CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 8460 August 4, 1995Watts (OK)Wolf

WydenYates

ZeliffZimmer

NOT VOTING—29

AndrewsBatemanCollins (MI)ConditCooleyde la GarzaFilnerHayesHergerKaptur

MaloneyMcDadeMcIntoshMoakleyOrtizOwensRangelReynoldsRoseScarborough

SprattThurmanTownsTuckerWaxmanWilliamsWilsonYoung (AK)Young (FL)

b 0910

The Clerk announced the followingpair:

On this vote:Mr. Scarborough for, with Mr. Filner

against.

Mr. GILMAN, Mr. STOKES, and Ms.FURSE changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’to ‘‘no.’’

Messrs. JONES, KIM, MFUME,BARCIA, HEFNER, and JEFFERSON,Ms. WOOLSEY, Mrs. KELLY, and Ms.MCKINNEY changed their vote from‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I inad-vertently missed rollcall vote 627. HadI been present, I would have voted‘‘yes.’’

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order toconsider amendment No. 2–1 printed inpart 2 of House Report 104–223.

AMENDMENT NO. 2–1 OFFERED BY MR. STUPAKMr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment, numbered 2–1.The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-

ignate the amendment.The text of the amendment is as fol-

lows:Amendment No. 2–1 offered by Mr. STUPAK:

Page 14, beginning on line 8, strike section243 through page 16, line 9, and insert the fol-lowing (and conform the table of contentsaccordingly):SEC. 243. REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO ENTRY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—No State or local statuteor regulation, or other State or local legalrequirement, may prohibit or have the effectof prohibiting the ability of any entity toprovide interstate or intrastate tele-communications services.

(b) STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY.—Nothingin this section shall affect the ability of aState or local government to impose, on acompetitively neutral basis and consistentwith section 247 (relating to universal serv-ice), requirements necessary to preserve andadvance universal service, protect the publicsafety and welfare, ensure the continuedquality of telecommunications services, andsafeguard the rights of consumers.

(c) LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.—Noth-ing in this Act affects the authority of alocal government to manage the publicrights-of-way or to require fair and reason-able compensation from telecommunicationsproviders, on a competitively neutral andnondiscriminatory basis, for use of therights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis,if the compensation required is publicly dis-closed by such government.

(d) EXCEPTION.—In the case of commercialmobile services, the provisions of section332(c)(3) shall apply in lieu of the provisionsof this section.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to therule, the gentleman from Michigan[Mr. STUPAK] will be recognized for 5minutes, and a Member opposed will berecognized for 5 minutes.

Does the gentleman from Virginiarise to claim the time?

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Virginia [Mr. BLILEY] will be rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. STUPAK].

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am of-fering this amendment with the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. BARTON] toprotect the authority of local govern-ments to control public rights-of-wayand to be fairly compensated for theuse of public property. I have a charthere which shows the investment thatour cities have made in our rights-of-way.

b 0915

Mr. Chairman, as this chart shows,the city spent about $100 billion a yearon rights-of-way, and get back onlyabout 3 percent, or $3 billion, from theusers of the right-of-way, the gas com-panies, the electric company, the pri-vate water companies, the telephonecompanies, and the cable companies.

You heard that the manage’s amend-ment takes care of local governmentand local control. Well, it does not.Local governments must be able to dis-tinguish between different tele-communication providers. The way themanager’s amendment is right now,they cannot make that distinction.

For example, if a company plans torun 100 miles of trenching in ourstreets and wires to all parts of thecities, it imposes a different burden onthe right-of-way than a company thatjust wants to string a wire across twostreets to a couple of buildings.

The manager’s amendment statesthat local governments would have tocharge the same fee to every company,regardless of how much or how littlethey use the right-of-way or rip up ourstreets. Because the contracts havebeen in place for many years, some aslong as 100 years, if our amendment isnot adopted, if the Stupak-Bartonamendment is not adopted, you willhave companies in many areas securingfree access to public property. Tax-payers paid for this property, tax-payers paid to maintain this property,and it simply is not fair to ask the tax-payers to continue to subsidize tele-communication companies.

In our free market society, the com-panies should have to pay a fair andreasonable rate to use public property.It is ironic that one of the first bills wepassed in this House was to end un-funded Federal mandates. But this bill,with the management’s amendment,mandates that local units of govern-ment make public property availableto whoever wants it without a fair andreasonable compensation.

The manager’s amendment is a $100billion mandate, an unfunded Federal

mandate. Our amendment is supportedby the National League of Cities, theU.S. Conference of Mayors, the Na-tional Association of Counties, the Na-tional Conference of State Legislaturesand the National Governors Associa-tion. The Senator from Texas on theSenate side has placed our language ex-actly as written in the Senate bill.

Say no to unfunded mandates, say noto the idea that Washington knowsbest. Support the Stupak-Bartonamendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe distinguished gentleman fromTexas [Mr. BARTON], the coauthor ofthis amendment.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair-man, first I want to thank the gen-tleman from Virginia [Mr. BLILEY], thegentleman from Texas [Mr. FIELDS],and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.SCHAEFER], for trying to work out anagreement on this amendment. Wehave been in negotiations right upuntil this morning, and were very closeto an agreement, but we have not quitebeen able to get there.

I thank the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. STUPAK] for his leadership onthis. This is something that the citieswant desperately. As Republicans, weshould be with our local city mayors,our local city councils, because we arefor decentralizing, we are for true Fed-eralism, we are for returning power asclose to the people as possible, and thatis what the Stupak-Barton amendmentdoes.

It explicitly guarantees that citiesand local governments have the rightto not only control access within theircity limits, but also to set the com-pensation level for the use of thatright-of-way.

It does not let the city governmentsprohibit entry of telecommunicationsservice providers for pass through orfor providing service to their commu-nity. This has been strongly endorsedby the League of Cities, the Council ofMayors, the National Association ofCounties. In the Senate it has been putinto the bill by the junior RepublicanSenator from Texas [KAY BAILEYHUTCHISON].

The Chairman’s amendment has triedto address this problem. It goes part ofthe way, but not the entire way. TheFederal Government has absolutely nobusiness telling State and local govern-ment how to price access to their localright-of-way. We should vote for local-ism and vote against any kind of Fed-eral price controls. We should vote forthe Stupak-Barton amendment.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Col-orado [Mr. SCHAEFER].

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I risein strong opposition to this Stupakamendment because it is going to allowthe local governments to slow downand even derail the movement to realcompetition in the local telephone

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 8461August 4, 1995market. The Stupak amendmentstrikes a critical section of the legisla-tion that was offered to prevent localgovernments from continuing theirlongstanding practice of discriminat-ing against new competitors in favor oftelephone monopolies.

The bill philosophy on this issue issimple: Cities may charge as much oras little as they wanted in franchisefees. As long as they charge all com-petitors equal, the amendment elimi-nates that yet critical requirement.

If the consumers are going to cer-tainly be looked at under this, they aregoing to suffer, because the cities aregoing to say to the competitors thatcome in, we will charge you anythingthat we wish to.

The manager’s amendment alreadytakes care of the legitimate needs ofthe cities and manages the rights-of-way and the control of these. There-fore, the Stupak amendment is at bestredundant. In fact, however, it goes farbeyond the legitimate needs of thecities.

Last night, just last night, we hadtalked about this in the author’samendment and we thought we workedout a deal, and we tried to work out adeal. All of a sudden I find that thegentleman, the author of the amend-ment, reneged on that particular deal,and now all of a sudden is saying well,we want 8 percent of the gross, thegross, of the people who are coming in.This is a ridiculous amendment. Itshould not be allowed, and we shouldvote against it.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. FIELDS], the chairman of the sub-committee.

(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,thanks to an amendment offered lastyear by the gentleman from Colorado[Mr. SCHAEFER], and adopted by thecommittee, the bill today requireslocal governments that choose to im-pose franchise fees to do so in a fairand equal way to tell all communica-tion providers. We did this in responseto mayors and other local officials.

The so-called Schaefer amendment,which the Stupak amendment seeks tochange, does not affect the authority oflocal governments to manage publicrights-of-way or collect fees for suchusage. The Schaefer amendment is nec-essary to overcome historically baseddiscrimination against new providers.

In many cities, the incumbent tele-phone company pays nothing, only be-cause they hold a century-old charter,one which may even predate the incor-poration of the city itself. In manycases, cities have made no effort to cor-rect this unfairness.

If local governments continue to dis-criminate in the imposition of fran-chise fees, they threaten to Balkanizethe development of our national tele-communication infrastructure.

For example, in one city, new com-petitors are assessed up to 11 percent of

gross revenues as a condition for doingbusiness there. When a percentage ofrevenue fee is imposed by a city on atelecommunication provider for use ofrights-of-way, that fee becomes a costof doing business for that provider,and, if you will, the cost of a ticket toenter the market. That is anticompeti-tive.

The cities argue that control of theirrights-of-way are at stake, but whatdoes control of right-of-way have to dowith assessing a fee of 11 percent ofgross revenue? Absolutely nothing.

Such large gross revenue assessmentsbear no relation to the cost of using aright-of-way and clearly are arbitrary.It seems clear that the cities are reallylooking for new sources of revenue, andnot merely compensation for right-of-way.

We should follow the example ofStates like Texas that have alreadymoved ahead and now require citieslike Dallas to treat all local tele-communications equally. We must de-feat the Barton-Stupak amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from California [Ms.PELOSI].

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong support of the Stupak-Bartonamendment, which is a vote for localcontrol over zoning in our commu-nities.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from Texas [Ms. JACK-SON-LEE].

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, Irise in support of Stupak-Barton, thatwould ensure cities and counties obtainappropriate authority to manage localright-of-way.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Michigan [Mr. CON-YERS].

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I con-gratulate my colleague from Michigan[Mr. STUPAK] on this very importantamendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lotfrom the other side about gross reve-nues. You are right. The other side istrying to tell us what is best for ourlocal units of government. Let localunits of government decide this issue.Washington does not know everything.You have always said Washingtonshould keep their nose out of it. Youhave been for control. This is a localcontrol amendment, supported by may-ors, State legislatures, counties, Gov-ernors. Vote yes on the Stupak-Bartonamendment.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me saythat I was a former mayor and a citycouncilman. I served as president ofthe Virginia Municipal League, and Iserved on the board of directors of theNational League of Cities. I know youhave all heard from your mayors, youhave heard from your councils, andthey want this. But I want you to knowwhat you are doing.

If you vote for this, you are votingfor a tax increase on your cable users,because that is exactly what it is. Icommend the gentleman from Texas[Mr. BARTON], I commend the gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. STUPAK]who worked tirelessly to try to nego-tiate an agreement.

The cities came back and said 10 per-cent gross receipts tax. Finally theymade a big concession, 8 percent grossreceipts tax. What we say is chargewhat you will, but do not discriminate.If you charge the cable company 8 per-cent, charge the phone company 8 per-cent, but do not discriminate. That iswhat they do here, and that is wrong.

I would hope that Members would de-feat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-ance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. All time on thisamendment has expired.

The question is on the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. STUPAK].

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to therule, further proceedings on the amend-ment offered by the gentleman fromMichigan [Mr. STUPAK] will be post-poned until after the vote on amend-ment 2–4 to be offered by the gen-tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MAR-KEY].

It is now in order to consider amend-ment No. 2–2 offered by the gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. CONYERS].

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have aparliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, can theChair simply state if it plans to rollother votes? Some of us were waitingaround for this vote.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the intentionof the Chair to roll the next two voteson the next two amendments, 2–2 and2–3, until after a vote on 2–4. We willdebate the first Markey amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Could the Chair usenames, please?

The CHAIRMAN. We will roll thenext two amendments, the Conyers andCox-Wyden amendments, until afterthe vote on the first Markey amend-ment.AMENDMENT 2–2 AS MODIFIED OFFERED BY MR.

CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offera modified amendment.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 8462 August 4, 1995The Clerk read as follows:Amendment as modified offered by Mr.

CONYERS: Page 26, strike line 6 and insert thefollowing:

‘‘(c) COMMISSION AND ATTORNEY GENERALREVIEW.—

Page 26, lines 8 and 10, page 27, lines 6 and9, strike ‘‘Commission’’ and insert ‘‘Commis-sion and Attorney General’’.

Page 27, lines 4 and 12, insert ‘‘COMMIS-SION’’ before ‘‘DECISION’’.

Page 27, after line 21, insert the followingnew paragraph:

‘‘(5) ATTORNEY GENERAL DECISION.—‘‘(A) PUBLICATION.—Not later than 10 days

after receiving a verification under this sec-tion, the Attorney General shall publish theverification in the Federal Register.

‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—TheAttorney General shall make available tothe public all information (excluding tradesecrets and privileged or confidential com-mercial or financial information) submittedby the Bell operating company in connectionwith the verification.

‘‘(C) COMMENT PERIOD.—Not later than 45days after a verification is published undersubparagraph (A), interested persons maysubmit written comments to the AttorneyGeneral, regarding the verification. Submit-ted comments shall be available to the pub-lic.

‘‘(D) DETERMINATION.—After the time forcomment under subparagraph (C) has ex-pired, but not later than 90 days after receiv-ing a verification under this subsection, theAttorney General shall issue a written deter-mination, with respect to approving the ver-ification with respect to the authorizationfor which the Bell operating company hasapplied. If the Attorney General fails toissue such determination in the 90-day periodbeginning on the date the Attorney Generalreceives such verification, the Attorney Gen-eral shall be deemed to have issued a deter-mination approving such verification on thelast day of such period.

‘‘(E) STANDARD FOR DECISION.—The Attor-ney General shall approve such verificationunless the Attorney General finds there is adangerous probability that such company orits affiliates would successfully use marketpower to substantially impede competitionin the market such company seeks to enter.

‘‘(F) PUBLICATION.—Not later than 10 daysafter issuing a determination under subpara-graph (E), the Attorney General shall pub-lish a brief description of the determinationin the Federal Register.

‘‘(G) FINALITY.—A determination madeunder subparagraph (E) shall be final unlessa petition with respect to such determina-tion is timely filed under subparagraph (H).

‘‘(H) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—‘‘(i) FILING OF PETITION.—Not later than 30

days after a determination by the AttorneyGeneral is published under subparagraph (F),the Bell operating company that submittedthe verification, or any person who would beinjured in its business or property as a resultof the determination regarding such compa-ny’s engaging in provision of interLATAservices, may file a petition for judicial re-view of the determination in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit. The United States Courtof Appeals for the District of Columbia shallhave exclusive jurisdiction to review deter-minations made under this paragraph.

‘‘(ii) CERTIFICATION OF RECORD.—As part ofthe answer to the petition, the AttorneyGeneral shall file in such court a certifiedcopy of the record upon which the deter-mination is based.

‘‘(iii) CONSOLIDATION OF PETITIONS.—Thecourt shall consolidate for judicial review allpetitions filed under this subparagraph withrespect to the verification.

‘‘(iv) JUDGMENT.—The court shall enter ajudgment after reviewing the determinationin accordance with section 706 of title 5 ofthe United States Code. The determinationrequired by subparagraph (E) shall be af-firmed by the court only if the court findsthat the record certified pursuant to clause(ii) provides substantial evidence for that de-termination.’’

Page 29, line 8, insert ‘‘and the AttorneyGeneral’s’’ after ‘‘the Commission’s’’.

Mr. CONYERS (during the reading).Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-sent that the amendment be consideredas read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromMichigan?

There was no objection.

b 0930

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, thegentleman from Michigan [Mr. CON-YERS] will be recognized for 15 minutes,and a Member in opposition to theamendment is recognized for 15 min-utes.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Virginia [Mr. BLILEY] will be rec-ognized for 15 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. CONYERS].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 3 minutes.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, Ibegan this discussion on an amendmentto reinstate the Department of Jus-tice’s traditional review role when con-sidering Bell entry into new lines ofbusiness by congratulating the chair-man of the full committee, the gen-tleman from Illinois [Mr. HYDE]. In thecommittee bill that the Committee onthe Judiciary reported, we were able tocome together and bring forward anamendment exactly like the one that isnow being brought forward.

I appreciate the chairman’s role inthis matter.

The amendment is identical to thetest approved by the Committee on theJudiciary, as I have said earlier thisyear, on a bipartisan basis. Everyoneon the committee, with the exceptionof one vote, supported our amendment.It was named the Hyde-Conyers amend-ment. It received wide support, and Ihope we continue to do that.

It provides simply that the JusticeDepartment disapprove any Bell re-quest to enter long-distance businessas long as there is a dangerous prob-ability that such entry will substan-tially impede competition.

Point No. 1: This amendment on theDepartment of Justice role is moremodest than the same provision for aDepartment of Justice role in theBrooks-Dingell bill that passed theHouse on suspension by 430 to 5 lastyear. So, my colleagues, we are notstarting new ground. This is not any-thing different. It has received widescrutiny and wide support. It is a mat-

ter that should not be in contentionand should never have been omittedfrom either bill and certainly not themanager’s amendment.

The Justice Department is the prin-cipal Government agency responsiblefor antitrust enforcement. Please un-derstand that the 1984 consent decreehas given the Department of Justicedecades of expertise in telecommuni-cations issues. By contrast, the FCChas no antitrust background whatso-ever.

Remember, we are taking the courtcompletely out of the picture. So whatwe have is no more court reviews orwaivers. We have a total deregulationof the business. Unless we put thisamendment in, we will not have a mod-est antitrust responsibility in thishuge, complex circumstance.

Given this state of facts, it makesunquestionable sense to allow the anti-trust division to continue to safeguardcompetition and preserve jobs. For thelast 10 years the Justice Departmenthas done an excellent job in keepinglocal prices, which have gone up, andlong-distance rates, which have gonedown.

The amendment I’m offering will reinstatethe Department of Justice’s traditional reviewrole when considering Bell entry into new linesof business. The amendment is identical to thetest approved by the Judiciary Committee ear-lier this year on a bipartisan 29 to 1 basis. Itprovides that the Justice Department must dis-approve a Bell request to enter the long-dis-tance business so long as there is a dan-gerous probability that such entry will substan-tially impede competition.

This should not even be a point of conten-tion. The Justice Department is the principalGovernment agency responsible for antitrustenforcement. Its role in the 1984 AT&T con-sent decree has given it decades of expertisein telecommunications issues. The FCC bycontrast has no antitrust background whatso-ever. Many in this body have slated the FCCfor extinction or significant downsizing.

Given this state of facts it makes unques-tionable sense to allow the Antitrust Division tocontinue to safeguard competition and pre-serve jobs. For the last 10 years the JusticeDepartment has been given an independentrole in reviewing Bell entry into new lines ofbusiness, and the result has been a 70-per-cent reduction in long-distance prices and anexplosion in innovation.

At a time when the Bells continue to control99 percent of the local exchange market, I, forone, think we should have the Antitrust Divi-sion continue in this role. Don’t be fooled bythe FCC checklist—the Bells could meet everysingle item on that list and still maintain mo-nopoly control of the local exchange market.

Last Congress this body approved—by anoverwhelming 430 to 5 vote—a bill which pro-vided the Justice Department with a farstronger review than my amendment does. It’sno secret that I would have preferred to seethis same review role given to the Justice De-partment this Congress. However, in the spiritof bipartisan compromise I agreed to a morelenient review role with Chairman HYDE whenthe Judiciary Committee considered tele-communications legislation. I was shockedwhen this very reasonable compromise test

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 8463August 4, 1995was completely ignored when the two commit-tees sought to reconcile their legislation.

Finally, I would note that the amendmenthas been revised to clarify that any determina-tions made by the Attorney General are fullysubject to judicial review. It was never my in-tent to deny the Bells or any other party theright to appeal any adverse determination, soto accomplish this purpose I have borrowedthe precise language from the Judiciary bill.

I urge the Members to vote for this amend-ment which gives a real role to the Justice De-partment and goes a long way toward safe-guarding a truly competitive telecommuni-cations marketplace. In an industry that rep-resents 15 percent of our economy, we owe itto our constituents to do everything possible tomake sure we do not return to the days of mo-nopoly abuses.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 1 minute.

(Mr. BLILEY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong opposition to the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. CONYERS].

The core principle behind H.R. 1555 isthat Congress and not the Federalcourt judge should set telecommuni-cations policy. This is one of the few is-sues that seems to have universalagreement, that Congress shouldreassert its proper role in setting na-tional communications policy.

My colleagues, last November thecitizens of this country said, loud andclear, we want less Government, lessregulation. Getting a decision out oftwo Federal agencies is certainly a lotharder than getting it out of one. Forthat reason alone, this amendmentought to be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. BRYANT], a member of the com-mittee.

(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend his remarks.)

Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chair-man, the gentleman from Michigan[Mr. CONYERS] made a very importantpoint a moment ago when he pointedout that last year when we passed thebill by an enormous margin, we had astronger Justice Department provisionin the bill than we do, than even theConyers amendment today would be.

The House has adopted the manager’samendment over our strong objections,but for goodness sakes consider thefact that, while the gentleman fromVirginia [Mr. BLILEY] makes the pointthat we have decided that Congressshall make the decision with regard tocommunications law rather than thecourts, Congress cannot make the deci-sions with regard to every single caseout there.

As is the case throughout antitrustlaw, all we are saying with the Conyersamendment is that the Justice Depart-

ment ought to be able to render a judg-ment on whether or not entry into thisline of business by one of the Bell com-panies is going to impede competitionrather than advance it.

Now, what motive would the JusticeDepartment have to do anything otherthan their best in this matter? Theyhave done a fine job in this area nowfor many, many years. The Conyersamendment would just come along andsay, we are going to continue to havethem exercise some judgment.

What we had in the bill before wasthat when there is no dangerous prob-ability that a company who is tryingto enter one of these lines of businessor its affiliates would successfully useits market power and the Bell compa-nies have enormous market power, tosubstantially impede competition, andthe Attorney General finds that to bethe case, there will be no problem withgoing forward.

When they find otherwise, there willbe a problem with going forward, andwe want there to be a problem withgoing forward. For goodness sakes, weknow that the developments with re-gard to competition in the last 12 yearsare a result of a court, a sanctionagreement, supervised by a judge. I donot know that that is the best process,but the fact of the matter is we allowedcompetition where it did not exist be-fore.

Why would we now come along andtake steps that would move us in thedirection of impeding competition oressentially impeding competition? Givethe Justice Department the right tolook at it as they look at so manyother antitrust matters. The Presidenthas asked for it. I think clearly weasked for it a year ago.

Let us keep with that principle.Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. DINGELL].

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thereare three things wrong with thisamendment. The first is the agencywhich will be administering it, the Jus-tice Department. The Justice Depart-ment is in good part responsible for theunfair situation which this countryconfronts in telecommunications. TheJustice Department and a gaggle ofAT&T lawyers have been administeringpricing and all other matters relativeto telecommunications by both theBaby Bells and by AT&T. So if thereare things that are wrong now, it isJustice which has presided.

The second reason is that if we addthe Justice Department to a sound andsensible regulatory system, it will cre-ate a set of circumstances under whichit will become totally impossible tohave expeditious and speedy decisionsof matters of importance and concernto the American people.

The decisions that need to be madeto move our telecommunications pol-icy forward can simply not be made

where you have a two-headed hydratrying to address the telecommuni-cations problems of this country.

Now, the third reason: I want Mem-bers to take a careful look at the graphI have before me. It has been said thata B–52 is a group of airplane parts fly-ing in very close formation. Theamendment now before us would set upa B–52 of regulation. If Members look,they will find that those in the mostlimited income bracket will face a ratestructure which is accurately rep-resented here. It shows how long-dis-tance prices have moved for people whoare not able to qualify for some of thespecial goody-goody plans, not the peo-ple in the more upper income bracketswho qualify for receiving special treat-ment.

This shows how AT&T, Sprint andMCI rates have flown together. Theyhave flown as closely together as dothe parts of a B–52. Note when AT&Tgoes down, Sprint and MCI go down.When MCI or AT&T go up, the othercompanies all go up. They fly so close-ly together that you cannot discernany difference.

This will tell anyone who studiesrates and competition that there is nocompetition in the long distance mar-ket. What is causing the vast objectionfrom AT&T, MCI and Sprint is the factthat they want to continue this cozyundertaking without any competitionfrom the Baby Bells or from anybodyelse.

If Members want competition, theway to get it is to vote against theConyers amendment. If you do notwant it and you want this kind of out-rage continuing, then I urge you tovote for the amendment offered by thegentleman from Michigan [Mr. CON-YERS] who is my good friend.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I say to my very dearcolleague and the dean of the Michigandelegation, that ain’t what he saidwhen the Brooks-Dingell bill came uponly last year, and he had a tougherprovision with the Department of Jus-tice handling this important matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes tothe gentleman from California [Mr.BERMAN], a very able member of theCommittee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding time to me.

Everything that my friend fromMichigan [Mr. DINGELL] said about thequestion of competition can be as-sumed to be true, and none of it wouldcause Members to vote against theConyers amendment. Because I do notthink we should put artificial restric-tions on the ability of the Bell compa-nies to go into long distance, I sup-ported the manager’s amendment be-cause it got rid of a test that made itvirtually impossible for them to everenter that competition.

Now the only question is whether theJustice Department, that had the fore-sight starting under Gerald Ford, fin-ishing under Ronald Reagan, to break

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 8464 August 4, 1995up the Bell monopolies, should be al-lowed to have a meaningful role, a roledefined by a test which is so restrictivethat it says, unless, unless the burdensupports, the assumption is with theBell companies. It says unless the At-torney General finds that there is adangerous probability that such com-pany or its affiliates would successfullyuse market power to substantially im-pede competition in the market suchcompany seeks to enter, it is an ex-tremely rigorous test that must be metto stop them from entering the mar-ket. But it gives the division that hasbeen historically empowered to decidewhether there is anticompetitive prac-tices a role in deciding whether or notthat entry will impede competition.

This place voted last year by an over-whelming vote for a test that was farmore rigorous, a test that said thatthey could not enter unless we foundthere was no substantial possibilitythat they could use monopoly power toimpede competition. Do not overreach,the proponents of Bell entry into longdistance, do not over reach. Do notshut the Justice Department out froman historic role that they have had,that they should have, to look atwhether or not there is a high prob-ability that they will cause, they willexercise monopoly power.

Support the Conyers amendment.Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. HYDE], the chairman of the Com-mittee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. HYDE asked and was given per-mission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want tocongratulate the gentleman fromMichigan for reviving the judiciary billwhich did pass our committee 29 to 1,because it does go a long way towardestablishing or reestablishing a prin-ciple that I believe in; namely, thatantitrust laws should be reviewed andadministered by that department ofgovernment specifically designed to dothat, and that is the Department ofJustice.

b 0945

When a Baby Bell enters into manu-facturing or into long distance, anti-trust questions are brought into play.The Department of Justice, it seems tome, is the appropriate agency to over-see that transition and analyze thecompetitive implications.

Once the bills are in these new linesof business and operating, it becomes aregulatory proposition and then over-sight by the Federal CommunicationsCommission is appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, what the gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. CONYERS] has doneis to propose a more meaningful rolefor the Department of Justice, which iswhat the Judiciary Committee wantedto do. But the problem is, that DOJcomes in at the tail end of the regu-latory process. It becomes a doublehurdle for a Baby Bell trying to getinto manufacturing or long distance. It

is not the same quick, clean expeditedprocess that we had in our legislation(H.R. 1528).

So, it adds additional hurdles for acompany, a Bell company seeking toget into manufacturing or long dis-tance. It will add considerably to theamount of time that is consumed. ABell company can make all of the rightmoves and do everything it wants, andthen at the end of the process be shotdown by the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, I had proposed andpreferred a dual-track, dual-agency sit-uation where options could be chosenby the Bells to get into these new busi-nesses, but that is not to be.

Having said what I have just said, Ido approve and appreciate the fact thata more expansive role is proposed tothe Department of Justice in dealingwith these important antitrust issues.After all, it is an antitrust decree thatwe are modifying, the modified finaljudgment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentlewoman from Col-orado [Mrs. SCHROEDER], ranking mi-nority member of the Committee onthe Judiciary.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong support of the amend-ment of the gentleman from Michigan[Mr. CONYERS]. What we are doing hereis we are getting ready to unleashthese huge, huge economic forces. Theyare huge.

The Justice Department, I wish itwere much stronger, to be perfectlyhonest. Last year, the bill that peoplevoted for had this type of language init. It is an independent agency. It isnot the FCC.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that ifwe are getting ready to unleash thesehuge forces on the American consumer,we ought to want some watchdog, somewatchdog out there someplace.

Granted, we want competition, butwhat we may end up with is one guyowning everything. If my colleagueswant the Justice Department for heav-en’s sakes, vote ‘‘yes.’’

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Texas[Mr. FIELDS].

(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,the most difficult issue in this bill hasbeen how the local loop is opened tocompetition. No question, that iswhere the focus of the controversy hasbeen. It is a delicate question.

Mr. Chairman, what we have at-tempted to do is to open this in a sen-sible and fair way to all competitors.Consequently, we created a checkliston how that loop is opened. We havethe involvement of the State publicutility commissions in every State inthat particular question. We have re-views by the Federal CommunicationsCommission that the loop is open. Con-sequently, there is no need to give theDepartment of Justice a role in theopening of that loop.

We have worked with our goodfriends on the Committee on the Judi-ciary coming up with a consultativerole for the Justice Department. It wasnever envisioned by Judge Greene inthe modified final judgment that Jus-tice would have a permanent role andthis is the time we made the break.This is the time we move this tele-communications industry into the 21stcentury.

Mr. Chairman, a sixth of our econ-omy is involved in this particular in-dustry. Central to opening up tele-communications to competition is toopen the loop correctly and as quicklyas possible, because in opening the loopand creating competition, we havemore services, we have newer tech-nologies, and we have these at lowercosts to the consumer. That is a de-sired result and that is something thatwe have worked for this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, that is why we havespent so much time on how this loop isopened and there is no need for Justiceto have an expanded role.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from NewMexico [Mr. SCHIFF], a member of theCommittee on the Judiciary from theother side of the aisle.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I wantto make it clear, first, that I agreecompletely with the direction of thebill. I voted in favor of the manager’samendment of the gentleman from Vir-ginia [Mr. BLILEY], because I think wewant to go from the courts, the Con-gress, and ultimately get Congress outof this and let companies compete.

Mr. Chairman, I think the future isone of companies that compete in dif-ferent areas simultaneously. Each com-pany will offer telephone services, en-tertainment services, and so forth. Butwe must remember that this wholematter has arised from an antitrustsituation. Even though we want allcompanies, including the regionalBells, to participate in all aspects ofbusiness enterprise, the fact of thematter is that there is still basically acontrol of the local telephone market.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, for aperiod of time, the Department of Jus-tice should have a specific identifiablerole in this bill. That is why I urge myfellow Members of the House to supportthe Conyers amendment.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Florida[Mr. HASTINGS].

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair-man, I am not a member of the Com-mittee on the Judiciary, but I am in-terested in its findings.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1555 assigns tothe FCC the regulatory functions toensure that the Bell companies havecomplied with all of the conditionsthat we have imposed on their entryinto long distance. This bill requiresthe Bell companies to interconnectwith their competitors and to providethem the features, functions and capa-bilities of the Bell companies’ net-works that the new entrants need tocompete.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 8465August 4, 1995The bill also contains other checks

and balances to ensure that competi-tion occurs in local and long distancegrowth. The Justice Department stillhas the role that was granted to itunder the Sherman and Clayton Acts,and other antitrust laws. Their role isto enforce the antitrust laws and en-sure that all companies comply withthe requirements of the bill.

The Department of Justice enforcesthe antitrust laws of this country. It isa role that they have performed well.The Department of Justice is not, andshould not be, a regulating agency. Itis an enforcement agency.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentleman from Cali-fornia [Mr. BECERRA], a very able mem-ber of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. BECERRA asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let usnot forget that the Ma Bell operatingcompany, AT&T was broken up becausethe company used its control of localtelephone companies to frustrate long-distance competition. It was the Jus-tice Department that pursued the caseagainst AT&T, through Republican andDemocratic administrations, to stopthose abuses.

Mr. Chairman, the standard that is inthe Conyers amendment, which is thestandard adopted and passed by theCommittee on the Judiciary, Repub-lican and Democrats, except for 1 mem-ber voting for it, is the standard thatwe are trying to get included now. It isa standard that is softer than thestandard that was passed by 430 to 5last year by this same House.

It is a standard that is softened forthe regional operating companies to beable to pursue and it is a very rigorousstandard that the Justice Departmentmust meet in order to be able to stop alocal company from coming in.

Mr. Chairman, let us not forget thatthe Republican Congress is trying toeliminate the FCC, and now they areasking the FCC to be the watchdog forconsumers in this area. We should havea safety net for consumers and rate-payers.

Vote for the Conyers amendment.Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Roa-noke, VA [Mr. GOODLATTE], a memberof the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong opposition to the Con-yers amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when Congress acts toend the current judicial consent decreemanagement of the telecommuni-cations industry, the Department ofJustice should not simply take over.H.R. 1555 preserves all of the Depart-ment of Justice’s antitrust powers. Iagree with the chairman of my com-mittee that when there are antitrustviolations, the Department of Justiceshould step in.

Mr. Chairman, the Conyers amend-ment would dramatically increase theDepartment’s statutory authority toregulate the telecommunications in-dustry, a role for which the Depart-ment of Justice was never intended.

Currently, the Federal Communica-tions Commission and the public serv-ice commissions in all 50 States andthe District of Columbia regulate thetelecommunications industry to pro-tect consumers.

This combination of Federal andState regulatory oversight is effectiveand will continue unabated under boththe House and the Senate legislation.There is no reason why two Federal en-tities, the Federal CommunicationsCommission and the Department ofJustice, should have independent au-thority in this area once Congress hasset a clear policy.

The Department of Justice seeks toassume for itself the role currently per-formed by Judge Greene. The Depart-ment, in effect, wants to keep on doingthings the way they are, but they aregoing to replace Judge Greene withthemselves.

Mr. Chairman, I voted for the sepa-rate standard for the Department ofJustice in the Committee on the Judi-ciary, but that was presuming, as thechairman of the committee informedus, it would be the sole separate stand-ard. Now, they are seeking to imposethat standard on top of the authorityprovided to the Federal Communica-tions Commission in the bill.

All of the tests, one after the other,that the FCC will require, will have tobe met and then a dual review will beimposed where the Department of Jus-tice will step in at the end.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition tothe amendment and support for thebill.

Mr. Chairman, I include the followingfor the RECORD.STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GOODLATTE

ON H.R. 1555, AUGUST 2, 1995Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.

1555.Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairmen

HYDE, BLILEY and FIELDS for their able lead-ership in bringing this important legislationto the House floor. The American people willbenefit from the increased availability ofcommunications services, increased numberof jobs, and a strengthened global competi-tiveness from this bill.

Throughout the debate on this legislation,I have aimed at bringing these benefits toAmericans as soon as possible. I continue tobelieve that this goal can best be achieved bylifting all government-imposed entry restric-tions in all telecommunications markets atthe same time. Whether they are State lawsthat pervent cable companies or long dis-tance companies from competing in the localexchange or the AT&T consent decree thatprevents the Bell companies from competingin the long distance market, these artificialgovernment-imposed restraints all inhibitthe development of real competition.

Under this legislation, State laws thattoday prevent local competition will be lift-ed. Upon enactment, the local telephone ex-change will be legally opened for any com-petitor to enter.

But the bill does not stop here and merelytrust to fate. It goes further. It requires the

Bell companies and other local exchange car-riers such as GTE and Sprint-United tounbundle their networks and to resell tocompetitors the unbundled elements, fea-tures, functions, and capabilities that thosenew entrants need to compete in the localmarket. It also requires State commissionsand the FCC to verify that the local carriersmeet these obligations.

It gives new entrants the incentive to buildtheir own local facilities-based networks,rather than simply repackaging and resellingthe local services of the local telephone com-pany. This is important if the informationsuperhighway is to be truly competitive.

The bill also contains cross checks to en-sure either that facilities-based competitionis present in the local exchange or that theBell companies have done all that the bill re-quires of them before they will be permittedto offer interLATA services and to manufac-ture. This is a strong incentive for them tocomply with the requirements of this legisla-tion.

It will take time for the Bell companies tosatisfy all of the conditions in the bill. Thisbuilt-in delay will provide the long distanceand cable companies a head start into thelocal exchange.

The bill recognizes that there are severalsignificant problems with such a govern-ment-mandated head start. And, it dealswith those issues. While the bill does not cre-ate the simultaneity of entry that the Bellcompanies have requested, it also does notimpose the artificial delay sought by thelong distance companies.

This bill achieves a sound public policy.First, it gets the conditions right. Second, itrequires verification that the conditionshave been met. Third, it assures that theyhave begun to work. Then, fourth, it lets fullcompetition flourish by lifting the remain-ing restrictions on the Bell companies.

You don’t have to take my word on thesoundness of this approach. None other thanthe Department of Justice advocated it 8years ago.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee,I have been following this particular matterfor several years. In 1987 the Departmentfiled its first and only Triennial Review withthe Decree Court. It recommended that if aBell company shows that an area in its re-gion is free of regulatory barriers to com-petition, then the interLATA restrictionsshould be lifted, even if—the Departmentnoted—a residual core of local exchangeservices remains a natural monopoly at thattime. That is, when there are no restrictionson either facilities-based intraLATA com-petition or on resale of Bell company serv-ices, interLATA relief should be granted.

The Department acknowledged that, withthe removal of entry barriers and the re-quirement for resale of local exchange serv-ices, a majority of customers would likelystay with local exchange carriers and someareas of local exchange might remain natu-ral monopolies. Nevertheless, it believedthat the potential for discrimination wouldbe significantly reduced because of (1) in-creased alternatives, especially for highervolume customers, and (2) increased need forBell companies to interconnect with privatenetworks.

Bell companies, according to the Depart-ment, immediately would be subject to sub-stantial competitive pressures. The threat orpossibility of competition would be suffi-cient that the residual risk posed by the Bellcompanies could be contained effectivelythrough regulatory controls, according tothe DOJ.

Noting that competition will reduceintraLATA toll and private line rates, theDepartment correctly concluded that onlybasic local exchange service and residential

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 8466 August 4, 1995exchange access would remain as services ca-pable of being inflated to cover misallocatedcosts of competitive activities. Indeed,intraLATA toll competition has been and isallowed in virtually every state and has al-ready significantly eroded the Bell compa-nies’ market share of these services. More-over, competition in the exchange accessmarket also has grown significantly as thesuccesses of companies like Teleport andMFS attest.

And, some very powerful and well-financedcompanies have targeted the local telephonemarket for competition. Companies like MCIare investing in local networks. So are cablecompanies that already have strong localpresences. Significantly, AT&T has spent bil-lions to move back into local telephonythrough its acquisition of McCraw Cellularand its success in bidding on PCS licenses.

As the Department prognosticated, thisleaves only local services as a potentialsource of subsidy. However, as it also cor-rectly recognized, basic local exchange andresidential services are a very unlikelysource of subsidy.

Those rates have been and are currentlysubsidized by other rates (i.e., residentialrates are below costs and therefore cannotsubsidize other services). And, they are be-yond the unilateral power of the Bell compa-nies to raise.

State regulators have clearly dem-onstrated over the years that they are un-willing to let basic residential charge rise. Itis important to note that this bill preservesthe State’s ability to prevent the Bell com-panies from raising local exchange rates.

The bill also prevents interconnectionrates from being the source of subsidy as itrequires those rates to be just and reason-able before the Bell companies getintraLATA relief. It eliminates the Bellcompanies’ ability to use their local ex-change networks in a discriminatory fashionto impede their competitors.

This legislation achieves the conditionsthat DOJ set forth eight years ago, and inmy view goes even further by requiring regu-latory verifications before the Bell compa-nies are actually relieved of the intraLATArestriction. First, upon enactment, it liftsall state and local laws that have previouslybarred cable and long distance companiesfrom competing in the local exchange serv-ices market. In other words, it will ensurethat there are no legal barriers to facilities-based competition.

Second, it not only requires the Bell com-panies to resell their local services, but italso identifies the elements, features, func-tions and capabilities that the Bell compa-nies and other local exchange carriers willhave to unbundle for their competitors. Al-though AT&T was required to resell its longdistance services to its competitors in orderto spur long distance competition, it was notrequired to make new services for its com-petitors through unbundling. Moreover, thebill’s requirements on unbundling and resaleare far more detailed and precise and there-fore more enforceable by the commission,courts and competitors than the Depart-ment’s general resale condition.

In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, I sup-port this bill because it strikes a balancethat will bring competition in cable and te-lephony to the American people. It may notcome as soon as some want or, indeed, assoon as I want, but it won’t be delayed aslong as others desire.

I am comforted as well that I do not haveto take all of this on blind faith. I believethat the FCC and the State commissions willmake sure the competition rolls out quicklyand fairly and that local rate payers will notfoot the bill. I am also sure that the Depart-ment of Justice is fully capable under this

legislation of not only monitoring these de-velopments but of playing an active role inthe continued enforcement of the antitrustlaws to shape the most robustly competitivetelecommunications market in the world.

The American people deserve nothing less.We should not disappoint them. We shoulddelay no further.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the distinguished gentle-woman from California [Ms. LOFGREN],a member of the Committee on the Ju-diciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, likemany of my colleagues, I have heardfrom Baby Bells, long-distance car-riers, until I am really tired of hearingfrom them. What I have done is callSilicon Valley, who basically does notcare about the Bells or the long-dis-tance carriers. They do care aboutcompetition.

Mr. Chairman, the advice I have got-ten is that there should be a little rolefor the Department of Justice. I realizethat there are some on the Democraticside of the aisle, including the WhiteHouse, who feel that this measure isway too weak; that we should have amuch bigger role. Honestly I disagreewith them.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlemanfrom Illinois [Mr. HYDE] and the gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. CONYERS]got it exactly right. A very highthreshold, a 180-day turnaround, and abreak in case things do not turn outthe way we hope.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of theamendment.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Louisi-ana [Mr. TAUZIN], a member of theCommittee on Commerce.

(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I havewith me a small chart that shows theresult of judge-made law when it comesto telecommunications. What we justdebated on the manager’s amendmentwas to end the system of the LATAlines, the lines on the map drawn bythe judge regulating communicationspolicy in America.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of thoseLATA lines, a line of restriction ofcompetition. This line runs throughLouisiana, through one of my parishesin Louisiana, separating the town ofHornbeck and Leesville.

Mr. Chairman, they are in the sameparish. The school board in that parish,in order to communicate from one of-fice to the other, has to buy a line thatruns from Shreveport to Lafayetteback to Leesville at a cost per year of$43,000 more than they would have topay if they could simply call 16 milesacross these two communities.

Mr. Chairman, the court-ordered linehas cost that school board $43,000. Thisis the kind of court-made law we avoidin this bill. Let us not give it back tothe Justice Department. Let us writecommunications law in this Chamber.

b 1000Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the gentlewoman fromTexas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE].

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendher remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, Iwould really like to thank the gen-tleman from Illinois [Mr. HYDE] andthe gentleman from Michigan [Mr.CONYERS] for their leadership and fortheir bipartisan approach to thisamendment. I think that we should notbe looking at the long-distance provid-ers on one side and the regional Bellson the other side.

Really, what the input of the Com-mittee on the Judiciary in this amend-ment is, is to simply go right down themiddle in dealing with competition, byenhancing the opportunity for competi-tion. In fact, unlike my colleagues whohave opposed it, this is not a override.This equates to the Department of Jus-tice and the FCC working together andcomplementing each other.

Mr. Chairman, what it says is, therewill not be a limitation, there will notbe a prohibition of the Antitrust Divi-sion of the DOJ from reviewing for actsthat impede competition. The FCC andDOJ will work together, and the dualresponsibility will not hinder theother. The DOJ will not delay the re-gional Bell’s entry into other markets,for there is a time frame in which theymust respond; and the courts are notthere to inhibit, but are there to givethe opportunity for any judicial reviewthat either party to access. This is afair amendment.

I believe that we must get away fromwho said what in this debate, and focuson competition for the consumers. Letus make this a better bill and supportthis amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I must rise in support of a strong roleof the Justice Department to help en-sure that the telecommunications in-dustry is truly competitive. The tele-communications industry is a criti-cally important industry as we enterthe 21st century. The Conyers amend-ment provides a reasonable role for theJustice Department to determinewhether competition exists in the tele-communications markets. The JusticeDepartment, through its Anti-trust Di-vision, has considerable experience incarrying out this important function.The Justice Department needs and de-serves more than a consultative rolethat is envisioned in the manager’samendment to H.R. 1555.

The standard of review proposed inthis amendment is a medium standardthat allows the Justice Department toprohibit local telephone companiesfrom entering long-distance services ormanufacturing equipment if ‘‘there is adangerous probability that the Bellcompany or its affiliates would suc-cessfully use market power to substan-tially impede competition’’ in the mar-ket. The amendment also provides theright to judicial review. This standardwas overwhelmingly approved in the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 8467August 4, 1995House Judiciary Committee by a voteof 29 to 1. Let us ensure competition bysupporting this amendment. The Con-yers amendment will help the regionalBells, the long-distance providers, andmost of all, our consuming public.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I reservethe balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the gentlewoman fromCalifornia [Ms. WATERS], who has fol-lowed this matter with great interest.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the Conyers amendment.Just once this year, we should do some-thing that protects consumers; thisamendment would accomplish thatpurpose.

Mr. Chairman, we are entering abrave new world in telecommuni-cations law. In theory, the deregula-tory provisions contained in this legis-lation will unleash a new era of com-petition between local and long-dis-tance carriers, as well as between thetelecommunications and cable indus-tries.

However, free market competition ispredicated on nonmonopolistic powerrelationships between competing firms.The Conyers amendment would ensurethat local telephone companies wouldnot impede competition through mo-nopoly behavior.

The Conyers compromise languagewould perfect language currently inthe bill. It would preserve the JusticeDepartment’s traditional role as theprimary enforcer of antitrust statutes.It would do so alongside, not in conflictwith, the regulatory responsibilities ofthe FCC.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is an experi-ment. No one knows for sure what theoutcome will be as we enter the 21stcentury telecommunications world. Iask for an ‘‘aye’’ vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield45 seconds to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. FLAKE].

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman and rise in support ofthe Conyers amendment.

This amendment will protect con-sumers of the long-distance marketfrom potential anticompetitive con-duct by Bell companies which cur-rently monopolize local telephone serv-ice, but without the consuming bureau-cratic requirements unfairly tying upthe Bell companies. An active Depart-ment of Justice role will not delay aBell entry into the market because theJustice Department would be requiredto reach its decision within 3 months.

Because the Conyers amendment is abalanced amendment designed to pro-tect America’s consumers from thedangers of anticompetitive conduct,Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues tovote ‘‘yes’’ on the Conyers amendment.It is in the best interest of theconsumer.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. KAPTUR].

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise instrong support of the Conyers amend-ment to referee the gigantic money in-terests who have their hands in thepockets of the American people.

There has been enough money spent onlobbying this bill to sink a battleship.

I wish to insert in the RECORD a partial listof what over $40 million in lobbying contribu-tions has bought. I leave it to the Americanpeople to make their own judgments. This billis living proof of what unlimited money can doto buy influence and the Congress of the Unit-ed States.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY REGIONAL BELL OPERATINGCOMPANIES [RBOC] HARD MONEY PAC CONTRIBUTIONSTO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS YEAR TO DATE 1995 1

Demo-crats

Repub-licans

Ameritech ................................................................... 38,950 113,588Bell Atlantic ............................................................... 2,100 12,466Pacific Telesis ............................................................ 10,500 27,949Southwestern Bell ...................................................... 29,600 48,200

Partial total YTD .......................................... 78,150 202,203

1 Several of the RBOC’s have chosen to report their contributions less fre-quently than once a month, as the law allows. Figures are not available forBellsouth, NYNEX, or U.S. West.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY REGIONAL BELL OPERATINGCOMPANIES [RBOC] SOFT MONEY FIRST QUARTER 1995

Name Demo-craticRepub-lican

Ameritech ................................................................... 250 0Bell Atlantic ............................................................... 3,000 25,000BellSouth .................................................................... 0 15,000Nynex .......................................................................... 20,000 25,000Southwestern Bell ...................................................... 0 0Pacific Telesis ............................................................ 250 22,000US West ..................................................................... 0 15,000

Total ............................................................. 23,500 122,000

[Excerpts from Common Cause newsletter,June 5, 1995]

‘‘ROBBER BARONS OF THE ’90s’’

Telecommunications industries, whichstand to gain billions of dollars from thecongressional overhaul of telecommuni-cations policy, have used $39,557,588 in politi-cal contributions during the past decade toaid their fight for less regulation and greaterprofits, according to a Common Cause studyreleased today.

The four major telecommunications indus-tries involved in this legislative battle—local telephone services, long distance serv-ice providers, broadcasters and cable inter-ests—contributed $30.9 million in politicalaction committee (PAC) funds to congres-sional candidates, and $8.6 million in softmoney to Democratic and Republican na-tional party committees, during the periodJanuary 1985 through December 1994, theCommon Cause study found.

Top telecommunications industry PAC and softmoney contributors, 1985–1994

AT&T ................................. $6,523,445BellSouth Corp .................. 2,928,673GTE Corp ........................... 2,899,056Natl Cable Television Assn 2,211,214Ameritech Corp ................. 1,936,899Pacific Telesis ................... 1,742,512US West ............................. 1,666,920Natl Assn Of Broadcasters . 1,629,988Bell Atlantic ..................... 1,559,011Sprint ................................ 1,531,596

‘‘A strong case can be made that the warover telecommunications reform has donemore to line the pockets of lobbyist and law-makers than any other issue in the past dec-ade.’’—Kirk Victor, National Journal

Among the key findings of the CommonCause study:

Local telephone services made $17.3 millionin political contributions during the past

decade. Long distance providers gave $9.5million in political contributions; cable tele-vision interests gave $8 million; and broad-casters gave $4.7 million.

The biggest single telecommunications in-dustry donation came from Tele-Commu-nications Inc, the country’s biggest cablecompany. The company gave a $200,000 softmoney contribution to the Republican Na-tional Committee five days before the lastNovember’s elections.

Telecommunication PACs were especiallygenerous to members of two key committeesthat recently passed bills to rewrite tele-communication regulations. House Com-merce Committee members received, on av-erage, more than $65,000 each from tele-communications PACs; Senate CommerceCommittee members received, on average,more than $107,000 each.

Two-thirds of House freshmen receivedPAC contributions from telecommunicationsinterests immediately following their No-vember election wins. Between November 9and December 31, 1994, telecommunicationsPACs gave new Representatives-elect a total$115,500.

In January, top executives of tele-communications companies that gave a total$23.5 million in political contributions dur-ing the past decade were invited to closed-door meetings with Republican members ofthe House Commerce Committee. Consumerand rate-payer groups—who were not majorpolitical donors—were not invited to the spe-cial meetings.

Lobbyists for the telecommunications in-dustry represent a wide array of Washingtoninsiders. For example, former Reagan andBush Administration officials represent longdistance providers, while a former Clintonofficial represents local telephone interests.Lobbying on behalf of broadcast interests areformer aids to both Republican and Demo-cratic Members of Congress.

In addition to their political contributionsduring the past decade, telecommunicationsinterests contributed $221,000 in soft moneyto the Republican National Committee dur-ing the first three months of 1995. (Demo-cratic National Committee soft money infor-mation for the first six months of 1995 will beavailable in July.)HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS RE-

CEIVE ON AVERAGE $65,000 EACH FROMTELECOM PACS—DOUBLE THE HOUSE AVERAGETelecommunications industry lobbyists

‘‘have seldom met more receptive law-makers,’’ than the members of the HouseCommerce Committee.—The New YorkTimes

Telecommunications industry Pacs gave atotal $6,676,147 in contributions to currentSenators during the past decade, an average$66,761 per Senator, according to the Com-mon Cause study.SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS RE-

CEIVE ON AVERAGE $107,000 EACH FROMTELECOM PACS

The Common Cause study found that mem-bers of the Senate Commerce, Science andTransportation Committee received nearlytwice as much PAC money on average fromtelecommunications interests during thepast decade as other Senators—an average of$107,730 compared to $57,152 received by Sen-ators not on the committee.

‘‘ROBBER BARONS OF THE ’90S’’‘‘By and large, the public is not rep-

resented by the lawyers and the lobbyists inWashington. The few public advocates areoverwhelmed financially. It’s all very fine tosay that you are in favor of competition. Iam. The Administration is. Congress is. Butcompetition won’t give you everything thecountry needs from communications compa-nies. We’ve got to be able to stand up to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 8468 August 4, 1995business on certain occasions and say, ‘It’snot just about competition, it’s about thepublic interest.’ ’’—Reed Hundt, FederalCommunications Commission Chair asquoted in The New Yorker

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as she may consume to thegentlewoman from Michigan [Miss COL-LINS].

(Miss COLLINS of Michigan askedand was given permission to revise andextend her remarks.)

Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr.Chairman, I rise in strong support ofthe Conyers amendment and urge mycolleagues to adopt it.

Many have argued during this debate thatwe must deregulate the telecommunicationsindustry, and by eliminating any role for theDepartment of Justice in determining RegionalBell operating company entry into long dis-tance, we are working toward and goal. WellI think you are making a terrible mistake if youconfuse forbidding the proper anti-trust role ofthe Department of Justice with deregulation.

The Republicans in this body should recallit was under the Reagan administration thatthe Department of Justice broke up the Bellsystem over a decade ago. That decision hasbeen an undisputed success. Without the roleplayed by the Department of Justice, consum-ers would still be renting large rotary blackphones and paying too much for long distanceservices. The Department of Justice actionspromoted competition, not regulation.

Without the Department of Justice role, wecan expect those communication’s attorneysto be in court, fighting endless anti-trust bat-tles. The role we give the Department of Jus-tice in this amendment will make it less likelythat we will end up back in court, and the De-partment will ensure that anti-trust violationswould be minimal, prior to the decision grant-ing a Bell operating company the ability tooffer long distance service.

Calling this amendment regulatory, is doinga disservice to the potential for true deregula-tion—which is full competition in all markets.The structure provided by the Department ofJustice ensures that the markets will developquickly, and with less litigation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to sup-port this amendment. I yield back the balanceof my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield30 seconds to the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. HINCHEY].

(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, thisbill has been described as a clash be-tween the super rich and the superwealthy. That Is unquestionably true,but in the clash of these titans, thequestion is, who stands for the Amer-ican public?

The answer to that question is, with-out the Conyers amendment, no one.The American people stand naked be-fore the potential excesses of these gi-ants unless we have some protectionfrom them offered by the Justice De-partment.

There is an incredibly high standardin this bill, Mr. Chairman. There mustbe a dangerous probability of substan-tially impeding justice before the Jus-tice Department comes in. Let us pass

the Conyers amendment and protectthe American people.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield30 seconds to the gentleman fromPennsylvania [Mr. KLINK].

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman from Michigan [Mr.CONYERS] for yielding the time.

The FCC is essentially the agencythat would be able to consult with theDepartment of Justice under the man-ager’s mark that we passed this morn-ing. But when we talk about goingfrom a monopoly industry, whichtelecom was after 1934, to a competi-tion-based industry, the competitionagency, those who keep the rule, thosewho decide if there is a dangerous prob-ability, if those gigantic billionairesplayers are being fair, is the Depart-ment of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, I simply say that theConyers amendment makes sure thatfairness is done, that the referee is inplace. I urge my colleagues to supportthe Conyers amendment.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman fromOhio [Mr. OXLEY] for purposes of clos-ing the debate on our side.

(Mr. OXLEY asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the Conyers amendment.This bill in all of its forms does not re-peal the Sherman Act. We have had theSherman Act for over 100 years.

It does not repeal the Clayton Actpassed in 1914. Anticompetitive behav-ior will be reviewed by the Justice De-partment, whether it is the tele-communications industry or whether itis the trucking industry or any otherkind of industry that we are talkingabout. The Justice Department is notgoing away.

What we are trying to do, Mr. Chair-man, or what the Conyers amendmentseeks to do, is basically replace onecourt with another, except a differentstandard.

This amendment guts the underlyingconcept of this bill, which is pure com-petition, and the idea to get Congressback into the decisionmaking process.How long do we have to have tele-communications policy made by anunelected Federal judge who has no ac-countability to anyone; when are wegoing to get back to providing the kindof responsible decisionmaking that weare elected to do?

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my col-leagues that the underlying bill pro-vides that kind of ability and account-ability for the duly elected representa-tives of the people.

This amendment creates needless bu-reaucracy by having not one, but twoFederal agencies review the issue ofBell Co. entry into long distance. Thepurpose of this legislation is to createconditions for a competitive marketand get the heavy hand of Governmentregulation out of the way. This Con-yers amendment is inconsistent withthat purpose.

Mr. Chairman, this is a huge oppor-tunity to provide competitive forces inthe marketplace away from Govern-ment. If we believe that competitionand not bureaucracy is the answer tomodernizing our telecommunicationspolicy, to providing more choice in themarketplace, to providing lower prices,to making America the most competi-tive telecommunications industry inthe entire world, we will vote againstthe Conyers amendment and supportthe underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues tojoin me in opposition to the Conyersamendment.

The CHAIRMAN. All time on thisamendment has expired.

The question is on the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Michi-gan [Mr. CONYERS], as modified.

The question was taken; and thechairman announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to therule, further proceedings on the amend-ment offered by the gentleman fromMichigan [Mr. CONYERS], as modified,will be postponed until after the voteon amendment 2–4 to be offered by thegentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.MARKEY].

It is now in order to consider theamendment, No. 2–3, printed in part 2of House Report 104–223.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. COX OFCALIFORNIA

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman,I offer an amendment numbered 2–3.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment number 2–3 offered by Mr. COXof California:’

Page 78, before line 18, insert the followingnew section (and redesignate the succeedingsections and conform the table of contentsaccordingly):SEC. 104. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.

Title II of the Communications Act of 1934(47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by addingat the end the following new section:‘‘SEC. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND

SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATE-RIAL; FCC REGULATION OF COM-PUTER SERVICES PROHIBITED.

‘‘(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the fol-lowing:

‘‘(1) The rapidly developing array ofInternet and other interactive computerservices available to individual Americansrepresent an extraordinary advance in theavailability of educational and informa-tional resources to our citizens.

‘‘(2) These services offer users a great de-gree of control over the information thatthey receive, as well as the potential foreven greater control in the future as tech-nology develops.

‘‘(3) The Internet and other interactivecomputer services offer a forum for a true di-versity of political discourse, unique oppor-tunities for cultural development, and myr-iad avenues for intellectual activity.

‘‘(4) The Internet and other interactivecomputer services have flourished, to thebenefit of all Americans, with a minimum ofgovernment regulation.

‘‘(5) Increasingly Americans are relying oninteractive media for a variety of political,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 8469August 4, 1995educational, cultural, and entertainmentservices.

‘‘(b) POLICY.—It is the policy of the UnitedStates to—

‘‘(1) promote the continued development ofthe Internet and other interactive computerservices and other interactive media;

‘‘(2) preserve the vibrant and competitivefree market that presently exists for theInternet and other interactive computerservices, unfettered by State or Federal reg-ulation;

‘‘(3) encourage the development of tech-nologies which maximize user control overthe information received by individuals,families, and schools who use the Internetand other interactive computer services;

‘‘(4) remove disincentives for the develop-ment and utilization of blocking and filter-ing technologies that empower parents to re-strict their children’s access to objectionableor inappropriate online material; and

‘‘(5) ensure vigorous enforcement of crimi-nal laws to deter and punish trafficking inobscenity, stalking, and harassment bymeans of computer.

‘‘(c) PROTECTION FOR ‘GOOD SAMARITAN’BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MA-TERIAL.—No provider or user of interactivecomputer services shall be treated as thepublisher or speaker of any information pro-vided by an information content provider. Noprovider or user of interactive computerservices shall be held liable on account of—

‘‘(1) any action voluntarily taken in goodfaith to restrict access to material that theprovider or user considers to be obscene,lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent,harassing, or otherwise objectionable,whether or not such material is constitu-tionally protected; or

‘‘(2) any action taken to make available toinformation content providers or others thetechnical means to restrict access to mate-rial described in paragraph (1).

‘‘(d) FCC REGULATION OF THE INTERNET ANDOTHER INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICES PRO-HIBITED.—Nothing in this Act shall be con-strued to grant any jurisdiction or authorityto the Commission with respect to contentor any other regulation of the Internet orother interactive computer services.

‘‘(e) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—‘‘(1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW.—Nothing

in this section shall be construed to impairthe enforcement of section 223 of this Act,chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (re-lating to sexual exploitation of children) oftitle 18, United States Code, or any otherFederal criminal statute.

‘‘(2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYLAW.—Nothing in this section shall be con-strued to limit or expand any law pertainingto intellectual property.

‘‘(3) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed to prevent any State fromenforcing any State law that is consistentwith this section.

‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:‘‘(1) INTERNET.—The term ‘Internet’ means

the international computer network of bothFederal and non-Federal interoperable pack-et switched data networks.

‘‘(2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.—Theterm ‘interactive computer service’ meansany information service that provides com-puter access to multiple users via modem toa remote computer server, including specifi-cally a service that provides access to theInternet.

‘‘(3) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER.—Theterm ‘information content provider’ meansany person or entity that is responsible, inwhole or in part, for the creation or develop-ment of information provided by theInternet or any other interactive computerservice, including any person or entity thatcreates or develops blocking or screening

software or other techniques to permit usercontrol over offensive material.

‘‘(4) INFORMATION SERVICE.—The term ‘in-formation service’ means the offering of acapability for generating, acquiring, storing,transforming, processing, retrieving, utiliz-ing, or making available information viatelecommunications, and includes electronicpublishing, but does not include any use ofany such capability for the management,control, or operation of a telecommuni-cations system or the management of a tele-communications service.’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to therule, the gentleman from California[Mr. COX] will be recognized for 10 min-utes, and a Member opposed will be rec-ognized for 10 minutes. Who seeks timein opposition?

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman,I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman willstate it.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman,given that no Member has risen in op-position, would the Chair entertain aunanimous-consent request?

The CHAIRMAN. If no Membersseeks time in opposition, by unanimousconsent another Member may be recog-nized for the other 10 minutes, or thegentleman may have the other 10 min-utes.

Let me put the question again: Isthere any Member in the Chamber whowishes to claim the time in opposition?

If not, is there a unanimous-consentrequest for the other 10 minutes?

Mr. WYDEN. There is, Mr. Chairman.Although I am not in opposition to thisamendment, I would ask unanimousconsent to have the extra time becauseof the many Members who would liketo speak on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromOregon?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from California [Mr. COX] will be recog-nized for 10 minutes, and the gen-tleman from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN] willbe recognized for 10 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom California [Mr. COX].

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman,I wish to begin by thanking my col-league, the gentleman from Oregon[Mr. WYDEN], who has worked so hardand so diligently on this effort with allof our colleagues.

We are talking about the Internetnow, not about telephones, not abouttelevision or radios, not about cableTV, not about broadcasting, but intechnological terms and historicalterms, an absolutely brand-new tech-nology.

The Internet is a fascinating placeand many of us have recently becomeacquainted with all that it holds for usin terms of education and political dis-course.

We want to make sure that everyonein America has an open invitation andfeels welcome to participate in theInternet. But as you know, there issome reason for people to be wary be-

cause, as a Time Magazine cover storyrecently highlighted, there is in thisvast world of computer information, aliteral computer library, some offen-sive material, some things in the book-store, if you will, that our childrenought not to see.

As the parent of two, I want to makesure that my children have access tothis future and that I do not have toworry about what they might be run-ning into on line. I would like to keepthat out of my house and off of mycomputer. How should we do this?

Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman,that we take the Federal Communica-tions Commission and turn it into theFederal Computer Commission, that wehire even more bureaucrats and moreregulators who will attempt, eithercivilly or criminally, to punish peopleby catching them in the act of puttingsomething into cyberspace.

Frankly, there is just too much goingon on the Internet for that to be effec-tive. No matter how big the army ofbureaucrats, it is not going to protectmy kids because I do not think theFederal Government will get there intime. Certainly, criminal enforcementof our obscenity laws as an adjunct is auseful way of punishing the trulyguilty.

Mr. Chairman, what we want are re-sults. We want to make sure we dosomething that actually works. Iron-ically, the existing legal system pro-vides a massive disincentive for thepeople who might best help us controlthe Internet to do so.

I will give you two quick examples: AFederal court in New York, in a caseinvolving CompuServe, one of our on-line service providers, held thatCompuServe would not be liable in adefamation case because it was not thepublisher or editor of the material. Itjust let everything come onto yourcomputer without, in any way, tryingto screen it or control it.

But another New York court, theNew York Supreme Court, held thatProdigy, CompuServe’s competitor,could be held liable in a $200 milliondefamation case because someone hadposted on one of their bulletin boards,a financial bulletin board, some re-marks that apparently were untrueabout an investment bank, that the in-vestment bank would go out of busi-ness and was run by crooks.

Prodigy said, ‘‘No, no; just likeCompuServe, we did not control or editthat information, nor could we, frank-ly. We have over 60,000 of these mes-sages each day, we have over 2 millionsubscribers, and so you cannot proceedwith this kind of a case against us.’’

The court said, ‘‘No, no, no, no, youare different; you are different thanCompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise your-self as such. You employ screening andblocking software that keeps obscenityoff of your network. You have peoplewho are hired to exercise an emergencydelete function to keep that kind of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH 8470 August 4, 1995material away from your subscribers.You don’t permit nudity on your sys-tem. You have content guidelines. You,therefore, are going to face higher,stricker liability because you tried toexercise some control over offensivematerial.’’

b 1015

Mr. Chairman, that is backward. Wewant to encourage people like Prodigy,like CompuServe, like America Online,like the new Microsoft network, to doeverything possible for u