Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 129 (Friday, August 4, 1995)

[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.''

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.

[[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.

____________________