[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 102 (Monday, July 19, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H5754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LIVABLE COMMUNITIES FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal 
Government to be a full partner in helping our communities be more 
livable. I discussed improving liveability of the physical environment 
on this floor dealing with transportation infrastructure, managing our 
water resources in a more rational fashion, and reducing gun violence. 
These are all elements the Federal Government can profoundly influence 
in our communities and provide the quality of life that our citizens 
desire and deserve.
  A critical part of that well-planned infrastructure for a livable 
community is access to the global economy through Internet connections. 
That is why I have strongly supported the E-rate, which helps schools 
and libraries connect to the Internet with subsidized costs.
  The Internet is to America's tomorrow what the highways and railroad 
systems have been in the past. It has had the potential to change our 
communities and landscapes in ways that are truly profound.
  There is an Internet drama unfolding now which has profound 
implications for how the Federal Government can help communities 
realize their vision of a livable future. I am referring to high-speed 
broad-band Internet access via the cable systems which are part of the 
households of many Americans. This issue is being played out as the 
consolidation of America's cable delivery system is almost complete, 
featuring ownership by telecommunication giants like AT&T which 
recently purchased the TCI cable system, America's largest.
  Ironically, 7 years after the passage of legislation to deregulate 
cable, titled the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition 
Act of 1992, the consolidation in the industry is resulting in fewer 
choices for cable consumers. In fact, by this time next year, only New 
York and Los Angeles will have more than one cable operator. Why is 
this important?
  The majority of Americans are still in the horse and buggy era of 
Internet connections, by connecting on the Internet through their phone 
lines. Cable has the potential of moving millions of American 
households into the equivalent of a high-speed rail Internet 
connection. As we make this quantum leap from the horse and buggy 
technology to truly the information super highway, we must ensure that 
this new service provides the same type of competition that has 
inspired better service options at lower costs for long-distance and 
for Internet service over the phone lines.
  What happens if these cable systems are owned by just a few 
companies? Soon, AT&T will provide cable service for almost two-thirds 
of American households. We get a little glimpse of this in my hometown 
of Portland, Oregon, where AT&T is the only cable provider in our 
entire metropolitan area. As a condition of the approval of the merger 
with TCI, the citizen advisors in my community made the recommendation 
to our elected officials that there be competition for high-speed 
Internet connections over the cable platform.
  AT&T has chosen to argue strenuously that it should have a monopoly. 
The company insisted that everybody have to pay for AT&T's Internet 
service, regardless of whether or not people want to use it. Forcing 
people to use its service or pay twice for Internet connection is an 
integral part of AT&T's business plan.
  In fact, it is such an important part that when the elected officials 
chose to support the recommendation of our citizens, AT&T warned, in 
not very subtle language, that the city better have a big legal budget, 
and in fact, sued, trying to win in the Federal court what AT&T could 
not justify to Portland's citizens and to its elected officials.
  But AT&T lost in a powerfully worded decision by a highly respected 
and moderate to conservative local jurist. Yet AT&T is continuing its 
appeal and in the meantime is threatening not to invest in our 
community that had the temerity to suggest that we ought to have 
competition.
  While the company's influence is being felt in Washington, D.C., it 
is time for the administration and Congress to protect connectivity, 
competition, and choice. This is a national issue, not just Portland. 
Cities all over the country are dealing with this, in L.A., San 
Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis to Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and 
Detroit. Just last week, Broward County in Florida passed a resolution 
just like Portland's.
  I will be introducing legislation this week to help local communities 
in their quest to determine their own technological future through 
competition, connectivity, and choice. Congress, the FCC, the private 
sector and local governments, everybody has a role to play. We all must 
fight to protect the competitive forces that so many of us say are 
important. The stakes are high not just for this vital 
telecommunication link, but also to prove that we are serious about 
making competition work for more livable communities.

                          ____________________