[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 12106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 12106]]

                         WORLDCOM-SPRINT MERGER

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 22, 2000

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address a couple of 
very recent news articles about the WorldCom-Sprint merger. I have been 
a supporter of the proposed merger since its announcement in October of 
1999. My reasons for supporting the merger are the same now as they 
were then. When we wrote and passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
we predicted many things, among them some consolidation in the telecom 
market. One of the major reasons for this urge to merge is to 
accommodate positive changes in the industry both domestically and 
internationally. These changes would be the direct result of greater 
competition and the resulting growth in the telecommunications sector.
  The distinctions between local and long distance have begun to blur 
and and almost disappear. Telecommunications companies, in order to 
survive and compete on a global basis need to have global size and 
reach. The fastest and most practical way to achieve such economies of 
scale is through strategic unions. The new world telecom company must 
provide services that will go beyond local or long distance. They must 
offer a wide range of services including at the very least local, long 
distance, high-speed Internet access, and wireless.
  I believe the proposed WorldCom-Sprint merger is a textbook example 
of what we in Congress envisioned when we passed the Telecom Act. The 
combination of these two corporations would create an American company 
suited to compete with anybody and everybody on a global basis for the 
foreseeable future. Its size and offerings will create jobs, encourage 
technological innovations, and promote competitive pricing for 
consumers.
  Given that, you can see why I am so concerned about the recent 
articles I've read in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal 
stating that the European Commission is on the verge of recommending 
against approving the merger. While I'm not privy to the technical 
reviews conducted by the E.C. and don't know why they may have reached 
their reported conclusion, I find it disconcerting to see actual quotes 
attributed to ``senior EU officials'' before the member states have 
voted. I also find it troublesome to read in the papers statements made 
by U.S. Department of Justice officials stating that they are inclined 
to recommend that the merger be blocked. Does the merger review process 
encourage the publication of intentions, real or imagined, which could 
have an effect on the final outcome of the review? I doubt that it 
does, and I am confident that it is not productive to do so. I believe 
it is important that the all merger review panels have an established 
and fair process to which they strictly adhere. Perhaps if that can 
still be done, they will find that this merger brings a great deal to 
the economy, the telecom industry and the consumers it seeks to serve.

                          ____________________