[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 159 (Friday, October 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15144-S15152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995--MESSAGE 
                             FROM THE HOUSE

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate a 

[[Page S 15145]]
message from the House of Representatives on S. 652 a bill to provide 
for a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed 
to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced 
telecommunications and information technologies and services to all 
Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and 
for other purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendments to the 
     bill (S. 652) entitled ``An Act to provide for a pro-
     competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed 
     to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced 
     telecommunications and information technologies and services 
     to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to 
     competition, and for other purposes'', and ask a conference 
     with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     thereon.
       Ordered, That the following Members be the managers of the 
     conference on the part of the House:
       From the Committee on Commerce: Mr. Bliley, Mr. Fields of 
     Texas, Mr. Oxley, Mr. White, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
     Boucher, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Rush: Provided, Mr. Pallone is 
     appointed in lieu of Mr. Boucher solely for consideration of 
     section 205 of the Senate bill.
       As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 1-6, 
     101-104, 106-107, 201, 204-205, 221-225, 301-305, 307-311, 
     401-402, 405-406, 410, 601-606, 703, and 705 of the Senate 
     bill, and title I of the House amendment, and modifications 
     committed to conference: Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Barton of Texas, 
     Mr. Hastert, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Klug, Mr. Frisa, Mr. Stearns, Mr. 
     Brown of Ohio, Mr. Gordon, and Mrs. Lincoln.
       As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 102, 
     202-203, 403, 407-409, and 706 of the Senate bill, and title 
     II of the House amendment, and modifications committed to 
     conference: Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Hastert, and Mr. Frisa.
       As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 105, 
     206, 302, 306, 312, 501-505, and 701-702 of the Senate bill, 
     and title III of the House amendment, and modifications 
     committed to conference: Mr. Stearns, Mr. Paxon and Mr. Klug.
       As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 7-8, 
     226, 404, and 704 of the Senate bill, and titles IV-V of the 
     House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 
     Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Hastert, and Mr. Klug.
       As additional conferees, for consideration of title VI of 
     the House amendment, and modifications committed to 
     conference: Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Klug.
       As additional conferees from the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, for consideration of the Senate bill (except 
     sections 1-6, 101-104, 106-107, 201, 204-205, 221-225, 301-
     305, 307-311, 401-402, 405-406, 410, 601-606, 703, and 705), 
     and of the House amendment (except title I), and 
     modifications committed to conference: Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
     Moorhead, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. 
     Conyers, Mrs. Schroeder, and Mr. Bryant of Texas.
       As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 1-6, 
     101-104, 106-107, 201, 204-205, 221-225, 301-305, 307-311, 
     401-402, 405-406, 410, 601-606, 703, and 705 of the Senate 
     bill, and title I of the House amendment, and modifications 
     committed to conference: Mr. Hyde, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. 
     Goodlatte, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Barr, 
     Mr. Hoke, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bryant 
     of Texas, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Jackson-Lee.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
hours of debate divided in the following manner: 90 minutes under the 
control of Senators Dorgan and Kerrey of Nebraska, 30 minutes under the 
control of Senator Pressler.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If the Senate should agree later today, I believe that 
the Chair will be appointing the following conferees to the 
telecommunications bill. If the Chair so appoints and if there is not 
objection, Senators Pressler, Stevens, McCain, Burns, Gorton, Lott, 
Hollings, Inouye, Ford, Exon, and Rockefeller will be named as 
conferees.
  Mr. President, let me summarize for the Senate where we stand on the 
telecommunications bill.
  The House and Senate have both passed major bills reforming the 
Telecommunications Act of 1934, bringing it up to date, and also making 
certain changes in our Nation's telecommunications laws. In addition, 
there are efforts to make it more procompetitive and deregulatory but 
also to protect the rights of the consumers in our country and to move 
the telecommunications bill forward.
  We are in a situation today that our Nation very much needs to 
modernize its telecommunications laws. A House-Senate conference will 
soon begin to iron out the differences between the Senate and the House 
versions of telecommunications. We are doing this on a bipartisan 
basis, and I hope that it will proceed quickly and thoroughly.
  I look forward to working with those Senators and all Members of this 
Chamber. Let me say, Mr. President, that although there are certain 
conferees named, all Senators are invited to have input, as they have 
had on this bill. I commend Senator Hollings of South Carolina, the 
ranking Democrat and former chairman of the Commerce Committee, who has 
provided so much leadership on this bill. Indeed, he has brought to 
this process a very bipartisan spirit, and I look forward to working 
with him and the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House.
  Mr. President, I reserve as much time as I may have and I note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to have a discussion this morning 
prior to the Senate appointment of conferees to the telecommunications 
bill.
  After the appointment of conferees, there will then be a conference 
between the House and Senate on the telecommunications bill. This bill 
is very important. The telecommunications bill is the first substantial 
change in telecommunications law since the 1930's.
  All of us know what has happened in this country to communication 
since the 1930's. I mean, it is breathtaking the kinds of changes we 
have seen in the communications industry and for everybody in this 
country. So when this Congress sits down and decides to make changes to 
law--and we should and must--the question is, How will those changes 
affect our country? Who will they affect? What will they affect?
  One of the things I have been very concerned about is the issue of 
universal service for telephone service. You know, it is more costly to 
have telephone service in a town of 100 people in South Dakota, North 
Dakota, or Montana, than it is to have telephone service in New York 
City. Why is that? Well, because the fixed costs of providing telephone 
service in New York can be spread over millions of phone instruments, 
but in Grenora, ND, the fixed costs are spread over relatively few 
telephones.
  But is the telephone in Grenora, ND, or Regent, ND, any less 
important than the telephone in New York City? No. One is used to call 
the other. The absence of one makes the other less valuable. Universal 
service in telephone service is important. It has been a concept in 
this country we have understood and protected for a long, long time.
  We must make sure to protect universal service in the 
telecommunications legislation. People say, ``Well, this bill is about 
competition.'' I love the flowery language about opening up the petals 
of competition, competition in the marketplace; worshiping at that 
altar is what is going to allow us to flourish and provide vast new 
opportunities in communications for everyone in our country.
  I want to talk a little bit about that competition today. One can 
conceive of competition in a rural area being someone saying, ``I want 
to come into this rural county''--where you barely have a telephone 
structure and are able to survive currently--``and I want to pick the 
only town that exists out in that county and serve that. That is all I 
want to serve.'' What about the rest of it that cannot stand by itself? 
``That doesn't matter to me because I only want to compete in that 
small town.''
  That is the kind of thing we have to be concerned about. We need 
legislation that protects us and provides universal service for the 
long term. We made progress on universal service in the 
telecommunications bill. Now, we just have to keep universal service 
intact in the conference. That is critically important.
  There are two other areas that concern me greatly. 

[[Page S 15146]]

  The two areas are this:
  One is, when should local telephone carriers who essentially have a 
monopoly be free to compete in long distance? And should the Department 
of Justice have a role in determining when there is competition in the 
local exchange so that that carrier then is free to compete in long 
distance? The bill is set up pretty much like it is for airlines.
  The airline situation says that if a couple airlines want to merge, 
the Department of Transportation determines whether it is in the public 
interest, and they make the decision, and they say to the Department of 
Justice and the antitrust folks over there, ``We will allow you to 
advise us on what you think, but we will make the decision at the 
Department of Transportation.''
  Guess what? There has not been a merger that these folks have not 
loved to death. It does not matter which kind of corporations want to 
marry. Two airlines want to marry each other? Just fine. The Department 
of Justice might say, ``This is going to be anti-competitive, it is 
going to increase fares, it is not going to be in the public 
interest.'' But guess what? The Department of Transportation says, 
``Well, it's just fine with us. Just get hitched. Merge up. That's 
fine.''
  What do we have in this country these days? We see all these big 
airlines swallow the little airlines, either they crush them or they 
swallow them, one of the two, whichever they have the opportunity to 
do.
  And if they decide to buy them and merge, the Department of Justice 
might say, ``Well, you know, they are trying to take out their 
competition here. It will be less competitive if you have this 
merger.'' The Department of Transportation says, ``It doesn't matter to 
us. We will allow them to merge anyway.''
  That is what the experience has been. If you like that and think that 
is the right approach, then you do what is done in the Senate bill on 
telephones and communications. You say the same thing, prevent the 
Department of Justice from having a role in determining whether you 
have anticompetitive practices.
  That does not make any sense to me. This bill is advertised with neon 
lights and bells and bands as being a bill for competition. ``It 
provides America the fruits and flowers of competition.'' Well, if that 
is the case, why would you not allow the Justice Department and the 
antitrust people in the Justice Department to weigh in on the question 
of when are you involved in anticompetitive practices? When is there 
truly competition in local exchanges so the local telephone carriers 
can then be free to compete in long distance?
  The second area I want to talk about is whether there should be 
limits in this country on the number of television stations you can 
own. Or, the number of radio stations you can own.
  Why is that important? We now have in law a limit that you can only 
own 12 television stations. It says 12 is the limit; and those 12 can 
reach no more than 25 percent of the American population. Now, why 
would we have a law like that? Well, because we believe that there 
ought to be competition in the flow of communications and ideas and in 
the media.
  How do you promote competition? By broad-based ownership; that is 
how. If you get concentration of ownership, if you get half a dozen 
companies owning everything, you do not have competition. So we said, 
in the television industry, you can only own 12 television stations 
that reach no more than 25 percent of the population.
  Now, we write a bill, the telecommunications bill, that we say 
promotes this idea of competition, and guess what, the bill says, ``By 
the way, we are going to change the law. Now you can have as many 
television stations as you want. You want to own 100? God bless you. 
You can own 100. It is no problem with us,'' they said. ``And we want 
to, by the way, allow you to own as many as you want up to 50 percent 
of the population.'' Then they thought better of it and said, ``OK, we 
better compromise; 35 percent of the population.'' So you can own as 
many television stations as you want that reach 35 percent of the 
population in this country.
  Well, anybody worth their salt knows what is going to happen as a 
result of that. We will see a half dozen companies in America owning 
almost all the television stations in our country. And if you look 
surprised 10 years from now when we reach that point and stand on the 
floor of the Senate and say, ``Gee,'' scratch our head and say, ``Gee, 
I never thought that would happen,'' let me just tell you it is going 
to happen. You know it is going to happen. And it's not good for this 
country. This is about pressure, politics, and big money; it is not 
about good economics and good competition. Look what has already been 
happening in this country. Mega media mergers. This is not a discussion 
in which I am trying to be pejorative about all these mergers. Some are 
probably just fine.
  People say, ``There's all this competition. Why should you worry 
about somebody owning more than 12 televisions stations? We have 250 
channels or 500 channels.'' That sounds interesting. One of the major 
networks owns 19 cable channels, 19. So when you say we have 19 
channels, is that competition where the same company owns it? I do not 
think so.
  Here is a new mega media merger. We witnessed their big grins, 
smoking their cigars talking about this merger. Time Warner and Turner 
Broadcasting Co. Both are good companies. People I admire work for 
these companies. But let us look at the size of these companies. Time 
Warner decides to merge with Turner, for a total of $18.7 billion in 
revenue. Look at their cable holdings: CNN, TBS, TNT, Court TV, HBO, 
Cinemax, Comedy Central, Warner Brothers Television Network, New York 1 
News Channel, on and on. You see the publications, the cable systems.
  Mr. KERREY. I wonder if my friend from North Dakota will yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. KERREY. First of all, I ask my friend from North Dakota, Mr. 
President, is it not the case that one of the arguments we have heard 
all along for this bill that we are going to get more competition?
  Are Time Warner and Turner competitive?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. Will we not get less competition as a consequence of 
bringing these two companies together?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, that is exactly the point. When you have mergers, it 
means companies that used to be two get married up and now they are 
one.
  Mr. KERREY. I wonder if my friend also will talk about something else 
that I think is terribly important. That is, all of us, when we go home 
and talk to people who are working, they feel a great deal of 
insecurity about their jobs today. As I saw that announcement, it seems 
to me I heard them say that there may be somewhere between 5,000 and 
10,000 fewer jobs as a consequence of this merger, that they are 
expected to have some savings, as they call it, as a consequence. I 
believe I also saw Ted Turner is going to get $20 million a year for 5 
years and Mike Milken got $50 million for shaking hands, none of which 
I doubt will benefit those people who will lose their jobs.
  James Fallows the other morning talked about the fact that a single 
corporation, Boeing, laid more people off in the last 5 years than 
every corporation in Japan has over that comparable period of time.
  What is going on, I ask my friend from North Dakota? We heard all 
through this debate that this piece of legislation was going to create 
jobs, that we are going to get more opportunity, that this is going to 
be good for the American worker? Do you see it that way?
  Mr. DORGAN. I do not see it that way. I am going to go through a 
couple of charts and talk about the mergers, the corporate weddings 
where people get together and say, ``Bigger is better. There used to be 
two, we are now going to be one, we don't have to compete. We control 
the markets.''
  They say, ``This is all about competition. We are going to have 
competition and competition is good for people.'' Not in this case. 
This is about concentration, the issue of whether you ought to limit 
the number of television stations you own to 12, as in current law. 
Some feel maybe we ought to make an adjustment. It should not be a 
political adjustment by somebody in Congress who says, ``Gee, let's 
remove the shackles from the folks who want to buy 100 television 
stations.'' Maybe that ought to be made by the Federal Communications 
Commission after an 

[[Page S 15147]]
evaluation of what represents effective and good competition, what is 
in the public interest.
  ABC and Walt Disney got hitched a couple months ago; ABC and Disney. 
Let us look at what all this means. Disney, 11 television stations so 
far: Walt Disney Television, Touchstone, Buena Vista. They have cable: 
Disney channel, ESPN, Lifetime, they have 10 FM radio stations, 11 AM 
radio stations, publications, retail, motion pictures.
  Put all of this together and what do they have? Less competition. Is 
that bad? Not necessarily. I am not saying every merger is bad. I say 
when you look at the confluence of mergers in this industry, you cannot 
conclude at the end of that look that this is good for competition. You 
cannot at the same time brag about the virtues of competition and then 
create a bill that gives you a fast slide toward more concentration. 
That does not fit.
  CBS and Westinghouse just announced they were fond of each other and 
decided they would have an arrangement to get together. I do not know 
much about either of them, but let us look: 15 television stations 
owned by CBS broadcasting; Westinghouse has 18 AM stations, 21 FM 
stations; they have cable channels, publications, a whole range of 
broadcasting properties, $4.5 billion revenue.
  Another merger, Gannett and Multimedia--15 television stations, $4.5 
billion revenue.
  NBC and GE, they are folks looking around to figure out who they can 
put together. There have been no mergers here, but there is lots of 
speculation in the press about if this group is able to be out there 
alone when everybody else is forming new partnerships. Fox, take a look 
at Fox.
  Mr. KERREY. I wonder if my friend will yield for an additional 
question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. KERREY. One of the things the public needs to understand, it 
seems to me, is that these companies have been given public franchises. 
They made their money not as a consequence of going out and starting a 
business and trying to get customers to buy their product. Their 
business began by coming to Washington, DC, and getting a public 
franchise, in many cases a monopoly franchise.
  The phone company is a monopoly. It is not a competitive business. It 
is not a farm in North Dakota or a manufacturer in Nebraska. This is 
not a person who said, ``Gee, I have an idea. I want to go to my bank, 
borrow a little bit of money, put a little bit of my money on the line, 
go into business and get customers to buy my products.''
  You have 12 stations on that list on the left. These are franchises 
granted by the people's Government to these businesses. In the case of 
each of these stations, even if some of them do not make any money, 
just by holding a contract with the Government, the franchise that they 
have been given has value. They sometimes sell these stations for 20 
times earnings simply because people know that there are a limited 
number of franchises. There are only so many that we can grant to these 
companies.
  So they own something that the people have given them, they have made 
money as a consequence of the Government having granted them a license, 
and now they come in and object, very often, to us putting rules in 
place. They say, ``Oh, no, let the market take care of this.''
  They did not make their money off the market to begin with. 
Certainly, they are out there selling and certainly there is a 
competitive environment. It seems to me, however, that it is a 
different kind of business than most small businesses and most 
entrepreneurs and most free enterprise capitalists who start off and 
try and engage in the competitive exercise of producing revenue from 
customers.
  Mr. DORGAN. I agree with the Senator. The point is, these are 
important properties, and the reason we provide them franchises is the 
communication industry is a very important industry. I am not unmindful 
of the fact that some of these are very good corporations, very well 
run. I am not critical of individual corporations. I am critical of a 
mindset that says it does not matter how big you get, you can combine 
all you want and earn all you want and the public interest be damned. I 
am critical of that, because I think there is a public interest in 
maintaining and fostering competition in this country. The fewer 
corporations you have in an industry, the greater concentration you 
have, by definition the less competition you have. And that does not 
auger well for the American people.
  The Wall Street Journal has an article. I want to read the headline: 
``Immediate Consolidation Has Left and Right Worried About Big Firms 
Getting a Lock on Information.''
  You talk about an odd couple. A picture of Bill Bennett and Jesse 
Jackson. That is both ends of the political spectrum, both of them 
essentially saying the same things: Worried about media concentration, 
media consolidation, stemming the flow of ideas, the competition that 
comes from having ideas moving from different centers of energy.
  We need to reform our telecommunications laws. But this bill is in 
deep, deep trouble. If you try to push this bill through the White 
House, I think the President is going to veto it. I think what he said 
publicly indicates he is going to veto it, and I think he should veto 
it. He ought not in a million years allow a bill to come to the White 
House where a bunch of politicians decide, ``Hey, boys, let's take the 
limit off the number of television stations you can own. Let's say the 
sky is the limit.'' That is not in the public interest. That may be 
part of a deal somebody wants to make around here, but that is not in 
the public interest.
  That is why when we had a vote on an amendment I offered, with the 
help of the Senator Bob Kerry from Nebraska, we prevailed, that is why 
we won. A lot of folks did not feel comfortable voting against an 
amendment that says, ``Hey, let's have the FCC determine what kind of 
limits are in the public interest, instead of a bunch of politicians 
saying we are arbitrarily going to say the sky is the limit on the 
number of television stations you own.''
  So we won the vote, and then, politics of course--and somebody 
changes their vote and we lose.
  The reason I come to the floor today is to say, if you try to push 
this kind of bill without a role for the Department of Justice on the 
issue of antitrust and on the issue of where there is competition with 
respect to the telephone industry, and when local carriers who have a 
monopoly are free to go out and compete in the long distance area, if 
you try to push a bill without the opportunity for the Justice 
Department to weigh in on this question of public interest and 
competition, I think the President will veto it.
  If you try to push a telecommunications bill through conference 
committee that says the sky is the limit on television ownership, we do 
not care about concentration--the bigger the better, and the less 
competition the better, I think this President will veto it.
  In conference, if we can make changes in this bill dealing with 
ownership limits on television stations and radio stations and make 
some changes with respect to the role of the Department of Justice, I 
think this bill will advance. If it keeps protection for universal 
service, then this bill can and will advance and should be signed by 
the President. If not, I hope very much the President says, no, this is 
radical and extreme and should not pass.
  I yield the floor to my friend from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend from North 
Dakota for this presentation. I would like to be able to vote for a 
piece of legislation. I have spent a great deal of time on 
telecommunications. I am prepared to not only embrace the future but 
place a bet that there is tremendous opportunity for us in technology. 
Many of our systems need to rapidly acquire the transmission capacity 
to use these new technologies, as the computer moves from a calculating 
device to a communication device--I think, especially, for example, for 
our university systems.
  I just had a meeting a couple of weeks ago in Nebraska with an 
individual with a very large software company who happens to be from a 
farm not far from Ashland, NE, and who came back to try to help us 
bring computer technology into our university. It is a tough 
transition. The university is sitting there with a real problem. They 

[[Page S 15148]]
have increased enrollment as people recognize that a college degree is 
worth an awful lot more than a high school degree. Student enrollment 
has almost doubled in a 4-year period as that demand goes up. In 
addition, what a person needs to know coming out of college is that 
there is a doubling, tripling, quadrupling of the requirements of the 
universities and they cannot get the professors and instructors to do 
more for less. The tax base will not allow us to build more buildings 
rapidly enough to be able to accommodate the demands. Only one thing 
can do that for us, and that is computer technology.
  We are trying to figure out how to get these systems into an old 
system that does not replace the old system but augments it. Well, 
there are real serious problems trying to make those adjustments. We 
just got a couple of grants to match local commitments for three 
schools in the State through the Department of Education, and that will 
leverage a great deal of the private sector, as well as local money, to 
get the job done. But those are a couple of schools amongst many who 
are trying to bring this technology into the educational environment. I 
was pleased that a majority of this body, the Senate--I do not believe 
it is in the House bill--but in the Senate language we included a 
provision I cosponsored which provides for preferential rates for local 
K-12 schools. Connectivity may represent only 17 percent of the total 
cost of bringing information technology into local schools, but it is 
an awful lot of money. It is a principal barrier for many communities 
that do not, as I say, have competitive choice; they do not have 
competitive choice now, and they are not likely to see it for a long 
period of time.
  So I do not want anybody to suffer under the illusion that I do not 
support change. I believe our telecommunications laws need to be 
changed. I am prepared to embrace the future. I am prepared to put down 
a bet. I am prepared to help institutions from the K-through-12 
environment through the postsecondary, and indeed for Congress to bring 
this technology in so it becomes part of our core competency so that we 
are able to improve our efficiency.
  We are going to debate in reconciliation the earned-income tax 
credit. One of the biggest reasons EITC has had trouble has nothing to 
do with the merits of being able to help people at the lower end of the 
economic scale--a woman, for example, that you see at your checkout 
stand at the grocery store making $7, $8 an hour, $12,000 to $15,000 a 
year, trying to support a couple of kids. That is better than being on 
welfare. So we want to refund your taxes and give you a couple thousand 
dollars so you can buy health insurance. Well, the IRS has a tough time 
doing it because it does not have a good information system.
  I am prepared to embrace technology and place a bet because I believe 
there is tremendous merit in it. However, if we change the law to 
produce less competition, not more, to concentrate the power into fewer 
and fewer hands, to concentrate not only the power of economic 
decisions--but, I point out to Americans, it will concentrate the power 
of the individuals to be making decisions about what to tell us is 
going on in the world--these deals being done in anticipation of this 
law being changed will present Americans in their homes with fewer news 
choices. Fewer people will be telling us what is going on out there in 
the world.
  I would love to be able to stand on this floor and vote for a piece 
of legislation that changes the law. I believe strongly, first of all, 
that there needs to be preferential rates for education. I believe 
strongly what the Senator from North Dakota is saying, that 
concentration in television stations would be a mistake. I believe 
strongly, as well, that we are far better off, instead of having a 10-
part test that the Federal Communications Commission is going to look 
at to determine whether there is competition, to have the Department of 
Justice with a role in making the decision regarding entry by the 
regional Bell operating companies into the long distance market.
  Mr. President, earlier, before I came to the floor, I was discussing 
with staff the reconciliation bill, trying to prepare myself for that 
debate. There is a lot about it that we do not know yet. We have not 
seen the details on the Medicaid proposal or the Medicare proposal, and 
there is a lot of discussion on the tax side of it and so forth.
  One of the things I have said to staff is--and I will say to the 
people at home when discussing this--before we can talk about what kind 
of a budget we have here in Washington, we have to have jobs and growth 
and income out there in the private sector. That is where the money 
comes from. One of the most remarkable constants in this town over the 
last 70-80 years, really--is that the percentage of money that we 
withdraw for Federal expenditures from the economy has stayed, except 
for World War II and the Vietnam war, roughly 19 percent. It is about 
$1 out of $5 we bring to Washington for a variety of things. One of the 
disturbing things I find is that we are transferring more and more of 
that and investing less of it. Almost 7 cents out of every 10 cents, or 
70 cents out of every dollar today, is transferred out for retirement, 
health care, or other sorts of things. That is a real concern.
  We now know there is a great deal of consensus--and some may not 
believe this, but I believe that it is important for us to have laws, 
whether it is the regulations we have or the tax laws we have, and it 
is important for us to have expenditure patterns that produce economic 
growth.
  Without economic growth, without people out there that are willing to 
invest money and willing to run the risk, whether it is a big or small 
business, it seems to me that we have serious problems.
  Indeed, during the week that we took off to be at home last week, the 
Census Bureau came out with numbers that showed that as a result of the 
economic growth that we have been enjoying in the last 15-some months, 
we have seen the rates of poverty drop--not just the rates of poverty, 
but the number of people who are trapped in poverty has decreased. In 
almost every State--certainly in Nebraska--as a result of economic 
growth, we saw a substantial decrease of almost 20 percent in the 
number of people who are in poverty.
  Now, the alarming thing in that--we know if we have rules and 
regulations and tax structure and expenditure patterns that produce 
economic growth, which we have to constantly watch and make sure that 
we have, if we have economic growth then we do see the boats of those 
who are poor begin to lift, a good piece of news.
  However, the Census Bureau said there is a continuation of the 
widening between the economic haves--those in the work force, not on 
welfare, at the lower end of the economic spectrum --and those like 
Members of Congress that are at the higher end of the economic 
spectrum. There is a widening gap. The market growth all by itself does 
not seem to be fixing that problem.
  One of the downward pressures upon wages in this country is the 
concentration of power. No question about it. You cannot read whether 
it is a bank merger or a megamedia deal that the Senator from North 
Dakota talked about earlier, every single one of the transactions talks 
about thousands of people being laid off. Every one.
  You have the Time-Warner-Turner deal up there earlier, that was the 
most egregious example, because they said 5,000 to 10,000 jobs would be 
lost. However, the good news is Ted Turner will get $20 million a year 
for 5 years and a convicted felon will get $50 million--Mike Milken.
  Workers out there are saying, well, we are doing everything we are 
supposed to be doing; should the laws of this country be written so 
that people can come in and merge the deal? And maybe it is a good 
deal. I am not coming down here proposing we change the law to prohibit 
this, but it is painfully obvious that inside of this transaction we 
are creating something that will create significant problems: 5,000 to 
10,000 people being laid off, and a couple of guys making a heck of a 
lot of money.
  It is not like we are talking about somebody starting a chain of 
restaurants or somebody--a doctor or somebody--that started a business 
from scratch.
  These are companies that made their money as a consequence of a 
Government franchise. They were given the right to broadcast. They were 
given the 

[[Page S 15149]]
right to operate cable companies. They did not go out there and start 
this business out there in the wild blue yonder.
  Mr. BURNS. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERREY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BURNS. Would you also relate what you are talking about to the 
Homestead Act?
  Were the farms and lands granted to individual ownership by an act of 
the Homestead Act?
  Mr. KERREY. If you want to talk of the Homestead Act, it has many 
specific requirements for the individual to develop, and if they worked 
the land and developed the land, they owned the land.
  Mr. BURNS. Would you make the same comparison that spectrum--even 
though granted by this Government--has no value unless investment is 
made in equipment to make it valuable in the Government, I suggest to 
my friend in Nebraska, the Government did not go out there and buy--did 
not put up the tower, did not pay for the technology.
  Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to acknowledge that is the case, in fact. No 
question that it is true that when we give somebody a monopoly 
franchise, when we give them that and say it is yours, there is no 
question they have to make an investment.
  Mr. BURNS. Did we not make the same requirements when we gave the 
land, probably what your house sets on, and our house and my house, 
probably the folks up there, did we not make the same demand that we 
had to make----
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Montana, what is 
the point? I acknowledge that is the case.
  Mr. BURNS. The point is that the land was granted and then there was 
a property right. The point is there was a property right--they could 
buy and sell that land from that point on without Government intrusion.
  I just want to make that comparison, and I also ask is there anything 
in this act----
  Mr. KERREY. I can answer the question, now I understand what the 
Senator is saying.
  You are saying that bandwidth and a piece of real estate are the 
same? They are not the same. In that regard they are not the same. The 
people's airwaves are licensed.
  Mr. BURNS. If it were not for the Homestead Act you could say it is 
people's land.
  Mr. KERREY. It is not the same.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Montana, did the Senator 
believe we should not pass laws restricting what broadcasters can put 
over the airwaves? We do not have similar laws for people in their 
home. I can engage in any kind of discussion I want inside my house.
  Do you think, I ask the Senator from Montana, should we have 
pornography laws in place or let the market dictate--they own it, for 
gosh sakes. Let them put whatever they want over the airwaves. Does the 
Senator from Montana believe the Government should not write decency 
laws in place to protect the communities?
  Mr. BURNS. I imagine if you did that on private land you will have a 
neighbor holler at you.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask the Senator from Montana a question: Does he 
believe that the people of the United States, having granted a 
franchise to somebody to operate a service using a piece of the 
frequency bandwidth, should say, ``You own it, do whatever you want? It 
is yours, have some fun with it. If you want to show pornography on 
television at 6 o'clock go do it.''
  I am asking the Senator from Montana, does he believe that the 
people's laws should be written to protect against pornography, or does 
he believe we ought to change the laws to say, no, you own that, we get 
rid of pornography laws, let the market take care of it?
  Mr. BURNS. I say there are certain rules but there are rules and 
regulations placed on land ownership.
  I want to say that the land originally that was purchased by this 
Government through the Louisiana Purchase was paid for by the taxpayers 
of this country, taken from the Treasury. And then it was given, 160 
acres to anybody that wanted it, who could stake it out and build a 
house and make it produce. After that it becomes--
  I say what is the difference when you take a grant from a Government 
on a resource----
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me reclaim my time, if the Senator would indulge me.
  Mr. KERREY. I have the floor, Mr. President. I yielded to the 
distinguished Senator from Montana to ask a question and we have gone 
beyond that.
  I am perfectly willing to have a debate about the comparative 
analysis between the Homestead Act and private property and franchises 
granted to phone companies to have a monopoly to deliver a local 
telephone service or to a television station or radio station to 
broadcast over public airspace.
  I am perfectly willing to acknowledge certainly there is a similarity 
in having granted that franchise that people make substantial 
investments.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would yield, the Senator from Montana 
raises an interesting but irrelevant question.
  It is always interesting to hear irrelevant questions but this is 
irrelevant.
  I guess the proposition you are trying to develop here is that 
concentration does not matter. If you receive a franchise to send a 
television signal, you have that and you do what you want. If you want 
to concentrate and bring them into one ownership pattern in this 
country that is fine.
  The issue here we are talking about is concentration--not the 
television band, but the concentration.
  I bet the Senator from Montana cares a little bit about concentration 
in the meatpacking industry. We have not talked about that. But I bet 
when you have three, four, five companies commanding 85 to 90 percent 
of the meatpacking industry, creating the neck on top of that bottle 
that forces down ranchers and holds their prices down, I bet the 
Senator from Montana cares about that.
  If he does, and I think he does, and I care not only about that but I 
care about the big agrifactories that will be the superagrifactories 
farming America pretty soon, the fewer family farmers we have the more 
concentration you have and the less advantage you will have for the 
consumer because it is not in this country's interest to see 
concentration. It is in this country's interest to see broad-based 
economic ownership.
  If it is true that the Senator from Montana believes that 
concentration in the meatpacking industry is a problem, and I think he 
does, and God bless him for that, I think that is in the interest of 
Montana ranchers and North Dakota ranchers to believe that, is there a 
point at which the Senator from Montana would believe that 
concentration in this industry is a problem?
  If there is, then we ought to debate where is that point. He may 
figure you can have a dozen more of these mergers and there is not a 
problem but this will be a point, I assume, where he might also think 
that the concentration in an industry we are moving about ideas and 
information is as dangerous in this country as the concentration in the 
meatpacking industry is to his ranchers.
  If that is the case, then we ought to be debating not whether 
concentration is good or bad, but how many more of these does one need 
to see before one understands that saying the sky is the limit on the 
number of television stations you can own is good for America. That is 
the point we are making today.
  Mr. BURNS. I would get very upset. We have already filed an action, 
as far as IBP is concerned, on meat packing.
  Mr. DORGAN. So the Senator agrees the concentration of the 
meatpacking industry is damaging?
  Mr. BURNS. I would. I would be very concerned about this. But there 
is nothing in this piece of legislation as passed by this Senate that 
repealed the Sherman Antitrust Act. We did not repeal the Clayton Act, 
or the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.
  In other words, the Justice Department is not cut out of this. 
Somebody has to bring an action, and I imagine before now--and, 
remember, this is happening under the present law. This is happening 
under the present law. Not under one we are going to go to conference 
on.
  Mr. DORGAN. But some of this is happening in anticipation of us 
passing what my colleague and others have supported. In fact, some of 
these mergers now have more television stations involved than they are 
permitted to hold. Why would they do that? Because 

[[Page S 15150]]
they know some in here have said we want to take the limits off the 
number of television stations you can own, so, because they are going 
to do that for us, we are going to start gearing up and have more 
stations than the current law allows. So they are anticipating what you 
are going to do for them. I am saying what you are going to do for them 
is not good for this country, that is the point.
  Mr. BURNS. This Senator is not going to get into the business of 
forecasting what might happen. I am saying this is probably the biggest 
jobs bill we will pass. I just wanted to throw that in there.
  Do we repeal any of those antitrust acts that are now the law of the 
land? No. And, on spectrum, has it any value at all until someone makes 
the investment to make it valuable? And then does it become a property 
right? That is what we have to see.
  Those of us who live in the West--I think the Senator from North 
Dakota is very sound in his thinking, and understands the same values 
that I understand, because western North Dakota and eastern Montana are 
awfully a lot alike, on the way they think. But, if we took that case, 
basically, then maybe we should not have granted all that land to 
private ownership. Maybe we should have Government control all the way. 
In other words, I do not know how it is halfway/halfway/halfway.
  But I ask those questions. I would be concerned about concentration 
because I think we will finally get to a point where Justice will have 
to step in on the meatpacking industry. But we have the laws in place 
for them to do so. The same laws would apply to concentration here.
  Mr. DORGAN. My point is--and let me restate the point, probably more 
clearly. My point is on both areas of this bill. One is the trigger of 
when you have competition in the local telephone exchange so the 
monopoly carriers there, the Bell systems, are allowed to go out and 
compete against long-distance carriers. That trigger is a trigger that 
does not have the active participation of the Justice Department 
determining when there is competition. So you have, in my judgment, 
largely eliminated or limited Justice's role. Second, my point is we 
have affirmatively changed the law in this legislation that says: We 
used to say you can only own 12 television stations in this country 
because we thought that was in the public interest, but, guess what, we 
have folks here generous enough to believe you ought to be able to own 
as many as you like, the sky is the limit. Both of those changes, both 
of those actions taken by this Chamber, in my judgment, move against 
the public interest. That is the point of it.
  The fact is, there are things in this bill that are good. I agree 
with that. And we ought to do a bill. I agree with that. But you move 
this bill with those provisions in it forward and it is going to get 
vetoed and it ought to get vetoed. That is the point of it.
  We are about to appoint conferees to sit and have a conference, and 
there is not much disagreement between the House and Senate on these 
provisions, unfortunately. We have sort of the same mindset. My point 
is, it is a mindset not good for the people of this country.
  The Senator from Montana makes some interesting points on the issue 
of spectrum. ``Is it not true that when spectrum is given someone and 
that person makes an investment, does that not enhance the value of the 
spectrum?'' So, of course, the Senator wins a debate we were not 
having. Of course. That is not the point. The point is concentration.
  It is the point in both areas we are talking about, the telephone 
service and competition, the issue of concentration, and the issue of 
when the Department of Justice has a role and what role. And also the 
issue of concentration of media ownership.
  I should put up a couple of other charts. I had a chart of TCI, a 
very large cable company, and a chart with Viacom, which has 
substantial holdings in a number of areas.
  Let me point out, it is not my intention to say many of these 
companies are bad companies. They are wonderful companies, that have 
done breathtaking things in communications for which I offer them my 
heartfelt congratulations. Substantial progress has been made as a 
result of inventive people who work in these companies.
  My point is concentration of ownership. I am a Jeffersonian Democrat. 
I am one of those people who believe broad-based economic ownership and 
healthy, robust competition is what advances and drives the best 
interests of this country. Concentration always augers against the 
interests of the market system in this country, in my judgment.
  I will be happy to yield again to the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have said about all I need to say on 
this subject, having talked on it previously. I just say again, I would 
love to vote for a piece of legislation. I hope the conference 
committee comes back with one in a form I am able to vote for it. I am 
prepared not to just embrace the future but to make a bet, based on my 
strong belief that there is tremendous opportunity in education, 
tremendous opportunity for jobs in these new technologies.
  But there are 100 million households in this country and each one of 
those individual households has very little economic power. When it 
comes time for them to make a purchase of cable service or phone 
service, when they are buying information services they are not buying 
at $1 million a month. They are buying at $20, $30, $40, $50 a month; 
very little economic power, very little. And the 16,000 school 
districts in America that operate individual schools at the local 
level, they have very little economic power. Both as a consumer of 
telecommunications services and as somebody who has been working with 
school districts in Nebraska, trying to get them hooked up to the 
Internet, trying to get them enhanced information services, I can tell 
you that when you do not have much economic power you do not have much 
choice. You do not have much leverage. You do not have much 
opportunity.
  These guys who are doing these deals, they have real power. When you 
have a couple of billion dollars you can leverage an awful lot. But 
when you do not have much economic power you cannot.
  The importance of this is not only consumer choice, not only the 
kinds of decisions that our citizens will be making as a consequence of 
who tells them what is going on in the world--and they are getting 
fewer and fewer numbers of people telling them what is going on in the 
world--not only is it relevant for those individuals in the household, 
but it is terribly relevant for our economy. Our economy has been 
robust and develops as a consequence of a competitive environment. The 
competition that matters the most is that entrepreneur who starts in 
business, who says, ``I would like to approach that household, I would 
like to sell packaged information services in the households in Omaha, 
the households throughout this country, I would like to be able to 
approach those consumers and try to give them a competitive option and 
a competitive alternative.''
  Those are the people that this legislation ignores. This legislation 
has been put together with far more concern about the national 
companies, the regional companies--whether it is long distance or 
local--who come here and say this is what this is going to do for me, 
this is what it is going to do for the other guy.
  This has been a balancing act from the beginning, between a range of 
corporations, long distance and local versus cable versus publishers 
versus all these big guys and gals who come into Washington and have 
access and are able to come and talk to us. This has not been put 
together by the entrepreneurs of America. It has not been put together 
by the consumers of America. It has not been put together by people who 
are either going to create the jobs--and most of the new jobs are not 
going to be created by these megacompanies. They are going to be 
created by the smaller startup companies. It has not been put together, 
in my judgment, in a fashion that is going to enable competition to 
really produce the benefits this Nation, I think, deserves and needs 
and expects.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was originally considering, along with 
the Senator from Nebraska, offering a motion to instruct conferees this 
morning. But it turned out to be something that we thought was probably 
not 

[[Page S 15151]]
fruitful and not the thing to do. So we, instead, came to the floor to 
describe a couple of major areas of this bill that tell us, and I think 
tell a lot of people, this bill is in trouble.
  I hope after a lot of reflection that conferees will recant or repent 
or rethink these two issues and address the issue of competition in the 
right way. You cannot advertise competition when in fact the product 
you are describing is enhancing concentration. That is mislabeling. 
There is much to commend this legislation for, but these areas are of 
great concern to us.
  I hope very much that we get a different result out of this 
conference. We decided not to offer a motion to instruct. But there is 
going to be a lot of attention paid to this conference by us, and by a 
lot of others in this country. The result of this conference will have 
a significant impact on what people in this country will experience in 
the future.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have finished my presentation. The 
Senator from Nebraska has finished. The Senator from Vermont wanted 3 
or 4 or 5 minutes. I will allow the Senator from Vermont to take 
whatever time he wishes and ask that he return the remaining time.
  It is my understanding that the other side does not intend to use his 
time. When the Senator from Vermont completes his statement, we are 
finished with respect to the time agreement.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from North Dakota. I 
was at another hearing, and I heard this debate was proceeding on the 
floor. I am concerned that we may end up in a situation with this 
conference where, among other things, the Senate does not even have 
Members of the Judiciary Committee on the conference.
  The distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, Senator 
Thurmond, who chairs the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee, and I have written to the majority and minority leaders on 
this legislation asking that we be named, or people from our 
subcommittee on antitrust be named to the conference. I believe the 
House has named a number of Judiciary Committee members to their 
conference. Yet, we do not have anybody from the Judiciary Committee 
here.
  There are significant antitrust issues. There are significant 
consumer issues. There are significant competitive issues, all of which 
have been looked at, explored and discussed by the Judiciary Committee. 
Yet, Senate Judiciary members will have no input in the conference, and 
we all know the bill is going to be written in conference.
  When we remove competitive incentives, we all know what happens. Take 
a look at the cable industry. If you are fortunate enough to get cable 
television in Fairfax County, VA, you are faced with using antiquated 
equipment in the form of a set-top box that is kept on only because the 
consumers have to pay a monthly fee to use it even though the stuff 
would be in the trash bin otherwise. You pay a significant amount of 
money. But they can do that. They can give you an inferior product. 
They can give you out-of-date equipment. They can charge you for the 
use of outdated equipment because the cable company has a monopoly.
  We are going to see some of the same things happen here without 
competition and without the consumer being considered in any way, shape 
or manner.
  This bothers me a great, great deal, and it should bother all 
Senators, as it does Senator Thurmond and myself. This is not a 
conservative issue. Obviously, the two of us join on this question. 
But, rather, it is a basic, good-sense consumer issue. If you end up 
getting gouged in your cost, the people gouged will be both Republicans 
and Democrats and Independents. The people gouged will be in the North, 
the South, the East, and the West. One thing they will all share in 
common may not be a political ideology, but it will be the pain they 
will feel in their pocketbooks.
  Yesterday, the House appointed 34 conferees to this conference. Of 
those 34, 14 of them came from the House Judiciary Committee. We do not 
see--as yet anyway--any Senate Judiciary conferees at all. They have 
14. We do not even see any coming from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  As I said, earlier, Senator Thurmond and I sent a letter to the 
chairman and the ranking members of the Commerce Committee making clear 
our view that you should have Senate Judiciary Committee members. We 
would help with the conference to assure that those issues relating to 
antitrust and competition are resolved in a principled manner, good 
both for American business and American consumers.
  If anyone would look at the hearings that Senator Thurmond and I and 
other members of our subcommittee have held on telecommunications 
legislation, they would see stressed the need for telecommunications 
reform both for business and for consumers.
  Certainly, it does not take any special knowledge to know how 
critical telecommunications is to the economic health of our country, 
or to the education of our children, or to the delivery of health care 
services to our citizens, or to the overall quality of life in this 
country. In fact, the explosion of all these new technologies in 
telecommunications has fueled many of our newest innovations.
  In the way I run my office--I know the distinguished Presiding 
Officer does the same--we do virtually everything in telecommunications 
by our computers. Just as frequently as we see memos or letters on 
paper, we also see electronic messages sent by computers. I stay 
connected by computer and telephone at home in the Washington area, in 
my home in Vermont, and at my office here at the Capitol. It is a 
given. When I get to Vermont this weekend, I will in effect be able to 
bring my office and my files, my filing cabinets, my staff, and 
everything else with me with a laptop computer. More and more of us do 
that. More and more of us are more efficient doing that.
  But when we have legislation like this, we want to make sure that it 
expands those abilities and not contract them. Our challenge is to keep 
pace with the changes in the marketplace. But, if in keeping pace with 
them you pass legislation that stifles the growth of the industry, that 
quashes the opportunity presented by rapidly expanding 
telecommunications technology, then we have done a disservice to the 
country. We have done a disservice to consumers. We have done a 
disservice to business. We have done a disservice to the competitive 
edge of our Nation as we go into the next century.
  So we have to make sure that our laws governing our 
telecommunications industries provide for future growth but to the 
benefit of consumers. We have to make sure that the promise of this 
legislation to open up competition in telecommunications is fulfilled 
because that is the bottom-line purpose of this legislation: to open up 
competition in telecommunications. If we do it wrong, we will not see 
new competition. We will see competition stifled. We will not see new 
innovation. We will see innovation stifled. We will not see consumers 
benefited. We will see consumers harmed. We will not see a cutting-edge 
industry having a chance to expand, but rather see the cutting-edge 
industry facing a dead end.
  We have to understand that the Senate telecommunications bill is 
significantly different from the one passed by the House. This 
conference is going to be one of the most complicated, complex and 
difficult ones we have had in years. The conference is going to have to 
pick and choose between provisions in the two bills, provisions that 
are in many cases unreconcilable. They are not provisions like in an 
appropriations bill where maybe we can just split the difference. It is 
a case that you are either going to have to craft an entirely new 
provision or drop one or the other.
  I think that given that situation it would be helpful to have input 
of Members with expert knowledge in antitrust issues. In fact, on the 
modification of final judgment, the MFJ, the House, to their credit, 
realizes that and has put Judiciary Committee members on the 
conference. The Senate has yet to do it.
  In fact, the administration now threatens to veto this legislation 
for a number of reasons, including the need 

[[Page S 15152]]
for a stronger test for Bell company entry into the long-distance 
business and also a more meaningful role for the Justice Department.
  I also share the administration's concern about the legislation not 
only taking the lid off but also promoting increased cable rates. I 
mean, we have already lived through a period of skyrocketing cable 
rates. Congress took action to address the problem of cable rate 
increases when we passed the 1992 Cable Act over a Presidential veto. 
Let us not go backward in time, but go forward with responsible 
telecommunications reform.
  Again, I use Fairfax County as an example. Here you see rates go up 
for antiquated equipment. Rates go up, we are told, for all these 
channels we get, most of which I doubt if anybody including the cable 
system ever watch. But if at 3 o'clock in the morning, you are moved 
with a great desire to buy 10 pounds of zircons, you have at least five 
channels that you are paying for to know where you can buy those 10 
pounds of zircons. Or, if you need to have your soul saved there are at 
least 10 different people at any given time who will tell you that your 
soul will be saved but only if you send the money to them. I guess they 
give you a plaque saying you have been saved. None of the 10 says why 
the other 9 should not get the money and why you get less soul 
salvation from them.
  Well, that is fine, but I just wonder whether there might be a little 
more filtering, a little more selectivity, if there was competition 
here. Without competition, their rates go up. We see the same thing in 
local telephone service. Their rates go up because competition is not 
yet available.
  Now, we know that there is a need for new legislation. Certainly the 
legislation from the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, and early 1980's cannot 
keep up with the technology of today. But let us make sure we do not 
turn the clock back both for business and consumers. Rather, give us a 
chance to use the marketing and technological genius of our great 
country as we go into the next century.
  I worry also about issues like criminal penalties for engaging in 
constitutionally protected speech that occurs over computer networks. 
Right now a provision in the Senate telecommunications bill would 
penalize you, if you are, for example, a botanist and click onto an 
online article on wild orchids, but suddenly find something that is not 
the kind of wild orchid you grow in your planter but reference to an 
obscene movie. The fact that you even clicked on, downloaded and found 
out what it was, you could be prosecuted. The distinguished Presiding 
Officer uses the Internet as I do, uses his computer as I do. Not that 
this would ever happen, but suppose he sends me a message disagreeing--
I say it would probably never happen--but disagreeing with a political 
position I took. And suppose I sent back a message to him and in the 
heat of the moment was less than senatorial in my courtesy toward him 
and used terms that neither he nor I would use. I use this, of course, 
as a hypothetical, Mr. President. I could be prosecuted under this bill 
for doing it.
  The interesting thing is he might be prosecuted for receiving it even 
before he knew what was in there, and certainly should he get incensed 
by what he received he could be in a real heap of hurt if he sent back, 
and you're one, too.
  These are the kinds of silly things that we have crafted in this 
telecommunications bill that we ought to take a second look at. It 
might make us all feel good at the moment, but the long-range 
implications are weird and we ought to look at all of these issues.
  The distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished 
ranking members of both of those committees and so many other Members 
in this body, Republicans and Democrats alike, have worked so hard to 
get a bill out of here. Let us not in almost a sense of final relief of 
throwing it out the door, throw out something that is going to come 
back and bite us. It will not just bite the 100 of us, but hundreds of 
millions of consumers and dozens and dozens of businesses that deserve 
better.
  So let us appoint Judiciary Committee members. It does not guarantee 
that everything that I might want or Senator Thurmond might want would 
be on that bill by any means. But it might mean that those with 
expertise in the areas of antitrust, first amendment rights, and so on, 
would have a choice, and we might have better legislation as a result.
  Mr. President, I understand that neither the distinguished Senator 
from North Dakota nor anybody else wishes to speak over here.
  I might ask the distinguished Senator from South Dakota if it is his 
same feeling as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, that upon 
completion of this we just yield back all the time?
  I understand it is, Mr. President, and I yield back all time.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would just like to make a couple of 
remarks regarding the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. LEAHY. In that case I think I will reserve the remainder of the 
time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would say that through this 
legislation we are trying to address and correct some of the problems 
raised, and we will be proceeding with the conferees after they are 
agreed to. I thank all of my colleagues who have participated in this 
debate, and I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time on 
this side.
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate disagrees 
with the amendments of the House, agrees to a conference requested by 
the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Senators Pressler, Stevens, McCain, 
Burns, Gorton, Lott, Hollings, Inouye, Ford, Exon, and Rockefeller.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________