[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S687-S721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have a unanimous-consent agreement I
believe we are ready to enter. It is a very important effort to
complete this legislation.
After consultation with the Democratic leadership, Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that there now be 90 minutes on the conference
report to be equally divided in the usual form, and following the
conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to the
adoption of the conference report without any intervening action or
debate.
Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask that my
friend allow the ranking Member to have equal time for what the
chairman has had, say 5 minutes, and add that to that.
Mr. LOTT. I amend my unanimous-consent request to that effect.
Mr. FORD. I thank my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleagues and my colleague from Kentucky.
So, Mr. President, this bill is an industrial restructuring. It will
be like the Oklahoma land rush because many investors have not had a
road map as to what to do. It will mean we will be more competitive
internationally, and it will mean many of our companies can form
alliances internationally.
Some have said, well, will this just allow one or two companies to
take everything over? No, it will not. I think it will prove to be the
age of the small, nimble business. I believe that we will see small
businesses emerging. We have seen AT&T break up into three companies. I
think that is going to happen more and more.
This bill does not affect our antitrust laws. The antitrust laws stay
in place. But this bill will encourage small, nimble companies and
entrepreneurs to enter the telecommunications area.
It will also bring us to a point where many of our companies that
have not been able to get into other areas can do so. For example, the
public utilities will be able to get into telecommunications.
What does this mean to the average consumer? I have already mentioned
I think it will mean lower prices through competition. It also will
mean many new devices for senior citizens who might be living alone and
want to summon emergency help with some of the wireless technologies
that will be available. They can stay in their own homes longer with
the security of mind of being able to call for help by pushing a
button.
For the home, I believe we will see the computer and TV and telephone
blended into one source of education, news, and entertainment. For the
small town hospital, it will mean telemedicine, new devices and
investment, where a large hospital can partner with a small hospital in
research.
For the small business located in a smaller town, it will mean that a
small businessman there will be on an equal footing with a bigger
businessman in an urban center in terms of access to research and the
ability to partner.
As a member of the Finance Committee, I have asked my staff to help
find ways that when big universities get a research grant for cancer
research, for example, that they use telecommunications to partner with
a small university. That will make the research more accurate at lower
cost.
So there are a number of benefits to consumers, farmers, small
business people, and universities. There are many new devices that will
come online that we have not even heard of yet. This bill will be like
the Oklahoma land rush in terms of investment, inventions and
development. We have just begun imagining what the telecommunications
revolution will be like.
This will be the starting gun. We have kept our companies in bondage.
Those companies will break free and there will be a whole group of new
small entrepreneurs coming forth to participate in the
telecommunications revolution.
Another area that it will help our country is jobs. This is the
biggest jobs bill ever to pass this Congress. It will result in a
creation of thousands of jobs, good jobs, good-paying jobs across our
country.
We read about layoffs every day, but they are frequently in
industries that have grown obsolete. This bill will allow an unleashing
of new high-technology jobs in the information age. And it is very
important.
This bill is a jobs bill without spending any Federal money. It will
go down in history as the largest jobs bill in American history.
So, Mr. President, I shall, to save time, because I know some of my
colleagues wish to speak--I want to pay tribute to both the Republicans
and Democrats who have worked on this bipartisan bill, to my colleague,
Senator Hollings, to my colleague, Senator Daschle, who is on the
floor, and many others on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and
Democrats.
This is a bipartisan bill. It has been all the way through the
Senate. First of all, this bill has been simmering for many years. We
have worked on it first in the Senate and then in the House. There were
bipartisan staff meetings.
We have brought the White House into the conference discussions. I
spoke with President Clinton and Vice President Gore on a number of
occasions throughout this process. I thank them for their
participation. Mr. Simon of Vice President Gore's staff was a guest
speaker at the conference staff's first meeting. We invited him so we
could bring this together on a bipartisan basis.
This bill is not one that could be partisan. I think it is one of the
most bipartisan pieces of legislation in the Congress. Mr. President, I
shall have additional remarks as time goes on. I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today the Senate considers the
conference agreement to S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
This bill is intended to promote competition in every sector of the
communications industry, including the broadcast, cable, wireless, long
distance, local telephone, manufacturing, pay telephone, electronic
publishing, cable equipment, and direct broadcast satellite industries.
This legislation has the support of the Clinton administration and
almost every sector of the communications industry. I urge my
colleagues to pass this comprehensive legislation.
Mr. President, this conference agreement comes before the Senate for
final passage after years of debate. In 1991, I authored legislation to
allow the Regional Bell Operating Companies [RBOC's] into
manufacturing. That bill passed the Senate by almost \3/4\ of the
Senate, but the House could not pass it. Several other bills were
offered, but at each stage, one industry blocked the other. As a
result, communications policy has been set by the courts, not by
Congress and not by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC], the
expert agency.
In 1994, I introduced S. 1822, the Communications Act of 1994, which
contained the most comprehensive revision of the communications law
since 1934. In that year, the committee held 31 hours of testimony in
11 days of hearings from 86 witnesses. Though that bill was reported by
the Commerce Committee by a vote of 18 to 2, there was not enough time
in the 103d Congress to complete our work.
Senator Pressler and I decided earlier this year to pick up where we
left off in the last Congress. We jointly introduced S. 652 early in
1995 and succeeded in passing the bill out of the Commerce Committee by
a vote of 17-2 on March 23 of last year. The bill passed the Senate in
June by an overwhelming vote of 81-18. After the House passed its
version of the legislation in August, the two Houses entered into the
difficult task of reconciling the two bills over several months through
the fall and winter.
I am pleased that the conferees have succeeded in reconciling these
bills. I
[[Page S688]]
believe that the conference report that is brought before the Senate
today is a fair and balanced compromise between the bills passed by the
two Houses. It retains many of the concepts contained in my legislation
from the 103d Congress. For instance, it promotes competition, it
retains strong protections for universal service and rural telephone
companies, it promotes consumer privacy, and it allows the RBOC's into
long distance and manufacturing under certain safeguards.
At the same time, this legislation contains many more deregulatory
provisions than were contained in my legislation from last year. It
allows greater media concentration than I would have preferred. It
deregulates cable on a date certain, rather than upon a determination
that there is actual competition. Nevertheless, I believe that this
legislation on the whole presents a balanced package that deserves the
support of every Member of this body.
The basic thrust of the bill is clear: competition is the best
regulator of the marketplace. Until that competition exists, monopoly
providers of services must not be able to exploit their monopoly power
to the consumer's disadvantage. Timing is everything.
Telecommunications services should be deregulated after, not before,
markets become competitive.
Competition is spurred by the bill's provisions specifying the
criteria for entry into various markets. For example, on a broad scale,
cable companies soon will provide telephone service, and telephone
companies will offer video services. Consumers will soon be able to
purchase local telephone service from several competitors, and vice
versa. Electric utility companies will offer telecommunications
services. The RBOC's will engage in manufacturing activities. All these
participants will foster competition to each other and create jobs
along the way.
We should not attempt to micromanage the marketplace; rather, we must
set the rules in a way that neutralizes any party's inherent market
power, so that robust and fair competition can ensue. This is Congress'
responsibility, and so the bill transfers jurisdiction over the
modification of final judgment [MFJ] from the courts to the FCC. Judge
Greene, who has been overseeing the MFJ, has been doing yeoman's work
in attempting to ensure that monopolies do not abuse their market
power. But it is time for Congress to reassert its responsibilities in
this area, and this conference agreement does just that.
Mr. President, let me address some of the specific areas of important
in the bill.
Universal Service
The need to protect and advance universal service is one of the
fundamental concerns of the conferees in drafting this conference
agreement. Universal service must be guaranteed; the world's best
telephone system must continue to grow and develop, and we must attempt
to ensure the widest availability of telephone service.
The conference agreement retains the provision in the Senate bill
that requires all telecommunications carriers to contribute to
universal service. A Federal-State joint board will define universal
service, and this definition will evolve over time as technologies
change so that consumers have access to the best possible services.
Special provisions in the legislation address universal service in
rural areas to guarantee that harm to universal service is avoided
there.
RBOC Entry into Long Distance
One of the most contentious issues in this whole discussion has been
when, or if, the RBOC's should be allowed to enter the long-distance
market. I share the concern of many consumers that the RBOC's should
not be permitted to enter the long-distance market while they retain a
monopoly over local telephone service. For this reason, I strongly
opposed the idea that the RBOC's should be permitted to enter the long-
distance market on a date certain, whether they face competition or
not. I am pleased that the conference agreement recognizes that the
RBOC's must open their networks to competition prior to their entry
into long distance.
Cable Rate Deregulation
The 1992 Cable Act was a great success. The rate regulation
provisions of that legislation have saved consumers about $3 billion a
year. The 1992 law also stimulated competition for cable service by
wireless cable providers and direct broadcast satellite [DBS]. For
these reason, I have agreed to go along with the provisions in the
final conference agreement what would deregulate the upper tiers of
cable service on March 31, 1999. By that time, we expect that
competition from DBS and wireless cable, and perhaps from the telephone
companies, will provide enough restraint on further cable rate
increases. I believe that this is a fair compromise that serves the
interests of consumers and the cable industry.
Broadcast Issues
The conference agreement changes some of the current rules and
statutory provisions concerning media concentration. I share the
concerns of the Clinton administration and others that excessive media
concentration could harm the diversity of voices in the communications
marketplace. At the same time, that marketplace has undergone several
changes since many of these rules were first adopted in the 1970's. As
a result, I have agreed to some changes in the ownership rules to allow
the broadcast and cable industries to compete on more equal footing.
importance of must-carry
I would like to add one more point concerning the importance of must-
carry. Broadcast stations are important sources of local news, public
affairs programming and other local broadcast services. This category
of service will be an important part of the public interest
determination to be made by the Commission when deciding whether a
broadcast renewal application shall be granted by the Commission. To
prevent local television broadcast signals from being subject to
noncarriage or repositioning by cable television systems and those
providing cable services, we must recognize and reaffirm the importance
of mandatory carriage of local commercial television stations, as
implemented by Commission rules and regulations.
conclusion
This comprehensive bill strikes a balance between competition and
regulation. New markets will be opened, competitors will begin to offer
services, and consumers will be better served by having choices among
providers of services. I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill. I
myself would go further in several areas covered by the legislation,
and not as far in other areas. But I have seen that, unless we adopt a
comprehensive approach to legislation, any one sector of the
telecommunications industry can stop this bill and checkmate the
others. Telecommunications reform is too important to let this
opportunity go by. This conference agreement is an equitable approach
to most of the areas covered by the bill, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a ``Resolved Issues''
table be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Telecommunications Bill Resolved Issues
1. Long Distance.
a. FCC decides whether to allow a Regional Bell Operating
Company to provide long distance under the following
conditions:
i. FCC gives substantial weight to the DOJ;
ii. RBOC application must be in the public interest;
iii. RBOC must face a facilities-based competitor or must
have received approval from the State that it has met the
unbundling requirements;
iv. RBOC must have opened and unbundled its network using a
specific checklist;
v. RBOC must apply on a state-by-state basis;
vi. RBOC must use a separate subsidiary for long distance;
b. RBOCs can provide long distance outside their region
immediately upon enactment;
c. RBOCs can provide incidental long distance (i.e. long
distance related to cellular, information services cable
services, cable services) immediately after enactment;
d. the RBOC can jointly market local and long distance
service immediately after enactment;
2. Media Ownership:
a. nationwide reach raised from 25% to 35%--no waivers
b. duopoly rule--FCC will study whether to change duopoly
rule. Current rule prohibits ownership of two TV stations in
the same market. If it changes the rule, there should be a
higher standard on V-V combinations than U-U or U-V
combinations
c. Local Radio--raise the limits on the number of stations
one person can own as follows:
[[Page S689]]
NUMBER OF STATIONS IN A MARKET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current limit New limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-14.............................. 3 5
15-29............................. 4 6
30-44............................. 4 7
45 or more........................ 4 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This also includes raising the current 49% limit on small
markets (1-14 stations) to 50%.
d. Cable-Broadcast: remove statutory ban, direct the FCC to
review its rule that has the same effect without prejudice.
e. Dual Network: allow someone to own a second network if
it is starting a new network
f. One-to-a-market: allow someone to own one TV, one AM
radio, and one FM radio in the top 50 markets (current rule
allows common ownership in top 25 markets). Allow existing
waiver process to continue.
g. Network-cable: allow networks to buy cable systems
subject to FCC safeguards.
h. Cable-MMDS: allow cable operator that face effective
competition to buy an MMDS system in the same market; but a
cable system that retains its monopoly cannot buy an MMDS
system in the same market.
3. Cable-telephone: allow telephone companies to provide
cable service in their regions.
4. Cable-telephone buyouts: allow a telephone company and
cable company to buy each other in markets below 50,000 and
outside an urbanized area.
5. Cable rates: deregulate small cable companies of fifty
thousand or less immediately; deregulate upper tier rates as
of March 31, 1999; no change to the regulation of the basic
tier.
6. Universal Service: universal telephone service shall
evolve over time, and the rates should be affordable. An FCC-
State Joint Board will recommend changes to the current
system to insure that all providers contribute.
7. Rural Telephone Company Protections: States may protect
rural telephone companies from competition; only essential
carriers will be eligible to receive universal service
support.
8. Snowe-Rockefeller: give schools and hospitals discounted
rates for telephone services.
9. V-chip: require TV sets to include a chip to screen out
programs; encourage broadcasters to develop rating codes for
violent programs.
10. Foreign Ownership: provisions taken out. No agreement
was reached on how to enforce the reciprocity approach.
11. Cyberporn: require operators of computer networks to
screen out indecent material for children; carriers of
indecent information will not be liable for the content of
information generated by others; expedited judicial
review.
12. Set-top Box: allows consumers to purchase the cable
set-top box on a retail basis from stores; cable companies
will no longer have a monopoly over set-top boxes.
13. DBS Taxation: Cities are preempted from taxing the
services provided by Direct Broadcast Satellite.
14. Pole Attachments: Cable companies may continue to pay
the same rate as long as they provide only cable service;
once cable companies start to provide telephone service, a
higher rate will phase in over 10 years.
15. Electronic Publishing: The RBOCs must use a separate
subsidiary when they provide electronic publishing in their
regions. Electronic publishing includes generating stock
information, sports scores, newspaper stories, and other
databases of information.
16. Manufacturing: The RBOCs are allowed into manufacturing
after they are permitted into long distance in any one State
in their region. The RBOC must use a separate affiliate.
17. Privacy Information: All telecommunications companies
must protest the privacy of customer information.
18. Anti-redlining: amends Section 1 of the Communications
Act to prohibit discrimination based upon race, national
origin, religion, sex; applies to broadcasters, common
carriers and cable.
19. Disabilities: ensures access by disabled persons to
telecommunications equipment and services, if readily
achievable.
20. Pricing Flexibility: provisions taken out. The
provisions in both bills would have told the States to adopt
price cap regulation with consumer safeguards. Companies and
consumers are better off leaving these issues to the States.
Specturm Flexibility: allows broadcasters to provide
ancillary and supplementary services once they deploy HDTV.
22. Preemption of state and local entry barriers: allows
competition for local telephone service.
23. Infrastructure Sharing: allows small telephone
companies to share the infrastructure provided by the RBOCS;
parties may negotiate the rates for such sharing.
24. Payphones: prohibit the RBOCs from cross-subsidizing
their payphone business.
25. Broadcast License Renewal: extends radio license terms
from 7 years to 8 years; extends television license terms
from 5 years to 8 years.
26. Anti-slamming: requires long distance companies to be
liable for charges if they switch a customer to its long
distance service unlawfully.
27. Regulatory Forbearance: allows the FCC to forbear from
applying any provision of the Act in the public interest.
28. Educational Technology Corporation: Sen. Moseley-Braun
sponsored this provision to allow this corporation to receive
federal funds to provide technologies to schools.
29. Telecommunications Development Fund: makes funds
available for small telecommunications businesses; sponsored
by Rep. Towns.
alarm monitoring industry
Mr. HARKINS. Mr. President, I want to begin by making a comment to
the Senator from South Dakota, the distinguished chairman of the
Commerce Committee, and chairman of the Senate-House conference which
labored long and hard to produce this bill. I want to thank the Senator
for the attention he has personally given to the small business alarm
industry. I know that on several occasions we have talked about the
impact of this bill on the alarm industry, and when the bill was on the
Senate floor last year we worked out an agreement on the waiting period
prior to Bell entry into alarm monitoring.
I also want to express my gratitude to the distinguished ranking
member, the Senator from South Carolina, who has taken a special
interest in the economic vitality of small businesses that comprise the
alarm industry.
There is one issue that deserves some additional clarification. The
bill and the report language clearly prohibit any Bell company already
in the industry from purchasing another alarm company for 5 years from
date of enactment. However, it is not entirely clear whether such a
Bell could circumvent the prohibition by purchasing the underlying
customer accounts and assets of an alarm company, but not the company
itself. It was my understanding that the conferees intended to prohibit
for 5 years the acquisition of other alarm companies in any form,
including the purchases of customer accounts and assets. I would ask
both the chairman and ranking member whether my understanding is
correct?
Mr. PRESSLER. Yes; the understanding of the Senator is correct. The
language in the bill designed to prevent further acquisitions by a Bell
engaged in alarm monitoring services as of November 30, 1995, is
intended to include a prohibition on the acquisition of the underlying
customer accounts and assets by a Bell during the 5-year waiting
period.
This would not prohibit, as is stated in the bill, the so-called swap
of accounts on a comparable basis, whereby a Bell which was engaged in
alarm monitoring as of November 30, 1995, would be allowed to swap, or
exchange, existing customer accounts for a similar number and value of
customer accounts with a non-Bell alarm company.
I thank the Senator for helping the committee to further clarify the
meaning of the legislation in the area of alarm monitoring services.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I would agree with the explanation given by the
chairman and am pleased to have this opportunity to further clarify our
intent in the alarm industry provisions.
Mr. President, I am trying to save time and yield to our
distinguished colleague from North Dakota. While he is coming to the
floor, let me first acknowledge the leadership and the understanding
and, more than anything else, the persistence of our distinguished
chairman.
Senator Pressler has been a dogged fighter all last year. He set
history, there is no question in my mind, in this particular measure. I
have been here 28 years, now in my 29th year. I have been chairman of
the Budget Committee, and on the Budget Committee for over 20 years,
and this measure is far more complex than any annual budget or any
nonsensical 7-year budget plan. It is totally ludicrous to think that
we could bind Congresses into the next century. That is gamesmanship
that has been going on.
On the contrary, here is a bipartisan measure that was reported out
overwhelmingly from our Commerce Committee, not only 2 years ago under
S. 1822, but again this year under S. 652. I will acknowledge and then
get back to two leaders in this particular cause, in addition to our
distinguished chair.
The former chairman of our Communications Subcommittee and now
ranking member, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, has been in the
trenches all the time giving his leadership, and also most particularly
to Judge Harold Greene. I do not see how, having worked intimately on
this particular measure, one Federal judge could do
[[Page S690]]
the remarkable job that has been done by Judge Greene.
Now we move from the judiciary back over to the jurisdiction of the
Federal Communications Commission, let it be noted, not on account of
any inadequacy of the court in the person of Judge Harold Greene, but
rather because no single entity could possibly enunciate and pursue the
policy of communications of the national Congress.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield 10
minutes, under our agreement, to the distinguished Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the conference report on the
telecommunications reform legislation embodies a unique
characterization. While this report is, in many respects, a substantial
improvement from either the Senate or House versions, it also invites
one of the most serious policy errors of this Congress.
This dramatic overhaul of our Nation's communications laws will, in
my judgement, lead to many significant advancements for American
consumers and help spur an already explosive industry. Indeed,
consumers will, in many areas, have more choices and lower prices.
Also, there will, without a doubt, be thousands of new jobs created by
the accelerated expansion of the telecommunications industry.
The legislation that came out of the conference report is better than
the bill that left the Senate and better than the bill that left the
House. That is pretty unusual. We seldom ever see that in the Congress,
but this is better.
Last June, I voted against the telecommunications bill when it left
the Senate for a number of reasons. One reason being the lack of the
role of the Justice Department in determining when there is competition
in the local exchange before the baby Bells will be allowed to go out
and compete in the long distance service areas.
As some may recall, a couple of us stood on the Senate floor and led
the fight for a role of the Justice Department. We lost that vote, and
I made the case then that this bill is supposed to be a bill about
competition, a bill to promote, expand and foster competition when, in
fact, if we do not have a Justice Department role, it is and can be
increasingly a bill about monopolies and concentration.
In the conference, they did address a Justice Department role. There
will now be a strong role for the Justice Department in evaluating
competition in local exchanges before allowing the Bell Companies to go
out and compete in long distance service. The role provided for the
Department of Justice will ensure that competition and anti-trust
issues will be reviewed adequately. This is an important guarantee that
competition, and the innovation that results from healthy market
forces, will be the centerpiece of our telecommunications policy.
The conference report contains a bulk of the key rural provisions
that are designed to protect rural areas. One provision will maintain
the universal service system which ensures that rural and high cost
areas will continue to receive affordable phone services. This issue is
of enormous importance to those of us from small States.
We have always felt that way about telephone service. A telephone in
the smallest city in North Dakota or the smallest town in North Dakota
is as important as a telephone in lower Manhattan in New York because
one makes the other more valuable. The lack of universal opportunity
and universal communications services is very troublesome. That is why
we have a universal service fund. This conference report protects that
and does so in a meaningful way.
The conference report contains important provisions that will help
link our schools, libraries, and rural hospitals with advanced
telecommunications services.
I do not want to oversell this piece of legislation either. There are
deficiencies in it. There is one which gives me enormous pause and
almost persuaded me to continue voting against it. This report makes
some serious steps toward concentration in broadcasting by eliminating
the television ownership cap.
We now say you can own no more than 12 television stations covering
no more than 25 percent of the population of the country. This report
says, ``By the way, we've changed that; you can own as many television
stations as you want covering up to 35 percent of the population of
this country.'' I guarantee you, if that stands, a dozen years from now
we will have six, maybe eight major companies owning most of the
television stations in America. That is not a march toward competition;
that is a march backwards towards concentration. It makes no sense. I
almost voted against this bill because of that defect.
Today, Senators Hollings, Daschle, Kerrey, and I are introducing a
piece of legislation that will call for the restoration of those
ownership limits. I believe very strongly that we ought not remove the
ownership caps.
Upon enactment of the conference report cable rates for 20 percent of
Americans will go up. While the bill maintains controls on cable rates
for the next 3 years, the fine print immediately lifts all controls for
so-called small systems. Under this definition, over 60 percent of all
North Dakota cable subscribers will likely see their rates increased.
Again, I want to say we have seen a virtual explosion in the
telecommunications area of this country. It has changed everything. I
grew up in a town of 300 people. Every day that I went to school I
understood, and everybody in our town understood, our major
disadvantage was that we lived too far from everybody. We could not
have a manufacturing plant because we were too remote, we were too far.
Mr. President, do you know what telecommunications has done?
Telecommunications makes Regent, ND, as close to Manhattan as is the
Hudson River. The telecommunications revolution has eliminated a whole
range of products and services, and the disadvantage of geography.
We see telecommunications firms springing up all over the country in
rural areas. Why? Because geography is no longer a disadvantage. We see
breathtaking changes occurring all over this country with firms that
have innovative approaches to transmitting information, to new
telephone services.
We are going to see cable companies compete with new telephone
services and new transmission of data. We are going to see broadcast
signals change dramatically to be able to transmit information
services. Everything is changing. There will be circumstances in our
future in which you will have access to every corner of this country
and probably every corner of the globe with the latest information and
with the most breathtaking technology that any of us can imagine. All
of this is occurring despite the fact that our communications laws are
61 years old and in desperate need of revision.
Again, let me say that it is unusual to come to the floor and say
this is a better bill than the bill that left the Senate, or the House
last year, and this advances the interests of telecommunications in
this country. The people who worked on this bill did awfully good work,
and I commend them.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota for his leadership and participation within the committee.
Throughout the entire debate, it was his influence, and he almost won a
vote on the floor. At one time, it seemed down in the well here he had
prevailed. That kind of pressure I welcome, because I happen to have
agreed with him. But you have to get together in a bipartisan fashion
in order to get things done. I emphasize that. I will also join as a
cosponsor on the bill of the distinguished Senator. I think the Senator
from Vermont momentarily is proceeding to the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask a question, Mr. President, the Senator is
correct. I did prevail on a vote on the Senate floor, and dinner
intervened, and about eight people came back with arms in slings and we
had another vote and it turns out that some people changed their minds
over dinner, and I lost. Some of that was remedied later.
One additional comment. The reason competition is so important--and
the Senator has talked about it--is that we have seen the result in
long distance. We have 500 companies in long distance competing
aggressively in this country, and prices have dropped 60 percent.
[[Page S691]]
That is good for this country. We want to make sure the companies
competing in those circumstances do not face unfair competition. That
is why we were so concerned about the Justice role. I appreciate the
work the Senator did to restore the role of the Justice Department in
conference.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the chairman yield me 10
minutes.
Mr. PRESSLER. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think this is among one of the most
significant days I have been here on the floor of the Senate. The 1934
Communications Act has served this Nation well. It brought us from a
country with a fledgling communications system to the age of
telecommunications. And now with the advent of digital communications
becoming universal, this bill is absolutely necessary to assure the
expansion of these industries that depend upon telecommunications.
This is not a total deregulation bill. It is not time yet for a total
deregulation bill. We are dealing with a bill that lessens regulation.
But it is not a re-regulation bill. It begins to bring into our present
system the total power of competition, with the approval of the
National Government.
I think one needs only to look at the definitions to see the scope of
this bill as compared to the 1934 act. Look at it: Dialing parity,
exchange access, information service, interLATA services, local
exchange carriers, network elements, number portability, rural
telephone companies, telecommunications, telecommunications carrier. If
you look at the scope of the definitions alone, it signifies the
changes in our system that are driven by telecommunications.
I am particularly pleased to be here with the two leaders of our
committee, who have worked so hard--Senator Pressler, as chairman and
Senator Hollings, the ranking member and former chairman. We have
worked many years now to bring us to this day, where we could literally
say that we are ready now to take the telecommunications industry of
the United States into the 21st century.
In doing so, we have been careful to recognize that there are places
in the country that have not been totally served by the existing
telephone and information communications system. This bill has
extensive universal service concepts. It has specific provisions
regarding telecommunications services for health care providers,
education providers, education and secondary schools. It is a bill, the
scope of which I think every American is going to have, at some time,
reason to understand.
I am going to present here, soon, a unanimous-consent request to
assure that there will be sufficient copies printed so that we can
immediately send a copy of this conference report to those people in
our individual States that must have this law available as soon as it
is signed.
I believe you could literally say, without being thought of as
improper at all, that this is going to be the telecommunications
``bible.'' This is a bill that sets new parameters. It sets new
requirements. It changes the authority of the Federal Communications
Commission. It deals with the scope of the authority of the State
commissioners, as well as with the regulation of utilities. In some
places, it preempts State and local authorities, which is something I
am very, very slow to do, but in this instance, I agree that it is
necessary.
The real reason, I think, for the application of this now relates
back to the suggestion I made to the Congress many years ago that we
ought to stop having lotteries for the excess capacity on the broadcast
spectrum. In days gone by, Mr. President, for $20, you would file an
application without having any interest at all in the broadcast system
or the telecommunications system, and if there was a spectrum
available, there would be a lottery. If you were lucky, you then got
the spectrum license, and immediately the world beat a path to your
door to get the certificate that you had just won in a lottery.
We thought, and I thought, that we ought to auction that available
spectrum, which is, after all, something that belongs to the public. I
felt it had a substantial chance to bring in revenue. Mr. President,
the first estimate we got from the Congressional Budget Office, if
memory serves me, was that it would bring in about $250 million if we
auctioned these licenses rather than having lotteries. I remember a
conversation very well with the Chairman of the FCC, Reed Hunt, where
he told me they had taken in $12 billion last year from the auction of
spectrum licenses.
We now are in the budget process of planning additional amounts to
come in from spectrum. As we do so--and there has been discussions here
on the floor--we have to keep in mind the equities of the situation and
the fact that the telecommunications system is not all going to
transition to digital concepts immediately. It is going to take time,
and it is going to take the formation of a substantial amount of
capital to be able to utilize the powers and privileges that are
available to the American business and American public under this bill.
I hope everyone realizes it is not going to happen overnight. There
may be some substantial challenges in court to some of these
provisions. We are not unanimous here, and certainly the industry is
not unanimous in terms of every provision in the bill. But I view this
bill as an interim measure, Mr. President. I hope that our successors
in the Senate, within 10 or 15 years, will move forward and take us
into an era where there is even greater impact of competition and of
the marketplace, and a reduced need for any Government involvement in
this system. I described once to a friend of mine that I believe the
current system is a series of playing fields, but they are on different
levels. It is like they are on different levels of a very tall
building. We have been talking, in the past, about trying to level the
playing field. But you could not do it because some were on one floor
and some on another, and now we have tried to find a way to literally
level the playing field and set down the rules for competition. I do
believe that we have succeeded. Even though I still have some
reservation as to portions of this bill, as I know others do. We have
succeeded.
There was a reluctance on the part of many people to present this
bill to the Congress. I am glad it has come because I think its time
has come. We have spent, those of us on the Commerce Committee now, I
think, the last 4 years working on a version of this bill. This means,
now, that we have the chance to send to the President an advanced
telecommunications and information bill that is generally accepted.
There is a general consensus that this is timely and that the
provisions are right. Those who have reservations, I hope they will be
careful, because I think to force this country back to relying once
again on the 1934 Act would be wrong.
The Members of the House who worked on this bill, particularly
Chairman Bliley, I think deserve substantial credit. And we ought to
have credit here for the staff. I hope my staff assistant joins me
soon, but Earl Comstock, who has worked with the Commerce Committee as
one of the draftsmen on this bill, joins the ranks of a few members of
the staff who literally deserve credit for what they have done to bring
us together by getting the language that meets our needs and eliminates
the controversy among us over particular provisions.
I am very pleased to be able to present this bill and be part of the
group that presents this bill to the Senate. I have signed the
conference report. Not all of us did. I do think it is imperative we
act, and I congratulate the leader for being willing to bring this bill
forward under these circumstances today.
Let me once again thank Senator Pressler for his leadership on our
side, for the hard work that he has done. As he pointed out to others,
he has been on call and so have the rest of us, literally daily and
through the weekends and on holidays as our staff people labor to carry
out the instructions that we had given them and to reflect the
decisions we made accurately in the text of this bill.
I have followed drafting of legislative bills now for a substantial
portion of my life, Mr. President. I think this is the finest drafted
bill I have been able to participate in. I congratulate the staff
members who worked so hard and so long.
Let me say to my good friend, the former chairman of the committee,
[[Page S692]]
Senator Hollings, I know how hard he worked in the last session, and
Senator Pressler and I joined and worked hard with him, trying to get
the bill during the period that he was chairman. This is a bipartisan
bill. I think, by passing this bill, we may send a signal to the
Congress. It is time we stop the fighting among us and start getting
down to passing the laws that the Nation needs to provide the new job
opportunities for the next century.
As Chairman Pressler has said, this is the largest jobs bill that has
ever been before the Senate. This has more to do with developing new
technologies, implementing new technologies, and stimulating the growth
of new business than any bill I have ever been involved with.
I am delighted to be able to be here. As a matter of fact--again, I
will yield in a moment, but I want to reserve a portion of the time to
be able to ask later for agreement to the unanimous consent agreements
being framed that will make available immediately an additional 5,000
copies of this as a Senate document so we can distribute this as soon
as it is available.
I come from a State, Mr. President, one-fifth the size of the United
States. It is rural in nature. We have a small population. We have
people in our State who are just now getting telephone service as known
to the rest of the country for the whole century, almost. Now, what we
have assured here, as this program goes forward, is that universal
service will be available to rural areas. It will be the state-of-the-
art telecommunications system. It will mean that the small schools in
rural America will have access to modern technology, and can
participate through telecommunications. It means that telemedicine will
now come to my State.
My State, when I first came here, had no assistance whatever for
people in small villages. They had to find their way to Indian
hospitals in regional areas. We created a system of clinics. Those
clinics are, by and large, operated by young women from the villages
who have a high school education and some technical training now. This
bill means telecommunications will bring telemedicine in. They will be
able to have a direct exposure of patients to doctors miles and miles
away. They will be able to get assistance in dealing with mothers who
have complications in pregnancies.
This bill, above all the things I have dealt with--in particular
universal service, eligible telecommunications carriers, and rate
integration, opens the whole horizon of telecommunications to the
people of this country, and it does so on a fair basis. It has been
criticized by some, but the universal service provisions that I
mentioned when I first started my comments here, I think are the most
important to me. They mean that rural America will come into the 21st
century with everyone else as far as telecommunications is concerned. I
could not be more happy that the bill is here. I could not be more
proud of those who have worked on it and to be able to be part of the
group that presents it to the Senate. I urge its early approval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PRESSLER. I pay tribute to Senator Stevens of Alaska. He is the
father of spectrum auctions. In my opinion, he is a real U.S. Senator.
Everybody seems to be leaving the Senate, and they get a 21-gun salute
when they leave. Some stay and do the hard work on difficult bills. Ted
Stevens is such a man. He and Senator Hollings are examples of people
who stay and do public service--honest, hard-working experts on this
technical legislation.
Some day I will be a professor in a university, I hope, out in
western South Dakota. One of my lectures will be on real U.S.
Senators--those who are not necessarily media stars, but who do the
hard, honest work on the technical things, the real U.S. Senators.
Certainly Ted Stevens is one of those, along with Senator Hollings. I
believe both are in about their fifth term, and if they announced they
were retiring, they would get a 21-gun salute.
I thank Ted Stevens, the father of spectrum auctions and one of the
originators of this legislation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me join in the comments of my
chairman. There is not any question that we would not have this bill if
we did not have Ted Stevens and his wonderful leadership and work. He
took over the so-called farm team.
We have been working for 4 years, as the Senator from South Dakota
knows. The farm team, the rural areas--we wanted to protect those. We
learned in airline deregulation that we did not protect the rural
areas, sparsely settled areas. So we made, under the leadership of
Senator Stevens, requirements that any competition, any competitor
coming in must serve the entire area, and the States had the authority
to say how that competition would develop in the rural areas.
We provided infrastructure sharing with the RBOC's, and on down the
list. That is all attributed to the wisdom of our distinguished Senator
and colleague from Alaska. I join in the complimentary remarks made by
my distinguished chairman.
The Senator from Vermont has given leadership to this from the very
beginning and has had various provisions in the bill while we debated
it on the floor, and I want to thank him publicly for his leadership. I
yield now 10 minutes under our time agreement.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from South Carolina,
a man whom I have been privileged to serve with in my whole Senate
career. He was already a senior Member of the Senate when I came here.
I appreciate all the help he has given me. I appreciate the fact that
he and the chairman were able to protect the Breaux-Leahy amendment on
1-plus dialing parity as part of the conference report to permit
intraLATA toll dialing parity requirements to stand in States that
already ordered it by December 19, 1995, and in single-LATA States like
Vermont. Preserving this amendment, which Senator Breaux and I worked
out on this floor, has helped my State.
There are so many things I like about this bill. For example, the
conference agreement places restrictions on buyouts between phone
companies and cable. The conference agreement also includes a very
strong savings clause to make clear that mergers between companies in
the media and communications markets are subject to a thorough
antitrust review.
Competition, not concentration, is the surest way to assure lower
prices and greater choices for consumers. So, while there are some
improvements in this legislation that I support, I will not be voting
in favor.
I have expressed my concern on the lack of a stronger Department of
Justice role in evaluating the anticompetitive effect of a Bell
operating company's entry into the long-distance market, as well as my
concern that this legislation is placing censorship restrictions on the
Internet. As a user of the Internet and as one who communicates
electronically with constituents and others around the country, I am
concerned this legislation places restrictions on the Internet that
will come back to haunt us.
I know these provisions were done with the best of intentions. All of
us, 100 Members of the U.S. Senate, oppose the idea of child
pornography. All of us abhor child pornographers and child abusers. I
am one person who has prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison child
abusers. We do not have to demonstrate our adherence to that principle.
But I am concerned we have not upheld our adherence to the first
amendment with the proposed restrictions on the Internet. That creates
an overwhelming barrier for me.
I am also concerned that after passing the 1992 Cable Act over a
Presidential veto, that we are now taking the lid off all cable rates
in 3 years, whether or not there is competition in cable service.
Before the 1992 Cable Act was passed, cable rates were rising three
times faster than inflation rates. I do not think you can name a
consumer in this country who did not feel that he or she was being
gouged.
But the law worked. Since passage of the law, consumers have saved an
estimated $3.5 billion in their monthly bills. And, as the rates have
gone down, more people have signed up. In 1994 alone, nearly 2.5
million new customers have signed up for cable service.
I do not want to see a repeat of the skyrocketing cable rates that
prompted passage of that law. It is too easy to see what might happen
if the cable companies are not restrained, either by competition or by
laws.
[[Page S693]]
I do not have cable in my home in Vermont. I live out in the country
where we get 1\1/2\ channels. I think sometimes I am blessed by that
because I actually get to read, which is a good way of obtaining the
news. You can make up your own mind. You can read in detail or not, and
not be limited by the photographs selected by multimillion-dollar news
media.
But I digress.
With the cable company I subscribe to here, you get these $2 remote
controls but they charge you $3 a month, or something like that. They
can give you antiquated equipment and charge as though you were getting
good equipment and even make it impossible to watch one show and tape
another one. All the things that sound great are not available because
there is no competition. We are about to make that even worse. We had
some restrictions in the cable bill, but I am afraid we are going to
let them go before we have the protections provided by effective
competition.
I must admit, having said all that, I do not envy the managers of
this bill. This is probably the most complex piece of legislation I
think I have seen in 21 years. It has probably had more conflicting
interests that had to be reconciled than I have seen in 21 years.
I commend the Senators who had the ability to stick it out and bring
it this far. Senators still have to determine whether they will vote
for it or not, but whether you like or dislike different parts, we can
all appreciate the hard work and long hours it took.
The telecommunications legislation that has emerged from the
conference will have an enormous impact on multibillion dollar cable,
phone and broadcast industries and, most importantly, on the American
consumer. This legislation will affect how much we pay and from whom we
can obtain cable, TV, phone, fax, and information services. It will
also, unfortunately, affect what we can say online.
We have heard a lot about the support for this legislation by the
Bell phone companies, AT&T and other long-distance phone companies, the
giant cable companies and other media interests. But while they have
been arguing over business advantages, who have been advocates for
American consumers and fundamental American values, like first
amendment free speech rights?
Most of us have no choice who gives us cable TV service or our local
phone service. Whether or not the service is good, we are stuck with
our local phone or cable company. And, if the price is too high, our
only choice is to drop the service altogether. The goal of this
telecommunications legislation must be to foster competition, not just
for the short term, but over the long haul. Competition will give
consumers lower prices and more choices than simply dropping a service.
I raised a number of questions about the Senate-passed bill, and
fought for several amendments that in my view would have made the bill
more consumer-friendly, pro-competitive and constitutional. I commend
the conferees for the progress they made in several of these areas,
which I detail below.
First, the bill proposed by the Commerce Committee would have
permitted our local phone monopoly to buy out our local cable monopoly
so that consumers have even less choice rather than more. Senator
Thurmond, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee's
Antitrust Subcommittee, and I raised concerns that allowing such
unlimited buyouts between monopoly phone companies and cable companies
could result in giant monopolies providing both phone and video
programming services.
The conference agreement makes a significant improvement in these
provisions by limiting buy-outs between cable and phone companies to
rural areas where fewer than 35,000 people live. The conference
agreement also limits a phone company's purchase of cable systems to
less than 10 percent of the households in its service area. This will
insure that a single large phone company cannot simply buy up all the
small cable systems serving the small towns in its service area. This
part of the conference agreement helps fulfill the promise of the bill
to maximize competition between local phone companies and cable
companies.
The conference agreement also contains a very strong ``savings
clause'' to make clear that mergers between cable and telephone
companies, or between independent telephone companies or between any
companies in the media and communications markets are subject to a
thorough antitrust review under the normal Hart-Scott-Rodino process.
Nothing in this conference agreement even impliedly preempts our
Federal antitrust laws. Mega-mergers between telecommunications giants,
such as the rumored merger between NYNEX and Bell Atlantic, or the
gigantic network mergers now underway, raise obvious concerns about
concentrating control in a few gigantic companies of both the content
and means of distributing the information and entertainment American
consumers receive. Competition, not concentration, is the surest way to
assure lower prices and greater choices for consumers. Rigorous
oversight and enforcement by our antitrust agencies is more important
than ever to insure that such megamergers do not harm consumers.
I have been particularly concerned about how well the
telecommunications legislation protects universal service. Vermont is
among the most rural States in the country, but those of us who live
there do not want to be denied access to the advanced
telecommunications services our urban neighbors enjoy. I, therefore,
commend the conference report for including the Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-
Kerry provision requiring preferential rates for telecommunications
services provided to schools, libraries, and hospitals in rural areas,
which I supported. This requirement provides an important building
block to ensure universal access to advanced telecommunications
services. Students whose families cannot afford sophisticated hi-
technology services at home will be able to use those services at
school or at their neighborhood public library. Rural hospitals will be
able to use advanced technology to provide better treatment at lower
costs to their patients. This provision assures the broadest possible
access to advanced telecommunications services.
I am also pleased to see that the conference report includes the
addition of a State-appointed consumer advocate to the newly created
Federal-State joint board. This board will have the critical task of
preserving and expanding universal service, and I agree with the
conference that a consumer advocate will bring a necessary and
important perspective to that task.
The conference agreement also adopts a provision designed to make
cable equipment cheaper and easier to use for all consumers, who are
tired of paying rent for cable converter boxes and struggling with
multiple clickers for the TV set-top box and their video machines. This
provision is one that Senator Thurmond and I urged to be included as
part of the telecommunications legislation in the last Congress. Under
the conference agreement, the FCC is directed to assure the competitive
availability to consumers of converter boxes and other electronic
equipment used to access cable video programming services.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I remain ready to address the
copyright issues that will arise as a result of this legislation. There
was no consideration of copyright matters during the debate over this
legislation and I commend the conferees for not prejudging these
matters.
The bill proposed by the Commerce Committee would have unnecessarily
preempted State efforts to promote the development of competition in
local phone service. Richard Cowart, the chairman of the Vermont Public
Service Board, provided invaluable testimony to the Antitrust
Subcommittee last year about the detrimental preemption provisions in
the bill.
For example, this bill rolled-back State requirements to implement
``1+'' dialing parity for short-haul toll calls. A number of States
already require dialing parity. Without ``1+'' dialing parity,
consumers must dial lengthy access codes to use carriers other than the
local phone company for in-State toll calls. IntraLATA ``1+'' dialing
parity encourages competition in the in-State toll market and helps
consumers.
As I noted before, I am pleased that the Breaux-Leahy amendment on
``1+'' dialing parity is part of the conference report. The report
permits dialing parity requirements to stand in the States
[[Page S694]]
that already ordered it by December 19, 1995, and in single-LATA
States, including Vermont. The prohibition against ``1+'' dialing
parity for intraLATA calls in nongrandfathered States expires at a date
certain 3 years after enactment.
In addition, the Commerce Committee bill would have prohibited State
regulators from using rate-of-return regulation for large phone
companies. As Chairman Cowart of the Vermont Public Service Board made
clear when he testified, this prohibition would have tied the hands of
State regulators trying to adopt different forms of pricing regulation
to stimulate local phone service competition. The conference agreement
took a constructive step by dropping the prohibition on rate-of-return
regulation.
Despite this significant progress, the conference agreement still
suffers from such serious flaws that I cannot support it.
First, and foremost, the conference agreement contains
unconstitutional provisions that would impose far-reaching new Federal
crimes for so-called indecent speech. I do not often agree with Speaker
Gingrich, but I share his view that this legislation violates free
speech rights.
Apparently, the conferees also have serious doubts about its
constitutionality. They added a section to speed up judicial review to
see if the legislation passes constitutional muster. In my view, this
legislation will not pass that test.
You would think the telecommunications conference would have their
hands full with just the task of changing our communications laws to
allow new competition among phone companies, broadcasters, cable
operators, and wireless systems while also protecting universal service
and other appropriate consumer protections. Yet, they also decided to
add new Federal crimes, despite the absence of any hearings on these
provisions, or any Senate Judiciary Committee members on the
conference. I called for an in-depth, fast-track study of these issues
before we took precipitous action in legislation. That study was
included in the House-passed bill but dropped by the conference, in
favor of provisions that will ban constitutionally protected speech on
the Internet.
I note that the explanatory statement accompanying the conference
report refers to a July 24, 1995 hearing, at which I participated,
before the Senate Judiciary Committee on ``online indecency, obscenity,
and child endangerment.'' This hearing did not address the
constitutionality of the indecency standard adopted by the conference
report, nor the least restrictive means by which to implement such a
standard, particularly in an electronic environment like the Internet.
The hearing referred to in the statement of the conference committee
dealt with stalking, obscenity and indecency with regard to an entirely
different bill, S. 892. No witnesses at the hearing defended the
constitutionality of the indecency standard in the telecommunications
bill. Nor did any witness testifying in support of S. 892 examine in
detail whether the indecency standard as applied to online
communications complies with the least restrictive means test. On the
contrary, several witnesses questioned whether any indecency standard
could be constitutional as applied to online communications. Thus,
Congress has opted to appear tough on pornography without examining the
constitutional implications of this unprecedented restriction on
freedom of expression.
Let us make no mistake about what these provisions in the conference
agreement will do and how it could affect you.
The bill will make it a felony crime to send a private e-mail message
with an indecent or filthy word that you hope will annoy another
person, even if you were responding in kind to an e-mail message you
received. Who knows when you might annoy another person with your e-
mail message? To avoid liability under this legislation, users of e-
mail will have to ban curse words and other expressions that might be
characterized as offensive from their online vocabulary.
The bill will punish with 2-year jail terms any Internet user who
uses one of the seven dirty words in a message to a minor. You will
risk criminal liability by using a computer to share with a child any
material containing indecent passages. In some areas of the country, a
copy of Seventeen magazine, could be viewed as indecent because it
contains information on sex and sexuality. Indeed, this magazine is
among the 10 most frequently challenged school library materials in the
country.
This legislation sweeps more broadly than just regulating e-mail
messages sent to children. It will impose felony penalties for using an
indecent four-letter word, or discussing material deemed to be
indecent, on electronic bulletin boards or Internet chat areas
accessible to children.
Once this bill becomes law, no longer will Internet users be able to
engage in free-wheeling discussions in news groups and other areas on
the Internet accessible to minors. They will have to limit all language
used and topics discussed to that appropriate for kindergartners, just
in case a minor clicks onto the discussion. No literary quotes from
racy parts of Catcher in the Rye or Ulysses will be allowed. Certainly
online discussions of safe sex practices, of birth control methods, and
of AIDS prevention methods will be suspect. Any user who crosses the
vague and undefined line of indecency will be subject to two years in
jail and fines.
Imagine if the Whitney Museum, which currently operates a Web page,
were dragged into court for permitting representations of
Michelangelo's David to be looked at by kids.
The conferees call this a display prohibition and explain that it
``applies to content providers who post indecent material for online
display without taking precautions that shield that material from
minors.''
What precautions are the conferees talking about? What precautions
will Internet users have to take to avoid criminal liability? These
users, after all, are the ones who provide the content read in news
groups and on electronic bulletin boards. The legislation gives the FCC
authority to describe the precautions that can be taken to avoid
criminal liability. All Internet users will have to wait and look to
the FCC for what they must do to protect themselves from criminal
liability.
We have already seen the chilling effect that even the prospect of
this legislation has had on online service providers. A few weeks ago,
America Online deleted the profile of a Vermonter who communicated with
fellow breast cancer survivors online. Why? Because, according to AOL,
she used the vulgar word ``breast''. AOL later apologized and indicated
it would permit the use of that word where appropriate.
Complaints by German prosecutors prompted another online service
provider to cut off subscriber access to over 200 Internet news groups
with the words ``sex'', ``gay'' or ``erotica'' in the name. They
censored such groups as ``clarinet.news.gays,'' which is an online
newspaper focused on gay issues, and ``gay-net.coming-out'', which is a
support group for gay men and women dealing with going public with
their sexual orientation.
What is next? The Washington Post reports today that one software
program used to protect children from offensive material blocked the
White House home page because it showed pictures of two couples
together. Those two couples happened to be the President and Mrs.
Clinton and the Vice-President and Mrs. Gore. Will Federal Government
censors do any better when they dictate blocking technologies?
The Communications Decency Act is the U.S. Government's answer to the
problem that China is dealing with by creating an intranet. According
to news reports, this censored version of the Internet allows Chinese
users online access to each other, but an official censor controls all
outside access to the world-wide Internet.
We already have crimes on the books that apply to the Internet, by
banning obscenity, child pornography, and threats from being
distributed over computers. In fact, just before Christmas, the
President signed a new law we passed last year sharply increasing
penalties for child pornography and sexual exploitation crimes.
Unlike these current laws, which do not regulate constitutionally
protected speech, this legislation would censor indecent speech. While
the proponents of the proposals claim that they do not ban indecency--
only prohibit making it available to minors--the practical result of
such a restriction on the
[[Page S695]]
Internet is the criminalization of all indecent speech.
Because indecency means very different things to different people, an
unimaginable amount of valuable political, artistic, scientific and
other speech will disappear in this new medium. What about, for
example, the university health service that posts information online
about birth control and protections against the spread of AIDS? With
many students in college under 18, this information would likely
disappear under threat of prosecution. In bookstores and on library
shelves the protection of indecent speech is clear, and the courts are
unwavering. Altering the protections of the first amendment for online
communications could cripple this new mode of communication.
The Internet is a great new communications medium. We should not
underestimate the effect that the heavy-hand of Government regulation
will have on its future growth both here and abroad. With the passage
of this bill the U.S. Government is paving the way for the censorship
of Internet speech. Apparently, China already censors weather
predictions from foreigners. What do we think the Iranian Government
will make illegal? What could Libya ban and criminalize?
Also, as I alluded earlier, I continue to have grave concerns about
letting the Bell operating companies, with their monopoly control over
the phone wires going into our homes, enter the long-distance market
even when the Department of Justice finds an anticompetitive impact. I
supported efforts to amend the bill and give the Justice Department the
authority to review the Bell companies' long-distance entry in advance.
These efforts were unsuccessful.
The conference report requires the FCC to consult with the Justice
Department and give substantial weight to the Justice Department's
opinion, in determining whether to permit entry of a Bell company into
long-distance service. Although this provision strengthens the Senate-
passed bill, it does not go far enough. It fails to achieve the balance
proposed by the Commerce Committee in 1994. In the end, the FCC is the
final decision maker and can decide to disregard the Justice
Department's evaluation of the anticompetitive effect of letting the
Bell companies offer long-distance service.
The conference agreement would permit a Bell company to offer long
distance service in its own region, upon approval by the FCC and after
satisfying an in-region checklist. This checklist could be satisfied by
the presence of a competitor with its own networking facilities.
Despite recognition by the conferees that building local telephone
network facilities will require a significant investment in time and
money, the bill allows only 10 months after enactment for facilities-
based competitors to get established and apply for interconnection and
access to the Bell company's network. Absent a facilities-based
competitor in those 10 months, I fear that the language of this bill
could be interpreted broadly to allow the Bell operating company to
seek approval to enter long-distance service, and authorize the FCC to
grant that approval, even without any actual competition in local
phone service. The short time-frame provided in the bill to establish a
facilities-based competitor, compounded by the lack of a dispositive
Justice Department role in the approval process, could provide the
incumbent Bell company with the ability to use its stranglehold
monopoly on local service to leverage its new long-distance service, to
the detriment of consumers. Regulators will have to be vigilant to this
potential consequence.
As I noted, the conference agreement takes the lid off all cable
rates in 3 years, whether or not there is any competition in cable
service.
We passed the 1992 Cable Act over a Presidential veto because
consumers were being gouged by cable company monopolists. Cable rates
were rising three times faster than the inflation rate. Consumers
demanded action to stop the rising cable rates. This law worked. Since
passage of that law, consumers have saved an estimated $3.5 billion in
their monthly rates. As rates have gone down, more people have signed
up.
Congress has already responded once to complaints of cable
subscribers in the 1992 Cable Act. I, for one, do not want to see a
repeat of the sky-rocketing cable rates that prompted passage of that
law. The conferees must be predicting that, in 3 years, cable companies
will face plenty of competition from satellite systems and phone
companies offering video services. But if their prediction is accurate,
and the cable companies faced effective competition, they would be
deregulated under the 1992 Cable Act anyway. This is a precipitous
action to sunset a law that worked to reduce cable rates on the hope
that effective competition will grow over the next 3 years.
Finally, the conference report requires the FCC to preempt State or
local rules that may have the effect of barring any entity from
providing telecommunications services. Although the report says this is
not supposed to affect local management of public rights-of-way or
local safeguards for the rights of consumers, in Vermont, citizens are
rightly concerned that rules designed to protect our environment and
health may be preempted by bureaucrats at the FCC who are focused on
helping entrants in the telecommunications business.
I recognize the need for an over-haul of our communications laws. We
have not kept up with the dramatic technological changes that are
fueling the Information Age. But I cannot support this bill, which
threatens fundamental constitutional rights of free speech over the
Internet and provides insufficient consumer protection from
monopolistic pricing for cable and telephone service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Commending Staff
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I should pay tribute to the staff on
both sides who have worked so hard on this.
On our side of the aisle there has been Paddy Link, Katie King,
Donald McClellan and Earl Comstock. On the Democratic side, Kevin
Curtin, John Windhausen, Kevin Joseph and Chris McClean. The
committee's legislative counsel, Lloyd Ator. All this staff has done a
magnificent job.
Let me also mention the dilligent efforts of David Wilson, Mark Buse,
Brett Scott, Jeanne Bumpus, Dave Hoppe, Kevin Pritchett, Margaret
Cummisky, Tom Zoeller and Cheryl Bruner.
I do not know if people know it, but the only days the staff got off
were Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and barely Christmas Eve, in
drafting this technical legislation and in all the negotiations. This
piece of legislation was drafted entirely by Senators and staff. Many
times there have been accusations that legislation was drafted by
outsiders, but this technical piece of legislation was drafted line by
line by Senators and staff. Many times we would have to call a Senator
on the weekends and ask about a line or word change.
I do not know if people realize how hard these staff people work. I
just wanted to pay tribute to them because, to me this technical
document is a remarkable achievement. They did it as public servants.
One day I went in on a Sunday and bought them some pizza. I said,
``Someday a judge may look down upon you from his bench and say,
`Obviously, counsel does not know what he or she is talking about.' And
you can look up at the judge and say, `Oh, yes, I do. I wrote that.' ''
That is not their motive. But these young people should be heralded.
Again, I pay tribute to the staff on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Commending Staff
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, awaiting the attendance here, to deliver
his comments, of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator
Kerrey, let me join with my distinguished chairman in thanking the
hardest-working staff I have ever been associated with during my years.
The truth is, as the Senator from South Dakota has said, they only
had that 1 day off at Thanksgiving. We worked all weekends and
everything else. But this started, really, in October 1993. We had
worked very hard, gotten a three-fourths vote of the U.S. Senate on a
manufacturing bill. We learned the hard way that these entities, the
various disciplines in telecommunications, had the power to obviate or
cancel out the enactment or
[[Page S696]]
passage of any measure, once they got determined to do so. With a
three-fourths vote, we still could not pass the simple manufacturing
bill, the text of which is already in this measure here as a minor item
compared to being a single bill.
So we agreed to work in a bipartisan fashion and bring in every week
the various interests involved--every Friday the regional Bell
companies, the principals involved, and thereupon on every Monday, the
various long distance carriers. They have been doing this now for the
past almost 3 years.
So, I thank, as I pointed out, Paddy Link, Don McClellan over on the
minority side--as well as Katie King and Earl Comstock. I particularly
want to thank for their guidance and counseling Kevin Curtin, John
Windhausen, and Kevin Joseph on our Commerce Committee Democratic
side--because I never really would be able to imbibe this entire
measure without their help. They have really been in the trenches over
the many years. They have given expert advice. They have listened to
all the parties. They know all the lawyers.
This town has 60,000 lawyers registered to practice before the
District of Columbia bar. I think 59,000 of them are in the
communications discipline. And I think we met all 59,000, I am
convinced, in the last 3 years.
I also want to thank Jim Drewry, Yvonne Portee, Sylvia Cikins, Pierre
Golpira, Lloyd Ator, and Joyce Kennedy of our Commerce Committee staff;
Jim Weber of Senator Daschle's leadership staff; Greg Simon for Vice
President Gore; Steve Richetti for the White House; Carol Ann Bischoff
for Senator Kerrey; and the staff members of our Commerce Committee
members. These include Margaret Cummisky for Senator Inouye, Tom
Zoeller and the late Martha Moloney for Senator Ford, Chris McLean for
Senator Exon, Cheryl Bruner for Senator Rockefeller, Scott Bunton and
Carole Grunberg for Senator Kerry, Mark Ashby and Thomas Moore for
Senator Breaux, Andy Vermilye for Senator Bryan, and Greg Rohde for
Senator Dorgan.
Let me also thank, Mr. President, talking about the bipartisan
nature, the leadership over on the House side that we have the
privilege to work with. Because Chairman Dreier on the House side was a
tiger on this measure. He was determined that we get this bill passed.
In fact, we were ready really before Christmas. And working with him,
Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields--all on that Communications
Committee, a major committee over on the Judiciary Committee--Mr. Hyde,
and Mr. Conyers, they all worked hand in glove to make sure that the
public interest was protected.
Particularly, since I mentioned the Judiciary Committee feature of
this measure, the Department of Justice was protected in the sense that
what we did was have the savings clause for all antitrust laws
included, positive language, and the substantial weight of the
Department of Justice be given by the Federal Communications Commission
in their decision.
I yield now to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska, Senator Bob
Kerrey, who has worked intimately with us. He was not on our
Communications Committee, but I thought he was by the way he attended
the meetings, and his staff was in there making suggestions and making
sure that the public interest was protected.
So it is a particular pleasure for me at this time to yield to the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina
and the Senator from South Dakota.
I believe this conference report is substantially improved from both
the House and the Senate bill. I voted against the bill when it left
here, and I intend to support the conference report in its current
form.
I appreciate in particular the language that provides a more
meaningful role for the Department of Justice. I, frankly, would have
preferred the language which the Commerce Committee produced last year.
I think that would have been better than the 14-part interconnection
competitive checklist requirement that is in there. But I think that a
meaningful role, including the substantial weight requirement for the
Department of Justice, will make it more likely that we will see
competition at the local level.
I appreciate very much the concern of both the chairman and the
ranking member, concern about including some good consumer protection
provisions as well as the inclusion of interconnectivity language,
incidental interLATA relief for the RBOC's to provide Internet and
interactive distance learning services to K through 12 schools, and the
so-called Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey, et al, language that will
allow the K through 12 schools to be able to go either to the Public
Service Commission or the FCC. They will now have the force of law to
be able to argue for subsidized rates.
I particularly appreciate as well, finally, the inclusion of the so-
called farm team provisions in the conference report.
Mr. President, when the request came for a unanimous consent on a
time agreement, I asked for 15 minutes. I do not know if it will take
that long given where I am right now in my comments.
I will observe, as I did on a number of occasions during the debate
earlier on the bill, that this is a very unusual piece of legislation
in that the demand for it is not coming from the citizens; it is really
coming from corporations, the whole range of corporations--I do not
mean the RBOC's; I mean RBOC's, long-distance, cable, broadcast; all of
them are in this business--that feel the current law, which does not
allow them to do a variety of things, is too restrictive. And they say,
if you change the law and allow us to do these things, you are going to
generate a lot of new economic activity and create new jobs. We have
heard all kinds of representations about all the good things that are
going to happen.
I am an advocate for embracing the future and changing the current
law. So there is no question in my mind that the Communications Act
needs to be changed. But I am very mindful and very aware that the
demand for this change does not come from at least the citizens of
Nebraska, whom I represent. I did not hear any question in my
reelection campaign in 1994 coming from citizens saying, ``Well,
Senator, how do you feel about the regulation of local telephone, long
distance, and so forth, because I do not like the structure? I am
unhappy with my phone, I am unhappy with my cable, or I am unhappy with
my network service, whatever it is I am buying.'' Yes. They might
complain sometimes about the rates and have concerns about that sort of
thing, and a lot of concern about the content, pornography, violence,
and so forth. But nobody was really coming to me asking for this
change. This is Congress initiating change and saying it is going to be
good for the people.
It must be said, Mr. President, that that requires a substantial
amount of courage at the beginning. It is not my intention to come here
and say that Members who are enthusiastic about this change are under
the influence of special interest money. That is not my point at all. I
am not trying to say that any Member has been bought out or anything
like that. The problem, though, when you once cross the line, is
saying, OK, we are going to try to do something that is good for the
people. It seems to me that you have to do, in an irrationally cold-
blooded way, an analysis of what the impact is going to be.
There are about 100 million households in the United States of
America, and we have achieved, over the 60 years of this Communications
Act, a remarkable degree of not just penetration, but of universal
service. Ninety-four percent of all households today have a telephone.
It may be significantly lower than that when the Communications Act was
passed in 1934. But we did not do it by saying let us let the market
run wild. We did it by monopoly, by creating a monopoly and giving
monopoly rights in 1934. We changed it substantially by divestiture.
But even with divestiture, we retained monopoly rights for local
telephone service. We have accomplished a remarkable thing.
Yes, there are market forces. There is lots of private capital. Most
of these companies are private shareowner companies. But we have
achieved not just universal service, but by all accounts the best
telephone and telecommunications system in the world, an active,
vibrant industry, competitive industry, and it is a great success
story.
[[Page S697]]
So when we radically alter the landscape, as we are with this
legislation, it seems to me appropriate to sort of ask ourselves: What
is the consumer going to get out of it? I know the one thing that is
going to happen is that the subsidy that has been in place for all
these years at the local level in order to achieve universal service is
going to begin to come off. Say I have a market. If I am going to be
out there trying to compete with a long distance company, to compete
with a cable company, whoever, at the local level, that subsidy is
going to come off.
Indeed, the regional Bell operating company in our region has already
indicated they would like to increase the residential rate by a $2
State subscriber-line charge in order to provide lower costs for long
distance. For those of us whose incomes are over $100,000, that sounds
like a pretty good deal. We have a lot of long distance charges. But
there are, I would surmise, a majority of Americans for whom long
distance is still a bit of a luxury. They budget it. They watch it.
They are careful about it. They do not have unlimited long distance
service. They may not come out so good in that transaction.
In fact, one of the things that is very often not understood in this
whole debate about universal service is there still is a substantial
means test on it. Ninety-nine percent of the households in America with
incomes over $100,000, which includes all of us in Congress, have
telephones. Only 75 percent with incomes under $5,000 have telephones,
largely because of cost. They probably would say, ``I cannot afford it.
I cannot afford to buy it. So I am not going to have a telephone
connected to my house.''
There is a means test on these services. There is a means test as
these dollar figures go up for the cost of local service. I think you
are going to see people say, ``I cannot afford it any longer. I cannot
afford to pay the price.'' Though we have some protection in the farm
team universal service provisions, I think that we are going to have to
be alert in the first instance that there are going to be households
out there currently able to afford the fare who are going to find
themselves saying, ``I cannot afford it any longer.''
I think, on the basis of policy, if the market does not get the job
done, we as Members of Congress are going to have to ask ourselves a
question: Well, what is it like if you are in a household without a
telephone? How essential is it? How important, how valuable is it? One
measure is going to be: Can I get out and talk to the people who may
need to come to my household and haul me to the hospital if I have a
heart attack or some other sort of health problem?
But increasingly the question is going to be not only if I do not
have the dial tone, but if I do not have the volume, the enhanced
services, I may not be able to get as good an education as my neighbor,
I may not be able to get as good a break with the economy, I may not be
able to have a home-based company. One out of seven jobs in the State
of Nebraska are self-employed today. We are seeing an increasing number
of households that, in fact, are taking advantage of enhanced
telecommunications services. I think we are going to have to be alert
to that in the second instance. Many Americans are not going to be able
to buy enhanced services.
I think there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats,
before you ever get to the point of are we going to spend money, that
this land of opportunity ought to be a land of opportunity for
everybody. That opportunity does not necessarily fall equally as a
consequence of your birth.
The next thing, Mr. President, that I think we are going to have to
be alert to is this question of the control of content. I have heard
the concentration debate. I appreciate very much the language changes
made in the legislation on media concentration. I think that we do have
to worry about this even though there are all kinds of other choices
out there.
All of us know it is the networks that dominate this deal. If the
networks decide they want to raise a stink about something, they will
raise a stink about something and they will drive it into the
household. If they decide they are not going to, as the distinguished
majority leader said earlier about the sale of digital spectrum, they
are not going to say anything about it. They are not going to talk
about that ripoff. They are not going to talk about something that
might have an impact upon them.
This concentration issue is a very important issue, and we, it seems
to me, are going to have to be alert to it and watch it very carefully
in the aftermath of passing this conference report, and watch what
happens to universal service. Is there change in rural America? Are
there people who are genuinely not going to get service? We have
accomplished a great thing in the United States of America with
universal service.
Second, we are going to have to watch very carefully as to whether or
not people can afford to buy enhanced services. The laws of this land
ought to provide equal opportunity for all Americans who are willing to
make the effort. It ought to reward people who work hard and are
determined through self-discipline to be a success. We need to be
careful over this legislation and watch in the aftermath and see what
the impact is going to be.
Finally, whether it is in education or whether it is in health care
or whether it is merely trying to find out what is going on in your
country with the budget and other sorts of things, we are going to have
to pay a great deal of attention to content. Content determines what an
individual receives in their household. We do not want to follow this
legislation sort of blindly in presuming it is going to in all cases do
good.
Again, I intend to vote for the conference report. I appreciate very
much the efforts made by the distinguished chairman, the Senator from
South Dakota, and the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from
South Carolina. I think this conference report is substantially better
than the bill that we earlier passed. I believe it will in the main be
good for the economy, but there is a great deal of scrutiny that is
going to have to occur in the aftermath of this legislation being
enacted and signed by the President.
Mr. President, the conference report before us is substantially
better than the bill that this body considered last summer for
competition and consumers, for a number of reasons.
First, the House and Senate bills did not contain a meaningful role
for the Department of Justice [DOJ] in safeguarding competition before
local telephone companies are allowed to enter new markets. Under the
conference report, the DOJ's opinion on regional Bell operating company
[RDOC] entry will be accorded substantial weight by the Federal
Communications Commission [FCC] in its proceeding and will be included
in the official record of decision.
Neither bill had sufficient provisions to ensure that the local
telephone market was open to competition before the RBOC's entered long
distance. The conference report provides that before RBOC's can enter
long distance, they must complete an interconnection checklist, have a
facilities-based competitor and satisfy a public interest analysis at
the FCC. They are required to offer long distance through a separate
subsidiary for 3 years, which the FCC can extend for a longer period.
The underlying legislation also would have preempted the States from
using rate-of-return regulation and forced them to use price caps or
alternative rate regulation. Under the conference report, States
continue to regulate local phone rates as they choose.
I strongly supported retention in the final bill of the Snowe-
Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey [SREK] provision--which was not included in the
House bill--that will ensure that K-12 schools, libraries, and rural
hospitals have access to advanced telecommunications services. SREK was
retained in the conference report, and there are important provisions
to help rural areas, health care providers, libraries, and citizens
with disabilities.
Both House and Senate bills permitted waiver of the cable-telco
buyout provision. These were overly broad, and would have permitted an
excessive number of in-region buyouts between telephone companies and
cable operators. The conference report limits cable-telco mergers to
communities with fewer than 35,000 inhabitants that are outside of
urban areas according to the Census Bureau.
Both bills also deregulated cable monopolies before there was
effective
[[Page S698]]
competition. The conference report deregulates small cable systems only
immediately, and does not deregulate enhanced basic programming for all
cable systems until March 31, 1999.
And both bills permitted excessive concentration in ownership of
local TV and radio stations. The conference report retains the cross-
ownership ban on newspaper/broadcast and cable/broadcast; retains
limits prohibiting one person from owning two stations in one market;
expands the limits on local radio stations but retains numeric limits
on the number of stations in a market; dropped the provision allowing a
loophole in the ownership attribution rules for TV stations; and
expands the national limit on TV ownership to 35 percent national
market reach, but drops the provision allowing waivers.
``meaningful role'' for doj
Mr President, I would like to elaborate further on the role afforded
the Department of Justice in the conference report. The final bill
appropriately includes a strong role for the Justice Department in
evaluating applications by regional bell operating companies to provide
interLATA telecommunications.
The Antitrust Division has unrivaled expertise in assessing
marketplace effects, particularly so in telecommunications, where it
has been deeply involved continuously for more than 20 years.
During floor debate on S. 652, we worked hard to secure an
independence role for the Antitrust Division in determining when and to
what extent to remove the consent decrees's core restriction, the long
distance or interLATA restriction.
Independent DOJ role narrowly lost in the Senate, but conferees were
persuaded to give DOJ a special, strong advisory role within FCC
procedure, almost equivalent protection for competitive freedom.
Thirty-six Senators cosigned a letter supporting this meaningful role.
As I earlier indicated, the FCC is required by the conference report
to consult with the Attorney General and give the Attorney General's
evaluation substantial weight.
In conjunction with this evaluation, the Attorney General may submit
any comments and supporting materials under any standard she believes
appropriate. Through its work in investigating the telecommunications
industry and enforcing the MFJ, DOJ has important knowledge, evidence,
and experience that will be of critical importance in evaluating
proposed long-distance entry--which, as I indicated earlier, requires
an FCC finding that such entry is in the public interest, and that a
facilities-based competitor is present. On both of these issues, the
DOJ's expertise in telecommunications and competitive issues generally
should be of great value to the FCC.
While the substantial-weight requirement does not preclude FCC
departure from the Attorney General's recommendation if sufficiently
indicated by other evidence on the record, this additional legal
requirement means that the FCC's decision must be appropriately mindful
of the Antitrust Division's special expertise in competition matters
generally and in making predictive judgments regarding marketplace
effects in particular.
This requirement will ensure that DOJ's position is given serious
substantive consideration on the merits--by the courts on appeal as
well as by the FCC. DOJ also retains its full statutory authority to
represent the interests of the United States before the courts on
appeal.
Moreover, even after entry occurs, there are important separate
affiliate requirements--section 271--that will apply for at least 3
years.
The conference report further contains an absolute savings clause for
antitrust laws. No authority that is given to the FCC, and no
authorization that is given to any private entity, will diminish in any
way the full applicability of the antitrust laws. This is an important
guarantee that competition, and the innovation that results from
healthy market forces, will be the centerpiece of our
telecommunications policy. In addition, telco-cable, broadcast and
other media mergers are subject to full antitrust scrutiny, regardliess
of how they are treated by the FCC.
repeal of antitrust exemption
Finally, the conference report repeals a provision (47 U.S.C. Sec.
221(a)) that exempts mergers between telephone companies from antitrust
review--a provision left over from the 1920's, a bygone era when
Federal telecommunications policy was actually to promote monopoly over
competition.
If not repealed, this provision could have taken on a new meaning
under the bill, since the provision did not define telephone company.
And, as a result of the walls brought down and the forces unleashed by
the bill, it is not clear what will constitute a telephone company in
the future--perhaps every firm that transmits information by any
electronic means. Absent repeal of this provision, the entire
communications industry might have merged into one vast monopoly
without ever being subject to antitrust review.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Who yields time?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished chairman, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 21 minutes.
Mr. LOTT. We have 21 minutes remaining. I will take then 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking
and congratulating the members of the Commerce Committee in the Senate
and also our House colleagues for the outstanding work that has been
put into this legislation. But I particularly have to recognize the
dogged, determined, tenacious, informed effort by the chairman of the
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. We would not be
here without question if he had not continued to work on this
legislation to try to find ways to keep informed all the Members on
both sides of the Capitol on both sides of the aisle. He has been
willing to accept some compromises, and, after all, that is the art of
legislating. He has done a fantastic job. He has made history with this
legislation.
I believe we will pass this conference report overwhelmingly in a few
minutes, and I venture to say right now there will not be a bigger,
more important piece of legislation that passes the Congress this year
and probably not one in the last decade in terms of the impact this is
going to have in the creation of jobs and bringing legislation out of
the Edsel era of the 1934 Communications Act into a modern Explorer
because that is what this legislation is going to do--open up
tremendous horizons for our people.
So I just have to say I take my hat off to the chairman, Senator
Pressler, from the great State of South Dakota. He has done a fantastic
job.
I also have to say we would not be here without the leadership and
effort of the ranking member on the committee, Senator Hollings. He has
been good to his word. He has worked hard. He has been tough. He even
thought I was trying to game him one time, which I might have been
trying to do. But he was always open. He was always willing to talk
with us. When he has made commitments, he has kept those commitments.
He has continued to work with the chairman to move this thing forward.
He has worked to keep his Members informed, and we have been informed
on this side.
I just think they have done a fantastic job. I think we will look
back in years ahead and call this truly a historic activity and piece
of legislation. I also have to say that Chairman Bliley in the House
took some real risks with his leadership, and the ranking member there,
Congressman Dingell, who is obviously a very experienced, long-time,
tough negotiator. But they have all done a great job.
I wish to also commend the staff. There have been times, I am sure,
when our staffs on both sides of the aisle were ready to throw in the
towel or did not want to see us come in again. They worked hard, long
hours, weekends, and they produced outstanding legislation.
Let me take a minute to talk just a bit about the process. There were
those who thought we could not get this bill through the Senate. There
were those who thought we could not get it through the House. There
were those who thought we could not get it through the conference.
There were those who did not want a conference
[[Page S699]]
agreement. But we moved it forward, and we reached a point where some
decisions had to be made, and the leaders of the committees in the
House and Senate stepped up and made a decision.
It has been suggested that maybe some Senators or some Congressmen or
some of us got rolled. In some respects, all of us got rolled a little
bit. I have some things I would like to change in this conference
report that are important to me and my State. But when you look at the
entire package, this is good legislation. It took a little extra effort
during the past couple days to push it to where it could be completed
today. And so while it is not perfect, it certainly is very good
legislation that is going to be good for our country and good for the
economy.
This legislation is deregulatory. Just take a look at what it does in
terms of opening up markets; the local markets, the cable industry. We
are going to have competition. Local telephone companies will be able
to get into long-distance business and long distance will be able to
get into local telephone service. They will be able to get into the
cable area. Cable will be able to provide phone service. What it is
going to mean is great competition and choices for the people. It is so
fundamental to what America is all about. It is amazing to me it has
been so hard to make this happen. But it is a bill that opens up
markets. It is about more competition. It is deregulatory. I think that
we should say that over and over again and recognize that is what we
have here.
There are all kinds of people who are supporting this legislation
now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask the Chairman, could I have an
additional 5 minutes?
Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. The telephone companies are supporting this legislation.
The long-distance companies are supporting this legislation--both of
them would like to have a little more in their sections, but basically
they know this is good legislation--the cable industry, the
broadcasters. The utility industry is going to be able to be involved
and provide another option, more competition. We made sure that the
public utilities law on the books did not keep the utilities from
offering the services they could offer. We made sure that it was a fair
bill even for the burglar alarm industry.
There is going to be a tremendous explosion in technology. It will
help education. It will help health care. We will have manufacturing. I
hope we are going to have manufacturing of telephone equipment in
America. But there will be more of it. At least now our companies that
have been prohibited over the past 15 or 20 years will be able to get
in there, get into manufacturing and offer additional equipment and
create some jobs.
But most of all, the beneficiaries of this bill will be the people.
They are going to be staggered by the choices, Mr. President, that they
are going to have to choose between on their telephones and on their
television sets. There is going to be an absolute revolution occurring
in the next 10 years in the telecommunications industry.
It was a question, frankly, of would the Congress step up and
acknowledge what was happening. Would the Congress take off the
shackles and allow the telecommunications industry to move forward
aggressively, or would we retard and restrain and regulate that
potential?
We have decided in this legislation to open it up. The people will be
the beneficiaries. There are adequate safeguards in this legislation
for consumers. Some people might say too much. But I think that they
are there. I think they are important. We are going to get jobs
creation from this legislation. The people will get choice in how they
get their services. They can choose to have one company in the future
to give them their local service, their long-distance service, their
television.
There is no end to the ideas that will come as a result of this
legislation. It is going to provide opportunities for growth and
development and lower prices. Competition will give us more choices,
tremendous developments and activities at lower prices.
So I just wanted to say briefly how important I think this
legislation is. We are changing 60 years of law with it. It is going to
have a tremendous impact.
I have been honored to be a part of the process through the
committee, on the floor of the Senate, in conference. I thank the
distinguished majority leader for allowing us to get this legislation
up this afternoon. Without his being willing to step up and say we
should go forward with this, it would not be happening.
He raises legitimate questions about the spectrum question. But the
chairman and the ranking Member have made a commitment we are going to
have hearings on this. We are going to see what can be done there. We
are going to make sure we do it right. The FCC is not going to go
forward with giving away spectrum until we have taken an additional
look at it. But I have to say it is a very complicated area, and one we
need to be careful about.
We should not break our word, and we should not say we can get more
money than we can get. And we should not take actions that slow down or
stop the move to digital, the next step in the very pure picture that
we can get. So we are going to get this legislation, and we are going
to get additional action on spectrum. We are going to do it, and we are
going to do it properly.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me at this time. I
thank the chairman for yielding it to me. I am anxiously awaiting the
final vote on this historic legislation.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, may I say to the Senator from
Mississippi that this legislation would not have happened without him.
He has been a valued member of the committee and a valuable friend. He
has taken great personal risks. I have seen him in meetings really
perform as a leader. I am very proud to have him as a friend. This
legislation would not have happened without him. I pay tribute to
Senator Lott of Mississippi who made this happen. I thank him very,
very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has 11 minutes.
The Senator from South Carolina has 14 minutes.
Mr. PRESSLER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my chairman and the Chair.
First of all, I rise today to join my colleague in pledging my
support for this piece of legislation, the Telecommunications Act of
1995. Let me first start out talking about the leadership that Senator
Pressler has shown on this particular piece of legislation.
As you know, we have gotten the reform of telecommunications further
than it has come since I have been in this body. In 1989, we started
working on telecommunications in the reform, the deregulation of it, to
do one thing, and that was to push new technologies into areas where we
desperately needed those new technologies, because all one has to do is
to look around and say we are going to do things differently when it
comes to educating our kids, we are going to do things differently when
we talk about telemedicine.
I can remember almost 5 years ago I joined with then-Senator Gore to
introduce a series of telecommunications infrastructure bills. I
remember that day. I think the ranking member of the Commerce Committee
was chairman at that time. I can remember that situation. We both
strongly believed at that time in the need to unleash the digital
revolution through the substitution of competition for excessive
regulation. The bill basically achieves that basic goal, and because of
this, it will accelerate by decades the deployment of advanced
telecommunications infrastructure.
This is not to say, Mr. President, that the conference report is
perfect or the best it could possibly be. In some places I would like
to change it. But, you know, you do not get everything you want, but at
least you want everything that you got. I think basically that is the
position we are in. We cannot let the best become the enemy of the
good. It is time that we take what we can get now and move forward with
this piece of legislation.
Under this bill, the nature of regulation will change. Instead of
regulating the profits of telephone companies, regulation will now
focus on ensuring that competition can take root in all
[[Page S700]]
aspects of the telecommunications markets. Once full and effective
competition can take root, it will protect the consumer interests and
the need for regulation will end. This process of using regulation to
embrace and advance the cause of competition toward an ultimate goal of
deregulation will require the conscience and the constant vigilance of
this Congress and Congresses to come. Cooperation between the FCC and
the States will also be mandatory.
We all must be vigilant to ensure that competition can take root and
that it grow and it prosper. If it does not, then this bill will be a
failure. I believe this bill will not be a failure. I am proud of most
of the agreements that were made and reached in this conference.
I believe that a good deal was struck where both rural and urban
interests are well served. My home State of Montana will benefit
greatly from the universal services provisions and lower telephone
rates, better cable services, and increased competition in all segments
of telecommunications across the board.
What does it do? It removes almost all State and local government
restrictions on competition and local exchange telephone, video
services, wireless, and other communications markets. It also reforms
the broadcast license renewal process to forestall strike units or
other abusive practices by self-styled consumer groups and community
activists, removing network cable owner limits and raising current
radio and television station ownership caps. It restructures the
remaining FCC procedures and requires speedy action on complaints,
petitions for forbearance, applications and other requests, and
establishes a permanent biennial regulatory review of the process.
It also removes and relaxes the restrictions on the ability of public
utility holding companies to engage in competitive telecommunications
activities.
Furthermore, the report's rules on interconnection will empower
competitors by ensuring that they can gain access on fair and
reasonable terms to existing local telephone facilities without
imposing unreasonable burdens on rural telephone companies.
The report also protects the continuation of universal service, an
essential feature, especially for rural areas where competition will be
slow to evolve.
And, a backup provision, the so-called advanced telecommunications
provision, was included in the report to ensure that competition and,
hence, infrastructure deployment evolve in a reasonable and timely
manner. If competition is stalled, the report gives the FCC authority
to quicken the pace of competition and deregulation to accelerate the
deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure.
These provisions, taken together, will ensure that all Americans--in
urban, suburban, rural, and remote areas--gain access to the most
advanced telecommunications capability as quickly as market forces will
allow.
Finally, I also support the radio ownership deregulation provision
included in the report. The provision is a good compromise between
those who wanted complete deregulation and those who were concerned
about concentration in radio ownership in local markets. By
deregulating radio ownership rules, we are setting the groundwork for
our Nation's radio operators to compete and survive in this new
telecommunications environment.
For these reasons, I support the conference report and hope that my
colleagues will as well in the confidence that its enactment will
ensure the rapid deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
to the benefit to all Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana's time has expired.
Mr. BURNS. Again, I want to congratulate the leadership of Senator
Pressler and the many people that it took to put this together, because
we know that it was frustrating at times. It was frustrating to all of
us at times. But, nonetheless, I think it is a good piece of
legislation. I yield the floor.
commercial availability of navigation devices
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The competitive availability of navigation devices
provision, section 304, instructs the FCC to consult with appropriate
voluntary industry standards setting organizations for the purpose of
promulgating a regulation. Given that the FCC is not a standards
setting organization, do you agree that this legislation does not
authorize the FCC to set a standard for interactive video equipment?
Mr. BURNS. I agree. Moreover, FCC involvement in the emerging digital
market could have the effect of freezing or chilling the development of
that market. If private industry groups are able to develop sufficient
standards on their own, there is no need for the FCC to intervene. One
such example of this policy approach is the so-called Eshoo amendment
which leaves the development of ``features, functions, protocols, and
other product and service options'' for analog cable equipment to the
private sector.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Do you also agree that the intent of this provision is
that the use of rate regulated services to subsidize equipment might
unfairly penalize the general rate-payer?
Mr. BURNS. I agree. However, when those services are no longer rate
regulated such subsidy cannot be sustained and the prohibition on
bundling is no longer necessary. The bill's prohibition on bundling and
subsidization no longer applies when cable rates are deregulated.
Consumers should have the option of obtaining digital devices through
commercial outlets, but this does not mean that network operators must
make each type of equipment available through commercial outlets.
Network operators should have the flexibility to package and bundle
equipment and services.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in opposition to the
conference report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Deregulation Act of
1995. I regret that I cannot support this legislation, because it
contains important protections for parents to be able to monitor what
their children are viewing. I support the language in the conference
report that requires manufacturers to include V-chips in new
televisions. I also hope that the television industry will voluntarily
develop ratings for video programming. Parents need this rating system
so that they can more fully monitor what their kids are viewing.
This bill also represents so much for our country. I can imagine
workers in rural Minnesota telecommuting to and from work as far away
as New York or Washington without ever having to leave their homes or
families. As a teacher the possibilities really excite me--
schoolchildren in Minneapolis reading the latest publications at the
Library of Congress via thin glowing fiber cables or rural health care
providers on the iron range consulting with the top medical researchers
at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester to better treat their patients. All of
this is before us.
When the Senate debated this bill in June, I felt then and still feel
now that this bill presents to each Senator a daunting responsibility.
The concern that I still have now that we are voting on the conference
report, has to do with whether or not we can make sure that there will
be true competition, and that this technology and information will
truly be available to everyone in the Nation, not just the most
privileged or the most wealthy.
The conferees maintained some very important Senate provisions,
including language to keep telecommunication rates low for schools and
hospitals. This will help to ensure that our communication technologies
are affordable for future generations. I was proud to support this
provision when opponents tried to strip this provision in the Senate.
The conferees also kept language requiring V-chips in new
televisions. I am proud to say that I supported this provision that
will help keep adult-oriented video programs away from children. I
believe that this will give those who know best, parents, the ability
to control the flow of new services into their homes.
What disappoints me the most is that this bill did not go far enough
to assure competition and therefor does not go far enough to protect
consumers. I am not just concerned about the alphabet soup
corporations. I am concerned about the people that live in Eveleth or
Fergus Falls or Virginia or St. Paul or Northfield or Pipestone. I was
hoping that at least we could build in more protection for consumers
and more
[[Page S701]]
guarantees that there would in fact be the competition that we all talk
about.
I ask my colleagues, after you remove the protections against huge
rate increases, against monopoly, against service just for the
privileged, what would you replace them with? Words, Mr. President.
Promises, guarantees, reassurances that this time, although many of
these companies have misbehaved in the past, and have been fined
repeatedly for violating promises to protect consumers, that this time
the corporations promise to behave themselves and to conduct themselves
in the consumer's best interest.
Mr. President, I have said it before, and I will say it again. I do
not buy it. I would rather put my trust in solid protections, written
in law, to make sure that rates remain affordable, services are
available for everyone, and no one is left behind in the stampede for
corporate profits. Protections that ensure affordability, fairness, and
access in local and long distance phone service and cable TV.
Mr. President, the need for the continuation of consumer protections
and antitrust circuit breakers is clear. With every passing day, we see
more integration in the telecommunications and information marketplace.
Over the summer, we saw the Lotus Corp. agree to a friendly takeover by
IBM. AT&T and McCaw Cellular will be joining forces, as will other
companies, in preparing for this newly deregulated telecommunications
environment. I am concerned that this integration will mean a broadcast
concentration where consumers will get their news and information from
fewer and fewer sources.
This integration at the top corporate level and the market position
of many of these companies demands that consumers be given a voice--a
trusted voice--to speak for them in the coming years. No more trusted
voice could be found on this subject than that of the Department of
Justice. It was through that Department's courageous leadership that
the old AT&T Ma Bell monopoly was broken apart--it was a long, tough
fight, but this experience gained by the DOJ has been invaluable in
guiding the breakup of the Bell system, and the development of
competition in long distance and other services. It only makes sense
that we allow the DOJ to put this experience to use again as we move
into an exciting, but potentially risky, new market. I believe that DOJ
oversight is essential to ensure competition and consumer protection to
keep telephone monopolies from reassembling themselves.
While I fully appreciate the potential of this legislation, I am
really worried about where we are heading because I think there is
going to be entirely too much concentration of power. The New York
Times reported in a December 19, 1995, article:
For Wall Street, a frenzy of deals would be a bonanza. For
many consumers though, the activity is unlikely to make much
difference in the price of quality of their phone service.
Only in large metropolitan areas, where the lure of lucrative
markets might intensify competition, could the average phone
customer expect to see much benefit.
The article goes on to report from one investment analyst that ``What
you need to have is a large footprint to reach more customers with one
network.'' He went on to say ``There's no reason on God's Earth why you
have to have seven bell companies.''
Well this may be true if the only bottom line is to make money. But
my bottom line is to ensure that consumers all over America have access
to affordable, quality telecommunications services.
I believe that this legislation will lead to too much concentration
of power in a very, very important and decisive area of public life in
the United States of America. I think we are making a mistake if we
pass this piece of legislation. I will therefore, vote against it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there is language within S. 652 which
requires all must carry challenges filed with the FCC to be resolved
within 120 days. Let me further state that broadcast stations are
important sources of local news, public affairs programming, and other
local broadcast services. This category of service will be an important
part of the public interest determination to be made by the Commission
when deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall be granted
by the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast signals from
being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable television
systems and those providing cable services, we must recognize and
reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local commercial
television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and
regulations.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the telecom conference
report and its adherence to procedures we set up with passage of S. 1,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
We passed S. 1 one year ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. It
was one of the two major items in the Contract with America that has
actually been enacted. I am proud to be its coauthor along with my
colleague, Senator Kempthorne.
S. 1 sets up a process where, first, we would understand the cost of
future Federal mandates on State and local governments before we voted
to enact them. We would get this cost information from CBO and, to do
so, we secured an additional $1.4 million in fiscal year 1996 funds for
CBO to hire the needed analysts. Second, S. 1 ensures that we would pay
for those mandates or otherwise face a possible point of order on the
floor. We set a date of January 1, 1996 for the act's cost estimating
and funding requirements to take effect.
This telecom conference report violates S. 1's spirit, intent and
requirements. Section 424(d) of the act stipulates that ``the
conference committee shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable''
that CBO shall perform cost estimates on conference reports containing
Federal mandates. This provision was an amendment to S. 1 by Senator
Gramm from Texas that was unanimously adopted by the Senate. It is
meant to address the possibility of Federal mandates all of a sudden
showing up in conference reports.
State and local government groups alerted Members to three sections
of the report, section 302, 303, and 602 that restricted or limited
their authority to raise revenues through licensing and franchising
fees. Section 421(3) of the act defines direct costs to mean ``the
aggregate estimated amounts that all State, local, and tribal
governments would be prohibited from raising in revenues in order to
comply with the Federal intergovernmental mandate.'' So the State and
local groups were right to raise these concerns and ask that CBO do a
scoring of the conference report as required under S. 1.
Unfortunately, CBO did not receive the conference report until this
morning. Earlier efforts by the CBO analysts to get copies of earlier
versions of the conference report were also unsuccessful. Apparently,
they were ignored by the conference committee staff. That's not the
process we envisioned under S. 1.
I understand that the rights of way provisions in section 303 were
altered to address State and local concerns. Those were the provisions
that were of the greatest concern to them. However, that still leaves
sections 302 and 602. Those sections are being looked at right now by
CBO for their cost on State and local governments, but I'm afraid it's
too late. We are going to pass this conference report shortly without
having any estimate of what those costs might be.
When we passed S. 1, I talked on the floor about how Congress and its
committees would have to change the way they do business in order for
the act to work. That change didn't happen on this conference report. I
hope there is a better effort at compliance next time.
I support this conference report because it makes long-needed and
important reforms in the telecom industry. But in terms of following S.
1's rules and procedures, it falls far short.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate will
vote today on final passage of S. 652, the Telecommunications
Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995--one of the most important
bills to be considered by the 104th Congress. While there are many
issues that have been addressed in this legislation, most notably to
ensure that there is competition among the telecommunications
technologies of the 21st century, I have been particularly concerned
about one important issue associated with telecommunications reform--
the impact of television programming on our children, and the
importance of ensuring
[[Page S702]]
that parents have information and the technology necessary to make an
informed decision about television programming for their children.
In this regard, I am very pleased that conferees have agreed to
accept the Parental Choice in Television Programming provisions--the V-
chip--that was adopted by both the House of Representatives and Senate
by overwhelming margins during consideration of S. 652 and H.R. 1555
last summer. The importance of this parental choice technology for
parents was underscored by President Clinton last week in his State of
the Union Message to the Nation.
In that message, the President called on Congress to pass the V-chip
requirement in S. 652 that would permit parents to screen out
television programming inappropriate for children. The President also
called on the entertainment media to create movies, CD's, and
television programming that members of the entertainment community
would want their children to view. He further challenged the broadcast
industry to help parents protect their children by providing families
with more information about TV programming through improved advisories
or rating system. To accomplish this goal, the President invited
leaders of the major entertainment media to the White House later this
month to discuss and work on ways to improve what children view in
entertainment programming.
Mr. President, I commend President Clinton for strongly endorsing the
V-chip in his State of the Union Message, as well as for his leadership
on behalf of parental choice chip technology during consideration of
telecommunications reform legislation in the Senate and House.
President Clinton remarked that the V-chip represents a reasonable
solution--not censorship--to the concerns of parents who have little
control over the television programming that is available to their
children, and want more information on the content of this programming.
The President said, ``when parents control what their children see,
that's not censorship. That's enabling parents to assume more
responsibility for their children's upbringing''. I agree with
President Clinton.
Regrettably, the reaction of the broadcast media to President
Clinton's support for the V-chip technology and appeal to the media to
work together to make the V-chip technology effective, has not been
encouraging. Despite broad public support among parents, the medical
community, educators and other children advocates for this technology,
and successful tests of this technology in Canada, broadcasters say the
V-chip proposal is unworkable, and unconstitutional on free-speech
grounds. According to press reports, the broadcasters intend to oppose
the V-chip in court. I believe this decision is unfortunate--children
will be the losers if this technology does not become available to
parents. Unfortunately, many in the television broadcast industry
continue to misrepresent the provisions adopted in the conference
agreement to S. 652.
As adopted in the conference report (Section 551--Parental Choice in
Television Programming), manufacturers of television sets (13 inches or
larger), both domestic and foreign, would be required to install
technology--the V-chip--that would allow parents to block the display
of programming with a common rating. The Federal Communications
Commission, following consultation with the electronics industry, would
determine a date for the implementation of this provision. There is
also a provision under section 551 that would prohibit the shipping of
television sets in interstate commerce that do not meet the
requirements for the manufacture of television sets with blocking
technology. These are the only mandates under section 551.
To make the parental choice chip technology an effective tool for
parents, section 551 calls on television broadcasters, cable operators,
and other video programmers to work with concerned interest groups,
including parents, over a 12-month period--before any of the provisions
of section 551 become effective--to voluntarily develop rules for
rating television programming with violent, sexual, or other indecent
content. Broadcasters and cable operators during this same period would
also be encouraged to voluntarily develop rules for the transmission of
signals encoding the ratings that would block certain television
programming.
Effective voluntary rating systems have already been developed for
television programming in Canada. In addition, as I noted during the
telecommunications debate last summer, the Recreational Software
Advisory Council and the Interactive Digital Software Association on
behalf of video game manufacturers have voluntarily adopted a rating
system that is included with most video games sold in the United
States. A voluntary rating system is workable.
Mr. President, following the 12-month period from the date of
enactment of S. 652, if the television broadcasters, cable operators
have not taken the opportunity to voluntarily develop a rating system
to guide parents, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be
authorized to establish an advisory committee to develop
recommendations and guidelines for the identification and rating of
television programming. The advisory committee would include industry
representatives, parents, and public interest groups. Any guidelines or
recommendations established by the advisory committee could serve as a
model for the television broadcast industry in the development of a
rating system.
Section 551 does not mandate a government rating system, or that a
program be rated if a broadcaster refuses to rate programming. Nor does
this legislation establish a government entity to rate television
programming. There is also no authority or suggestion to rate or
identify in any way religious or political programming. No penalties
are established by this provision if a television broadcaster's cable
operator refuses to develop ratings, or apply whatever ratings or
identification system is established voluntarily, or by the advisory
committee under the FCC. The development of any rating or other
television program identification is entirely voluntary--the
effectiveness of the V-chip technology as an aid for parents rests with
television broadcasters and cable operators, not the Federal
Government.
Mr. President, 90 percent of the public supports the installation of
the V-chip on television sets--parents want more information on the
contents of television programming, and to be able to block that
programming if they consider it inappropriate for children. They should
have that right. In Canada, recent trials of V-chip technology that
were conducted in Toronto and other communities have shown that the V-
chip is popular, and workable. More than 80 percent of the families
that participated in the demonstration felt positively toward the V-
chip, and more than 70 percent thought the system effective and should
be maintained.
I urge television broadcasters, cable operators, and other video
programmers to take advantage of the 12-month period provided under
section 551 to voluntarily develop an identification or rating system
that will help parents to make informed decisions about television
programming that is appropriate for children. I hope that media
executives will view the upcoming White House meeting on violence and
children's programming as an opportunity for constructive dialog on
this important issue for children, and to make this new parental choice
technology an effective tool for parents and families. The time has
come to work together.
I applaud House and Senate conferees on S. 652 for including the V-
chip provisions in the final conference agreement. I also want to
express my appreciation to Senator Hollings for his leadership on
behalf of children's television programming, and for his strong support
of the V-chip provision in conference. I urge my colleagues to lend
their strong support for passage of this important telecommunications
reform conference report.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as we approach the end of the 20th
century, it becomes increasingly clear that our telecommunications
industry has outgrown the Communications Act of 1934. Changes in
technology and in consumer demands since then mean that it is now time
to pass the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of
1995. This legislation will foster technological growth, bring more
choices and lower prices to consumers,
[[Page S703]]
increase productivity, jobs, and international competitiveness.
The Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 will
provide consumers with more choices and lower prices in long distance
phone service and television programming. And it will do so in a way
that protects rural customers: This legislation explicitly preserves
the universal service fund which subsidizes telephone services to rural
areas.
Right now, consumers have a choice among long distance phone
companies. After this legislation takes effect, consumers will also be
able to choose among companies that offer them local phone service.
This legislation will also give consumers more choices in how they
receive television programming. Currently, if a consumer's area is
served by cable, a consumer may choose between the cable company and
Direct Broadcast Satellite [DBS] service. This legislation will allow
the phone company to offer television over phone lines, so consumers
will be able to choose television services from among cable companies,
phone companies, and DBS.
The Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 will
also encourage investment in domestic telecommunications industries. By
requiring that local telephone service be provided solely through
regulated monopolies, the Communications Act of 1934 has forced U.S.
companies wanting to invest in local phone markets to invest overseas.
The President's Council of Economic Advisors estimates that as a
result of deregulation, by 2003, 1.4 million service sector, U.S.-based
jobs will be created.
Over the next 10 years, a total of 3.4 million jobs will be created,
and, according to telecommunications analyst George Gilder, the gross
domestic product will increase by as much as $2 trillion.
Increased investment in telecommunications products and services will
bring a better quality of life to rural New Mexico. With fiber optic
cable connections, doctors in Shiprock, NM, can consult with
specialists at the University of New Mexico Medical Center or any
medical center across the country.
These new technologies will enable students in Hidalgo County, NM, in
towns like Lordsburg and Animas, to share teachers through a video and
fiber optic link. This legislation will remove the regulations that
currently prevent local phone companies from making the investments
necessary to provide such technologies.
Mr. President, I support this legislation because it will help
improve rural education and rural health care, enhance local and long
distance phone services, and speed up the development of new technology
and new jobs for Americans. I believe this legislation represents a key
step forward toward achieving these valuable objectives.
As with any effort at serious, large-scale reform, this legislation
leaves a few important policy questions unresolved. I am pleased that
we have agreed to separate those issues out from this bill so that we
can give them the full attention they deserve in the future.
I wish to commend the managers of this bill, and their staffs for
their tireless work to craft this legislation. In particular, I
appreciate the legislative skill of Chairman Pressler, Majority Leader
Dole, Senator Stevens, and ranking member Senator Hollings, as well as
their commitment to real reform of obsolete and burdensome regulations.
The public ought to be proud that by working together, Democrats and
Republicans have succeeded in crafting legislation that will enhance
the capacity of our economy to respond to the new, and rapidly growing
challenges of the information age.
Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. President, telecommunications technology has
undergone a major evolution in the six decades since Congress passed
the landmark ``Communications Act'' in 1934. Enacted during the Great
Depression, the ``Communications Act'' alleviated the turf disputes
which emerged when AT&T entered the broadcasting arena to compete with
the well-established radio networks. The New Deal approach to this
problem was to erect strict walls between public utility communication
providers and broadcasters. Amazingly, though, the regulatory approach
established 62 years ago is still the law of the land.
Mr. President, it is my belief that cellular telephones, fax
machines, cable television, direct broadcast satellites, and computers
have rendered obsolete the Nation's aging telecommunications regulatory
framework. Therefore, I believe the time has come to overhaul that
framework as we prepare to enter the 21st century. But as my friends on
the Commerce Committee can attest, the task of rewriting the antiquated
Communications Act of 1934 is much easier said than done.
I suspect that we all agree that the present regulatory structure
needs revision, but forming a consensus on just how to create a new
regulatory environment that acknowledges and fosters competition while
at the same time protects the public interest has proven to be elusive.
After reviewing the conference report on the Telecommunications Act,
though, I feel that the conferees have done a commendable job in
finding an equitable balance between these two competing goals.
The past few months have been witness to some historic agreements.
For instance, those who negotiated the Dayton Peace Accord deserve
credit for a job well done, but the conferees who were able to broker
an agreement between the long distance industry and the Bell operating
companies deserve the Nobel Peace Price. The ability of these two
divergent interests to come to terms in regards to the Baby Bell's
entry into the long distance market is one of the reasons I plan to
support the bill.
In addition, I am pleased that the bill will provide independent,
rural cable systems with the option to merge or be bought out by their
local exchange carrier if the cable system in question decides it can
not compete head-to-head. I specifically want to thank Senator Hollings
for his help on this section of the bill.
One other issue worth mentioning in regards to the telecommunications
bill is the spectrum flexibility issue. All television stations will
soon be making the transition from an analog signal to a digital
signal. This will provide the consumer with a better signal and will
give television stations new sources of revenue, such as digital paging
and data transmission. In that broadcasters provide their services to
the viewing public for free, I think it would be a mistake to require
them to pay for spectrum on which to start digital broadcasts,
particularly since they will turn their analog spectrum back to the
Government once the transition to digital is complete. This bill would
not actually give spectrum to broadcasters, but it would leave the
decision on how best to handle the transition to digital in the hands
of the FCC, where it should be.
Mr. President, in closing this bill is good for the consumer because
it will open the floodgates of competition among communications
providers. As we all know, increased competition means lower prices and
new services in the marketplace. In addition, the bill is supported by
the regional Bell companies, the long distance industry, the cable
industry, and broadcasters. Therefore, I intend to vote in favor of
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join the
distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, and the
Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, in supporting the
conference report to S. 652, the telecommunications reform bill. As a
conferee on this historic piece of legislation, I firmly believe that
this bill is a balanced approach to the overhaul of our
telecommunications laws and regulations and towards a de-regulated and
competitive telecommunications industry.
In the last several months, the Congress has been highly criticized
for the partisan nature of our debates. And it is true that a
significant number of legislative initiatives are caught in intense
partisan differences. But at the same time, there have been a number of
developments where both sides of the aisle have come together, where
both sides have been able to reach an accommodation of differing views
and opinions. I believe that this conference report is just one example
of how this Congress can work in a bi-partisan manner to produce solid
legislation.
[[Page S704]]
That is not to say that it is easy. This conference has been working
throughout the fall and early winter to produce this conference report.
Our negotiations were long and difficult ones. But, Mr. President, I am
by nature a compromiser. I guess that is because I am from Kentucky.
And Kentucky produced many fine legislators and statesmen, including
the great compromiser, Henry Clay. And Henry Clay once said that
compromise is ``a mutual sacrifice.'' Well, let me tell you Mr.
President, that we conferees have made many sacrifices in order to
reach a bi-partisan conference report.
When the House passed its version of telecommunications reform last
August, I was asked what the significance of that event meant. I stated
then that I was fairly confident that we could produce a final bill--
but that it was not going to be easy. There were significant
differences between the Senate and House bills. In particular, I know I
and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle were concerned
about the scope of the deregulation contained in the House bill. But
something significant happened in this conference. We sat down and we
listened to each other. Throughout numerous discussions and informal
meetings of conferees, we were able to state our concerns and have
those concerns understood and appreciated. And more importantly, we
were able to have those concerns addressed in a satisfactory manner. I
do not think that any one side prevailed over the other. This
conference was one of significant negotiations and compromises. But the
result is that today we have a bi-partisan bill. I believe that this
conference report is a fair, logical, and balanced approach towards
reforming our Nation's telecommunications law and policies.
There is no question that we need to pass a reform bill. Not since
the passage of the 1934 Communications Act has the Congress taken a
step towards a major overhaul of that law. The 1934 Act has served its
purpose in guiding our telecommunications policy for the last 60 years.
But we are at a crossroads in terms of policy and technology. Our
telecommunications industry has been in a state of complex
transformation that began in 1984 with the divestiture of AT&T. Since
that time, the seven regional telephone companies have actively sought
permission to enter into other areas of business. And as the regional
Bell companies have sought to expand, other companies and industries
have sought to enter into the local telephone market. Clearly, these
changes cannot be made through court rulings and petitions to the
Federal Communications Commission.
The slow and haphazard de-regulation that has been on-going since
1984 has frustrated the ability for real and effective competition. In
turn, I think that has also frustrated the ability for the
telecommunications industry to develop and improve technology. In fact,
Mr. President, I would argue that an initial and almost immediate
effect of this legislation will be rapid advances in telecommunications
technology.
Our telecommunications industry is on the cutting edge of technology.
Research and development and existing technologies are inhibited by
rules created several years ago, if not several decades ago. The
reforms contained in this conference report will help ensure America
remains competitive.
Throughout my experience in this legislation, I always hear people
talking about the so-called ``information superhighway''. If we want to
make that ``information superhighway'' a reality for all Americans,
then I think we need to spur competition which will encourage
investments.
Mr. President, competition and investments can only mean one thing--
jobs. This conference report is not just a regulatory reform bill. It
is a job creation bill as well. Today, the telecommunications industry
is 15 percent of the GDP. And it is also a sector with high-growth
potential which will create high-skill and high-paying jobs.
In fact, in a recent study conducted by the Wharton School of
Business, the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Association (``The WEFA
Group'') found that full competition in telecommunications has the
potential to create 3.4 million jobs by the year 2005. And the
potential to cause a $298 billion increase in the gross domestic
product within 10 years.
In Kentucky, it is estimated that over 32,000 new jobs will be
created during this same period. Telecommunications reform in Kentucky
could mean the distribution of 1,000 new jobs in the mining industry;
2,900 jobs in the construction industry; 7,300 new jobs in
manufacturing; 1,200 new jobs in the transportation and utilities
sector; 11,200 new jobs in the wholesale and retail trade sector; 1,300
new jobs to the financial services industry; and, 7,500 new jobs to
other services in general.
Mr. President, this telecommunications reform bill is also a pro-
consumer bill because it will create more competition, and in turn,
lower prices. It is estimated that telecommunications reform will lower
rates by 22 percent, saving consumers nearly $550 billion over the next
10 years. Lower long distance rates alone will yield $333 billion in
consumer savings. With lower local telephone rates, consumers can
expect to save another $32 billion. Lower cellular rates could generate
another $107 billion and lower cable television rates will yield
another $78 billion in consumer savings.
But this bill is not simply about jobs and money. This bill also
contains important provisions which will enhance access to advanced
services in our public schools. I am pleased that this conference
report retains the provisions of the Senate bill known as the Snowe-
Rockefeller Amendment. Because of this provision in the legislation,
our classrooms are going to be able to link with other institutions and
other programs to enhance education. This is most important for a state
like Kentucky with a large rural population. Students and teachers in
rural areas will gain access to sources of information and libraries in
other locations across Kentucky and the Nation. The reforms contained
in this bill will hasten the pace by which schools in rural areas will
receive comparable access to the Internet, just like those schools in
more urban areas. Access to advanced services can lead to improvements
and efficiencies in the administration of education. In fact, this is
already occurring in Kentucky. Our State government has contracted for
the establishment of the Kentucky Information Highway. Schools and
school district offices are linked together on the network and advanced
services are made available at preferential rates.
Mr. President, as I have mentioned, this conference report includes
important changes to our telecommunications laws which enable the
development of new technologies. I am pleased to say that the
conference report includes a provision which will limit the role of the
Federal Communications Commission in setting standards that may affect
the computer and home automation technologies. Section 301(f) of the
bill provides that the FCC may only set minimal standards for cable
equipment compatibility, to maximize marketplace competition for all
features and protocols unrelated to descrambling of cable programming,
and to ensure that the FCC's cable compatibility regulations do not
affect computer network services, home automation, or other types of
telecommunications equipment. In short, this section keeps the
government out of setting high technological standards and prevents the
FCC from setting standards for the computer and communications services
of the future.
I believe that this section is a small but important aspect of this
historic bill: to embrace the future by allowing new technologies to
flourish with minimal government interference. Just as this bill will
help open markets by eliminating the barriers to long-distance and
equipment manufacturing competition, Section 301(f) ensures that our
vital computer and high-tech markets remain open and competitive by
ensuring that the FCC's technical standards are kept to a minimum.
Since almost all standards in the communications and computer
industries are voluntary, private standards, this section of the bill
maintains that this practice shall continue. This is very important as
we see the accelerating pace of the convergence of the computer and the
communications industries.
Section 301(f) modifies the FCC's authority in order to reign in the
Commission's ongoing rulemaking on cable equipment compatibility. This
is a problem that arises out of the 1992
[[Page S705]]
Cable Act, which directed the FCC to assure compatibilitybetween
televisions, VCR's and cable systems. But, I believe that the FCC has
gone beyond the directions contained in that 1992 law. This section of
the conference report prevents the FCC from standardizing any feature
or protocols that are not necessary for descrambling, by preventing the
selection of an other home automation protocol as part of the FCC's
cable compatibility regulations. It further prevents the FCC from
affecting products in the computer or home automation industry in any
way. Simply put, Section 301(f) leaves these standards to be set, as
they should be, by competition in the marketplace.
I understand that some have questioned whether the term ``affect'' is
too broad. Indeed it is a broad term in order to effectively implement
the principle that the FCC regulations should not interfere in
competitive markets. Because there is no reason to affect computers or
home automation products, and because even inadvertent or relatively
small effects on emerging and rapidly changing markets can easily
displace technological innovation, this section 301(f) is weighted
toward protecting competition and open markets. The accompanying
Statement of Managers states that any material influence on unrelated
markets is prohibited. Because it is impossible for agencies or courts
to judge whether the impact of technical standards in emerging markets
would be harmful or substantial, Section 301(f) draws a bright line to
avoid any regulatory impact whatsoever.
I think this is an important policy. The risk associated with wide
regulatory powers over technological issues in a time when we are
seeing rapid technical change is that premature or overbroad FCC
standards may interfere in the market-driven process of standardization
or impede technological innovation itself.
It is interesting to note that the industry itself has been able to
solve compatibility problems, and create workable standards in the VCR,
personal computer, compact discs and other products without any
government involvement. I believe that the inclusion of Section 301(f)
continues that tradition and will permit the industry to set the
standards, not the FCC. That is in keeping with the nature of this
legislation as a whole.
Mr. President, in addition to reforms of the local and long distance
telephone companies, this conference report includes a number of
overdue revisions to the laws regulating the broadcasters. I believe
that these changes are necessary to respond to the changing competitive
nature of the broadcast industry, in the same manner as the changes
this conference report foresees for the telephone industry. One of the
changes in this legislation includes directions to the Federal
Communications Commission to conduct a rule-making on the so-called
duopoly rule.
The duopoly rule was last revised by the FCC in 1964. And it prevents
the ownership of more than one television station in a local market.
This regulation served a useful purpose by ensuring there would be
competition and a diversity of media voices in a television market.
However, in the last 32 years, the local media have gained so many
new competitors that I have begun to question whether the duopoly rule
still promotes good policy. That is why I endorse the provisions of the
conference report which direct the FCC to conduct a rule-making to
determine whether to retain, modify, or eliminate this rule.
Today, consumers have access to many more broadcast stations than a
generation ago, let alone, a decade ago. More significantly, consumers
today have access to a host of non-broadcast station video providers,
all of which offer dozens or even hundreds of channels. Competition to
broadcasters is coming from the cable industry, wireless cable systems,
satellite systems, and video dialtone networks. With such competition,
I believe that we may have reached the point where the viability of
free over-the-air programming, provided by single-channel broadcasters,
may be threatened by the new multi-channel competitors.
Too many local broadcasters, particularly in smaller markets, are
already losing money. This is a concern to me, and should be a concern
to other Members, because I believe that local television broadcasters
are just as important as local radio stations and local newspapers.
Together, these local broadcasters help to develop a sense of community
through the coverage of local events. It is my hope that the FCC will
examine this matter thoroughly and revise the duopoly rule
appropriately.
In addition to the duopoly rule, I am also pleased to see that this
conference report grandfathers local marketing agreements, or LMA's.
Many local broadcasters have stayed competitive by entering into these
LMA's with one another. These innovative joint ventures allow
separately owned stations to function cooperatively, achieving
economies of scale through combined sales and advertising efforts, and
shared technical facilities. These local marketing agreements have
served their communities in a number of ways: some have increased
coverage of local news; others have increased coverage of local sports,
particularly college sports; and, many LMA's have provided outlets for
innovative local programming and children's programming.
Together, a review of the duopoly rule and the grandfathering of
LMA's, these provisions will help ensure that consumers always have
access to free local television programming.
Mr. President, it is clear that the reform of our communications laws
is long overdue. This conference report is a comprehensive and balanced
approach to rewrite our National telecommunications policy for the 21st
Century and beyond. After years of debate, negotiations and compromise,
we have finally reached the point where we can make the promises of the
advanced telecommunications into realities.
I applaud the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member for their
determination and persistence in bringing together a comprehensive and
bi-partisan bill to the floor. We would not be here today without their
combined leadership. We would not have bi-partisan support on the
conference. As a result, it has earned the support of many on both
sides of the aisle and the support of the President. S. 652 deserves to
become law and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting final
passage.
clarification of local station ownership provisions
Mr. INOUYE. Will the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking
member of the Commerce Committee, yield for a colloquy?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I'd be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. The conference report directs the FCC to conduct a
rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify or
eliminate its duopoly rule, which prevents ownership of more than one
television station in a market. Is it the intent of Congress that in
reviewing the duopoly rule the FCC should consider whether broadcasters
are able to compete fairly with other media providers while ensuring
that the public receives information from a diversity of media voices?
Mr. HOLLINGS. The gentleman's interpretation is my interpretation as
well.
Mr. INOUYE. I'd appreciate my colleague's help in clarifying the
conference report's effect on the Hawaiian television market. No one
needs a geography lesson to learn that my state is located in the
middle of the Pacific Ocean. As such, interference with adjacent
television markets is not a concern and, unlike every other market in
the United States, every VHF channel is utilized somewhere in Hawaii's
market.
I'd ask of the gentleman, when the FCC considers the duopoly rule,
does he agree that the FCC should strongly consider that Hawaii's
unique situation represents an example of compelling circumstances that
could permit the combination between two VHF stations in that market?
Mr. HOLLINGS. The gentleman from Hawaii is correct. His state's local
television market developed differently from continental markets
because of its unique geography and terrain, and thus is characterized
by many VHF stations. Many of our concerns about combinations involving
two VHF stations in local markets in the continental United States do
not apply to Hawaii. The FCC should recognize this
[[Page S706]]
distinction when considering the duopoly rule.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for his clarifications and for his
expertise and leadership on this historic revision of our
telecommunications law.
Today's local marketplace is characterized by an abundance of media
outlets that were not present or contemplated when the rule was last
revised, and the FCC should take this development into consideration.
This new competition, such as from clustered cable systems offering
advertisers the same buy as local broadcasters (but on multiple
channels), threatens the very viability of free, over-the-air
programming. Broadcasters have searched for creative solutions to these
marketplace changes, and one proven solution has been Local Marketing
Agreements. These LMAs are innovative joint ventures which enable
separately owned stations in the same market to find economies of scale
through combined operations.
The need to relax the duopoly rule is illustrated by broadcasters'
experience with LMAs. These joint ventures have generated substantial
rewards for both competition and diversity, and improved the quality
and quantity of free local programming. In Hawaii, an LMA has made
possible a significant increase in local programming, including an in-
depth local news program at 9 p.m., extensive coverage of the
University of Hawaii's sporting events, weekly programs on Hawaiian
culture and local issues, and a doubling of children's programming.
It is my understanding that Sec. 202(g) allows LMAs currently in
existence to continue as long as they are consistent with FCC rules.
These LMAs give stations the flexibility to meet the challenge of the
multi-channel marketplace.
Again, I thank the ranking member of the Commerce Committee for
clarifying the intent of the conference report regarding the duopoly
rule.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of one
portion of the telecommunications legislation we are currently
considering. In particular, I wish to speak on the cyberporn provisions
of the bill. I believe that it is high time that Congress apply the
same rules to protect children on the Internet that have laws applied
to other communications media. Since 1934, indecency has been regulated
in broadcast. And when it became clear that children were vulnerable to
sexually explicit material over the telephone, Congress prohibited
providing indecency to children via the telephone. Today, we are taking
the next step in protecting children from child molesters and
unscrupulous porn merchants.
It is important to note that despite the best efforts of the liberal
establishment, the Supreme Court has never--not even once--ruled that
the indecency standard is unconstitutional. So the vocal opponents of
the legislation before us today are going to have a very hard time to
challenge it in court. Just a few weeks ago, in the Act III case, the
Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of the
indecency standard. But the Supreme Court declined to do so, indicating
to many constitutional lawyers that the indecency standard is on firmer
footing than ever.
I predict that the left-wing free-speech absolutists who have
promised to challenge the cyberporn provisions will have no more
success with their antifamily efforts than they have had in the past.
This summer, I had the opportunity to chair the first-ever
congressional hearings on cyberporn. During that hearing, I had the
opportunity to hear from parents who had discovered that their children
had been sent pornography or solicited by adults. One teenager girl was
even stalked on-line by someone who was later arrested--but had to be
released because his conduct was not illegal.
That's why, with the assistance of the distinguished chairman of the
Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, I worked to include a
cyberstalking provision in the conference committee report. That
section makes it a crime to use computers to seduce or lure children. I
believe that this is an important step. As with indecency on computers,
America's children should be given the same protections in the on-line
world that they have in the real world.
In my hearing this summer, I asked each parent that appeared before
the Judiciary Committee--do you believe that a technical solution
alone, without Federal legislation, is enough to protect their
children. Without exception these parents said no, that the technology
is part of the Answer, but not the whole answer. So for those who claim
that Congress has no role at all to play in protecting America's
children from on-line pornography and child stalking, I say ask
America's parents about that. The parents of America, who have to try
to use cumbersome and highly technical computer programs to block out
cyberporn and on-line child stalkers believe that congressional
assistance is crucial and that there simply is no other way to keep
America's children safe.
Finally, let me say that me of the most perplexing misrepresentations
during the conference deliberations on this matter involved the so-
called harmful to minors standard as opposed to the indecency standard.
The harmful-to-minors standard is a creature of State law, and there
has never, during the entire history of our Nation, been a Federal
harmful-to-minors law. On the other hand, Congress has had indecency
regulations on the books since 1934, the beginning of the mass
communications era. So, despite statements to the contrary, the
harmful-to-minors standard, which has never been the subject to
congressional action, is too uncertain, too new to be applied to the
dynamic medium of computer communications. I believe that the harmful-
to-minors standards would unduly chill the kind of freewheeling
discussions we have become used to on the Internet. The tired-and-true
indecency standard is much better, in the opinion of this Senator and
noted constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein.
I would like to take my hat off to Senator Exon, Senator Coats, and
Senator Helms for their work and leadership on this issue. I yield the
floor.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate finally is
going to pass this important telecommunications bill (S. 652). There
have been many attempts down through the years to reform the
telecommunications law, and I am happy that the Republicans have been
able to get the job done this year.
This bill will remove barriers to competition and lead to lower
prices for consumers. It can create as many as 100,000 jobs in North
Carolina, help spur the economy, lead to innovative developments in
technology, and provide children with greater access to educational
opportunities. In addition, in the near future, millions of consumers
will be able to shop and bank from their homes through the use of their
computers or television sets.
Mr. President, one study conducted by the WEFA group projected that
open competition could very well lead to 3.4 million new jobs in 10
years. It further concluded that consumers could pay $550 billion less
in communications rates.
There have been many hard fought battles on this bill. But in the end
this legislation is a very carefully crafted balance. For example,
earlier versions of this bill would have allowed for an unhealthy
concentration of media power. These proposals could have made local
community broadcasting a thing of the past; but this concern has been
resolved.
Perhpas most importantly, this bill will help protect children from
computer pornography, which today is readily accessible on the Internet
and elsewhere. I have been notified of numerous instances in which
unscrupulous, sleazy individuals have used the Internet as a tool to
distribute pornography to minors. This legislation provides tough
prison terms for any smut peddler who uses a computer to send or
display child pornography. This bill upholds standards of morality and
decency as well as protects children and families from the peddlers of
sleaze. This is a victory for families and children.
Mr. President, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation
Act of 1995 provides the American consumer with less expensive prices,
more competitive opportunities, and better service. Chairman Larry
Pressler and all of his colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee
deserve the gratitude and respect of all Americans for a job well done.
[[Page S707]]
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I stand before you today to urge my
colleagues to support final passage of this telecommunications reform
legislation. It is truly a monumental piece of work. The competitive
forces that this legislation will unleash will create an explosion of
new jobs, new technology. It will secure for this Nation, well into the
future, its rightful place in the forefront of industry and
technological development and utilization.
I am pleased that the conference report contains strong protections
for America's children. This provision reflects the concern of our
Nation to ensure that, as we establish the framework for the rising
tide of the technology society, we take care to establish an
environment safe for our children. I am speaking about the provision,
sponsored by myself and Senator Exon, that deals with the issue of
pornographic material on the internet.
Mr. President, sometimes our technology races beyond our reflection,
and we are left with a dangerous gap--a period when society is
unprepared to deal with the far-reaching results of rapid change. This
is the situation we have on the internet. This is the situation which
this legislation will address.
The type of pornography currently available on the internet includes
images and text dealing with the sexual abuse of children, the torture
of women and images of perversion and brutality beyond normal
imagination, and beyond the boundaries of human civilization.
Childhood must be defended by parents and society as a safe harbor of
innocence. It is a privileged time to develop values in an environment
that is not hostile to them. But this foul material on the internet
invades that place and destroys that innocence. It takes the worst
excesses of that red-light district and places it directly into a
child's bedroom, on the computer their parents bought them to help them
with their homework.
Let me take a moment to outline exactly what this legislation will
do:
Those who utilize a computer to persuade, include entice, or coerce a
minor to engage in prostitution or any sexual act will be prosecuted,
fined, and imprisoned up to 10 years.
If you use your computer to contact and harass another individual,
you will be prosecuted under this bill.
This legislation would prosecute those who utilize an interactive
computer service to send indecent material directly to a minor or use
an interactive computer service to display indecent material in a
manner easily available to a minor.
On-line services and access software providers are liable where they
are conspirators with, advertise for, are involved in the creation of
or knowing distribution of obscene material or indecent material to
minors.
This legislation leaves unchanged E-mail privacy laws.
Simply put, this legislation extends the same protections for
children that exist everywhere else in our society to the internet.
The bottom line is simple: we are removing indecency from areas of
cyberspace easily accessible to children, if individuals want to
provide that material, it must be in areas with barriers to minors, if
adults want to access that material, they must make a positive effort
to get it.
Our warning is equally clear: if you post indecent material on the
internet in areas accessible to children, you will be held to account.
Mr. President, one of the most urgent questions in any modern society
is how we humanize our technology--how we make it serve us. America is
at the frontier of human knowledge, but it is incomplete without
applying human values. And one of our most important values is the
protection of our children--not only the protection of their bodies
from violence, but the protection of their minds and souls from abuse.
We can not, and should not, resist change. But our brave new world
must not be hostile to the innocence of our children.
Mr. President I am proud that we have taken this very important step.
I am proud that as we usher in this information age, America has placed
the protection of our children as a central issue in this landmark
legislation.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, telecommunications technology is evolving
at a speed that is unprecedented, and it has been and will continue to
be difficult to keep up with these revolutionary developments. However,
without a vehicle that allows us to at least attempt to keep pace with
these changes, we cannot even hope to take full advantage of the
benefits that today's technology potentially affords us.
That is why I am pleased to support the telecommunications conference
report that we are considering today. It has been a very long and
difficult process over a number of years in order to get to this point
today. There have been many hearings held in several committees, long
debates in both houses of Congress, and extensive hours spent in
conference meetings. And, as is always the case with legislation that
is as important and far-reaching, the conference report we will vote on
shortly is not perfect.
As we have already heard on the floor today during this final debate,
there are still a number of issues upon which total consensus has not
been reached. In fact, we can expect to be revisiting a number of
issues in the not too distant future, and I look forward to that.
Nevertheless, I believe we can all agree that this legislation
establishes some basic principles that will provide a gateway to the
future of communications in our country. I am convinced that the basic
policy changes contained in this conference report will not only
positively impact our Nation's economy be enhancing competition within
a number of communications markets but will also result in noticeable
benefits for individual consumers throughout the United States.
I do not wish to take up too much time, but I want to commend the
distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for his
leadership over the past year in bringing this historic legislation to
the floor of the Senate. I especially want to thank him and his
committee colleagues for effectively keeping the conference focused on
the communications issues under its jurisdiction. Implementation of the
legislation will raise issues in the area of intellectual property,
which will need to be addressed in the future. These issues are best
left to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction and expertise. As
the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is the committee
of jurisdiction over intellectual property issues in the Senate, I look
forward to working on these matters. We can support the efforts of the
conference and to increase the opportunities the legislation makes
available to creators and users of intellectual property.
Again, let me commend the conferees for their work in the
communications arena and thank them for not prejudicing the Judiciary
Committee's work on any relevant intellectual property issues.
I am pleased to support this bill. It is a major step forward.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
conference report to S. 652, the Telecommunications Competition and
Deregulation Act. This legislation will revolutionize our
telecommunications industry as broadly as telecommunications have
revolutionized our society.
And I am pleased that it contains the Snowe-Rockefeller provision
that was included in the original Senate bill--a provision of
significant importance to rural regions and rural Americans.
I would first like to thank my friend and colleague, the
distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee who also served
as chairman of the House-Senate conference committee on this
legislation, Senator Pressler.
For over a year now, he has worked tirelessly to shepherd this
legislation through the Commerce Committee, the full Senate, and the
House-Senate conference committee. In the process, he has worked to
ensure that telecommunications reform remains a priority for our Nation
as we enter the next century--a century that is certain to bring even
greater advancements in technology and telecommunications.
I also want to congratulate the distinguished Senate majority leader,
Senator Dole, for his outstanding efforts in bringing this critical
legislation to the floor of the Senate.
Telecommunications is an increasingly important part of our daily
life. Over the past few years, most of us have become dependent on
communications services as diverse as wireless
[[Page S708]]
telephones, fax machines, information services, computers, pagers,
alarm monitoring services, and cable television. In many cases, it is
hard to imagine functioning without them. We are clearly witnessing a
revolution in the way we do business and in the way we live, a
telecommunications and information revolution as important to our
future as the industrial revolution was in the last century.
As I stated during debate on the legislation last summer, my State of
Maine has, for more than a century, faced serious economic challenges
in attracting business and industry. Thus, the revolution in
telecommunications technologies which has opened the door to the
information age continues to be especially important for Maine.
At 60 miles an hour, the speed of truck transportation, Maine's
geography can be an economic disadvantage. At the speed of light--the
speed with which information can be transmitted over Maine's state-of-
the-art telecommunications networks--Maine's location becomes an asset.
Information technology coupled with our outstanding quality of life has
created substantial business and employment opportunities in my State.
Recognizing the importance of telecommunications to Maine, the Maine
State Legislature adopted legislation that established the policy goal
of ensuring that all of Maine's businesses and citizens have affordable
access to an integrated telecommunications infrastructure capable of
providing voice, data and image-based services.
Furthermore, Maine intends to adopt policies that encourage the
development and deployment of new technologies, and encourages service
applications that support economic development initiatives or otherwise
improve the well-being of Maine citizens.
Mr. President, this conference report will bring unprecedented
competition and development to the telecommunications industry. And
while competition can bring an array of improved services at a lower
cost, we must ensure that competition ultimately achieves this goal for
all Americans, in both urban and rural areas.
I am, therefore, particularly pleased that the conference report
before us recognizes that strong universal service provisions are a
necessary and important part of telecommunications reform.
Residents of rural areas should bear no more cost for essential
telecommunications services than residents of densely populated areas.
Just as extending basic telephone service and electrification to rural
areas rose to the top of our national agenda in the 1930's and 1940's,
so telecommunications must be a top priority today. No American citizen
should be left out of the communications revolution.
Indeed, the concept of universal service was established in the 1934
Communication Act, to establish widely available basic telephone
service at reasonable rates. The rationale for this policy is that
telephone service is essential to link Americans together, so that all
Americans can communicate with each other on approximately equal
footing. It was an important economic development tool, as well.
Everyone in our country must be able to engage in commerce using the
tools and technologies necessary to interact with buyers and sellers,
and be able to be informed and to inform others of emergency situations
and to access emergency services.
Presently, every telephone can interconnect with every telephone, but
every computer cannot hook up with every computer. If in the future,
computers replace telephones and become the basic standard equipment
for communication, a mechanism must to be in place to ensure that all
Americans can continue to be interconnected as they are presently via
the telephone.
Central to the concept of universal service is access for public
institutions, which provide services to a broad segment of our
population. We must ensure that key institutions in our society--
schools, libraries, and rural hospitals--are also assured affordable
access to telecommunications services.
That can not be done when schools and libraries are paying business
rates for educational services like access to the Internet. Business
rates are frequently beyond these institutions' ability to pay--and
without access, I am concerned about the consequences.
The Internet, the ``information highway,'' is increasingly critical
to our children and our Nation. How can we hope to compete in the world
economy if our educational institutions are unable to link with a
critical telecommunications link?
I strongly believe that the economic future of our children is
inexorably tied to their education. In turn, education is becoming
increasingly entwined with the use of emerging technologies and the
information these services carry and provide.
Our schools need access to educational telecommunications services to
prepare our children for economic success. In the 21st century, our
children will be competing in a global economy where knowledge is
power. Their future depends on their ability to master the tools and
skills needed in that economy.
Unfortunately, there is a widening gap between the high expectations
of an increasingly technologically driven society and the inability of
most schools--particularly rural schools--to prepare students
adequately for the high-technology future. Almost 90 percent of
kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms lack even basic access to
telephone service.
Telecommunications can help us provide a world class education to
children across America. If we want young people to actively use the
technology of the future so it becomes second nature to them, then we
must ensure that schools are part of the national information
infrastructure.
For starters, telecommunications will enable students and teachers to
do research in libraries across the country and the world, and to
connect to experts and other students across the country. It will
ensure that small schools in remote rural areas, and schools with
limited financial resources have access to the same rich learning
resources.
Consider that only 30 percent of schools with enrollments of less
than 300 have Internet access, while 58 percent of schools with
enrollments of 1,000 or more reported having Internet access. Only 3
percent of classrooms in public schools are connected to the Internet,
and cost is cited as a major barrier to access.
Rural schools and libraries usually pay more for access to
information services than schools and libraries in urban areas because
the information service providers do not have access points in local
calling regions, meaning that rural schools and libraries must make a
long distance telephone call to access the Internet and other
information services. It is imperative that access the information
superhighway be affordable, because America's schools and public
libraries operate on very slim, inflexible budgets.
And it is an area where we need the strength and innovation of the
private sector as well. That's why I am especially pleased to note that
NYNEX and the independent telephone companies that serve Maine have
already taken steps to deploy and encourage the utilization of needed
telecommunications services throughout Maine. As a result of a unique
agreement with Maine's telephone companies--all Maine libraries and
schools are now eligible to receive substantially discounted long
distance services that will now allow access to a broad range of
information services.
But schools and libraries in Maine and across America will not be the
only ones to benefit from this provision. So does our health care
system through telemedicine. When I served in the House of
Representatives, I cowrote the Rural Health Care Coalition's ``Rural
Health Care Bill of Rights.''
The paper argued that Congress should adopt policies that seek to
ensure that those who live in rural areas receive the same quality of
health care as other Americans. All Americans, regardless of their age,
income, employment status, medical history or geographic location, have
a right to access affordable, quality health care.
Telemedicine can help us achieve this goal by enabling physicians in
rural areas to communicate through state-of-the-art telecommunications
networks with providers and specialists in other areas.
With Telemedicine, a burn victim in Presque Isle, ME, may be able to
get care from some of the Nation's best
[[Page S709]]
burn specialists, without ever leaving the local hospital. Rural
doctors will be able to connect directly to major hospital centers for
consultation, diagnostic assistance, and ongoing professional
education. However, rural areas pay significantly more than urban areas
for transmission of Telemedicine services.
Mr. President, I believe that the Snowe-Rockefeller provision is
fundamentally important to assuring that we do not end up with a two-
tiered telecommunications system in America.
The Snowe-Rockefeller provision is fundamental to assuring that all
areas in America have access to the essential telecommunications
services of the future. And it is fundamental to ensuring that this
legislation provides a solid foundation for the future.
Mr. President, I believe that this legislation offers tremendous
promise, making this among the most exciting and meaningful bills we
will vote on this session.
By promoting true competition in telecommunications while providing
necessary safeguards that further the goal of competition and serve the
public interest, this conference report offers a strong framework on
which the technological future of America can be built. I believe that
this bill strikes the right balance that is needed, and offer my strong
support. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased that after years of
struggle, the Senate has before it, a telecommunications reform
conference report that represents the dawning of a new
telecommunications era in this country.
I want to commend the Commerce Committee chairman, Senator Pressler,
and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their hard work and
efforts in bringing a measure before us today that will enhance true
competition in telecommunications without shortchanging American
consumes.
This is complex and potentially far-reaching legislation, that will
affect an economic sector that constitutes 20 percent of our economy,
and whose services reach virtually every American.
Mr. President, this bill is all about competition in telephone
services, cable services, information and data services, and
broadcasting services. By unleashing these competitive forces,
innovation and progress will flourish in the rapidly expanding
telecommunications field, and will greatly increase the opportunity for
every citizen to affordably access the rapidly changing world of
advanced telecommunications technology.
While this legislation focuses on competition and deregulation, the
conference report contains essential rural safeguards in the form of
universal service provisions that will benefit our rural communities
and greatly increase their ability to persevere in the 21st century.
There is little doubt that our urban areas can and will sustain the
enormous expansion of telecommunications services in the years ahead.
We must make certain that our rural areas are not left behind as
services expand and new products come on line. In the long run,
universal service at high standards nationwide is in the best interests
of the entire economy.
I believe that telecommunications reform is essential in preserving
the economic vitality of rural America and am optimistic that the
affordable accessibility to these new telecommunications services will
be the harbinger for a new renaissance among the main street economies
in communities throughout rural America.
Already, many in my home State of South Dakota are beginning to
realize the importance and value of telecommunications services. Many
small, rural medical clinics and hospitals are linking together with
larger, more urban hospitals via telemedicine to provide their citizens
with a higher quality of care. Children in schools that are hundreds of
miles from the nearest population center can now have access to the
world's greatest libraries at their fingertips. An increasing number of
South Dakota agricultural producers are determining weather forecasts
and market reports with a simple keystroke. And all across main street
South Dakota, small businesses are reducing their overhead via
networking services, reducing their paper work through electronic mail,
and saving thousands of dollars a year in travel expenses through their
use of teleconferencing.
And all of this is just the beginning, As these technologies continue
to develop, the playing field for economic development will begin to
level. South Dakota is already enjoying the benefits of advanced
telecommunications and they can only stand to benefit from further
telecommunications reform.
The bill before us also recognizes the important role that must be
played by Public Utilities Commissions [PUC's] in rural States. PUC's
are the best entities to judge whether a given market within their
State can support competition. That's not a judgment we should make
from Washington.
Nor is it something we can or should leave to the unbridled,
unsupervised judgment of the private sector. Those who have taken the
risks and made the investments to extend cable or phone services to
smaller rural communities should not be placed a risk of being
overwhelmed by larger, better-financed companies.
I want to note, Mr. President, that consideration of this conference
report was delayed by the concerns raised by Senator Dole and others
about the future use of broadcast spectrum. There is no question that
the issues surrounding national spectrum management policy are complex,
and worthy of full debate and thorough consideration in the Congress. I
am pleased that the telecommunications conference report, which in my
view is not a spectrum giveaway bill, will move to the President's desk
for his signature.
Mr. President, let me once again congratulate the distinguished
chairman and ranking member for their efforts in producing this
telecommunications reform conference report.
Having been raised in a small community in rural South Dakota, I can
truly remark with wonder and appreciation at the rapid pace in which
our communities are being brought together through the use of
telecommunications services. The changes that have occurred in our
lives due to these services have been remarkable, and have benefited
society greatly. I believe that the telecommunications reform
conference report before us today strikes the balance needed between
deregulation and consumer protection to allow these services to
continue their remarkable advances in improving our society and
preparing us for the challenges ahead.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the United States and, indeed, the world
have embarked upon a new technological revolution. Like previous
revolutions sparked by technological innovation, this one has the
potential to change dramatically our daily lives. It will certainly
transform the way we communicate with each other.
What we are witnessing is the development of a fully interactive
nationwide and, indeed, worldwide communications network. It has the
potential to bring our Nation and our world enormous good; without
appropriate groundrules to assure fair competition, however, this
revolution could create giant monopolies. It could hurt workers and
families. We bear a tremendous responsibility to assure that does not
happen with this legislation. The communications policy framework we
create here will determine whether many voices and views flourish, or
few voices dominate our society.
The impact of this new age communications revolution on the way we
send and receive information, and the way we will view ourselves and
the world, is profound. Even more staggering is its potential impact on
our economy. We could be seeing the largest market opportunity in
history. Some forecasters, including the WEFA Group in Burlington, MA,
predict an opening of the telecommunications market this year to full
competition would create 3.4 million new jobs, increase GDP by $298
billion, save consumers nearly $550 billion in lower communications
rates and increase the average household's annual disposable income by
$850 over the next ten years. As the Communications Workers of America
have underscored, delaying free and fair competition means fewer new
high-wage, high-skill jobs.
For workers and companies in Massachusetts, which has a significant
comparative advantage in technology or knowledge-intensive industries,
this
[[Page S710]]
legislation is good news. It should expand opportunities for our
current telecommunications companies, it should create a fertile
climate for the creation of new companies and it should create more
family-wage jobs. The telecommunications industry in Massachusetts is
well situated to take advantage of the communications and information
revolution.
New telecommunications-related or dependent technologies and
industries seem to be emerging and merging almost daily. They range
from such sectors as entertainment and education to broadcasting,
advertising, home shopping and publishing. One key player in this
revolution is the Internet--the global computer cooperative with a
current subscriber base of approximately 37 million in North America
alone and a 10-15 percent monthly growth rate. One billion people are
expected to have access to the ``net'' by the end of the decade. While
some may consider the ``net'' to be the revolution, it is only one of
many players in the new communications network game.
We see examples of this new era almost daily, such as someone driving
a car while talking on a cellularphone. In the future, we are likely to
see more Americans accessing video dialtone, choosing their television
programs through their telephone service. Likewise, cable franchises
may enter the local telephone service market. Residents of Springfield,
MA, may be able to watch their state legislators in Boston debate an
education bill and instantaneously communicate with those legislators
about how to vote on an amendment.
As we consider this brave new age of communications, it is clear the
current law, the l934 Communications Act, is not a sufficiently sturdy
foundation upon which to build a communications system for the 21st
Century. Moreover, although the courts on occasion properly have
intervened to halt monopoly abuse--most notably a little over a decade
ago in the telephone industry--we should no longer leave the
fundamentals of telecommunications policy to the courts.
The conference report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Competition
and Deregulation Act of l996, is not perfect. In some respects, I would
have preferred S. 1822, the bill crafted so ably by Senator Hollings
and reported by the committee in l994. However, the conference report
before the Senate now is preferable to the status quo. It will foster
competition and establish fair and reasonable groundrules for the
intense competition that will continue in the communications sector as
we enter the next century.
This legislation sets forth a national policy framework to promote
the private sector's deployment of new and advanced telecommunications
and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening
all telecommunications markets to competition. Free and fair
competition and maintaining universal service are the twin pillars of
this new framework.
The bill seeks to assure that no competitor, no business and no
technology may use its existing market strength to gain an advantage on
the competition. The legislation requires that a company or group of
companies satisfy certain competitive tests before being able to offer
a new service or enter a new market. Entry into new services and new
areas is contingent upon a demonstration that competition exists in the
market in which the business currently competes. But once competition
has been achieved, most Federal and State regulation is replaced by
consumer demand to regulate the market.
These fundamental features of the conference report on S. 652 are
designed to create a level playing field where every player will be
able to compete on the basis of price, quality, and service, rather
than on the basis of monopoly control of the market.
The conference report also maintains universal service as a
cornerstone of our Nation's communications system. With many new
entrants in the communications market, the legislation provides that
every player is to pay his fair share to continue universal service
throughout our Nation.
I am also pleased the conference report includes three amendments
which I sponsored. The first deals with the cable broadcast rates for
public, educational and governmental entities, known as ``PEG'' access
groups. These are the local channels that produce and broadcast such
things as town council meetings, Chamber of Commerce seminars and
little league baseball games. My amendment will assure the continued
production and broadcast of these important community events by
guaranteeing that the PEG access groups are not charged more than local
broadcasters to air their programs.
The second amendment will establish a level playing field for
independent payphone providers. For too long, these small, independent
entrepreneurs have gone toe-to-toe against some of the biggest players
in the telecommunications market. We have in Massachusetts about 75
independent payphone providers, employing several hundred people. They
range from ``mom and pop'' operations with a handful of payphones to
several that have more than 1,000 payphones. Virtually all of them have
invested their own capital in their businesses, from life savings to
the proceeds of mortgages on their homes, and it is a tribute to their
perseverance that they now own ten percent of the payphone market in
Massachusetts. My amendment will allow all the players in the payphone
market to compete against each other on the basis of price, quality and
service, rather than on marketshare and subsidies.
The third amendment will make sure that as we build the information
highway, the builders do not bypass poor rural or urban communities.
When interstate highways were built through cities across our Nation,
oftentimes they went directly through poor neighborhoods. Construction
of the technology interstate system must not be allowed to detour
around children and families in the same or similar areas who already
face enormous challenges. My amendment is designed to assure that the
telecommunications network will reach every neighborhood, offering
access to those who need it most for a decent education, to upgrade
their job skills or to connect them to medical help they need.
Another provision that I am pleased was included in the final hours
of negotiations on the conference report relates to local regulation of
public rights-of-way. The language added to the conference report
brings needed clarification to this area. It retains for local
authorities the right to regulate public rights-of-way while at the
same time guaranteeing that if local authorities exercise that
latitude, they do so in a manner that is non-discriminatory and
competitively neutral. A cable or phone company that needs to tear up a
street to lay new line should not be allowed to disturb a neighborhood
in the middle of the night. The clarifying language on public rights-
of-way should help in this regard.
Through the debate we have had on this legislation, I believe we have
crafted a solid telecommunications policy framework for the next
century. Today, each of us is in a sense a pioneer heading out on the
new information highway. Each of us is not only a witness to, but a
participant in, one of the most amazing technological revolutions in
history. We, as legislators, bear a special responsibility to assure
that competition in this new era is fair and that every American in
this and future generations may enjoy the fruits of this competition.
This is truly one of the greatest challenges we face as we enter the
21st century.
I want to express my deep admiration for the outstanding work my good
friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has done on
this landmark legislation. He has exercised visionary leadership
throughout this long and arduous process. I also want to extend my
appreciation to his very able staff, particularly Kevin Curtin, John
Windhausen and Kevin Joseph, for their tireless efforts and the good
humour they always brought to the task. I also want to thank Chairman
Pressler and his staff for their hard work on this legislation.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to commend the leadership, the
distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and
the distinguished ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their extensive
efforts and good work on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I am
pleased that the Senate is now giving consideration to final passage of
this legislation.
[[Page S711]]
I have seen the telephone business develop from its infancy, when
obtaining a party-line telephone was a truly amazing step for many
Americans, to today's tremendous range of telecommunications products
and services. It is impossible to predict what the future holds in this
dynamic sector of our economy, but it is clear that telecommunications
is among the most critical and far-reaching issues before the Congress.
As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust, Business
Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, two important antitrust issues
deserve mention as we consider final passage of this historic
legislation.
First, I am pleased that the legislation now includes a meaningful
role for the Department of Justice in determining when the Bell
Operating Companies should be permitted to provide long distance
telecommunications. As I have previously stated, the Bell companies
certainly should be allowed to enter long distance markets under
appropriate circumstances, for it is generally desirable to have as
many competitors as possible in each market. The issue is how to
determine the point at which entry by Bell companies will help rather
than harm competition. That question, quite simply, is an antitrust
matter which will be informed by the antitrust expertise and
specialization of the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department.
The Justice Department's Antitrust Division has been deeply involved
in nurturing and protecting a competitive environment in this industry
for more than 20 years, through five administrations. The Justice
Department was responsible for the breakup of the AT&T telephone
monopoly, which created the current Bell companies. The Antitrust
Division has been evaluating the potential competitive effects--
positive and negative--of Bell entry into long distance since that
time. Through this work, the Division has achieved unparalled expertise
which is bolstered by its experience and perspective gained from
evaluating numerous markets throughout our economy.
Anticompetitive conduct in long distance markets was at the heart of
the Antitrust Division's case against the old Bell system monopoly, and
it has been a central concern in the current legislation. During the
debate over the telecommunications bill in the Senate in June 1995, I
was on the floor for several days with an amendment to give the
Department of Justice primary responsibility to determine when the Bell
operating companies should be permitted to enter long distance markets,
and to avoid duplicative efforts by the Federal Communications
Commission.
My amendment to give the Antitrust Division independent authority
only narrowly failed on the Senate floor last June, while in August a
similar amendment received the support of more than one-third of the
House of Representatives. When it became clear that there would be one
consolidated procedure within the FCC to decide on Bell applications
for long distance authorization, it became important to ensure that the
antitrust expertise of the Antitrust Division would be given adequate
weight in the decision.
I am pleased that in the final legislation we are considering today,
proposed long distance entry is determined by the FCC subject to
judicial review, but only after the FCC consults with the Attorney
General on the application, and gives the Attorney General's evaluation
substantial weight. This process, which permits the Attorney General to
submit any comments and supporting materials deemed appropriate, is
critical to making accurate and proper determinations about long
distance entry. Through its work in investigating the
telecommunications industry and enforcing the MFJ, the Antitrust
Division has accumulated important knowledge, evidence, and experience
that can be constructively brought to bear on these evaluations.
The substantial weight requirement will also ensure that the
expertise of the Antitrust Division will be brought to bear in any
appeal of a decision made on long distance entry. If the FCC rejects
the Antitrust Division's recommendation, the court must look to the
weight the FCC accorded the Attorney General's evaluation in
ascertaining whether the FCC correctly followed the law.
Review of this legal requirement should be governed by the standard
that generally applies to questions of law. As a practical matter, this
legal requirement ensures that the reviewing court will consider the
Antitrust Division's position on the merits--and will assess for itself
the views and evidence put forward in support of that position--and
will not discount that position out of customary judicial deference to
the FCC's decision. Moreover, the Antitrust Division retains its full
authority to represent the interests of the United States on appeal,
which permits it to contribute its unique antitrust expertise and
perspective to the judicial process.
The second important antitrust issue in this legislation is the
unequivocal antitrust savings clause that explicitly maintains the full
force of the antitrust laws in this vital industry. Today we take for
granted that the antitrust laws apply to the communications sector.
During the Antitrust Division's antitrust case in the 1970's against
the Bell system, however, some argued that the existence of FCC
regulations displaced the antitrust laws and made them inapplicable.
The courts emphatically rejected that challenge them, and the antitrust
savings clause in the bill today makes clear that that question cannot
be reopened. A strong, competitive communications sector is essential
to continued American prosperity in the next century. Application of
the antitrust laws is the most reliable, time-tested means of ensuring
that competition, and the innovation it fosters, can flourish to
benefit consumers and the economy.
The antitrust savings clause makes clear, for example, that the
antitrust enforcement agencies are not barred from scrutinizing, under
appropriate circumstances, the home satellite broadcasting market, even
though the new provision in section 205 of the bill gives the FCC
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home
satellite services. While some might have been tempted to read that
provision to mean that the antitrust enforcement agencies would not
have any jurisdiction over these activities, the antitrust savings
clause makes clear that that is not the case. The same is true of other
provisions of the bill, including those concerning access requirements
for commercial mobile providers--section 705--limits on telco-cable
buyouts--section 302--and broadcast ownership--section 202--and the
joint marketing of commercial mobile services--section 601(d). In each
case, the antitrust laws will continue to apply fully.
Continued application of the antitrust laws is also the rule where
the Bell companies' entry into the long distance market is concerned.
The fact that the Attorney General is given a defined role in the FCC
proceeding to decide Bell entry does not in any way supplant or limit
the separate applicability of the antitrust laws or the Justice
Department's antitrust enforcement authority--either pre-entry or post-
entry. For example, if a Bell operating company sought to enter long
distance markets through a merger or acquisition, that merger or
acquisition would be fully subject to review under the Clayton Act.
Likewise, if a Bell operating company were to engage in anticompetitive
conduct after being granted entry into the long distance market, the
Antitrust Division would not be precluded from addressing that conduct
through the antitrust laws.
The importance of the antitrust savings clause is underscored by the
decision to repeal section 221(a) of the Communications Act of 1934.
That provision, a relic from the period when Federal policy sought to
promote monopoly over competition, exempts mergers between telephone
companies from antitrust review. That is an era I believe all of us
agree should be put behind us, and the fact that this exemption has
been eliminated in this legislation is another confirmation that the
Congress intends for the antitrust laws to be the means by which free
markets are maintained in telecommunications.
Finally, the hearing of the Antitrust, Business Rights, and
Competition Subcommittee, which I chaired in May 1995, confirmed the
importance of competition to achieve lower prices, better services, and
products, and more innovation in telecommunication markets for the
benefit of consumers and our Nation. I am pleased, therefore, that this
legislation preserves the role of
[[Page S712]]
the Antitrust Division in applying the antitrust laws--which have
protected free enterprise for over 100 years--in the telecommunications
industry.
Mr. President, enacting legislation of this magnitude, where the
stakes are so high for so many businesses and other interested groups,
inevitably requires the resolution of many conflicts. I would like to
commend all those who worked on this legislation and kept focused on
the ultimate objective--replacing regulation and monopoly with healthy
free market forces. This is the role that the Congress should play to
assist this industry, as well as American consumers and the entire
American economy. I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation.
unfunded mandates
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The majority leader is aware that State and local
governments had previously raised an issue with this Senator that
certain provisions of the conference report on S. 562 may violate the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 regarding local governments'
ability to manage their rights-of-ways. The majority leader is also
aware that I have worked with the Senate and House conferees for
several days to resolve those difficulties and insert language to the
satisfaction of the local representatives of State and local
governments.
Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Idaho is correct. I am aware that he has
worked to represent the interests of State and local governments to
assure that there is no unfunded mandates impact on them in this bill.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The majority leader is aware that the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 does not require the Congressional Budget
Office to prepare an estimate of the impact of mandates on State and
local governments for conference reports and that the Congressional
Budget Office is currently preparing an estimate on this conference
report. Based on discussions my staff have had with CBO, it is my
understanding that this conference report does not include unfunded
mandates.
Mr. DOLE. That is correct.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the majority leader agree that in the event the
Congressional Budget Office determines that there are any unfunded
mandates in S. 562 that he will work with me to make technical
corrections in the bill to eliminate those mandates.
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the majority leader agree that in the event such
technical corrections bill comes from the House which corrects any
unfunded mandates found by the Congressional Budget Office that he will
seek to have the Senate take up the bill to make those corrections.
Mr. DOLE. Yes, I do agree.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
I know, Mr. President, that the conferees have made a number of
improvements to this legislation and that many of the stakeholders in
this bill are pleased with the results.
And it is with regret that I must oppose this bill. But I cannot in
good conscience cast a vote for legislation that I believe violates our
fundamental first amendment rights to freedom of expression.
The Internet indecency provisions of S.652, as passed in the Senate,
remain virtually intact in the conference report. I am referring to the
sections of this bill which would subject to criminal penalties
constitutionally protected speech via interactive telecommunications
networks--the so-called Internet Indecency provisions.
The sponsors of the Internet provisions have good intentions --to
protect children from those who might use the Internet to harm them.
Sadly, there are those who will use the Internet, as they will use any
tool, to victimize children. The sponsors of the Internet provisions of
this bill have pointed to the obscene materials and child pornography
that can be accessed via the Internet. To be sure, Mr. President, it is
out there.
Unfortunately, the provisions in this bill will do very little, if
anything to protect children. That is because much of what the
proponents of this legislation wish to banish from cyberspace is
already subject to criminal penalties--obscenity, child pornography and
child exploitation via computer networks are already criminal acts.
So, if that is the case, what exactly does the provision in the
conference report cover? It covers ``indecent'' speech which is
afforded far greater constitutional protection than obscenity which is
not protected by the first amendment. What is indecent speech? Indecent
speech may include mild profanity that children hear on the playground
well before they read it on a computer screen. While that language may
be offensive to some, it is protected by the first amendment.
Mr. President, I have found the rhetoric of the Internet debate
interesting. The terms obscenity and indecency have been used
interchangeably even though they have very different meanings. I have
heard parents voice legitimate concerns about the obscene materials
available via computer networks. I have heard them express outrage that
their children are solicited by adults for exploitative purposes. But I
have never heard a parent say there is too much profanity on the
Internet. And yet, that is precisely what this bill covers. Rather than
addressing the enforcement needs of existing law, it adds unnecessary
to provisions to criminal statutes.
That is a fundamental flaw, Mr. President. The legislation does not
address the problem it seeks to solve. This does nothing more than
current law does to prevent obscenity on the Internet. Instead, this
bill steps in and decides for parents which speech is appropriate for
their children and which is not. I would contend, Mr. President, that
is the role of parents, not the federal government, particularly given
that technology exists for parents to block objectionable material.
I think, Mr. President, this legislation will do more harm than good.
Will parents become less observant of their childrens' use of the
Internet now that they think the government has solved the problem?
Will they fail to use the technology available to them to regulate
their children's access to sites on the Internet? I fear that they will
because the U.S. Congress has led them to believe that these new
provisions protect children when in fact, they do not.
This legislation which provides no additional protection for children
comes at a great cost--our rights to free speech over the Internet.
This legislation, when it becomes law, will establish different
standards for the same speech appearing in different media. More
protection will be afforded for profanity that appears in a library
book than for the same text which appears on-line. Equally important,
this legislation will require all adults to self censor the speech on
public newsgroups on USENET to what is appropriate for children in the
most conservative American communities. This legislation will bring
about the immediate demise of many socially valuable forums on the
Internet. It will likely happen as quickly as CompuServe dumped some
200 newsgroups from their network after a German prosecutor suggested
they might violate German law.
I have come to this floor many times to speak on this topic and I
will not take the Senate's time to reiterate the many arguments against
these provisions.
I do think, Mr. President, that this is a sad day on the Senate
floor. That the Internet indecency provisions have met with the barest
resistance in this chamber, indicates how quickly this Congress is
willing to abandon the United States Constitution in favor of political
expediency.
My hope, Mr. President, is that the expedited judicial review process
provided for in this bill, will quickly lead to a judgment that the
Internet indecency provisions are unconstitutional. In the meantime,
Mr. President, I will work toward solutions that will protect children
on the Internet without trampling on the first amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the conference report on S. 652 is finally
being considered by the Senate. We have heard much about the positive
changes to this bill and the ramifications for the telecommunications
industry. But I must still express my concern about the absence of a
provision that I see as vital to the protection of the American
consumer. I am referring to the capability of telecommunication
entities to
[[Page S713]]
develop monopolies and dominate marketplaces to the detriment of the
consumer.
This Nation learned through long and hard experience that laissez-
faire attitudes towards industries does not protect smaller entities
when larger competition comes along and certainly does not provide
safeguards where consumers are concerned. I acknowledge the roles of
government oversight that the bill does now provide. But the larger
corporations will not be constrained in their ability, should they
desire, to monopolize media and various telecommunication mediums. And
in our effort to allow such an environment do we want to place the
consumer on the altar of deregulation?
Nevertheless, my constituents from Nevada believe this bill will
provide genuine competition. And I note with some pride, their
foresight and fairness in establishing a telephony commission to watch
over the changes within the industry. Mr. President, the
telecommunications industry is clearly evolving. Everyday we read of
new emerging technologies that will directly impact all that this bill
is trying to accomplish. While we should give it freedom to compete; we
must, as is our responsibility, watch carefully to protect the
consumers and small businesses so that this sphere of our economy is
truly competitive. Despite my reservations, I will vote for this bill
because there are positives and I hope that steadfast government
oversight will preserve the competitive marketplace.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, anyone who has followed the debate over
telecommunications legislation in recent years knows that much of it
has been over when and under what conditions the Bell companies will be
allowed to compete in the long distance market S. 652 resolves this
issue.
Congress has determined that removing all court ordered barriers to
competition--including the MFJ interLATA restriction--will benefit
consumers by lowering prices and accelerating innovation. The
legislation contemplates that the FCC should act favorably and
expeditiously on Bell company petitions to compete in the long distance
business. There are various conditions for interLATA relief. These
include the establishment of Sate-by-State interconnection agreements
that satisfy the 14 point check list outlined in Sec. 271 of the bill.
Bell companies also have to show they face competition from a
facilities based carrier. They can also show that they have not
received a legitimate request for interconnection from a competing
service provider within three months of enactment.
In short, interLATA relief should be granted as soon as competing
communications service providers reach an interconnection agreement. In
some States these agreements have already been put in place with the
approval of state public service commissions. In those instances, we
see no reason why the FCC should not act immediately and favorably on a
Bell company's petition to compete, once the test for facilities based
competition is satisfied.
Congress fully expects the FCC to recognize and further its intent to
open all communications markets to competition at the earliest possible
date. The debate over removing legal and regulatory barriers to
competition has been resolved with this legislation. Unnecessary delays
will do nothing more than invite vested interests to ``game'' the
regulatory process to prevent or delay competition.
The time has come to let consumers--not bureaucrats--choose.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today we are voting on the approval of
historic telecommunications legislation that will reshape the landscape
of the entire communications industry and affect every household in
this country. The future success of America's economy and society is
inextricably linked to the universe of telecommunications. After a
decade of intense debate, this legislation rewrites the Nation's
communications laws from top to bottom.
The bill before us, S. 652, has come a long way and survived many
battles. It is not a perfect bill in the sense that no one got
everything they wanted--but I believe it will unleash a new era in
telecommunications that will forever change our society and make our
Nation a key driver on the information superhighway. We should applaud
this amazing effort and support the conference report to S. 562.
The debate over this measure has never been about the need for
reform--everyone agrees that it's time. The real debate has been over
how we reform our telecommunications law. The 1934 Communications Act
serves our country as the cornerstone of communications law in the
United States. The current regulatory structure set up by the 1934 act
is based on the premise that information transmitted over wires can be
easily distinguished from information transmitted through the air. So
regulations were put in place to treat cable, broadcast, and telephone
industries separately and for the most part, to preclude competition.
However, advances in technology have brought us to a melding of
telephone, video, computers, and cable. Digital technology allows all
media to speak the same language. These once neat regulatory categories
between telecommunications industries have started to blur and the
assumptions upon which they are based are fast becoming obsolete.
The essential purpose of this measure is to foster competition by
removing barriers between distinct telecommunications industries and
allowing everyone to compete in each other's business. But how do we
increase competition while simultaneously ensuring that everyone is
playing on a level playing field?
Coming from a rural State, this was an especially important question
for me. The overall goal of this legislation is to increase competition
and I wholeheartedly believe that increased competition will benefit
consumers. However, we must also recognize that telecommunications
competition is limited in some areas, especially in many rural areas.
The high cost of providing telecommunications to rural areas is
prohibitive for most telecommunications service providers without some
incentive. The 1934 communications bill understood this and adopted a
principle called universal service, which was thankfully maintained and
updated in S. 652.
The universal service concept charged the FCC with responsibility for
``making available, so far as possible to all people of the United
States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio
communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable
charges.'' So far we have done a heck of a job: 98 percent of American
homes have television and radio, 94 percent have telephone, close to 80
percent have a VCR, while 65 percent subscribe to cable TV--96 percent
have the option.
Without universal service protections, advanced telecommunications
will blow right by rural America creating a society of information
haves and have nots. S.652 recognizes that the definition of universal
service is evolving as the technology changes. S. 652 requires the FCC
to establish a Federal-State joint board to recommend rules to reform
the universal service system. The Joint Board will base its policies on
principles which understands that access to quality, advanced
telecommunications services should be provided to all Americans at a
reasonable cost.
I was particularly pleased to support an amendment, now in the bill
before us, which guarantees that our nation's K-12 schools, libraries
and rural health care providers have affordable access to advanced
telecommunications services for education. As Congress moves forward on
this bold legislation it is vital to provide a mechanism to assure that
children and other community users have access to the information
superhighway. The information superhighway must be available and
affordable to all Americans through schools and libraries.
And in the midst of the great battles among corporate titans like the
Baby Bells and the major long distance carriers it's also important to
balance the needs of the little guy. Small businesses are the backbone
of economic and community life in this country. I was proud to put
forward two provisions, included in this bill, which maintained the
integrity of small businesses in the telecommunications revolution.
My first provision amended the telecommunications bill to allow
companies with under 5 percent of the market nationally, to continue
offering joint marketing services. Under current law, joint marketing
companies can approach a business and offer to provide
[[Page S714]]
them local and long distance service together, at a low rate. The
business therefore gets a low cost integrated service, with the
convenience of having only one vendor and one bill to deal with for all
their telephone service. In an effort to prevent the big long distance
companies from having a competitive advantage, the original
telecommunications bill would have prohibited joint marketing.
Such a prohibition would have put small company owners like Clark
McLeod out of business. Mr. McLeod has been offering joint marketing
services to businesses in Iowa for several years. In the process he has
created thousands of jobs and filled a need for service. While I think
any prohibition on joint marketing is anti-competitive, my proposal
will at least allow the many innovative companies like Mr. McLeod, to
continue their operations and continue to provide the services valued
by so many Iowans.
My other small business provision prevents the Bell Operating
companies from entering into the alarm industry before a level playing
field exists. The burglar and alarm industry is unique among small
businesses in the telecommunications industry. It is the only
information service which is competitively available in every community
across the nation. This highly competitive $10 billion industry is not
dominated by large companies. Instead, it is dominated by approximately
13,000 small businesses employing, on average, less than ten workers.
Vigorous competition among alarm industry companies benefits consumers
by providing high quality service at lower prices.
Lastly, I am pleased that the Senate unanimously adopted two
amendments I wrote to crack down on phone scams where enterprising
swindlers have used the telephone to scam unsuspecting customers out of
their hard earned money.
Today, it is all too easy for telemarketing rip-off artists to profit
from the current system. The operators of many of these promotions set
up telephone boiler rooms for a few months, stealing thousands of
dollars from innocent victims. These scam artists often prey on our
senior citizens. Then they simply disappear. They take the money and
run--moving on to another location to start all over again.
My provision will protect consumers by providing law enforcement the
authority to more quickly obtain the name, address, and physical
location of businesses suspected of telemarketing fraud. It makes it
easier for officers to identify and locate these operations and close
them down. This change was requested by the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service--our chief mail and wire fraud enforcement agency. They do a
very good job and this provision gives them an important new tool to
protect the elderly and other Americans from scam artists and
swindlers.
I also succeeded in adopting a provision to help stop another
outrageous phone scam that has added hundreds, even thousands of
dollars, to a family's phone bill. Worst of all, this ripoff exposes
young people to dial-a-porn phone sex services--even when families take
the step of placing a block on extra cost 900-number calls from their
home.
Companies promoting phone sex, psychic readings and other
questionable services--often targeted at adolescents--use 800-numbers
for calls and then patch them through to 900-number service via access
codes. My amendment closes the loophole that allows these unseemly
services to swindle families and restores public confidence in toll
free 800-numbers.
If we pass this bill today, these provisions will become the law of
the land. As Microsoft giant, Bill Gates said in a recent interview
with Newsweek,
The revolution in communications is just beginning. It is
crucial that a broad set of people participate in the debate
about how this technology should be shaped. If that can be
done the highway will serve the purposes users want. Then it
will * * * become a reality.
This bill is a starting point, a gateway to the revolution, that
allows all Americans to participate. I urge my colleagues to support
this conference report.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from
Nebraska, the author of Title V of the telecommunications conference
report, in a colloquy. I have a number of questions I hope you can
answer to help clarify the intent of title V.
Is a company such as Compuserve which provides access to all
mainframes on the Internet liable for anything on those mainframes
which its users view?
Is a company like Compuserve which maintains its own mainframe and
which allows people to post material on its mainframe liable for
prohibited material that other people post there in the absence of an
intent that it be used for a posting of prohibited material?
Is the entity that maintains a mainframe, such as a university, that
allows a person to post material on its mainframe liable for prohibited
material that other people post there in the absence of an intent that
it be used for a posting of prohibited material?
When a user accesses prohibited material on a mainframe that was
posted by a third party, does that constitute an ``initiation'' of
transmission for which the entity maintaining the mainframe or the
entity providing access to the mainframe is liable?
Mr. EXON. I appreciate the questions raised by my colleague, Senator
Levin. These questions are important and helpful. In general, the
legislation is directed at the creators and senders of obscene and
indecent information. For instance, new section 223(d)(1) holds liable
those persons who knowingly use an interactive computer service to send
indecent information or to display indecent information to persons
under 18 years of age. You can't use a computer to give pornography to
children.
The legislation generally does not hold liable any entity that acts
like a common carrier without knowledge of messages it transmits or
hold liable an entity which provides access to another system over
which the access provider has no ownership of content. Just like in
other pornography statutes, Congress does not hold the mailman liable
for the mail that he/she delivers. Nothing in CDA repeals the
protections of the Electronic Message Privacy Act.
For instance, new section 223(e)(1) states that ``no person shall be
held to have violated subsection (a) or (d) solely for providing access
or connection to or from a facility, system, or network not under that
person's control, * * * that does not include the creation of the
content of the communication.'' In other words, the telephone
companies, the computer services such as Compuserve, universities that
provide access to sites on Internet which they do not control, are not
liable.
There are some circumstances, however, in which a computer service or
telephone company or university could be held liable. If, for instance,
the access provider is a conspirator with an entity actively involved
in creating the proscribed information (223(e)(2)), or if the access
provider owns or controls a facility, system, or network engaged in
providing that information (223(e)(3)), the access provider could
potentially be held liable. Access providers are responsible for what's
on their system. They are generally not responsible for what's on
someone else's system.
Even in these cases, however, an access provider that is involved in
providing access to minors can take advantage of an affirmative defense
against any liability if the entity takes ``good faith, reasonable,
effective, and appropriate actions * * * to restrict or prevent access
by minors to such communications ``(223(e)(5)). The Federal
Communications Commission may describe procedures which would be taken
as evidence of good faith. One such good faith method is set forth in
the legislation itself--the access provider will not be liable if it
has restricted access to such communications by requiring use of a
verified credit card or adult access code (223(e)(5)(B)). This
affirmative defense is similar to the defense provided under current
law for so-called ``dial-a-porn'' providers.
I hope that this response provides clarification to the Senator.
Mr. LEVIN. Yes; it does, and I thank my friend from Nebraska for that
clarification.
Mr. President, when the telecommunications reform bill was before the
Senate in June, I supported giving the Justice Department a role to
ensure that existing monopoly powers are not used to take advantage of
the new markets being entered. While
[[Page S715]]
the effort to give the Justice Department a role in this process was
not successful at that time, I'm pleased to see a Justice Department
role included in the final version of the bill. This is good news for
American consumers.
In addition to including a role for the Justice Department in
determining when there is adequate competition in the local exchange,
some of the other problems I had with the earlier bill have also been
addressed in the conference report. For example, it protects the right
of local governments to maintain access to their rights-of-way.
I believe we should try to keep obscene material from being
transmitted on the Internet and by other electronic media. That is a
constitutional standard that is well known. But the words used in title
V of the bill dealing with this matter include ``filthy'' and
``indecent,'' broad and vague enough so they are unlikely to meet the
constitutional test. These words do, however, exist in current law
covering telephone calls. That's why it's useful to have an expedited
review to test the constitutionality of this provision which the bill
provides for.
I don't think the intent of Title V is to hold Internet service
providers liable for content they did not create or initiate. The
previous colloquy with my colleague from Nebraska who is the sponsor of
this provision developed this in greater detail.
While there are some problems with the bill, on the whole, it strikes
a better balance between making needed regulatory changes to encourage
technological innovations while maintaining adequate protections of the
public interest than earlier versions of the bill. I will therefore
vote for the conference report before the Senate today.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
report to S. 652, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation
Act. This legislation will promote significant new investment in and
improvement of our Nation's telecommunications infrastructure. It will
heighten opportunities to export American goods overseas. It will
increase competition in many industries--the telephone industry, cable
television, utilities, long-distance telephone service providers,
telecommunications equipment manufacturers, and the alarm industry, to
name several--leading to greater economic efficiency. Above all, the
telecommunications bill marks a victory for consumers, who will enjoy
lower prices and better services.
Mr. President, I voted against the bill when the Senate first
considered it last June because I was concerned about a provision which
purported to prohibit computer transmission of obscene or indecent
material, particularly to minors. Such activity is, of course,
reprehensible. But I voted against that amendment, No. 1362, which the
Senate adopted, because I feared that we were taking action
improvidently and without adequate consideration for its constitutional
and practical implications.
I remain concerned that the conference report's provisions dealing
with computer transmission of obscene or indecent material and language
may be overly broad, but this is a matter for the courts to decide and
the conferees have paved the way for expedited judicial review of the
measure's constitutionality. Therefore, if this language is determined
to be troublesome when put into practice, the courts will be able to
correct it at the earliest possible moment.
Notwithstanding my concern about this particular matter, the bill on
balance is meritorious and I urge the adoption of the conference
report.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I rise to associate myself with the
comments of the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee,
Senator Pressler, and with the comments of the able majority leader,
Mr. Dole, regarding the conference report to S. 652, the
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995.
Mr. President, this is indeed a historic day in the annals of the
Senate. By an overwhelming vote of 91 yeas to 5 nays, the Senate passed
legislation which will revolutionize the telecommunications industry.
This landmark legislation will promote increased competition among
telecommunications service providers and will remove Depression-era
restrictions which have impaired the growth of this dynamic industry.
This bill will enact much needed reforms so that the
telecommunications industry is prepared to meet the challenges, and
opportunities, of the 21st century. The conference report language,
while not perfect, represents a marked improvement over current law.
Consumers and firms in my own Commonwealth of Virginia will gain
under this landmark legislation. Virginia is home to a rapidly
developing high-technology and telecommunications industry. Northern
Virginia, in particular, is at the forefront of this technological
revolution and is poised to build on that lead under the bill.
Virginia's consumers will benefit from increased services and
benefits at a lower cost as telecommunications providers compete for
their business. At the same time, this legislation is pro-family and
will assist parents in overseeing the type of programming that their
children view.
In short, Mr. President, both consumers and industry will benefit
from the passage of this historic bill. I would like to take this
occasion to commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce
Committee, Senator Pressler, and Chairman Bliley of the House Commerce
Committee, and the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, for
their leadership in bringing this critical legislation to the floor of
the U.S. Senate. Most importantly, I want to thank the numerous
Virginians who, over the past year, have provided me with their views
and guidance on this issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
report for the Telecommunications Act of 1995. This legislation
establishes real progress on important issues and I am pleased to
provide my support.
This legislation creates a new regulatory structure for the rapidly
evolving communications technology and fills an important need. The
current regulatory scheme divides industries, like local telephone
service and long-distance service, broadcast television, and cable
television.
A new regulatory framework is needed, to permit the creation of new
companies, new services, and promote competition between the previously
separated lines of business. Stronger competition in the communications
industry will bring new services to the market, present more choices
for the public and lower prices to consumers. This bill significantly
deregulates the communications industry to permit that competition to
take place.
During consideration of the bill, I joined many of my colleagues in
urging several components and I was pleased to see that a number of
these important proposals were able to be incorporated in this
legislation. Among the issues included were:
The V-Chip requirement, which will assist families to monitor
television in their homes to protect children from unsuitable and
inappropriate TV programming, including sex or violence. During the
state of the union speech, President Clinton called for passage of the
telecommunications legislation with the V-chip and a content ratings
system for television programming. I am pleased Congress could address
the concerns of families across America and incorporate these
provisions.
The cable scrambling amendment I offered with Senator Lott requiring
cable companies to scramble indecent or sexually explicit materials to
assist parents to protect minors.
Senator Exon's provisions to control access to indecent materials
will require the operators of computer networks, like America Online,
to screen out indecent materials for children. Conferees had a
difficult time reconciling different proposals and I am pleased the
provisions could be accommodated.
Assisting high-technology industry from inappropriate standards and
requirements: During consideration of the bill, some of California's
leading high-technology firms and computer companies raised a concern
that regulations prepared by the FCC would deny flexibility and limit
the computer industries' ability to develop standards based on market
needs. Computer companies including Apple, Motorola, and Echelon, urge
adoption of a provision prohibiting the FCC from developing overbroad
regulations that could impede progress in the computer industry. I was
pleased these provisions to
[[Page S716]]
allow the computer industry to develop and meet the needs of the market
were incorporated.
I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle don't want to stand
in the way of technological innovation or consumer choice. When the
Senate initially considered the legislation last May, Chairman Pressler
observed that the computer industry has transformed America and that
computer industry competition has brought huge benefits to our homes,
schools and workplaces. These provisions preserve that competition, and
keeps the government away from premature standards setting.
Adoption of a stronger role for the Justice Department to review
competition in the telecommunications industry: In the years since the
break-up of AT&T, the Justice Department has developed the expertise to
promote competition in the communications industry and protect
consumers. It would be a shame to squander that expertise just as new
concerns for competition and fairness arise under this bill. With the
passage of this legislation, we will enter a new era of
telecommunications policy and the experience of the Justice Department
will be critical in protecting strong competition and consumer
interests.
Important steps to promote universal service: In the 1930's, the
nation's universal service goals involved providing telephone service
to everyone, but as communications have evolved, the concept of
universal service also must develop and evolve as well. The bill
recognizes the need to modernize the concept of universal service and
will provide for telephone service discounts for schools, libraries and
hospitals to protect against our station splitting into the high-
technology haves and have-nots.
When this legislation came before the Senate last spring, I joined
with our colleague Senator Kempthorne raising concerns about the impact
on our Nation's cities and counties. As a former mayor, I know how
important it is to protect the cities' bridges, roads and other public
rights-of-way. I know the local government officials remain concerned
about the bill and the preemption provisions.
While legislative adjustments addressed some of the concerns of State
and local governments, cities, counties and States remain concerned
about the future and the possibility they could be brought to
Washington before the Federal Communications Commission to defend local
laws, regulations or fee.
The revised language clarifies that cities can impose fees on
communications providers like cable companies, as long as the fees are
imposed in a way that does not discriminate between different
competitors and the fees are fair and reasonable. Further, the
preemption authority only applies to communications issues and if the
cities have other authority to regulate communications provider, they
may continue to charge fees.
I am pleased that section 253(c) recognizes the historic authority of
State and local governments to regulate and require compensation for
the use of public rights-of-way. It further recognizes that State and
local governments may apply different management and compensation
requirements to different telecommunications providers' to the extent
that they make different use of the public rights-of-way. Section 253
(c) also makes clear that section 253 (a) is inapplicable to right-of-
way management and compensation requirements so long as those entities
that make similar demands on the public rights-of-way are treated in a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner.
As for the issue of FCC preemption, while I favored the complete
elimination of the preemption provision, I am pleased that the
committee could accept the view that authorizes the Commission to
preempt the enforcement only of State or local requirements that
violate subsection (a) or (b), but not (c). The courts, not the
Commission, will address disputes under section 253(c).
The overwhelming vote in the House on the amendment offered by
Representative Barton and Representative Stupak, as well as the
unanimous acceptance of Senator Gorton's amendment in the Senate,
indicate that the Congress wishes to protect the legitimate authority
of local governments to manage and receive compensation for use of the
rights-of-way.
I am concerned that mayors, county commissioners, and State utility
commissioners, including California Public Utility Commissioner, are
concerned that State telephone regulations will be preeempted. This is
an important issue in California where 31 companies have applied to
begin offering services in July. Under the bill, California's efforts
to license more competitors to offer local phone service could be
preempted and slowed down if the Federal Government acts or declines to
act. Under the bill, the State will be preempted and prohibited from
acting contrary to the Federal decision.
I am troubled by the significant uncertainty which remains regarding
the role of cities, counties, and States who may face added burdens.
Earlier, the unfunded mandates legislation was signed into law, yet the
Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that the legislation includes
unfunded mandates for State and local governments. Further, CBO
recognizes it lacks the ability to evaluate the potential cost. I will
continue to monitor this issue and, if necessary, Congress may need to
return to evaluate the balance between our State and local governments
and the Federal Government on telecommunications policy.
Mr. President, the legislation raises important issues and represents
important progress for the Nation. As a result of the bill, we can move
forward with new technology, new products, and new services. The bill
will open up exciting new challenges and opportunities and we should
embrace them. I look forward to these exciting new challenges. While I
remain concerned about mandates and the role of cities, States, and
counties in our telecommunication policy, I am pleased by the exciting
opportunities presented by the legislation. I am pleased to lend my
support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from South
Carolina has 14 minutes. The Senator from South Dakota has 6 minutes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me, as we acknowledge the
contributions of so many--specifically on Senator Stevens' staff, I
meant to mention our friend Earl Comstock. I worked with him throughout
the years on our Commerce Committee, and he was really diligent, along
with Senator Lott's staff, in the early days, Chip Pickering and now
Kevin Pritchett, and, of course, Senator Lott himself over there, along
with Senator Stevens.
On our side, you would have to comment on the contribution of Senator
Ford, who has been down there helping us orchestrate everything. He was
been there since the early times helping us, along with Senator Exon
and his contribution on cyberporn and its control; Senator Rockefeller,
along with Senator Snowe in the Snowe-Rockefeller particular amendment
relative to the discounted rates of the schools, the libraries, the
hospitals.
Senator Breaux of Louisiana has been very, very active on this
measure. I certainly want to thank him.
The reason we do this, Mr. President, to go right to the point while
we have a minute, is so the public can understand the involvement.
We had involved in this particular measure and in the conference
report, which has just been adopted, incidentally, over on the House
side by a vote of 414 to 16. I do not know what happened to 16 people,
how they got misled. I do not see why we did not get a unanimous vote,
but, in any event, it shows the wonderful work done by Chairman Bliley,
Congressman Markey, and the others over on the House side.
Look at the entities involved: The regional Bell operating companies.
They have a tremendous interest and influence, and the long-distance
companies. I think that was the real contest. I mentioned earlier that
on every Friday, we got together the RBOC's, the regional companies,
and every Monday the staff would work. It was all on top of the table.
There was no downtown lawyering and that kind of thing. It was all on
top of the table with the long-distance companies. Necessarily, the
long-distance companies had been thrown into competition at the time of
the divestiture back some 10 years ago. And Bob Allen, chairman of AT&T
said, ``Look, I have a third less personnel. I am doing a third more
work and
[[Page S717]]
making an increased profit.'' So as they downsized, as they call it,
and became competitive, the best proof that competition has worked is
with MCI and Sprint and AT&T and the rest of them that come in under
that particular description.
But the long-distance companies have been so aggressive that they
were beginning to move into the local exchange. I know of one
particular concern this Senator had in the southern region where our
friends at MCI said they were going to move into Atlanta with our
friends of Bell South. Bell South is, yes, a monopoly, but it was a
control monopoly whereby they could not get into long distance.
It was to our interest and the public interest, of course, that they
not be cherry picked. In other words, take off the wonderful market of
Atlanta and just leave the rest of the State wanting. That had occurred
in downtown New York City with Teleport. So we wanted them to come in
on an even-steven, balanced basis. Trying to work that out was really
the task to bring them on board where they all approved of this
particular bill and supported this particular bill. Not that they are
100 percent in agreement with every feature, obviously, but they
realize this is a mammoth step forward in trying to bring the
communications law of America into the modern technological age.
So we had the guidance of the 8(c) test from our friend Judge Greene
where he ruled that there be no substantial possibility of using
monopoly power to impede competition. Every word meant something to
every communications lawyer. So we had to really get a checklist of
``unbundling'' and ``dialing parity'' and ``access,'' and all these
things to be agreed upon.
It took actually weeks on every one of those particular measures all
last year where we worked around the clock to get it balanced and not
overweighted one way and not let long distance come in and market
without the ability, let us say, of our Bell companies to joint market
also.
So we were educated about that and came around to a balance in this
particular measure and now have the support of, and can you imagine of
all of these entities supporting this particular measure: The regional
Bell operating companies, the long-distance companies, the
broadcasters, the cable TV companies, the cellular, satellite
companies, the newspapers, burglar alarm, electronic publishing, public
utilities, pay phones, minority groups, computers were vitally
interested in the outcome of this particular measure, the schools,
libraries, the hospitals. Snowe-Rockefeller, the Secretary of
Education, Dick Reilly, and the administration were strong in this
information superhighway of our distinguished Vice President.
The Department of Justice worked diligently to make sure it was not
just a casual thing to send a letter or opinion over to the Federal
Communications Commission and just be thrown in the wastebasket; that
it should be given substantial weight to their opinion to make sure
that no monopolistic tendencies and actual entities develop in opening
up the markets for competition. The State public service commissions
had to be coached and brought along. The cities, the retailers of
equipment, the privacy groups, the local competition or competitors
like Teleport, the manufacturers, the rural telephone companies, the
independent program producers. I can go on and on. But we now have the
support of every one of these groups.
I think we have it because we feel very strongly that the public
interest has been protected in the long-distance section, in the
broadcast section and carried over from the 1934 Telecommunications
Act. The antitrust laws have been protected, as I pointed out.
One of the big disputes that we had was the takeover of 50 percent of
the broadcast market in the United States. Mr. President, I could be
President if I had that. I would call up Madison Avenue and say,
``You're not going to advertise your Miller High Life unless,'' and
then I would complete my thought. You can control 50 percent of the
television advertising in this country, and we also already saw a
tendency by cable news--CNN did not want to carry certain parts of
advertisements because it was against their interest. We tried to
protect against that.
But if you had 50 percent, you might as well forget it, because the
money is there, they buy it out, they control it. You could become the
President, as we can see right now on the buying of the Presidency up
in the distinguished State of New Hampshire where the distinguished
Presiding Officer lives. I as a candidate, if I take the public moneys,
am limited to $600,000. But if I have millions, I have spent millions,
go to Channel 5 in Boston and cover Highway 128 going up to Nashua
where half of the population of that great State resides.
It is not so much the flat tax as it is the sweep of the television
control and the purchase. We will get to that later on with campaign
financing, because I have a one-line constitutional amendment: The
Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to control
expenditures in Federal elections.
We have had bipartisan support, a majority vote. All we lack is two-
thirds for that particular amendment. I go back to the day when our
colleague from Louisiana, Senator Russell Long, was elocuting in 1974
about the Federal Election Campaign Practices Act and said every
mother's son was going to be able to run for President. Nobody was
going to be able to buy it. Now they are buying it. But let me go back
to communications.
We are about to vote. We protected the 50 percent. We never would
yield on that. That would be embarrassing for anybody to stand on the
floor and ask for it. To tell you, the only reason I agreed to 35
percent is CBS. Westinghouse already has 32 percent, and we did not
want to have to go backwards. Twenty-five percent is enough.
We protected the rural areas. The distinguished chairman of our
committee, Senator Pressler, Senator Stevens of Alaska, and Senator
Burns of Montana and all, they protected those rural areas. Any
competitor that comes in must serve the entire rural area. They cannot
just come in and take a part. The public service commissions or
authorities will determine how competition will occur in those rural
areas. The infrastructure sharing is provided for from the regional
Bell operating companies to help them sustain. We learned a lot with
that blooming airline deregulation.
I see I have a colleague who wants a few minutes. I want to yield to
make sure he can comment.
The RBOC's, the checklist, and the long distance I have touched on.
Universal service: Every carrier, Mr. President, coming into the local
market shall contribute.
We have the Rockefeller provision and Senator Exon's cyberporn
provision, which he is momentarily ready to address.
How much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 3 minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield that to my colleague from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from South Carolina. My heartiest
congratulations to Senator Pressler, the chairman of the committee, and
my friend and colleague from South Carolina, the ranking member, for a
job well done under some extreme circumstances. I congratulate you. I
understand that the House has just agreed to the conference report by
an overwhelming majority. I think the same thing will happen here.
Mr. President, I am pleased to voice my enthusiastic support for this
most significant piece of telecommunications legislation since the
enactment of the Communications Act of 1934.
As a Conference Committee member and author and backer of key
provisions of the bill I believe that this legislation is good for
American families, children and citizens in rural America.
Too often progress and discussions of this legislation has been
segregated to the business pages of many of America's newspapers. Too
much attention has been paid to how this bill affects large
corporations. This legislation is not only about large corporations. It
is legislation which will touch every person's life. It will open
unprecedented economic, educational and information opportunities for
all Americans.
Few pieces of legislation considered by this or any other Congress
have so embraced the concerns and needs of America's children and
families as has this legislation. I am very proud of the fact that this
legislation includes the
[[Page S718]]
Communications Decency Act which I introduced earlier this Congress and
in the last Congress to protect children from indecent, pornographic
communications on the Internet and other computer services and to
protect all Americans from computer obscenity and electronic stalking.
With the passage of this bill, the Congress will help make the
Information Superhighway safer for kids and families to travel. The
current lawlessness on the Internet has opened a virtual Triple-X
(XXX)-rated bookstore in the bedrooms of every child with a computer.
This law alone will not clean up the Internet. Parental supervision,
industry cooperation along with strict law enforcement, need to work
together to make this exciting new technology the family friendly
resource that it should be.
I am especially pleased that the conference report also included
legislation Senator Grassley and I put forward to crack down on those
who use various means of communications to lure children into illegal
sexual activity.
Concurrent with our efforts to make the Internet and other computer
services safe for families and children, this bill includes legislation
which will help turn the information revolution to the benefit of all
Americans but especially for America's children. The Snowe-Rockefeller-
Exon-Kerrey amendment which is part of this bill creates a unique
partnership with private industry. It will ensure discount
telecommunications rates for schools, libraries and rural health care
facilities. This landmark provision will, perhaps, give children in
Harvard and Cambridge, NE, opportunities to use telecommunications
technologies to learn from libraries and scholars at Harvard and
Cambridge Universities.
Another area of critical importance is in enacting legislation to
require new televisions to contain the so-called V-chip which will give
families an opportunity to block violent, vulgar or other objectionable
entertainment programming from their TV set. If successfully
implemented, this legislation will lead to the objective rating of
programs and give to parents the power to bar from their homes those
programs which assault their values. I was proud to co-sponsor the
Senate V-chip amendment.
Mr. President, this legislation also represents a major victory for
rural America. The conference report gives approval to the so-called
farm-team provisions. These provisions assure that rural citizens enjoy
telephone technologies and prices which are comparable to those in
urban areas. The provisions also allow rural phone companies to pool
resources with each other and with cable companies to share new
technologies and to give states the power to prevent unfair cherry-
picking competition in rural markets. Under the farm-team provisions
States can require new telephone competitors to offer service to an
entire community rather than just a select few highly profitable rural
phone users. The provisions also give the Federal and State regulators
flexibility in dealing with small and mid-sized phone companies. Too
often, one-size-fits-all regulation needlessly pushes up costs for
Nebraska's home town phone companies.
The farm team, by the way, is a group of rural Senators which pushed
a package of rural-oriented reforms during last year's consideration of
telecommunications legislation. As a charter member of the farm team
along with Senators Bob Kerrey, Jay Rockefeller, Byron Dorgan, Ted
Stevens, and the current chairman of the Commerce Committee Senator
Larry Pressler, it is very gratifying that our ideas on universal
service, rural markets, regulatory flexibility and preferential rates
for schools, libraries and rural health care facilities are now central
principles of America's future telecommunications policies.
In a real sense this legislation is less about big corporation and
more about changing the way Americans live, work and learn. No one will
be untouched by this legislation. New options may confuse and frustrate
some consumers at first, but will bring new services, new choices and
more affordable prices to all Americans.
The barriers to investment and innovation have been removed while
protecting the essential elements of a free market. The
telecommunications reform bill does not disrupt the Nation's antitrust
laws and does not change the Justice Department's role in policing
unfair competition and predatory pricing.
Mr. President, most importantly this legislation illustrates that a
Congress can make revolutionary change when it puts party labels aside
and works together not as Democrats and Republicans but as Americans. I
congratulate Senators Hollings and Pressler and all the members of both
parties and both Houses who brought this complex piece of legislation
together.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to congratulate Senator Exon and the other
members of the conference on bringing this very important conference
report to the floor today. However, I would like to bring their
attention to one section that is very troubling to me.
Section 507 amends a preexisting section of the Criminal Code, 18
U.S.C. 1462, and applies to the Internet. Now, it is my understanding
that your intent behind adopting this provision was to place reasonable
restrictions on obscenity on the Internet. I support this goal.
However, a section of this act may be construed to curb discussions
about abortion. It seems to me this provision would certainly be
unconstitutional.
Mr. EXON. I appreciate the Senator's raising the issue of this
provision. I certainly agree with her that any discussion about
abortion is protected by the first amendment guarantee of free speech.
I certainly agree that nothing in this title should be interpreted to
inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion.
Further, she is quite right that our interest in adopting this
provision was to curb the spread of obscenity--speech that is not
protected by the first amendment--from the Internet in order to protect
our children.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, with that assurance, I feel comfortable
supporting this bill. And I hope that my colleagues who were also
concerned about this provision will now feel comfortable supporting
this bill. Once again, I thank the Senator for clarifying this point,
and for his hard work on this bill.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, those who have fought all efforts to bring
some level of decency to the Internet have employed all sorts of
rhetorical devices to defeat the Communications Decency Act.
The latest attack comes from those who suggest that amendments
originally in the House bill to title 18 section 1462 somehow revive
obsolete provisions of the Comstock Act--(related in information on
abortion)--which courts have essentially determined to be
unconstitutional. The amendments to title 18 merely clarify that the
current laws which prohibit the importation, transportation, or
distribution of obscene materials apply to computers.
The conference committee went to great lengths in section 507(c) to
underline that the changes to the Criminal Code are clarifying and do
not change the substantive coverage of the current law. The Congress
last amended section 1463 in 1994 by increasing penalties for
violations of this section. Nothing in this legislation prohibits
constitutionally protected speech and this legislation does not revive
other-wise dead provisions of that law any more than the 1994 amendment
revived those very provisions.
I thank the Chair and I thank again those who put this act together.
I am pleased that it is about to pass the
U. S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are on the verge of passing the most
important piece of legislation in this Congress. By unleashing
competition in the communications industry, America will have more
jobs, a stronger economy, and more opportunity. It is a real economic
stimulus package with one big difference: It relies on private-sector
America, and not big government.
Mr. President, this bill has been in the works for over a decade. It
has stumped Congress after Congress. I know that because I introduced
the first deregulation bill after the breakup of the old ``Ma Bell''
system back in 1986, 10 years ago.
There is no doubt about it. This conference report was crafted in a
bipartisan, I think nonpartisan, manner. It could not have been
accomplished
[[Page S719]]
without the hard work of Chairman Pressler and his staff. Senator
Hollings has played a key role for years on this important issue.
I want to say an additional word about Senator Pressler. I know the
committee chairman sometimes gets a little anxious and comes to the
leader quite often about, ``When are you going to take up my bill?''
And I can report that I did not get by one day without Senator Pressler
asking me that at least two or three times.
So I want to congratulate Senator Pressler for his dogged
determination. I am very proud of the work he has done and the work of
the other Members in the conference. We have some differences. We think
there are still some things that should be addressed.
I am satisfied with the letter which I have received from the FCC
with reference to spectrum. I do not have any desire to put a roadblock
in the way of the spectrum option. But I wish to make certain the
taxpayers get their money's worth. If it is not worth anything, that is
fine. Let us have public hearings. Let us get it all out in the open.
Let us make a decision, and then let us make that determination.
I am proud of the fact that this bill willl pass in a Republican
Congress. It is no small feat. It was only 3 years ago Congress
reregulated the cable TV industry. That is not to say that cable TV did
not have its problems, because it certainly did. The difference is
Republicans believe competition and not Government is the best
regulator of the marketplace. Competition also means more choices for
the American people. And choice provides the highest level of consumer
protection.
It has been a tough bill to put together and some issues were
resolved and some were not resolved. Important issues like the foreign
ownership provision that were dropped, they would have helped American
corporations pry open foreign markets that have been closed for too
long. Or maybe it was the relaxation of the broadcast ownership rule
which would have given the little guy access to capital and thereby be
a stronger competitor. There could have also been language included
that would have forbidden the FCC from regulating the Internet. At the
same time, we did take steps to help parents protect their children
from indecent material that is prevalent on this new service.
I do not mean to take anything away from the bill and how it will
propel our country into the next century. Instead, I wish to point out
there is still much to be done. I think everybody has agreed to that.
I have also been openly critical of the provision in the
telecommunications bill that would junk all television sets in the
country and create a giant welfare program for television broadcasters.
I have worked closely with Chairman Pressler, who has also been
critical of this issue for some time, Senator McCain, the Speaker, and
many others.
So we have the letter. I am satisfied with it. They said, in any
event, they would not be prepared until 1997, and it seems to me we are
not going to retard progress in any way. We are just going to find out
what the facts are. If it is worth $10 billion, $20 billion, $30
billion, $70 billion, or zero, the public will know after public
hearings. We think the American taxpayers are entitled to at least that
assurance. When we are talking about reducing the rate of growth of
certain programs--Medicaid, Medicare, welfare--we ought to make certain
we are not going at the bottom and giving somebody at the top a
windfall. And again maybe someday, if we live long enough, this may be
covered by the networks, the spectrum. I doubt it. They will be
covering Members of Congress who might be going overseas on important
business. But it could be that they might cover this, how much it is
worth to them and how much it is worth to broadcasting generally.
I think it should happen. There should not be a double standard is
what they keep telling us. I agree with them. So I expect we would have
objective reporting on this particular issue.
Today we secured a letter signed by all five Commissioners at the
Federal Communications Commission. These Commissioners stood with me,
despite intense lobbying to do otherwise. That is courage and we owe
them our thanks.
In that letter, these Commissioners committed to Congress,
Any award of initial licenses or construction permits for
advanced television services will only be made in compliance
with the express intent of Congress and only pursuant to
additional legislation it may resolving this issue.
I am determined to turn the FCC's commitment to us into a victory for
the American taxpayer. But Congress will conduct hearings in the full
light of day on this issue. We will follow through and address this
issue. For those who think this is an idle threat, guess again. Because
we will give this our utmost scrutiny.
Now, those may sound like tough words, but, Mr. President, taxpayers
deserve nothing less.
In closing, let me also assure those skeptics that these letters are
not--I repeat, are not--about saving face. It is about saving the
American taxpayer billions of dollars and stopping a give-away, a giant
corporate welfare program.
Mr. President, despite this profound flaw, which we will fix, this
legislation will create jobs and benefits that we yet cannot imagine.
I ask unanimous consent that the FCC letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1996.
Hon. Larry Pressler,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Pressler: Thank you very much for your letter
this morning about the concerns expressed by Senate Majority
Leader Dole and others regarding the distribution of
additional spectrum to television broadcasters. We share the
determination of you, Senator Dole and others to protect
American taxpayers. As you know, under current law and
pursuant to the language of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 (should it become law), the Commission lacks authority
to auction, or charge broadcasters for the use of, the
spectrum that has been identified for the provision of these
broadcast services. In addition, given the many
administrative steps necessary to implement any assignment of
digital broadcast licenses, we would not be in a position to
issue those licenses any earlier than 1997.
We recognize the serious policy questions involved, and
that you intend to hold hearings and enact legislation
dealing with this issue as part of an overhaul of policies
governing the electromagnetic spectrum. Any award of initial
licenses or construction permits for Advanced Television
Services will only be made in compliance with the express
intent of Congress and only pursuant to additional
legislation it may adopt resolving this issue.
Very truly yours,
Reed E. Hundt,
Chairman.
James H. Quello,
Commissioner.
Andrew C. Barrett,
Commissioner.
Susan Ness,
Commissioner.
Rachelle B. Chong,
Commissioner.
Mr. PRESSLER. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Holling's time has expired, and the
Senator from South Dakota has 5 minutes 58 seconds.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Washington. I thank him very much for his work on this bill. It would
not have happened without him.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in dealing with highly complex and
technical legislation, two requirements seem to me to be essential. The
first is that those who have an interest in the legislation and have
conflicts among themselves over what is most desirable, express their
views so that Members can evaluate conflicting arguments and attempt to
reach the truth.
Each of these interest groups gives lip service to the consumer
interest and to competition, but it is only by testing the groups'
competing ideas against one another that the consumer interest and
competition can truly be served. That has clearly been the case in
connection with the many year debate over telecommunications
legislation. There were myriad interest groups. They had highly
conflicting interests. I believe that we have reached good
accommodations in connection with almost every one of those conflicts.
[[Page S720]]
But the second and even more important requirement for dealing with
legislation of this type is that the Members who deal with the issue in
the committees, and particularly those who are in charge, keep the
public interest as their objective. In this connection, I want to say
how much that has been the case with the junior Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. Hollings] during his leadership in this process. Most
particularly, however, I offer my appreciation to Senator Pressler, who
was willing to listen to everybody, but be the prisoner of no one, in
arriving at the right answers in connection with this bill. He did so
in the Senate proceedings, and he did so as chairman of the conference
committee. The fact that we are here today passing, nearly unanimously,
this important piece of legislation is a real tribute to him.
Personally, Mr. President, I should like to note two aspects of this
comprehensive legislation. I have a great interest in the competitive
nature of the wireless industry, and I am gratified that most of my
suggestions in that connection, to strengthen the industry's
competitive position, have been accepted. I am also delighted that we
were able to protect our American children and the power of our
American parents through the V-chip provisions and through other
provisions, which will give more authority to family members to
supervise what their children see.
Other details, obviously, cannot be gone into at the present time.
This is a fine piece of legislation. As a result of the great work of
our leaders, it will create employment for many tens of thousands of
Americans, and ensure that telecommunications will be a cutting-edge
industry in this country for many years to come.
I would like to clarify, and express my understanding, of a somewhat
confusing provision in the bill regarding uniform pricing of cable
rates. The conference report changes the uniform rate requirement in
two essential ways. First, section 301(b)(2) of the legislation sunsets
the uniform rate structure requirement in markets where the cable
operator faces effective competition.
The second change to the uniform rate requirement is the addition of
language that permits cable operators to offer bulk discounts to
multiple dwelling units or MDU's. The language in this section permits
cable operators to offer bulk discounts to MDU's, ``except that a cable
operator of a cable system that is not subject to effective competition
may not charge predatory prices to a multiple dwelling unit.''
I understand that there has been concern that this somewhat awkwardly
worded section implicitly condones predatory pricing once there is
competition in a market, or for subscribers who do not live in MDU's.
Clearly it is not the intent of Congress to supersede the Sherman Act
by allowing cable operators to engage in predatory pricing at any time
or under any circumstances. In fact, the legislation includes a general
antitrust savings clause in section 601(b). This clause guarantees that
antitrust concerns still will be addressed in the telecommunications
industry.
Mr. PRESSLER. I join in that praise of Senator Daschle and also
Senator Dole.
Mr. President, in closing this debate, let me say that we are passing
a historic telecommunications bill that will have a sweeping impact. It
is prospective, deregulatory, and it will affect every single American.
It will have a great international impact. I know that our citizens
will benefit greatly. There will be new devices and new technologies,
and there will be lower prices. We are entering an era that is going to
be like the Oklahoma land rush. There will be an explosion of new
telecommunications opportunities for our citizens.
I thank all the Senators. I have had the privilege of visiting with
all 100 Senators about this legislation. I also pay tribute to
Congressman Bliley, Congressman Fields, Congressman Markey, Congressman
Dingell, and others, whom I have had a chance, as chairman of the joint
House-Senate conference, to become acquainted with. I have come to
appreciate the work of a House-Senate conference. I want to pay tribute
to our House colleagues who worked so hard on this legislation.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that, consistent
with the law and the rules of the Senate Rules Committee, the maximum
amount of copies of the Senate version of this conference report be
printed and, if possible, that 50 copies be delivered to each Senator's
office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to thank everyone. I yield the
remaining time to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report accompanying S. 652. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] and
the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 5, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]
YEAS--91
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--5
Feingold
Leahy
McCain
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--3
Dodd
Gramm
Rockefeller
So the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
conference report was agreed to.
Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
conference report on s. 652, the telecommunications reform bill
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I congratulate the managers of this bill
and the leadership of the House and Senate on bringing to the floor
this complex, overdue effort to bring our Nation's telecommunications
laws into the 21st century. Although this legislation does not receive
the attention in the media as do issues such as the Federal budget and
tax cuts, its importance to our economy, to the livelihoods of all
Americans, and to continued technological progress cannot be
overstated. In fact, it has been said that the telecommunications
reform bill is the most important piece of legislation we will pass in
this Congress.
This bill recognizes that market forces and competition are the fuels
that drive our Nation's economy. For too long, most sectors of our
telecommunications industry, particularly the telephone industry, have
been hamstrung by outdated laws that limit access to the marketplace.
The great bulk of law in this area is actually some 61 years old. It
should be obvious to everyone that communications technology has been
revolutionized during these 61 years, and our laws ought to keep up
with these changes in technology.
Since the 104th Congress began consideration of telecommunications
reform early last year, there have been
[[Page S721]]
countless forces pulling the authors of this legislation is many
different directions. There have been industry groups, individual
companies, consumer groups, unions, think tanks, the administration,
and many, many more all with an interest in this bill who have
rightfully voiced their concerns as this process has gone forward. I
admire the long hours of hard work performed by the Commerce Committee
and its staff in sorting through the maze of this highly complex issue
and producing this conference report. I certainly did not envy these
individuals as they tackled this extraordinary difficult task.
While, as I have said, we all respect the ability of the free market
to produce jobs and foster economic growth, there are many in Congress
who are reluctant to let the marketplace operate completely freely in
all telecommunications industries. For example, many of my colleagues
are concerned that the regional Bell companies will take undue
advantage of their ownership of local telephone networks to compete
unfairly in the long distance market. On the other hand, many other
colleagues are equally adamant that we should place very few
restrictions on Bell companies as they are permitted to offer long
distance service.
This debate over long distance represents just one of the many, many
difficult balancing acts the managers of this bill struggled with. In
short, my colleagues had to reconcile the views of those who wanted to
let the marketplace more or less reign free with those who sought
regulatory protection for industries and for consumers. And let me tell
you, this was no easy task for the authors of this bill; I commend them
for their legislative ability. No one is 100 percent happy with the
final product, but I am confident that the benefits we will realize in
enacting this bill in the way of job creation and technological
progress are real. We can all be proud of the job done by the authors
of this legislation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the
remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. Those of
us who have worked with the distinguished chairman and ranking member
on this bill wish to acknowledge the great credit for their leadership,
and for our distinguished majority leader and the minority leader for
their backup assistance.
____________________