, this bill will usher in a new modern age in 
telecommunications. However, failure to adequately address my concerns, 
either during House consideration or in conference, might require me to 
vote to sustain a Presidential veto of this bill.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
overhaul of our national telecommunications policy. This legislation 
will unleash vast economic and technological forces that will transform 
our Nation's communications network into the most advanced and 
competitive system in the world.
  The Communications Act of 1995 is a landmark regulatory reform bill 
that offers countless benefits to American consumers. By busting 
monopolies, opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and 
eliminating layers of burdensome Federal regulations, H.R. 1555 will 
give Americans access to a whole new range of new communications 
services at lower prices.
  This bill offers local, long distance, and cable providers the 
opportunity to offer complete video and communications services 
anywhere in the United States.
  Just as important, this bill prevents monopolistic activity and 
guarantees true competition in the local, long distance, and cable 
industries. I intend to support amendments which open these markets as 
quickly as possible without sacrificing competition. We must ensure 
that local and long distance providers compete on a fair and level 
playing field.
  By reforming our telecommunications system we will create 3.4 million 
jobs over the next 10 years. True competition will give hard-working 
families and individuals over $550 billion in savings in local, long 
distance, cellular, and cable prices over the next 10 years. In 
addition, competition will speed up the introduction of new, innovative 
technologies and services, such as telemedicine in rural areas and 
distance learning to improve education and on the-job-training.
  In  conclusion,  Mr.  Chairman, I urge my colleagues to 
pass a bill that will create the most technologically advanced--and 
lowest priced--communications system in the world.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about the bill before 
us. Both on substance and on process, this is the wrong way to go about 
overhauling our Nation's communications laws.
  Let me be clear that I support comprehensive reform of our Nation's 
telecommunications laws. I support deregulation. I support increased 
competition. I personally feel the time has come to free the regional 
Bell companies to enter the long-distance, manufacturing, and video 
markets.
  However, this legislation is seriously flawed. How can you go home to 
your district and explain to your constituents that you voted for this 
bill?
  How are you going to explain that you voted for a bill that gives 
cable companies the green light to raise rates through the roof without 
first requiring them to give up their monopolies? Fifteen months after 
this bill becomes law, cable rates are going up. How are you going to 
explain it?
  How are you going to explain that you voted for a bill that fails to 
empower parents to control the amount of sex and violence their 
children watch on television? In the very near future, the number of 
channels available to every home in America will jump from a few dozen 
to as many as 500 channels. I'm fed up with TV violence. We must give 
parents a tool to block objectionable programs they don't want their 
children to see. For a modest cost, a computer chip can be added to new 
televisions that empowers parents to do this.
  How are you going to explain that you voted for a bill that's a 
blueprint for unprecedented media concentration? Under this bill, a 
single company or individual can buy up most of your town's mass media, 
including an unlimited number of radio stations, two TV stations, and 
even the town newspaper.
  The process under which the House is considering this legislation is 
also flawed. Large portions of this bill were developed in secret, 
behind closed doors. This bill will profoundly affect the shape of 
telecommunications in this country for years to come. It will impact 
every person in the country who owns a telephone, watches TV, or 
listens to radio.
  We shouldn't debate such a far-reaching piece of legislation in a few 
short hours, under a closed rule, without adequate time for debate or 
amendment. Surely, this is no way to legislate.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of efforts to 
address the concerns of consumers about the telecommunications bill now 
before the House.
  Let me say that I believe there is strong support in the House for 
free and open competition among the various elements of the 
telecommunications industry. I also support providing free and open 
competition to the American consumer who should be able to choose 
freely between providers of telephone, cable and other 
telecommunications services.
  The question is not over the merits of free and open competition as a 
goal. There are, however, real questions about how we provide 
sufficient protection for consumers during a transition period to free 
and open competition. A key test is whether adequate time is provided 
to ensure that true competition is present before current regulatory 
protections are eliminated. Failure to provide such protections would 
provide unacceptable opportunities for the abuse of consumers by firms 
which enjoy a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position in their individual 
sectors of the telecommunications industry.
  That is why I oppose in particular the provisions of H.R. 1555 which 
would repeal prematurely the cable rate regulations enacted by Congress 
as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992. H.R. 
1555 would drop overnight all cable rate provisions for most cable 
markets in the Nation and would allow only 15 months before cable rate 
protections are dropped for larger markets, including the City of 
Pittsburgh which I represent.
  I believe that the rush to drop all cable rate regulations is 
completely unacceptable because the timeframe provided by H.R. 1555 is 
insufficient to provide a realistic opportunity for the emergence of 
true competition. Current service providers have had years to enjoy the 
benefits of monopoly control over local cable services. It was only 
with the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992 that local 
consumers were offered some protections from the unjustified rate 
increases and poor service that had been all too common in many parts 
of the Nation. Now, those protections would be eliminated practically 
overnight even though real competition has not been given a decent 
chance to emerge.
  The rush to deregulate opens the floodgates for companies which 
already enjoy a monopoly position in one market to expand their 
dominance to other segments of the telecommunications industry. Along 
the way, ratepayers would be paying for this expansion through higher 
rates because a real alternative to their local monoploy provider is 
not yet in place.
  A clear example of the lack of protection against the power of 
monopoly providers is demonstrated by a provision of H.R. 1555 which 
permits buy-outs of local cable companies by telephone companies, with 
limited exceptions. This provision is contrary to the very principle of 
encouraging competition which is supposed to be the reason for passing 
telecommunications legislation. Why in the world would two monopolies 
compete against each other for their customer base when it would be so 
much easier to simply buy the competition. The result would be one 
super-monopoly taking the place two companies well positioned to 
compete head on. This buy-out provision makes a farce out of the very 
idea of promoting true competition.
  I also oppose provisions of H.R. 1555 which would preempt State 
regulatory authority to ensure that consumers are protected from 
abusive pricing practices. States must be able to play the role of 
consumer advocates in cases where monopolies or quasi-monopolies would 
otherwise possess unregulated opportunities to impose unjustified price 
increases on local ratepayers. The lack of State oversight along with 
the rush to repeal existing regulatory protections make H.R. 1555 a 
virtual road map for how to raise rates for telecommunications 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, I must oppose H.R. 1555 as long as these anti-consumer 
provisions remain part of this legislation. Free and open competition 
must not be taken for granted. It can only emerge over time when 
adequate protections are provided to American families who are being 
put at risk by this rush to deregulate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shays), having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1555), to 
promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower 
prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications 
consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications 
technologies, pursuant to House Resolution 207, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.

[[Page H 8503]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Under the order of the House of the legislative day of August 3, 
1995, the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole is 
adopted. No separate vote is in order.
  The question is on the engrossment and the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with 
instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MARKEY. I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Markey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1555 to the 
     Committee on Commerce with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
       Page 157, after line 21, insert the following new section 
     (and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 304. PARENTAL CHOICE IN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television influences children's perception of the 
     values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (2) Television station operators, cable television system 
     operators, and video programmers should follow practices in 
     connection with video programming that take into 
     consideration that television broadcast and cable programming 
     has established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of 
     American children.
       (3) The average American child is exposed to 25 hours of 
     television each week and some children are exposed to as much 
     as 11 hours of television a day.
       (4) Studies have shown that children exposed to violent 
     video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for 
     violent and aggressive behavior later in life that children 
     not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video 
     programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are 
     acceptable behavior.
       (5) Children in the United States are, on average, exposed 
     to an estimated 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on 
     television by the time the child completes elementary school.
       (6) Studies indicate that children are affected by the 
     pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on 
     television, eroding the ability of parents to develop 
     responsible attitudes and behavior in their children.
       (7) Parents express grave concern over violent and sexual 
     video programming and strongly support technology that would 
     give them greater control to block video programming in the 
     home that they consider harmful to their children.
       (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     empowering parents to limit the negative influences of video 
     programming that is harmful to children.
       (9) Providing parents with timely information about the 
     nature of upcoming video programming and with the 
     technological tools that allow them easily to block violent, 
     sexual, or other programming that they believe harmful to 
     their children is the least restrictive and most narrowly 
     tailored means of achieving that compelling governmental 
     interest.
       (b) Establishment of Television Rating Code.--Section 303 
     of the Act (47 U.S.C. 303) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(v) Prescribe--
       ``(1) on the basis of recommendations from an advisory 
     committee established by the Commission that is composed of 
     parents, television broadcasters, television programming 
     producers, cable operators, appropriate public interest 
     groups, and other interested individuals from the private 
     sector and that is fairly balanced in terms of political 
     affiliation, the
      points of view represented, and the functions to be 
     performed by the committee, guidelines and recommended 
     procedures for the identification and rating of video 
     programming that contains sexual, violent, or other 
     indecent material about which parents should be informed 
     before it is displayed to children, provided that nothing 
     in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize any 
     rating of video programming on the basis of its political 
     or religious content; and
       ``(2) with respect to any video programming that has been 
     rated (whether or not in accordance with the guidelines and 
     recommendations prescribed under paragraph (1)), rules 
     requiring distributors of such video programming to transmit 
     such rating to permit parents to block the display of video 
     programming that they have determined is inappropriate for 
     their children.''.
       (c) Requirement for Manufacture of Televisions That Block 
     Programs.--Section 303 of the Act, as amended by subsection 
     (a), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(w) Require, in the case of apparatus designed to receive 
     television signals that are manufactured in the United States 
     or imported for use in the United States and that have a 
     picture screen 13 inches or greater in size (measured 
     diagonally), that such apparatus be equipped with circuitry 
     designed to enable viewers to block display of all programs 
     with a common rating, except as otherwise permitted by 
     regulations pursuant to section 330(c)(4).''.
       (d) Shipping or Importing of Televisions That Block 
     Programs.--
       (1) Regulations.--Section 330 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 330) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (B) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person 
     shall ship in interstate commerce, manufacture, assemble, or 
     import from any foreign country into the United States any 
     apparatus described in section 303(w) of this Act except in 
     accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission pursuant 
     to the authority granted by that section.
       ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to carriers 
     transporting apparatus referred to in paragraph (1) without 
     trading it.
       ``(3) The rules prescribed by the Commission under this 
     subsection shall provide for the oversight by the Commission 
     of the adoption of standards by industry for blocking 
     technology. Such rules shall require that all such apparatus 
     be able to receive the rating signals which have been 
     transmitted by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking 
     interval and which conform to the signal and blocking 
     specifications established by industry under the supervision 
     of the Commission.
       ``(4) As new video technology is developed, the Commission 
     shall take such action as the Commission determines 
     appropriate to ensure that blocking service continues to be 
     available to consumers. If the Commission determines that an 
     alternative blocking technology exists that--
       ``(A) enables parents to block programming based on 
     identifying programs without ratings,
       ``(B) is available to consumers at a cost which is 
     comparable to the cost of technology that allows parents to 
     block programming based on common ratings, and
       ``(C) will allow parents to block a broad range of programs 
     on a multichannel system as effectively and as easily as 
     technology that allows parents to block programming based on 
     common ratings,
       The Commission shall amend the rules prescribed pursuant to 
     section 303(w) to require that the apparatus described in 
     such section be equipped with either the blocking technology 
     described in such section or the alternative blocking 
     technology described in this paragraph.''.
       ``(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 330(d) of such Act, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking 
     `section 303(s), and section 303(u)' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof `and sections 303(s), 303(u), and 303(w)'.
       ``(e) Applicability and Effective Dates.--
       ``(1) Applicability of rating provision.--The amendment 
     made by subsection (b) of this section shall take effect 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, but only if the 
     Commission determines, in consultation with appropriate 
     public interest groups and interested individuals from the 
     private sector, that distributors of video programming have 
     not, by such date--
       ``(A) established voluntary rules for rating video 
     programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent 
     material about which parents should be informed before it is 
     displayed to children, and such rules are acceptable to the 
     Commission; and
       ``(B) agreed voluntarily to broadcast signals that contain 
     ratings of such programming.
       ``(2) Effective date of manufacture provision.--In 
     prescribing regulations to implement the amendment made by 
     subsection (c), the Federal Communications Commission shall, 
     after consultation with the television manufacturing 
     industry, specify the effective date for the applicability of 
     the requirement to the apparatus covered by such amendment, 
     which date shall not be less than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
  Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask that the motion 
be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the point that I am going to make right now 
is that you have had a nice vote. You have now voted to have the 2000 
study of whether or not violence and sexual programming on television 
has an impact on adolescent children. The conclusion to that study is 
not in question.
  The only question now, Mr. Speaker, is going to be whether or not, as 
we in our recommittal motion let the Coburn study stay in place, we add 
in now the 

[[Page H 8504]]
Markey V-chip amendment as the recommittal. That is it. The Coburn 
study stays in place, and we add on the V-chip as the recommittal 
motion. That is all there is to it; it is no more complicated.
  Mr. Speaker, we ask that Members who care about parents in this 
country please vote for this recommittal motion so that both Coburn and 
the V-chip can be given to them as weapons against the excessive sexual 
and violent programming on television in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very hard fight, 
and for some of us, it is kind of emotional because we have seen what 
happens when violence occurs in the home. I used to see that violence 
on a regular basis when I was a kid, and as I grew up, I started 
watching that same kind of violence on television, and then I say 
society become more and more violent.
  I saw kids start killing other kids. I saw 12-year-old kids raping 
other 10- and 11-year-old children, and we say, ``why is this 
happening?''
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that, in large part, it is due to what Frank 
Wolf of Virginia said a while ago, ``Garbage in, garbage out.'' The 
kids are seeing a steady diet of violence and sex, and there is no way 
for parents who are working day and night to keep their kids safe from 
it. There is no way. This is the only technology that is available that 
will do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I love all my colleagues. I know we have differences of 
opinion. I respect all of them, but I am really disappointed today 
because we have not given the people of this country, the parents, the 
ability to help protect their kids.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my friend 
from Indiana, Mr. Burton, for his courageous fight on this amendment, 
as well as my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. Speaker, the V-chip is based upon a very simple principle that it 
is the parents who should raise the children, not the Government, not 
the corporate executives, not the advertisers, not the network 
executives. It is the parents who are the people responsible for what 
their children see. It is the parents who should have a more powerful 
voice in the marketplace.

                              {time}  1445

  Now this is about the pictures and the images that shape our 
children's minds. This is about giving parents the tools they need to 
stop the garbage from flowing into our living rooms. By the time a 
child gets out of grade school, he will, she will, have seen 8,000 
murders, over 100,000 acts of violence. This bill will help parents let 
Sesame Street in and keep the Texas Chain Saw Massacre out, and that is 
why over 90 percent of the American public support the idea of the V-
chip.
  Now this motion to recommit will allow a straight up-or-down vote on 
the Markey-Burton amendment on the V-chip, and that motion was denied 
by the passage of the Coburn amendment, and I know why the Coburn 
amendment passed, because it contained a lot of language that people 
support.
  This is a graft on top of Coburn. It goes further, and it gives 
parents the control they need.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to give parental control 
over what goes into the minds and the hearts of our children.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the cost of the chip is as little as 18 
cents. For 18 cents on a television set we can give the parent back the 
control of some of the filth, and some of the smut, and some of the 
violence that is coming into the living room.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
  Mr. MARKEY. I reclaim the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, to make 
this final point:
  We sell 25 million television sets a year in the United States. In 2 
years there will be 25 million homes with a V-chip that costs 18 cents 
that every parent can use to protect their children. That is what a yes 
vote on recommittal means. My colleagues will still have the Coburn 
study, if they want it, but parents will have something out of this as 
well, the protection when they are not in the home, when they are not 
in the same room, to be able to block out the violence and sexual 
programming that their 3-, and 4-, and 5-, and 6-year-old little boys 
and girls should not be having access to, should not be in their minds.
  Please vote ``yes'' on recommittal so that we can build the V-chip 
into this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, this has been a good debate on this bill 
over 2 days. Before yielding to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] 
I would just like to take a few moments to thank our respective staffs 
for their hard work and tireless dedication. I would especially like to 
thank Catherine Reid, Michael Regan, Harold Furchgott-Roth and Mike 
O'Reilly of the majority; David Leach with Mr. Dingell's staff; and 
Steve Cope of the Office of Legislative Counsel. The House should 
applaud their fine efforts in bringing this legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] in 
opposition to this motion to recommit.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of the committee, I think 
both Republicans and Democrats, I would like to say a thank you, to the 
Members for their patience, for their good humor, for frankly staying 
awake during these final hours of this very long week. I have just 
three brief points to make:
  No. 1, this House should be very proud. Today we have made history. 
For the first time in 61 years we are preparing to pass a 
telecommunication reform bill that is historic. My colleagues should be 
proud of this effort. It is, therefore, ludicrous to talk about 
recommitting a piece of history that we have just worked so hard to 
craft, and I know this House would not do this afternoon, recommit this 
important and historic piece of legislation, because it would mean 
there is no bill.
  No. 2, there has been a lot of talk about this legislation. I just 
counted in the Markey amendment; it refers to the word ``ratings'' 12 
different times. That point has been lost lately in this discussion. 
Ratings are contained in that measure 12 different times; that is 
contained in the motion to recommit.
  My third point, my colleagues: It is time to go home.
  Please vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the recommittal motion is approved, does 
that kill the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question of passage would still be 
reached.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DINGELL. My purpose in making a parliamentary inquiry is to ask 
the Chair this question:
  If the motion to recommit with instructions occurs, is it not a fact 
that the matter is immediately reported back to the House, at which 
time the vote then occurs on the legislation as amended by the motion 
to recommit with instructions?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The appearance of the word ``forthwith'' in 
the instruction makes it so.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 199, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page H 8505]]


                             [Roll No. 634]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burton
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--199

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Scarborough
     Thurman
     Williams
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1509

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  Mr. FLANAGAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Shays). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House, I 
report the bill, H.R. 1555, back to the House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment: On page 57 after line 21 insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 304. PARENTAL CHOICE IN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television influences children's perception of the 
     values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (2) Television station operators, cable television system 
     operators, and video programmers should following practices 
     in connection with video programming that take into 
     consideration that television broadcast and cable programming 
     has established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of 
     American children.
       (3) The average American child is exposed to 25 hours of 
     television each week and some children are exposed to as much 
     as 11 hours of television a day.
       (4) Studies have shown that children exposed to violent 
     video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for 
     violent and aggressive behavior later in life that children 
     not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video 
     programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are 
     acceptable behavior.
       (5) Children in the United States are, on average, exposed 
     to an estimated 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on 
     television by the time the child completes elementary school.
       (6) Studies indicate that children are affected by the 
     pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on 
     television, eroding the ability of parents to develop 
     responsible attitudes and behavior in their children.
       (7) Parents express grave concern over violent and sexual 
     video programming and strongly support
      technology that would give them greater control to block 
     video programming in the home that they consider harmful 
     to their children.
       (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     empowering parents to limit the negative influences of video 
     programming that is harmful to children.
       (9) Providing parents with timely information about the 
     nature of upcoming video programming and with the 
     technological tools that allow them easily to block violent, 
     sexual, or other programming that they believe harmful to 
     their children is the least restrictive and most narrowly 
     tailored means of achieving that compelling governmental 
     interest.
       (b) Establishment of Television Rating Code.--Section 303 
     of the Act (47 U.S.C. 303) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(v) Prescribe.--
       ``(1) on the basis of recommendations from an advisory 
     committee established by the Commission that is composed of 
     parents, television broadcasters, television programming 
     producers, cable operators, appropriate public interest 
     groups, and other interested individuals from the private 
     sector and that is fairly balanced in terms of political 
     affiliation, the points of view represented, and the 
     functions to be performed by the committee, guidelines and 
     recommended procedures for the identification and rating of 
     video programming that contains sexual, violent, or other 
     indecent material about which parents should be informed 
     before it is displayed to children, provided that nothing in 
     this paragraph shall be construed to authorize any rating of 
     video programming on the basis of its political or religious 
     content; and
       ``(2) with respect to any video programming that has been 
     rated (whether or not in accordance with the guidelines and 
     recommendations prescribed under paragraph (1)), rules 
     requiring distributors of such video programming to transmit 
     such rating to permit parents to block the display of video 
     programming that they have determined is inappropriate for 
     their children.''.
       (c) Requirement for Manufacture of Televisions that Block 
     Programs.--Section 303 of the Act, as amended by subsection 
     (a), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(w) Require, in the case of apparatus designed to receive 
     television signals that are manufactured in the United States 
     or imported for use in the United States and that have a 
     picture screen 13 inches or greater in size (measured 
     diagonally), that such apparatus be equipped with circuitry 
     designed to 

[[Page H 8506]]
     enable viewers to block display of all programs with a common rating, 
     except as otherwise permitted by regulations pursuant to 
     section 330(c)(4).''.
       (d) Shipping or Importing of Televisions That Block 
     Programs.--
       (1) Regulations.--Section 330 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 330) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (B) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c)(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person 
     shall ship in interstate commerce, manufacture, assemble, or 
     import from any foreign country into the United States any 
     apparatus described in section 303(w) of this Act except in 
     accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission pursuant 
     to the authority granted by that section.
       ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to carriers 
     transporting apparatus referred to in paragraph (1) without 
     trading it.
       ``(3) The rules prescribed by the Commission under this 
     subsection shall provide for the oversight by the Commission 
     of the adoption of standards by industry for blocking 
     technology. Such rules shall require that all such apparatus 
     be able to receive the rating signals which have been 
     transmitted by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking 
     interval and which conform to the signal and blocking 
     specifications established by industry under the supervision 
     of the Commission.
       ``(4) As new video technology is developed, the Commission 
     shall take such action as the Commission determines 
     appropriate to ensure that blocking service continues to be 
     available to consumers. If the Commission determines that an 
     alternative blocking technology exists that--
       ``(A) enables parents to block programming based on 
     identifying programs without ratings,
       ``(B) is available to consumers at a cost which is 
     comparable to the cost of technology that allows parents to 
     block programming based on common ratings, and
       ``(C) will allow parents to block a broad range of programs 
     on a multichannel system as effectively and as easily as 
     technology that allows parents to block programming based on 
     common ratings, the Commission shall amend the rules 
     prescribed pursuant to section 303(w) to require that the 
     apparatus described in such section be equipped with either 
     the blocking technology described in such section or the 
     alternative blocking technology described in this 
     paragraph.''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 330(d) of such Act, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking 
     ``section 303(s), and section 303(u)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``and sections 303(s), 303(u), and 303(w)''.
       (e) Applicability and Effective Dates.--
       (1) Applicability of rating provision.--The amendment made 
     by subsection (b) of this section shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, but only if the 
     Commission determines, in consultation with appropriate 
     public interest groups and interested individuals from the 
     private sector, that distributors of video programming have 
     not, by such date--
       (A) established voluntary rules for rating video 
     programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent 
     material about which parents should be informed before it is 
     displayed to children, and such rules are acceptable to the 
     Commission; and
       (B) agreed voluntarily to broadcast signals that contain 
     ratings of such programming.
       (2) Effective date of manufacturing provision.--In 
     prescribing regulations to implement the amendment made by 
     subsection (c), the Federal Communications Commission shall, 
     after consultation with the television manufacturing 
     industry, specify the effective date for the applicability of 
     the requirement to the apparatus covered by such amendment, 
     which date shall not be less than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. BLILEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 305, 
noes 117, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 635]

                               AYES--305

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--117

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Clayton
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thornton
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Deutsch
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Scarborough
     Thurman
     Williams
     Young (AK)
     
[[Page H 8507]]


                              {time}  1527

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________