janz'ary 29, 1992 co!~igressional record senate s 561€¦ · janz'ary 29, 1992 co!~ usan...

Janz'ary 29, 1992 CO!~usan offsc, , particular. expressedtheir concern thki.t ethnic Belarusanswho have lived in Latvia for manyyears would be frozen out of the citi-zenship process and by extension.would not be able to own property.Ethnic Russians, the largest minorityin Latvia, would also be adversely af-fected were this draft law-which stillis at an early stage in the process-tobe adopted.

Obviously, the )?bcess of building anew set of laws will be a slow and diffi-cult one for many of the newly inde-pendent states of the former SovietUnion. Most of these states are eithernew members-or on their way to be-coming members of the Commissionon Security and Cooperation inEurope [CSCE]. Accordingly, I believeIt important that as the new countriesdraft their citizenship laws, they re-spect the CSCE principles, especiallywith regard to equal rights for minori-ties. As member of CSCE, we have aresponsibility to press them on thisissue.

CONCLUSION OF MORNINGBUSINESS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Isthere further morning business?There being no further morning busi-ness, morning business Is closed.

CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMERPROTECTION ACT

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. TheSenate will resume consideration of 5.12, which the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:A bill (8. 12) to amend title VI of the

Communications Act of 1934 to ensure car-rige on cable television of local news andother programming and so forth and forother purpose.

The Senate resumed considerationof the bill

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. TheSenator from Hawaii [Mr. Ixouz].

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I risetoday in support of S. 12, the CableTelevision Consumer Protection Act of1991.

Mr. President, before I proceed withmy remarks, I want to thank all of theSenators on the committee for all oftheir work on this legislation, particu-larly the author of this bill, SenatorDAroRaH, and the chairman of ourcommittee, Senator HoLtmas. I alsowant to thank Senators FoRD, GoasGORTON, LrtzmcAN, and MzrAMufor their contributions to the measure.

The bill we are considering today Isvery similar to 8 1880 which, as yourecall was approved by the CommerceCommittee in June 1990 by a vote of18 to L

The focus of this bill, S 12, like 8.1880, is to address consumers' prob-lems with rates and services while atthe same time promoting competition.The 1984 Cable Act, which ironicallywas coauthored by the chairman ofthis committee, Mr. HouIcs-and I

IGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEhad the privilege of being one of thecosponsors-was designed to help pro-mote competition in the video market-place by relaying many of the regula-tory restrictions on the cable industry.It became known as the Cable Deregu-lation Act. This 1984 act has achievedmany of its objectives

Over the past 7 years, the cable In-dustry has grown dramatically andtoday we find that most of America iswired to receive cable. Almost 90 per-cent of the homes in the country arecovered by cable systems, and over 60percent of these homes subscribe tocable service. System capacity has in-creased. The average cable systemtoday offers about 36 channels andthis number is steadily increasing.

So it is no longer the fledgling indus-try that existed in 1984. Programmingchoices have also grown significantlysince the act was passed and today it isthe dominant video distributionmedium. '

But I believe that the cable industryhas begun to take advantage of itspopularity. In certain instances, I mostrespectfully suggest that rate in-creases have been excessive and, formany systems, customer service hasbeen abominable.

Programmers have argued that theycannot get carried on cable systemswithout relinquishing control of theirproduct. In addition, competing videodistributors allege that these program-mers refuse to deal with them. In gen-eral, It appears that the cable industrynow possesses undue market powerwhich is used to the detriment of con-sumers, programmers, and competingvideo distributors. These concerns areaddressed by this legislation.

As chairman of the CommunicationsSubcommittee, I knew last Congressthat we had to address these mattersexpeditiously, and I immediatelybegan a series of hearings In the last3 years my subcommittee held 13hearings on cable-related issues. Welistened to over 50 hours of testimonyfrom 113 different witnesses Out ofthis exhaustive examination, an over-whelming majority of the committeeconcluded that legislation was neces-sary to correct these problems.

These conclusions are reflected inthe legislation we are consideringtoday.

Incidentally, the bill passed the com-mittee by a vote of 16 to 3.

This legislation has two goals: Topromote competition in the video in-dustry and to protect consumers fromexcessive rates and poor customerservice where no competition existsThis legislation also addresses the con-cerns of consumers, programmers, andcompetitors about the market powerof the cable industry. At the sametime, it continues to permit the cableindustry to grow and bring to theAmerican public a new array of pro-gramming and other services So, webelieve this bill represents a balancedpackage.

For the record, let me now summa-rize the major provisions of the legis-lation.

On cable rates, 8. 12 gives the FCCauthority to regulate basic rates in theabsence of effective competition. Ef-fective competition is defined as theavailability of a competitive multi-channel video distributor to a majorityof cable subscribers, and to which 15percent have actually subscribed.

It requires the FCC to establish na-tional guidelines and to ensure thatany cities that choose to regulate basicrates do so only within the FCC guide-lines

Currently, the FCC is only empow-ered to regulate the basic tier of pro-gramming services. In an effort to cir-cumvent legislation, many cable sys-tems have retiered to move program-ming services out of the basic tier.

The basic tier is generally made upof those programs that many can getfor free: ABC, NBC, CBS. At thismoment, the cable industry does notpay for those programs.

But yet, you and I are charged forthose programs. As noted in the WallStreet Journal, the edition of January15, 1992, many cable systems have cre-ated tiers that only contain threebroadcast signals and C-SPAN; threemajor networks and C-SPAN, fourchannels.

However, less than 10 percent 'ofsubscribers actually purchase this lim-ited basic tier. Thus, if the only tierthat is regulated is this limited basic,very few subscribers would be protect-ed; 90 percent not protected.

To ensure that the regulation in thisbill is meaningful 8. 12 requires that'if less than 30 percent of the subscrib-ers take the basic tier, the FCC'sguidelines will apply to the next mostpopular tier to which 30 percent sub-scribe.

This we believe will ensure meaning-ful regulation of cable rates and cutoff the cable industry's efforts to cir-cumvent the intent of the bill.

In addition, & 12 includes whatcould be called a "bad actor" provi-sion.

This bill gives the FCC authority toregulate rates for tiers of program-ming other than basic, if It receives acomplaint that makes a prima facieshowing that a particular rate increaseis unreasonable, and

This will give the FCC the authorityto regulate in individual cases wherecable operators impose excessive in-creases on subscribers

Mr. President, I want to note that S.12 does not permit regulation of pro-gramming services offered on a per-channel basis, such as HBO and Show-time.

The need for this provision and thislegislation is bolstered by the July1991 survey of cable television ratesand services by the General Account-ing Office.

This GAO report demonstrates thatS. 12 is needed now more than ever.

S 561

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATECable rates for the most popular basiccable tier of programmin have in-creased 61 percent since deregulationwent into effect in 1986, while therates for the lowest priced tier In-creased by 58 percent.

During the same 4W-year period. thecost of consumer goods only rose byonly 17.9 percent; 17.9 percent for thecost of consumer goods, and over 86percent for cabe.

This problem of excessive rate in-creases is not limited to one part ofthe country or to the major citie Mr.President, It happening all over theUnited States.

Just for the record, I would like tocite a few examples so we get a flavorof what I mean by rate increases.

Since 1986, cable rates have in-creased in Indianapolls, IN, 163 per-cent; in Kansas Cty, KA, 112 percent;in Portland, OR, 150 percent This tswhile the cost of living went up 169percent, and the cable rates went up150 percent in Portland; in Shreve-port, LA, 289 percent, in Bergenfield,NJ, 372 percent; in Cincinnati, OfH 152percent, and in December of last yearin this city, it went up another 43 per-cent.

Finally, Mr. President, in our ownbackyard. the backyard of Congress ofthe United States, MontgomeryCounty, MD, rates have increasedsince 1986 by 1364 percent.

According to GAO, "The averagemonthly rates for the lowest pricedbasic cable service Increased by 9 per-cent, from $15.95 to $17.34 per sub-scriber" from December 16 to April1991.

During this same period, one wouldassume that because of the hike inrates, the subscriber would receivemore channels. That is a logical con-clusion.

But the report shows that duringthat same penod, the average numberof channels offered on the lowestpriced tier decreased by one channelpay more but receive less

Much has been made of the factthat this bill allows the FCC to regu-late more than the basic tier.

But recent practices of the cable in-dustry demonstrate that the consumerwould not be protected if only thebasic tier were regulated.

In fact, in many communities, con-sumers are paring more today for thebasic tier and getting fewer channelsthan they received in 1986.

In my city. in Honolulu, my constitu-ents paid 512 for 30 channels in 198.

Today, they pay $12.95 not for 30channels, but for 14 channels, lessthan half of what they received in1988. On the island of Maul, consum-ers paid $11.58 for 34 channels in 1986.And today, they pay $14.95 for ninechannels They pay more for less thana third of what they had 5 years ago.

Mr. President, this is true In otherparts of the country as welL In EstBay. CA, in 1986 consumers paid $.95for 26 channels In 1991, they paidS20.40 for 21 cnnels

In Naples. FL, in 9l consmmerspaid $s. for 30 chamebl Today,they pay $15.95 for 11 chanels

Mr. President, I could go on and on.But on again I come back to our

bekyard Montgomery County. sub-scribers receive one-fifth the numberof channels they received in 1988 andpay over five times more.

This is a consumer bill. All of uhere have at one time or another, inthe last 6 months, made eloquentstatements and speeches about how wemust protect the consumer. Lastevening, the President of the UnitedStates spoke eloquently on what heplans to do to protect the consumersof the United States, to give them afair break.

The cable industry has recently beentouting the availability of its new low-priced basic tiers. That has been ad-vertise Yet, when GAO employeesposIng,as consumers called 17 of thesystepie with the new low-priced tiers8 of those systems did not even InformGAO of the existence of those tiersThey do not want consumers to buythose tiers. They do not make thatmuch money.

The report also demonstrates thatthe FCC's June effective competitiondecision does not address the problemof runaway cable rates The FCC ruledthat effective competition exists whenthere are six over-the-air broadcastsignals up from three. This will permitlocal authorities to regulate the ratesfor basic cable service when there arefewer than six over-the-air broadcastsystems According to the GAO report,under this defintion 80 percent ofcable subscriber rates would not besubject to rate regulatioc

Finally, Consumer Reports magazinerecently founmd that cable rates haveincreased at a rate almost triple therate of nflation snce deregulation.

As a result, consumer satisfactionwith cable is lower than any service industry. Any why has this occurredMr. President? I think the reason israther obvious It is cable's marketpower. An August 68, 1991, staff studyreleased by the Department of Justiceconchuded that 50 percent of the cablerate increases since deregulation are aresult of cable's market power. As aresult, the bill, 5. 12, also includes pro-visions to promote competition tocable and to reduce cable's marketpower.-

Now let us turn to access to pro-gramming. The access to programmingprovisions in this bill are designed toencourage competition. I have beentold by all of my colleagues at onetume or another that competition isthe essence of the free enterprisesystem. We are all for competition.But, Mr. President, you will hearspeakers tell you that competition isnot good for the consumer.

These provisions provide others withaccess to programming owned by cableoperators Por mutichannel video dk-tributo it also pribit them cableprogrammers from discriminating In

the price, terms and conditions ThisI tdentical to the prowlion that was inS. 180 last Congress In addition, thisprovision prohibits cable operatorsfrom requiring a financial interest inprogramming -as a condition of car-rtge and would ewsure that satellitedistributors of programming do notdiscrinate agamist home satellitedish owners.

By this I mean we have found thatcable operators would tell a program-mer, "You want to show your programon my company time? You may do soif you give us 51 percent interest inyour eompany." If that is free enter-prise, I do not want any part of it, Mr.President.

Let M get to retransmission consent.This has been a matter of some con-troversy, retransmission consent.These provisions give broadcasters theright to control the use of signals bycable operators In addition, the billretains what has been called a tradi-tional must carry. Earlier this month,Mr. Jim Mooney, president of the Na-tional Cable Television Association,was quoted in Commuxcatlons Dailyas stating that the cable industry canlive with either retransmission consentor must carry. This Is precisely whatthis bill requires. Broadcasters-and Iam speaking of local broadcasters notNBC in New York or CBS in NewYork or ABC in New York; I am talk-ing about channel 9 here, chaniel 4or channel 7-these local networkbroadcaters maust choose either toaccept must carry on their local cablesystems and waive their retrsami-sion rights or to keep their retransms-sion rights and wave must carry.

On the issue of retraarision consent, I want to respnd once again tothe cable indutrys cmp of mis-information about its effect on con-sumer' cable rates The cable Industryhas attempted to mislead consumersthrough newspaper ad, bill stffers,and advertisements on their systems.All of us have seen this. I have re-ceived these circulars In my bill. Onefallacy they promote Is that 8. 12 willallow the TV networks to add a '20-percent surcharge to cable subscribers'bills" I hope that the NCTA willstudy the measure Nothing could befurther from the true intent andeffect of 8. 12. Mr. Mooney's admis-sion that the cable industry can livewith retransmission consent furtherdemonstrates the disingenuous natureof these allegations.

Mr. President, we believe that theretransmission consent provisions ofthis bill are straightforward Theysimply provide that when a localsystem forgoes the option of mustcarry protection, it may utilize its re-transmission rights to negotiate withthe local cable system over the ternmsand conditions of its carriage on thesystem In other wrd, broadcasterswill have the optionf beong treated1[ Ay oWher cable prcaue . Atthis me cable C aot ege-

S 562 Januaory &9, 1092

January 29, 1992 CONate with cable programming servicesfor the right to carry these programservices Gone are the days when thebroadcasters received their revenuesfrom advertisers and cable receivedtheir revenues solely from subscribers.Today, as we all know, cable competeswith broadcasters for local and nation-al advertising.

Cable has also asserted that retrans-mission will cause cable rates to in-crease. The GAO report states thatthe price per channel of programmingfor the lowest-priced tier increased 55cents In the past year. and this lowest-priced tier is the tier of programmingthat contains over-the-air broadcastsignals-ABC, NBC, CBS-which cableoperators today receive for free. Thesecable companies are not paying forany of these signals. They Just pluckthem off the air. But when they re-transmit to us, we pay for It. Thus,subscribers are paying an average of58 cents per channel for broadcastprogramming that is free to cable.Cable does not have to pay for theproduction of these programs. Theydo not have to pay for the newsformat. They get It free.

The retransmission provisions of S.12 will permit local stations, not na-tional networks, as I have indicated, tocontrol the use of their signals, andthey do not contain any formula forretransmission fees or surcharges.

On the contrary, the committeereport specifies that in Its proceedingimplementing retransmission consent,the FCC must ensure that local sta-tions' retransmission rights will be im-plemented with due concern for anyimpact on cable subscribers' rates.

Mr. President, to eliminate anydoubt on this issue, we will soon be of-fering a managers' amendment to thebill to make certain that retransmis-sion consent does not result in rate in-creases. In addition, the FCC is alsorequired to regulate the rates for thebasic tier-this is the tier that con-tains the broadcast signals-to makecertain that those rates remain rea-sonable. Thus, the FCC has a clearmandate to ensure that retransmissiondoes not result In harmful rate in-creases that we have seen flourishingthroughout this Nation.

Moreover, the bill is completelysilent on what the negotiations be-tween cable operators and broadcast-ers may entail Mr. President, theymay negotiate for money or for non-monetary consideration, such as chan-nel position. For example, those of uswho have been using free television allour lives, we know that channel 4 isNBC, channel 5 is Metromedia, chan-nel 7 is ABC, and channel 9 is CBS.but when you get on cable, It dependson the cable company.

And they can change It at will Nowthat could be one of the items that thelocal broadcast company would like tonegotiate. Maybe the NBC affiliatewould say let us go back to our oldnumber, channel 4 so no one will beconfused. It could also involve joint

4GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEadvertising, promotional opportuni-ties, and other forms of competition.

Finally, on this issue of retransmis-sion, It has been asserted that 8. 12will impinge on the rights of programproducers and that it conflicts withthe cable compulsory license. Mr.President, that is not true. The com-mittee report states "that nothing inthis bill is intended to abrogate oralter existing program licensing agree-ments between broadcasters and pro-gram suppliers or to limit the terms ofexisting or future licensing agree-ments.

In other words, this provision in noway limits the rights of program pro-ducers to control the use of their prod-uct.

As to the effect on the compulsorylicenses, it amends the Communica-tions Act but It does not alter theCopyright Act or the applicability ofthe compulsory license. That mattercomes with the jurisdiction of the Ju-diciary Committee, and It is my under-standing that the Registrar of Copy-rights, at the request of the JudiciaryCommittee, is reviewing the compulso-ry license and a report is due in Febru-ary.

Mr. President, there has not been acomprehensive review of the cablecompulsory license in many years, so Ibelieve a review is long overdue and Iwish at this time to commend SenatorDrCoiwcni for Initiating the process.

So in brief may I say that S. 12 willbenefit all TV viewers whether theysubscribe to cable or not by helping torestore a local television marketplacethat functions competitively. Competi-tion is good. It has not hurt free enter-prise.

Instead of causing the blackout oftelevision signals, It will eliminate thecable industry's present absolutepower over the signals It provides ordenies to its subscribers.

Instead of driving up rates as wehave seen over the past 4½ years, S. 12will ensure that the FCC or local gov-ernments maintain control over theserates In the absence of effective com-petition to local cable systems.

Mr. President, we all recognize thatthis measure is not without controver-sy. The cable industry and the admin-Istration oppose the bill. The cable in-dustry obviously believes that the billis not needed and it will argue that Itwill stifle the industry's growth.

The administration has also takenthe position that we should permit thetelephone companies to provide cableservices as well as own and controlprogramming.

The issue of telephone entry intocable is one that the committee is con-sidering separately from this legisla-tion. In fact, we are now in the processof holding a hearing on the bill sub-mlitted by Senator BuRnis on this issuenext month.

Telephone entry in many ways ismuch more controversial than thisbill and It may interest you to know,

S 563Mr. President, it is opposed by thecable industry.

Mr. President, before I close, I Justwant to note that in the last week, inthe last few days, we have experienceda blitz by the cable industry seekingsupport for the so-called alternative orsubstitute. At this moment, Mr. Presi-dent, none of us in the U.S. Senatehave seen the text of this substituteand so we are at a loss as to how toargue for or against it.

This measure has been on the deskhere since June of last year. We havegiven the ultimate maximum opportu-nity for one and all to study, choose,digest this measure and at the lastmoment, at the 11th hour, this alter-native and substitute is up. However.we have been advised about some ofthe provisions that we should antici-pate in this bill and what we knowabout It leads us to believe that It willdo nothing to protect consumers.

On rate regulation it is our under-standing that the substitute will allowthe FCC to regulate the basic tier anddefines that tier narrowly to includethe local broadcast signals, C-SPAN Iand Il and public access channels.That means that cable systems willnot be subject to any effective regula-tion since many cable systems have al-ready changed their programming of-ferings to create Just such a broadcasttier.

According to the Wall Street Jour-nal, when cable systems retier, oftenless than 10 percent of cable subscrib-ers will actually take this tier. Thusthe substitute would regulate a tierconsumers do not want. Moreover, thebulk of the programming in this tierwill be the broadcast signals program-ming that is now available over the airfor free.

Our bill, in contrast, will give theFCC the authority to protect consum-ers against excessive rates for themost popular tier of programming.And It is impossible for Congress toprotect against all the creative waysthat cable operators will find to avoidregulation. Therefore, it is imperativethat the FCC have the authority tostep in to protect consumers againstfuture abuses, and we believe that S.12 will provide that protection and thesubstitute does not.

The authors of the substitute claimthat their bill, the one that we havenot seen, would promote competition.Yet they delete the most importantprocompetitive provisions in S. 12,access to programming and nondis-crimination provisions. For manyyears, Mr. President, we have workedto ensure that the 3 million Americansprimarily in rural America have theability to receive programming viahome satellite dishes

The committee has found that cableoperators who own program serviceshave consistently denied dish ownersand other multichannel video servicesprogramming or made the program-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Jonuary R9, 1992ming available at prices much higherthan those paid by cable operators

The access to programming provi-sions will ensure that satellite dishowners and wireless cable subscriberswill have access at reasonable prieslike any one of us.

S. 12 does not require cable program-mers to give their programming awayfor free or evewto make it available atthe discount rate. It only requires thatit be made available and that the pricenot be discriminatory. And discountsof this amount are not unheard of.

When cable frst began. we gavecable operators the broadcas pro-gramming for free. That was In thecable deregulation bfll. . 12 couldhave imposed a much harsher remedyfor the cable indu try in order to freeup progr.ammng.

For instance, required the net-works to divest ownerxhip of their di-verse companies through the financialinterest and sytdicatiom grouvl .

We are not requrng cabe operatorsto divest ownership of their program-min interests In other wor we be-lieve EL 12 takes a reasonable approachto the problem of acess.

The supporters of the alternativecontend that they have provisions de-signed to promote competition. Mr.President. I suggest that a cursory ex-aminatbn of these provisions showthat there is absolutely no foundationfor that contention.

Let us go to expansion of the ruraltelephone exemption. The act current-ly permits telephone companies toprovide cable in communities withfewer than 2,500 residents. The substi-tute will raise that exemption to10.000. In many States with large rurlpopulations, cable systems readyserve those commurities with lessthan 10,000 people. Moreover, the sub-stitute does not prohibit telephonecompanies from buying out the exist-ing cable systems. Thus, some commu-nities. instead of getting competition,WIll just get a new monopoly owner.

Lifting the multiple ownership rules.This provision will lift an PCC rulethat limits the number of broadcaststations one company can own to 12AM, 12 FM. and 121 TV stations.

This provision has nothing to dowith competition It will simply Permitfurther concentration of ownership inthe broadcast industry and thusreduce the diversity of views availableon the air waves.

Mr. President, we await the intro-duction of the alternative or the sub-stitute. We would like to study that.but we have not had the opportunity.So I wish to urge all of my colleaguesto read the GAO report and to lookbeyond the rhetoric being employedby the cable industry. I urge all o mycolleagues to vote against the substi-tute and support S. 12.

So. Mr. President If I may at thisJuncture, I will offer the manae'amendment to the bll This managersamendment contains technicachanges and the retran ssion provi-

saon. which I referred to in my state-men.k I understand that this amend-

tme~ is acceptable to the author ofthI measure, enator Dw

leM W No. 1411

(Purpose: To make perfecting amendments)Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. with

the approval of the author of thismeasure, I send to the desk an amend-ment to make perfecting amendmentr

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. TheChair understands that the amend-ment ts to the committee substitute.

Mr. INOUYE. Yes, sir.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

clerk wffi report the amendment.The assistant legislative clerk read

as foIlowsThe Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Ioorm]

proposes n amendment numbered 1498Mr. INOUYE Mr. President, I a"k

unanimaus consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.Without obection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:Strike al on ge 66, line 11, through

page 67. line 14. and insert in lieu thereofthe fonswing

~(2)XA) the term 'local commercial televi-sion station' means any full power televisionbroadcast stati determined by the C -ml n to be a commeral stBaton. Mionedand operat.ng on a chanmel regularly -signed to its community by the Commissionthat with respect to a particular cablesystem, is wfthin the same television marketa the cable system (for purposes of thissubpararaph. a televon broadcasting ata-tion's televsion market shal be defined aspecified in setimo 7.3556(d) of Uto* 471.Code of Federal Regulations as in effect onMay 1 1991L except that following a writtenrequest the Commisson may. with respectto a particular television broadcast station.include or exclude communities from suchstation's teevision arket to better effectu-ate the purpma of this ActX

'(B) where such a televisiou broadcast a-tion would. with respect to a prticularcable system. be considered a distant igalunder section 111 of title 17. United StatesCode, it shall be deemed to be a local corn-mercal television station upon agreement toreiburse the cable operator for the tncre-mtal eopyright cat assessed agat

such operator a a result of be carried anthe cable syste

"(C) the term 'loel commercial telnisionstation' shal not Include television trensla-tor stations and other passive repeaterswhich operate pursuant to part 74 of title47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any suc-ceor regulation thereto;

On page 6. line 3. strike "and" and Insertin lieu thereof "or".

On page 8 line 24. insert "any one" hm-mediately before "service".

On page 87. lines 3 through 4. strike "orany person having other media interests".

Strike all on pae 87, line 6, through page88, line 11. and insert In lieu thereof the fol-lowing.

CUS5TOK SERVICESzc. 10(a) Section 632(a) of the Communi-

catins Act of 1934 (47 U.SC. 552(a)) is

(1) by trnerting 'Lmy establih uad' Im-mediately after "authority";

(2) by stri -, as pat et a frnche (-clug a franch reemfr e w ubjet to mc-tio 5),"; and

(3) in paragraph (1 by insert immedi-ately after "operato" the follrwlng: -that(A) ubject to the provsions of subsection(el, exceed the standards set by the Con-mision under this ection. or (B) prior tothe uance by the Commission of rulespmnumnt to subsection (dKl), exist on thedate of eractment of the Cable TelerisionCansumer Protection Aet of 1991'.

(b) Section 632 of the CommunicatonsAct of 1934 (47 U..C. 562) is amended byaLdng at the end the follong new subsec-

"(4d1) The Commission, wthin 180 daysafter the date of enactment of this subsec-tionm shal after notice and an opportunityfor comment. issue rules that establish cu-tamer servee stndar that ensure that allcoemers are fairly served. Thereafter the~Commkismo shm regularly review thestandards and make such modIfications asnry be gneary to ensure that customersof the ca idutry are fairly served. Afiacbisnw athority may enforce thestandards established by the Comniasiol

"(2) Notl thstanding the provisons ofsubsection (a) and this subsection nothingIn this title shall be construed to preventthe enforcement of-

(A) any municipal ordinance or areemet, or

(B) any State hw,concerning customer service that imposescustomer service requlirements that exceedthe standard set by the Commrtsion underthis section.

Strike all on page 94, line 3, through pae95 line 19, and insert in lieu thereof the fol-lowing.

"(bXl) Following the date that is one'yearafter the date of enactment of this subsec-tion, no cable system or other multichannelvideo progrmmft distrbutor shal re-transmit the signal of a broadcastng sta-tion, or any part thereof, wthout the ex-prss thaorlt of the originating stationexcept as permitted by section 614.

"(2) The provision of thi section shanot apply to-

"(A) retransmision of the signal of a non-commercial broadcating station;

'(B) retransmission directly to a home sat-ellite antenna of the sifnal of a broadcast-ing station that is not owned or operated by.or afflitred with. a brocatg network Ifsuch sign wa retransmitted by a satellitecarrier on Ma 1. 1991;

"(C) retrnsmsion of the signal of abroadcasting station that i ownred or oper-ated by. or affiliated wth. a broadcstingnetwork directly to a home satellite anten-na, It the household receiving the signal isan unserved houehold; or

"(D) retranrmission by a cable operator orother multichannel video programming dLStributor of the ignal of a superstation Ifsuch signal wa obtained from a satellitecarrier and the originating station was a su-perstatlon on May L 1991.For purposes of this pararaph, the terms'satellite carrier'. 'superstation'. and 'un-served household' have the meanings giventhose terms, respectively, In sction 119(d)of title 17, United States Code, as n effecton the date of enactment of this subsectom

"(3XA) Within 45 days after the date ofenactment of this subsection, the Comnis-sion shll commence a rulemaking proceed-ing to establish regulations to govern theexercise by television broadcast statinns ofthe right to grant retransmisson consentunder this s cton and of the right tosinal carriage under sectfon 14 andother reulao ma noreseey to adain-LsW the l btlm emnaed In aruagrmb(2k The C cis shan oradder in se

S564

Joru Wy, It CONproese tUe q a thet the gir of m-can ia conent by tBiedson ut&

ma khave on the ram kor basable e iceand shall ensure that rate for baic cableservice and shan ensure that rates for basiccable service are reaonable. Such rulemak-h proceeding shall be completed within sixmonths after It commencement.

"(B) The regulations required by subpara-graph (A) shall require that television stationa within one year after the date of en-actment of this sulctlion and every threeyears thereafter, make an election betweenthe right to grant retransmission consentunder this subsection and the right to signalcarriage under section 614. If there Is morethan ome cable ystem which serves thesame geographic area, a station's electionshall apply to all such cable systems.

"(4) If an originating television stationelects under pararaph (3XB) to exercise itsright to grant retransmsson consent underthis subsection with respect to a cablesystem. the prorvaiso of section 614 shallnot apply to the carriage of the signal ofsuch station by such cable system

"(5) The exercise by a television broadcaststation of the right to grant retrnsmissioncoarent under this subection shall notinterfere with or supersede the rights undersection 614 or 61 of any station electing toasert the right to signal arrae underthat section.

16) Nothing in this section shall be con-strued a modifytn the compulsory copy-rght license estabshed in section 111 oftitle 17, Unted State Code, or a afectlngexisting or future video programming licen-ing agreements between broadcstingtlons and video programmera".

Strike all on paWe 101, lines 5 through 7.and Insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(A) any sueh station, t it does not deiverto the principal hedend of the cable systemeither a signal of -45 dBm for UHF signalsor -49 dBm for VHy signal at the Inputterminals of the signal processing equip-ment. shall be required to bear the costssociated with delivering a good qualtystgnal or a baseband video signa

Strike all on page 10. line 20, throughpage 109. line 5. and Insert in lieu thereofthe following

"(3) The signal of a qualiied local non-commercial educational television stationshal be carried on the cable system channelnumber on which the qualifed local nocommercial educatonal television station ibroadcast over the air, on the channel onwhich it was carrled on July 119 985. at theelection of the station, or on such otherchannel number as L mutually greed on bythe station and the cable operator. Thesignal of a qualified local noncommercialeducational television station shall not berepositioned by a cable operator unle theoperator. at leut 30 days in advance of Achrepositioning. ha provided written notice tothe station and to all subscribers of thecable system For purpose of this pargraph. repositioning includes deletion of thestation from the cable systam.

On page 112, lines 3 through 9, Insert 'or615" Immediately after "614" each plac tttappears

On page 113, lin through S. strike "Forpurposes" and all that follows through "un-reasonable.".

On page 69, line 7. strike Rederal" andInsert in lieu thereof "Federal'.

On page 78, add "and" at the end of lne 7.Strike all on pe 96 lines 4 through 25,

and inaert in lieu thereof "local comerciltelevision station ad".

On pae 98, line 7. strike "crriers" andtnert in IUeu thereof "carrtes-.

Mr. DANFOTH addressed theChair

GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEThe PRIWENT pro tempere. The

Senator fr [ Mlsso uiMr. DaoFroRt].

Mr. DANPORTH. The amendmentis acceptable on thi side.

The PRIIDENT pro tempore. Thequestion i on agreeing to the agree-ment.

The amendment (No. 1498) wasagreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote by which theamendment was agreed to.

Mr. DANFORTH. I move to lay thatmotion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. MgIZENBAUM addressed theChair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. TheSenator from Ohio CMr. MrmsAumlis recognized.

Mr. MITZENBAUM. Mr. Presldent,today the Senate finally considers lel-islation afied at reining in the mo-nopoly power wielded by the cable in-dustry. I congrtulate SenatorsIwou., DAMrORTS, and HoLrwGs fortheir leadership in bringing this meas-ure to the floor. This action is wel-come and long overdue.

From the moment the 1984 CableAct became law, consumers have beenat the mercy of an unregulated mo-nopoly. The 1984 Cable Act stands as amonument to the folly of knee-Jerk de-regulation.

The act was built on the absurdpremise that deregulating local mo-nopolies would lead to lower pricesand more competition. That worked asbadly as our deregulation of the air-line and telephone industries. In bothinstances, the public suffered. I regretto admit that I supported deregulationof those two industries, but I opposederegulation of cable.

The results of cable deregulationhave been a disaster Higher rates,poor customer service, more verticalintegration, and excessive concentra-tion. Complaints about cable comefrom every part of the country. fromOhio, from California, Tennessee,West Virginia as well as here in Wash-ington, DC.

Customer service. in the cable indus-try is a bad as it could possibly be.Breakdowns occur with regularity.Customers frequently complain aboutbeing unable to reach their cable com-pany by telephone. Telephone inquir-iea often are answered by an automat-ed system more complicated thanuseful. And when a human being is fi-nally reached, the response is fre-quently indifferent and uncooperative.

If a service person actually comes toyour home, it Is often a nice guy whoknows little about solving your prob-lem. I know that the cable companiesare delivering bad service at an everescalting price, because I hear com-plaints from consumers al over thecountry. and because I am a customermyself

In most industries, Mr. President. Ifservice was bad, or the price was too

high, you could switch to snothereomanny, but the normal rules of themarket do not apply to the cable in-dustry. Today, 99 percent of consum-ers who want cable have no opportunl-ty to choose among competing cablecompanies. And for the last 5 years,almost every cable system in the coun-try has been exempt from rate regula-tion by the cities. That occurred be-cause we here in the Congress made itpossible and, unfortunately. we did soat the behest of many of the city lead-ers themselves.

But the bottom line is that virtuallyno cable system is subject either tocompetition or regulation. There areno constraints on the prices chargedfor cable service. Consumers are com-pletely unprotected. It is no wonderthat cable rates have soared since de-regulation took effect in 1987.

According to the General Account-ing Office, cable rates nationwide haveincreased by over 60 percent since de-regulation more than three times therate of inflation. Minions of cable con-sumers have been subjected to rates ofover 100 percent since deregulation.

Two years ago, a representative ofthe Consumer Federation of Americatestified at a hearing held by my anti-trust subcommittee that cable consum-ers were being overcharged by smuch as $6 billion annually. Unfortu-nately, Mr. President, in this industry,members tell a great deal of the story.In Dayton, OH, rates have gone up 106percent since deregulation In Cincin-nati, some subscribers have experi-enced hikes of 152 percent since de-regulation. In Youngstown, rates areup 80 percent. The story is the samearound the country: Lynchburg, VA.122 percent; New York City, 95 per-cent; Albuquerque. NM. 116 percent;Hollywood, FL, 106 percent; SantaAna, CA, 140 percent.

I will not put Members of this bodyto sleep by reciting all of the increasesacross the country, but the list goes onand on.

Why have cable TV rates risen atsuch an alarming rate? Because thecable industry can hike them with im-punity. There is no competitor to un-dercut them, and there is no regulatorto restrain them. An economist withthe Department of Justice estimatedthat about half of cable's profits arethe result of its monopoly power. Inother words 50 percent of cable's netrevenues are the direct result of theunregulated monopoly power whichwe have given this industry.

The cable television monopolieshave had one long party for the last 5years, and it has cost consumers bil-lions of dollars in overcharges It istime for Congress to say that theparty is over.

It is my understanding that someSenators will be offering a substitutefor 5. 12. This substitute would crip-ple-literally cripple-the effort toprotect consumers from abuses by thecable monopolies, and so it apparently

S 565

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEhas the blessing of the cable industry.I say apparently because Monday'sWashington Post and Tuesday's WallStreet Journal both have storieswhich say that while the cable indus-try is telling Senators to support thesubstitute, it is saying privately in in-ternal memos that it would oppose S.12, even if the substitute passes

I think that s another example ofthe arrogsanC of the cable monopoliesand their lobbyists here in Washing-ton. They are not interested in serious-ly negotiating a solution to cable's mo-nopoly problems

They urge 8enators to support asubstitute bill which would gut cablereform, and then they say privatelythat they will not even support thebill if their sham substitute passes

The substitute will not reformcable's monopoly abuses In fact, thesubstitute should be called "the CableTelevision Monopoly MaintenanceAct." It Is a gift to the cable monopo-lies and a slap in the face to consum-ers I hope that this body overwhelm-ingly defeats the substitute.

If the Senate supports the substi-tute, we will be telling the countrythat we are less interested in protect-ing consumers and far more interestedin protecting the special privileges en-Joyed by an industry with a powerfullobby here in Washington. I will havemuch more to say on the substitutewhen it is offered, but I firmly believethat a vote for the substitute is a votefor the cable monopolies and a voteagainst consumers.

Mr. President, the cable industry hasnot been content with simply raisingconsumer prices at will It also hassought to stifle potential competitionfrom alternative multichannel tech-nologies such as wireless cable and thesatellite dish industry.

A key part of the cable industry'sstrategy is to control the popular cableprogram channels which are carriedon systems around the country. Ten ofthe 15 most popular basic cable net-works are owned or controlled bymultisystem cable operators Let merepeat that 10 of the 15 most popularbasic cable networks are owned or con-trolled by the big cable companiesMultisystem cable operators controlvirtually all of the regional sports net-works around the country, which havebeen siphoning sports programmingfrom free TV to cable. And cable com-panies also control four of the five toppay movie services.

This vertical integration has ledsome operators to discriminate infavor of programming in which theyhave equity interests. It also hasharmed the viability of cable's poten-tial competitors. Representatives fromboth wireless cable and the satellitedish business have testified to myAntitrust Subcommittee that the cableindustry's control over programminga seriously hampered their ability todo busines The big cable companiesfrequently have reftued to fenl pro-gram channels they control: 0o the

potential competitors, or have done soonly on unfair or discriminatoryterms.

Let me give you an example. A dis-tributor of programming to home atellite dish owners recently testifiedthat he had to pay 460 percent morefor programming than a comparablecable company. Wireless cable opera-tors are shut out from Turner Net-work Television. And some wireless op-erators are subjected to "red-lining."This occurs when a cable programmerrefuses to allow a wireless operator todistribute a channel to customers wholive In areas already served by a cablecompany. That is monopolistic., anti-competitive and yes, anticonsumer. ItIs a direct effort to prevent head-to-head competition, the bulwark of theentire free enterprise system.

The cable industry has taken othersteps to stifle potential competition. Ithas invested heavily in new technol-ogies like direct broadcast satellite[DBS] in order to prevent that tech-nology from competing head-to-headwith cable companime Two years ago,L along with Senators Oo, Lraa-ua, and SPcrm, sent a letter to theJustice Department urging them tolook at the potential anticompetitiveconsequences of cable's move intoDB& News reports indicate that boththe Justice Department and Stateantitrust authorities are investigatingwhether the cable industry ha at-tempted to blunt competition from al-ternative technologies like DB8 andwireless cable. I am pleased to see thatcable's move into DBS is being closelyexamined, but I wish the antitrust en-forcement officials would move withgreater speed.

There are other examples of abusivebusiness practices by cable. TCI theNation's largest cable operator, em-ployed a so-called negative option in'order to launch Its new pay movieservice, Encore. TCI put Encore on allof its cable systems and notified Itssubscribers that they would becharged $1 per month for the newservice. Customers who did not wishtoreceive Encore had to contact TCI andtell the company not to charge themfor a program channel which they hadnever ordered. In other words TCI'sattitude was We are automatically en-titled to more money from our custom-ers; our subscribers have an affirma-tive duty to tell us that they do notwant to pay more money for some-thing which they did not request.

How absurd. How arrogant Only amonopoly could act so arrogantlytoward its customers Fortunately,TCI halted this practice after a law-suit challenging it was filed by theStates.

Mr. President, TCI is the largestcable company in the country, provid-ing service to about one out of everyfive cable subscribers in the country.It Is exhibit No. 1 in the cuase for rereg-ulation of the cable industry. An arti-cle in MonaY's Wall Street Journaldeti the various ways in which TCI

has tried to suppress competition anddominate the cable industry. SenatorGoaR already has placed this article inthe RECoRD, and I urge my colleaguesto look at it.

Mr. President, abusive marketingand business practices are a directresult of the kid-gloves regulatorytreatment accorded the cable industry.We should not be surprised by thesetactics Cable is an industry which isaccountable to neither competitionnor regulation.

While I believe S. 12 begins to moveus in the right direction, although notnearly far enough. I am advised thatthe bill will be attacked by supportersof the cable industry. They may insistthat cable lacks monopoly power. Butthat view is not even shared by thecable industry. Viacom, one of the topvertically integrated cable companiesin the country. filed a lawsuit againstanother big cable company, Time-Warner. In its suit Viacom stated that:

Each cable operator is a monopolist in Itsloal market or poweses a monopoly shareapproaching 100 percent.

The suit went on to allege thatTime-Warner had "abused monopolypower" in local cable television mar-kets throughout the country.

TCI filed a brief in a tax matter inwhich it asserted that:

A cable operator serving a city has a mo-nopoly in the sense that customers desiringcable service will have no choice regardingthe provider of that service.

TCI's brief went on to say that;There Is no goodwill in a monopoly. Cus-

tomers return, not because of any sense ofsatisfction with the monopolist, but ratherbecause they have no other choices.

Mr. President, that is arrogance thatis cocky. That is absurd, if we here inthe Senate permit it to continue. TheAmerican people have no protectionunless we in Congress step into thebreach of their behalf.

Since 1988, my Antitrust Subcom-mittee has been chronicling the anti-competitive and anticonsumer abusesof the cable industry. We have heldthree hearings put out a report on theprogramming acces problems faced bycable's potential competitors, and kepta close eye on the growing vertical in-tegration and horizontal concentrationwithin the industry. Nearly 3 yearsago I introduced-along with SenatorsGoaR and Iaxzamm--the first bill InCongress aimed at reregulating thecable industry. This year I introducedtwo cable bills aimed at protectingconsumers and promoting competitionin cable. I am also an original cospon-sor of the bill before us today, 5. 12-and I am pleased to say that this legis-latlon incorporates a number of ideascontained in my bills.

The bill we are considering wouldregulate rates for basic cable service inareas where cable Is not subject to ef-fective competition The bill defineseffective competition a amother mul-tcnmnne' priOLd siC:h a, a .second

January 29, 1992S 566

Jtanuary 2.9, 1992 COqGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEcable system or a wireless cablesystem

In anticipation of cable reform lezis-lation, many operators are shiftingpopular cable channels-such asESPN, TNT, and USA-off the basictier in order to prevent such networksfrom being regulated. This retlering isan obvious effort by cable to shieldthe most popular cable program chan-nels from any kind of price account-ability. S. 12 co'/tains two provisionsdesigned to blunt the anticonsumerimpact of rettering. First, the billstates that if fewer than 30 percent ofa cable system's customers take onlythe basic tier, the Commission andlocal franchising authorities may regu-late the tier of service which is takenby at least 30 percent of subscribers.Thus, operators will not be able toescape rate regulation simply by creat-ing a minimal basic tier composedsolely of over-the-air broadcast chan-nels. The bill also allows cities aLdconsumers to file rate complaints withthe FCC whenever rates for channelson higher tiers of service are unrea-sonable. I urged the inclusion of boththese provisions and I am mostpleased to see that the managers ofthe bill and the committee have in-cluded them In the bill.

The other key component of the billis the program access provisions.Under the bill vertically integratedcable programmers like HBO, Show-time and TNT are forbidden from"unreasonably refusing to deal" withalternative technologies such as wire-less cable and the satellite dish indus-try. The bill also instructs the FCC toissue rules limiting horizontal concen-tration and vertical integration in theIndustry.

This bill is not perfect I do not be-lieve the managers would claim that itis. It does not go nearly as far as Ithink It should. I think the regulatoryresponsibilities should be shared moreevenly between the FCC and local au-thorities. I am concerned that theFCC will be too kind to the cable In-dustry and too tough on consumers Ialso believe that there is more that wecould do to prevent retiering.

But on the whole, the bill is a goodpiece of legislation worthy of the Sen-ate's support. The bill gives consumersand competitors the opportunity tohold the cable industry accountablefor aniteonsumrner and anticompetitivebehavior. And for that, the sponsors ofthis bill--Senators HOLLiNos, INouT.and DAmRoRTR-are to be congratulat-ed.

There are Some who say that pros-pects for enactment of a cable bill arebleak because neither the industry northe White House want legislation. ButI can not believe that Congress willturn its back an consumers simply be-cause the cable industry has a power-ful lobby here in Wahington. As forthe White House, r do not believe thatthe President, who is in serious politi-cal trouble, will turn his back on mil-lions of Americans who are being sub-

Jested to Wllions of dolla in over-charges by the cable monopolles.

The cable industry oppoe S. 12 forone reason, and one reason only, Thebill begins to rein in the power of anIndustry which is an unregulated mo-nopoly. That may cause distress to anindustry which has grown accustomedto wielding monopoly power, but itwill brtng much-needed relief to con-sumers.

By passing this legislation, Congresscan say to the cable industry: Theparty is over. You can not raise pricesat will or unfairly stifle competition. Itis time to play by the same ruleswhich govern everyone else.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

DixoN). The Senator from Washing-ton.

AM3UDVbr~ no. 14 99

(Purpose: To prohibit cable operators fromchargin .subscrlbers for services andequilpmeit not affirmatively requested byname)Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have

an amendment at the desk and I askfor its immediate consideration

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

The Senator Irom Washington Mr.Oorrowl proposes an amnendment numbered1499.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President. I askunanimous consent that readifng of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as followsAt the appropriate pLce. Inert the fol-

lowing new sectionmevK A"D 3W~ I NO2 A7ltMATUTVLT

Sc.. Section 63 of the ComniurctikonsAct of 193 (47 U.C. 43), as i ed byserio 5 of this Act is further amended byadosng at the end the following new subec-Lion:

"(D A cable operator shall not charge asubscriber for any service or equppment thatthe maber hb not affirmsted m-queted by name Pr urpov s of this sb-sectla, a subsalbers fatlm to reLe acable operator's propos to provide auchservice or equipment shall not be deemed tobe an affirmative request for such servicel oreq- ~.rnt-.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President I havelistened with great care to the remarksof my distinguished friend and col-league from Ohio, and I wish him toknow that this first amendment goesto precisely one of the conoerns whichhe raised the so-called negativeoption. I would like to infuire throughthe PresLdent whether my friend andcolleague from Ohio would likie to beconsidered a cosponsor of that amend-menL

Mr. M '.'ZENBAUME Indeed. I amhappy to Join my colleague.

The PREID ING OFFICEI. With-out obiectioan. the Rcon will ashowcolponsorhip by the distinguishedSenator from Ohio.

Mr. GORTONC Mr. President., forthe last several years I have workedwith my distinguished colleague frnMssour, my friend from HEwaiL andmany other members of the SenateCommittee on Commeree, on the billwhich we have before us today and onIts many predecessors

Since the bill was reported by a voteof 16 to 3 last May, however, two newdevelopments have come to my atten-tion which are the subJect of thtsamendment and of the one which willimmediately follow it. Since both havebeen agreed to, I am going to speak toboth of them at the same time, andthen we can deal with them withoutanother speech.

This first amendment, the onebefore the Senate right now, is in re-sponse to a marketing ploy which TCIemployed In the State of Washington.and elsewhere, last year.

TCI launched a new movie channelcalled Encore. The company expectedthat 60 to 70 percent of all TCI sub-seribers would take this new serviee.

This marketing expectation was de-pendent upon a simple premise thatthe consumer either would not realizethat he or she had begunm to subscribeto Encore, or that he or she would notbother to prevent charges from accru-ing to the account. You might askhow could a consumer be unaware ofpurchasing a new service? The answeris quite simple. Under TCTr plan, thecable subscriber would have automati-cally purchased the service unless thatsubscriber called TCI and physicallycanceled It.

This practice, which was much morecommon in a number of areas when Iwas attorney general of the State ofWashington is known as a negativeoption. It has been Labadoned by mostbusinesses under most circumstancessometimes voluntarily and sometimesunder the presure of Stafes' attor-neys general office. Its suces relieaan the fact that most ustamers donot scrutinize their lunk mall withgreat care, and they do not lok at billinserts with great care, and they Justsimply throw away the negative optimwhich they received.

So the first amendment I am offer-ing, one which is before us right now.,will prevent any cable coman y fromoffering servies or equipment bymeans of saig a negative option. Atthe suggestion of the WashingtonState attorney general's office, Ibroudened the axendment from itsoriginal language pertaining to videoprogramming to include both servicesand equipment. The attorney general'soffice made the suggesti, becauseTCI apparently had tried previously tomsrket Its entertainment guide by theuse of a negative optidn. This anend-menrit will msake It clear tmt Congressdoes not want the public duped Intopaying for any cable service programservice, equipment or anything else.without consciously knowing they are

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEPburchasing that service and making a'decision to do so.

The second amendment, which willfollow on the first one, addresses theissue of subscriber privacy. Severalmonths ago, I learned that in somecable systems, anyone can gain accessto a cable subscriber's billing accountsimply by knowing the subscriber'stelephone number.

For lnstanc~Jin Spokane. served byCox Cable. anyone can call the mainnumber and talk to Nadine-an auto-mated voice, by the way-who will bemore than happy to tell the caller ifyour neighbors have been paying theirbills on time, provided, of course, thatyou are able to supply your neighbor'sphone number. Nosy neighbors serv-iced by Viacom in Seattle can gainsuch a similar service just as easily.

My second amendment would re-quire cable systems take appropriatesteps to ensure that only a subscribercan gain access to his or her account.A simple means to accomplish thiswould be to assign a personal identifi-cation number known only to the sub-scriber.

Mr. President, I have discussed theseamendments with both the majorityand minority managers, and I believethey have been accepted. I will askfirst for the acceptance of the firstone, and then ask that the second beread and accepted without furtherinterruption.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere any further discussion concern-ing the first amendment offered bythe distinguished Senator from Wash-ington? The Senator from HawalL

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I havehad the opportunity to discuss thismatter with the author of the amend-ment and the manager of this side,and find no objection. We are pre-pared to support It.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, itis acceptable on this side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere any further discussion concern-ing the first amendment offered bythe distinguished Senator from Wash-ington?

If not, the question is on agreeing tothe amendment.


Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Imove to reconsider the vote by whichthe amendment was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay thatmotion on the table.


SAraDlrr NO. 1500

(Purpose: To protect the privacy of cabletelevision subscribers)

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askfor the immediate consideration of mysecond amendment.

Mr. INOUYE Mr. President, wehave looked over the second amend-ment, and we find It acceptable.

Mr. DANPORTH. It Is acceptable onthis side.


The assistant legislative clerk readas follows

The Senator from Washington [Mr.GQorow] proposes an amendment numbered1500.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows:At the appropriate place. insert the fol-

lowing new section:ROTrnoN orF SuIBSCRZa rIqvACT

Szc. . Section 631(cXl) of the Communi-cations Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 551(c)1)) isamended by inserting Immediately beforethe period at the end the following. "andshal take such actions as are necessary toprevent unauthorized access to such infor-nutlon by a person other.than the subscrib-er or cable operator".

The ;PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the amend-ment.


Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Imove to reconsider the vote by whichthe amendment was agreed to.



Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, asmost people know, I plan to offer anamendment to this bill And I mustconfess, the amendment is not quitedrafted. It is in the legislative coun-sel's office. As it was initially draftedIt would have been out of order.

I have no intention of delaying thisbill I agree to go ahead; I will not fill-buster. I do not like the bill, but myamendment would make it acceptable.I do not physically have It in my hand.For those Members who want to see It,I have a summary of what I think willbe 98 percent of the amendment. I donot think the 2 percent is going to be arelevant factor.

Having said that, that is Just in theform of an announcement. I am tryingto deal in good faith. I just physicallydo not have the amendment topresent.

With that, although I see the Sena-tor from Mississippi, I have some com-ments. But if he wants to talk now, hemay go ahead. I will yield the floor forthe moment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Oregon yields the floor.

The Senator from Mississippi is rec-ognized.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise withmixed emotions about this legislation,S. 12. I will have an amendment tooffer in a moment. I would like tomake some general comments first.and then I will offer that amendment.

I remember years ago, in the earlyeighties, maybe in the late seventies,when I was serving in the other body,people from the cable industry in myState of Mississippi would come by to

January 29, 1992visit with me and ask for recognition,in effect, of their industry, and ask forsupport in trying to provide broadcastaccessibility to Mississippi. Many areasin our State could not get televisionstations because they were too far off.We could not get any coverage at all ifwe did not have cable. And then, ofcourse, subsequently, the satellitedishes helped.

But I viewed them at that time as arising, innovative industry that couldprovide service and information topeople in my rural State. I viewedthem as the underdogs. I was sympa-thetic to them and wanted to helpthem. I thought It was going to begood for cable to provide another' vehi-cle of information beyond just thethree networks.

So over the years, I clearly did sup-port the cable industry, and I did sup-port the 1984 Cable CommunicationPolicy Act, which set in motion what Ithink has been truly a revolution.

The cable industry, in response tothat legislation, and in the spirit of en-trepreneurship and innovation, devel-oped and delivered to the Americanconsumer a diversity and depth of pro-gramming that had previously notbeen imagined. They have done a mag-nificent job.

As I listen to much of the debatetoday, I feel like there are being ac-cused of being such bad boys. I.ac-knowledge that there have been areasin which they made mistakes. Theyhave done things they should not havedone, and they should have done somethings better. I think it is important totake a minute here and look at whatthey have done.

Just this past year, we received a liveview of the world that we could nothave even imagined just a few yearsago. We were there in the PersianGulf. We watched It night after night.It was incredible what we saw.

My wife and I like to watch some ofthe programs on wildlife. There are somany options now. You can sit therewith that control device and movefrom channel to channel to channel,and it is a great education process. It isa very positive thing for America, andI think that revolution has onlybegun Ten years from now, we will bemuch further down the road becauseof modern technology that is comingalong. Cable will have to change itselfrapidly, because developments aregoing to be getting ahead of them ifthey do not: Fiber optics, what thetelephone industry can offer, andmany new things that are in the proc-ess.

The industry has created 100.000Jobs since the 1984 act was passed.There has been a tremendous explo-sion in cable groups and services thatthey are providing. So I think we needto say, first of al, a great thanks tothe cable industry for what they havedone.

Have they made some mistakes? Ab-solutely. In some areas, the service has

4 568

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEbeen atrocious. We have all experi-enced it. I have experienced it. I havehad my television cable hookup flickoff because of one bolt of lightning. itis off 30 minutes, an hour, longer.

There have been Instances when Iwould call a particular cable compa-ny's office and get either an answeringmachine or no answer. There havebeen instances when the people In myState of Mississippi were not happythat they could not get service fromanother station, maybe even in an-other State, which they had been usedto watching in the past.

There have been instances wherethe rates have gone up way too fast.But we must remember that rates hadbeen artificially held down by regula-tions and controls before 1984.

I was involved as a young lawyermany years ago in trying to get a cablefranchise, working with a city tryingto explain to them what it was allabout. They did not understand. Theydid not want to hear it, but, if they didwant to hear it, they were looking forrevenue for their particular city.

I think, clearly, there have beenproblems with rates, but there havebeen some reasons for it. Once we de-regulated them, they did go up intheir rates, some of them a legitimateamount, some of them too far. Butthey have been improving that now.As an industry, they are providingbetter service, better assessability.They are getting a grip on rates. Theincrease in rates has slowed down.

I am for competition. Let us open itup. Let us let everybody get in thereand provide service. That is theanswer. Competition will hold thoserates down.

I understand the need for programaccess. I think that while there is aright of proprietary ownership, thereis also a right for that programming tobe available. I have heard some in-stances where one cable station quitcarrying a program, but when a com-petitor tried to get that program, eventhough it was not being carried, it wasbeing denied. That is wrong. That isthe kind of problems we have had.

I will vote for all kinds of new com-petition and for opening up the proc-ess, but if we start reregulating, if westart going back to what we had before1984, I fear we are going to "shoot thegoose that laid the golden egg." Regu-lation and reregulation is never theanswer.

I have learned over the years thatregulation is not pure and perfect. Ivoted to deregulate the airline indus-try. If I could take that vote back, Iwould take It back. And I voted for de-regulating trucking. I think it has hadsome benefits. But, generally speaking.we should err on the side of nothaving reregulation and controls thatstifle competition, expansion, growth,and development, and that is whatthis is going to lead to, I fear.

What is driving all of this? One issome anger by consumers and by Con-gressman and Senators because of the

excessive rates in some cases and anarrogance, in some instances, by thecable owners. When we have gone tothem and said, "You are not providingthe right service" or "there is a prob-lem here," they have said. "That'stough. We don't have to answer to youguys any more." That is what madeCongressmen and Senators mad.

The other thing is broadcasters wantan opportunity to be able to negotiatea fee for retransmission. Everybodyhas pretty much signed off on that, asI understand. The cable people andthe broadcasters have an understand-ing. I think a provision of that natureis In both bills. That is really theengine that has been pulling thisthing. But behind this engine is linedup a whole bunch of cars that aregoing to cause more trouble.

Now, one of the things that reallybothers me is an area that I am goingto offer an amendment with regardto-subscriber bill Itemization. First ofall, do we ,*ant the cities and munici-palities to deal with a very complicat-ed industry and set the rates? On whatbasis? Would politics come into play?Would the needs of the city come intoplay beyond Just being able to havethe people offered this service? Thefact is sometimes the rates have goneup because of hidden, unidentified in-creases in fees or taxes which thecable has to pay and the cable compa-ny passes on to the consumers, and itis not explained. So I will have anamendment that will at least say thecable companies can identify on thebills those fees and taxes charged thatdrive up the rates. At least let thepeople know. Let us at least haveopenness in billing. I think that wouldbe an important improvement, but It isone of the types of problems I see stillexisting In S. 12.

Now, there is another problem. Andit Is really related to turning thiswhole thing back over to the cities Irealize in S. 12 there is a processwhereby the FCC can take that rate-setting back. There is a process whereit can give it to the cities. But whenyou look at the history, the record ofthe cities and municipalities in thisarea, I think it is one of the thingthat led us to the problems we hadbefore 1984. There are many horrorstories of how the rates were set, howthe franchises were granted. In one in-stance, in Sacramento, the applicanthad to promise to plant 20,000 trees inorder to win the local cable franchise.Do we want that? In several cities. In-cluding. I understand, Miami and Chi-cago, the cities extracted early up-front payments of several million dol-lars in anticipated franchise fees fromthe local cable companies That is noway to be doing this business.

Should we be sensitive to broadcast-ing problems? Absolutely. Do we wantto make sure that satellite dish ownershave access, an opportunity to getwhat is provided by cable and broad-casting? Absolutely. Let us do that.But, also, in the process, let us not put

the cable companies in such a biidthey are not going to be able to moyeforward and make progress or pay thebills they already owe because theyhave Improved their system so much.

I do not think this legislation isready for final action. I did not thinkso when It came out of committee eventhough I voted for it. I said at thetime I think this is a mistake; we havenot massaged It enough.

Now, I know the distinguished Sena-tor from Missouri and the outstandingleader from Hawaii will say we havebeen working on this thing for 3 years.You can work on It 10 years. If you donot get it where it is ready to be votedon, you need longer. Maybe some-where between S. 12 and the presentsubstitute there is the Holy Grall weare looking for in this area. I thinkwhat we are going to do, though, If wepass this bill without some amend-ments and without further consider-ation, is mess up everything, there aregoing to be, in my opinion, a lot oflosers and not many winners.

Let us look at what we can do to fur-ther find a middle ground, a commonground that will allow the cable indus-try to continue to grow and improvethe way they have done the last 8years, at the same time assisting themin curing some of the abuses that theyhave had to deal with and I think theyare dealing with now.

A rTr NO 1497

(Purpose: To permit cable operators to Item-Ize on subscriber bills not only franchisefees, but also other taxes and regulatorycost)Mr. LOTT. Having said that, Mr.

President, I would like to offer myamendment that I have at the deskdealing with the subscriber bill item-ization to give the cable companies anopportunity to itemize these so-calledhidden costs, to explain to the peoplewhat is involved in the charges so theywill know It is not Just the cable com-pany jacking up the prices

I understand the managers of thisbill are willing to accept the amend-ment. I would like to offer the amend-ment at this time.



The Senator from Minisppi Mr. Lorrlpropose an amendment numbered 1497.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President. Iask unanimous consent that furtherreading of the amendment be dis-pensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere objection? Without objection. itis so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the approprate place in the bill, insert

the followings oUCU rguZ. mcxATIoN

8c . Section 622c) of the Communlca-tions Act of 1934 (47 U.&C. 542(c)) isamended to read as follow:

"(c) Each cable operator ma Identify, inaccordmnce with standard prescribed by the

January 29, 1992 s 59

S 570 COTConmlmsion. as a separate line Item on eachreoular b of each sumbsriber, each of the

( 1 ) The amount of the total bill aWeeedas a franchise fee and the Identity of thefranchising authority to which the fee ispaid.

"(2) The amount of the total bill assesaedto satisfy any requirements Imposed on thecable operator by the franchise agreentto support public. educational or govern-mental channel or the use of such chan-nel.

"(3) The amount of any other fee, tax, as-sessment. or charge of any kind imposed byany governmental authority on the trasac-tUon between the operator and the subsrib-er.".

Mr. INOUYE Mr. President, I havehad the opportunity to discuss thismatter with the author of the amend-ment. There Is nothing in this lawthat would prohibit carrying out ofthe Intent of this amendment. Howev-er, I believe this amendment will clarl-fy that 8o we support it.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President,while L of course, had hoped thespeech of the Senator from Mssissippiendorsing the legislation would be per-haps somewhat more enthusiasticthan it turned out to be, his amend-ment is acceptable on this side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere further discussion regarding theamendment offered by the distin-guished Senator from Missisppi?

Mr. LOTr. Mr. President. I thankthe distinguished Senator from Mis-souri for his remarks. Passage of thisamendment will certainly encourageme to consider it further and in hisusual inimicable way he will find waysto make progress in the passage of thislegislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the amend-ment.


Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider thevote.



AMUWNDMrN No. 1l01(Purpose: To provide for designatlo of

channel capacity for commercial progrm-ming from a quaffied minority progrnm-inng source)Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send

to the desk an amendment and ask forits immediate consideration.

The PREEIDING OFFICER Theclerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows: -

The Senator from Hwall [Mr. IBorlx]proposes an amendment numbered 1501.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wlth-out objection, it Is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On age 83. between lines 20 and 21,

insert the following new subectlo:<d) Section 12 of the Coammunlatiom

Act of 1934 (47 U.C. 532) b amended by

NGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENadding at the end the following new subsec-tion:

"(1)1) Notwithstanding the provisions ofsubsections (b) and (c). a cable operator re-quired by this section to designate channelcapacity for commercial use may use anysuch channel capacity for the provision ofprogramming from a qualifled minority pro-grmmlng source (if such source is not af-filited with the cable operator). if suchprogramming Is not already carried on thecable systenL The channel capaty used toprovide programmin from a ualified mi-nority programming source pursuant to thissubsection may not exceed 33 percent of thechannel capacity designated pursuant tothis section. No programming provided overa cable system on July 1. 1990. may qualifyas minority programming on that cablesystem under thi subsection.

"(2) For purposes of this subsection-"(A) the term 'qualified minority pro-

gramming source' measi a prorammlngsource which devotes signlIcantly all of itsprogranmlrm to coverage of minority view-points, or to progammng directed at mem-bers of minority groups, and which is over50 percent minorty-owned; and

"(B) the term 'minority' Includes Backs,Hlw.nla American Indian Alaska NativesAxm. and Pacific Isnder".

Mr. INOUYE Mr. President, thisamendment carries out an intent thatall of us support. This is to encourage,to enhance, and to promote carriage ofminority programs I have discussedthis matter with the manager, Mr.DAonMa. and he, I believe, supportsit.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, TheSenator from Missouri

Mr. DANFORTH. That is correct,Mr. President. It is acceptable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere any further discussion regardingthis amendment?

The question is on agreeing to theamendment.


Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsiderthe vote.

Mr. DANFORTH. I move to lay thatmotion on the table.


Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Louisiana.J]DMIT NO. 1502

(Purpose: To add a subsection to section 614of the Communications Act of 1934 asamended by this bUil)Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk and ask forits immediate consideration.



The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BRaux]proposes an amendment numbered 1502.

On page 103. after line 24, add the follow-InS:

"(i) Nothing In this section shall require acable operator to carry on any tier. or pro-hlbtt a cable operator from carrying on anytier, the signal of any commercial televisionstation or video programming service that topredominantly utilized for the transmissionof sle resentations or proram-klengthcoumerchi

fATE January 29, 1992Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the

cable legislation that is pending beforethe Senate is going to be hotly debat-ed on the question of rate regulation.the question of the involvement of thelocal communities in helping to deter-mine rates that are fair. The cable billalso says that cables that carry broad-cast signals to local communities mustensure that the public has access to allof the local broadcast stations.

One of the provisions that is In thechairman's bill, I think in a substitutethat will be offered to that, Is a provi-sion that basically requires that cableoperators set aside channels on theircable system to carry the local afflll-ates, to ensure that the people In acommunity have ABC, NBC, CBS. theFox network, the public television, andthe other public broadcast stations onthat cable system. So when you turnon your cable system at night you canget the local news, you can get yourlocal stations, you can get the net-works, and you can be fully tuned into what Is happening In commercialtelevision.

I think that is good. I think that isappropriate. I think that Is proper.

There is one feature that disturbsme a great deal It is something that isrelatively new; that is broadcast sta-tions that really broadcast commer-cials 24 hours a day. All of us flippingthrough our cable channels or our tel-evision channels have come acrossthese broadcast stations that say, well,we are the shopping network type ofprogram, 24 hours a day. You turnthem on and they are selling thezircon rings food shoppers, dressesand everything that you can possiblyimagine. People watch them. Peoplepurchase those products. And I thinkthat is totally appropriate and proper.

The thing that concerns me, howev-er, and the thing that my amendmentaddresses, ts to raise the question ofwhether this is something that mustbe carried by cable systems. Myamendment certainly does not prohib-it a cable system from carrying these24-hour stations that broadcast com-mercials on a 24-hour-a-day basis. Ifthey want to carry them, if the publicdemands this type of progra~nming, sobe it. They have the right to do it.

But what the legislation says in themain bill pending before the Senate atthis time, the main thrust of thatdealing with this is that there are cer-tain things that cables have to carry.There is no discretion. That Is themust-carry provision in the legislation.

I object to that because I do notthink that these types of 24-hour sta-tions that do nothing but broadcastcommercials ought to be given thatgreater privilege of the must-carrystatus.

They will argue that, well, these sta-tions are meeting the public interestbecause the public wants to see this Iwould suggest that the public intereststandard that communticticons legisltion governed for years went much

January 29, 1992 CODfurther than that. As an example,when we talked about the privilege ofhaving a broadcast license which, afterall the spectrum belongs to thepublic-it does not belong to anyperson-there were certain standardsthat communication policies and com-munications acts set up in order tomake sure that these people who hada broadcast license. served the needsof the public. They talked aboutpublic interest. They talked about pro-moting diversity of views.

We talked about keeping people in-formed. Your local broadcast TV sta-tion in the city of Chicago or any-where in Illinois or in Louisiana goesthrough a great deal of time andeffort and planning to meet the publicneeds of a community, to meet thatpublic interest test. They have localnews, sometimes three times in anevening and several times in the morn-ing and perhaps one time at noon.They have local features on the localcommunity.

These stations give access and timeto charitable organizations within thecommunity to try and promote eventsin the local community. All of this isdone by these local broadcast stationsin order to meet this public interesttest, this public standard of servingthe needs of the community, becauseafter all they have been given some-thing, the spectrum, the ability tobroadcast over the public airwaves. So,therefore, it is appropriate and properthat they be required to meet somepublic need and necessity in the publiccommunity.

As I have said before, these stationsthat we all are familiar with are beingbroadcast now. They have a vast lis-tening audience. No one that I canthink of has any difficulty in findingone of these channels. Many cablecompanies run them because theywant to, because there is a market forthem.

I would suggest to this body thatwhen we give the must-carry privilegeto a broadcast station, we have to be alittle bit more selective than giving itto any station and every station inAmerica.

I would suggest that a station thatbroadcast commercials 24 hours a dayor maybe 23 hours a day, interspersedwith the reprogramming of the sameso-called public interest program, doesnot meet that test. They provide, noweather, they provide no local news,they provide no local coverage of cur-rent events within a community. Theonly thing they do is run commercialsSome people like that. Some peoplewill sit in front of a television set at 3o'clock in the morning and watchthem sell zircon rings for $29.95 plusshipping, and the shipping cost some-times costs more than the productthey are buying.

There are groups and organizationsin this country that are very con-cerned about what is happening. TheConsumer Federation of America, whosupport this amendment, among

4GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEothers, are very conaerned that whatis happening is that people are buyingtelevision stations just to run commer-cials 24 hours a day or 23 hours a dayand now, lo and behold, this legisla-tion says that not only are they goingto have the right to broadcast, theyare going to have to broadcast, theywill have to carry.

I would suggest that is a step in thewrong direction. Should they be ableto broadcast? That is the FCC's deter-mination. But here, in determiningwhether they have to be carried on acable network and have to be carriedby every cable network, I think itgoing far too far.

I am really concerned that if we sayto these stations that you have to becarried. what are we telling all ofthose other local television stationsthat spent a great deal of time, a greatdeal of effort. and a great deal ofmoney Putting in a local news depart-ment, putting in weather men andwomen, putting in people who donothing but make sure their stationmeets the public need and necessity oftheir local communities?

Why do they not all just go to 24-hour commercials, if that is the way tomake money? The heck with thepublic interest, the heck with what isgood for the community. I can makemoney and the cable companies haveto carry my station that does nothingbut broadcast commercials. Why do allof us not just do that?

Is that the direction in which we areheaded? Is that what we want for com-munications systems in this country,all to be commercial stations runningnothing but commercials?

My amendment says, Mr. President,very simply, that nothing in this actshall require a cable operator to carryon any tier, or prohibit a cable opera-tor from carrying on any tier, thesignal of any commercial televisionstation or video programming servicethat is predominantly utilized for thetransmission of sales presentations, orprogram-length commercials

What we are talking about is a pro-gram that consists of nothing but com-mercials My distinguished chairmanof the subcommittee was generous andfair in allowing a separate hearing onthis Issue. We had folks who ownedthese 24-hour-a-day commercial sta-tions that broadcast commercials comeand testify and to try and make theirpoint as to why we should give themthe special privilege of must-carry.They worked hard at trying to con-vince the committee. Certainly, theydid not convince this Senator thatthey were appropriately conferred amust-carry status. They tried to makethe case that, "Well, we serve thepublic interest, because we do not runcommercials all of the time. Some-times we have as much as an hour outof 24 hours that is devoted to some-thing else."

Mr. President, It was almost to thepoint of being ridiculous. in this Sena-tor's opinion, that they would argue

S 571that a station that reserves 1 hour oAtof 24 for talking about or showing aprogrnam with a veterinarian discussingheart worms was a public service. Yet,we see examples of these commercialstations that at-2 o'clock in the morn-ing will run a public service programof a veterinarian talking about heartworms in animals and saying, "Well.we met our public interest test. We donot run commercials all of the time.By golly, just last week, we had 3hours in the whole week talking aboutheart worms."

Mr. President, I suggest that thatdoes not meet the public intereststandard, the public interest test. Noone can argue, I think. with a straightface and say these types of stationsare providing the diversity of publicinterest, local community information,that I think is required. And I thinkthat the Communications Act used torequire, before this FCC got involvedwith it, what a local population reallydemands, and what the public is enti-tled to, because, after all, we are talk-ing about the public airwaves. Theycannot argue to this body that, well,we have different commercials so,therefore, there is diversity. We do notJust sell zircon rings; we sell clothesand radios That is not the diversitywe are talking about-23 hours a dayof nothing but commercials althoughthey may be different commercials.That is not the diversity that theCommunications Act, since the 1930's.talked about

We were trying to encourage sta-tions that use the public airwaves tomeet the public interest. I think thatIt is not sufficient to say that, well, be-cause people like to watch these 24-hour-a-day commercial stations, theynow are Justifiably given a higherstatus in the legal spectrum of beingdeserving of must-carry status.

Regardless of how anybody feelsabout the legislation before us, wheth-er you are for the committee substi-tute, or whether you are for the sub-stitute that will be offered, as I under-stand it, later, I think we can find acommon interest here in saying thatno matter what we do on this cablelegislation, let us not make the mis-take and open the door so that all ofour local TV stations around thisNation will proceed to convert to noth-ing more than stations that run com-mercials almost nonstop 24 hours aday.

Without my legislation, my amend-ment to the committee bill, I thinkthat we will see the foot-in-the-doortype of an approach. We will be send-ing the signal that we do not careabout local diversity; we do not careabout local news; we do not care aboutlocal interest programming for a sta-tion. Do not do that anymore.

All of you have been worried aboutthis for so long, to meet this public in-terest test, and that is not necessary.Just run commercials and do it on a24-hour-a-day basis, and we will pro-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEtect you. We will elevate your status Inthe legal system to mustcarry.

I think that i wrong. Thirteen co-sponsors of this legislation also thinkthat it is wrong 8enators BzNyrszm,BrnD, HnLn, Damscn , Snsay. Wor-roRD, RoPTE 8cvrz,. KAsTNo. SYmms,LonT, Bnxrs, CoATs, all agree thatthese stations ought to have the rightto exist; thepYought to have a right tobroadcast their signals But when youare requiring cable companies to carryABC, and NBC, and CBS, and PublicTelevision, and other things that arecovered by must-carry, there is a limit.There is a limit. It should not be Justcarte blanche, that anybody that goesout and buys a station can get must-carry status.

It is clear in my mind that what ishappening is that some of the folkswho have these shopping stations,who want to broadcast 24 hours a day,are now going out around the countryand buying basically low-powered sta-tion Just so they can stick their footin the door of this bill. 8o that oncethey grab that license which is apublic Item that Is a public airway,and once they pay money for it, nowthey can ay. You have to carry us,cable company. There has to be amust-carry provision that applies tous. I think that is wrong, Mr. Presi-dent.

I know there will be others whowant to talk on this, and I certainlyhave no difficulty in having this setaside, iif the substitute Is prepared tobe offered or if other amendmentscome in. The chairman asked foramendments to be brought to thefloor and offered, and I amn doing thatnow. This amendment will be consid-ered at some point as an amendmentto either-which It is now-the com-mittee substitute, or perhaps to thesubstitute that will be offered. At theappropriate time. I will ask for theyeas and nays and would be preparedto do that when there are more Mem-bers on the floor. At the present time,I yield the floor.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from NevadaMr. REID. Mr. President, I have the

greatest respect for my friend, theJunior Senator from Louisiana Weserved together in the other body andhave worked closely together here onmany different issues But I have tosay to my colleagues in the Senate,and to my friend from Louisiana, thathe Is wrong on this issue. This amend-ment Is a clear case of content regula-tion.

Mr. President, should Congress bedetermining what the public watcheson television sets in the privacy oftheir living rooms? I do not think so.We here inOide the beltway should notbecome police officers for the rest ofthe Nation for what they can orcannot watch.

There are lot of advertisementsthat I think are pretty bad that I wishwere not on when I want to watch a

sporting event or some other programon television But I do not think thatthe Presiding Officer, or any otherSenator, should have the right to de-termine what can or cannot be adver-tsed.

This amendment offered by theJunior Senator from the State of Lou-isiana makes a subjective judgmentbased on content. What will be next?This network does, in fact, spend agreat deal of its time having people-Vanna White, for example, is one ofthe stars of this network. She sellsthings on this program and she has abig audience.

I have been advised at one time shewas 1ll and numerous phone calls camein and said. "Where is Vanna?" Nowwhat right do we have to say that shecannot be on this program? And thatIs, in effect, what we are doing.

Mr. /BREAUX. Will the Senatoryield?'

Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator yields for a question from theSenator from Louisiana

Mr. BREAJX. How does the Sena-tor interpret that anything in myamendment prohibits Vanna Whitefrom being on a broadcast TV station?She can go on a TV station and letthem broadcast a many times as theywant. I am not preventing VannaWhite-I never want to prevent Vannafrom being on television.

Mr. REID. Well, the Senator wouldunintentionally be doing that becausethis television network that the Sena-tor Li. in effect, trying to ban from themust-carry provision is different thanany other and exempting It frommust-carry would prevent her frombeing on the cable systems. She couldstill do her program, but it would notbe in keeping with the rest of the lawthat governs all other TV networks

Mr. BREAX. If the Senator wouldfurther yield, we are not talking aboutonly one network. Any network thatpredominantly Just broadcasts com-mercials would be prohibited from get-ting must-carry.

The point I am making and askinthe Senator to respond to is, we arenot telling anybody they cannotbroadcast commercials on TV stations24 hours a day. All the amendmentsays is that a station that does pre-dominantly nothing but commercialsshould not be elevated to mustcarrystatus They can still have their televi-sion station They can still broadcast24 hours a day.

Mr. REID. But that, Mr. President,is the whole point of my opposition tothe amendment. Why should this net-work be treated any differently thanany other? Why should there be thisexemption? I mean, are we going to de-termine It on the basis of how goodthe advertisements are or how goodthe programming is to sell a product?Or what period of time is used duringa program to sell a product?

The Oaendment offered by the Sen-ator from Louis-n- makes a subec-

tive judgment on content What willbe next? Will we. the US. Senate andthe House of Representatives, decidethat religious programming should bebanned from- cable access? Will wewant to take children's cartoons offthe air? Or only certain kinds of car-toois?

Mr. President, I do not really thinkthis is different than book burning-maybe a little different in degree, butthe same principle. We are saying."We don't like this programming sonobody else should watch it either."And that Is wrong.

I believe, contrary to what has beenput forward, that this amendment willJeopardize the constitutionality ofmust carry. Content regulation Is aclear assault on the first amendment.In fact, the amendment currentlybefore us approaches a bill of attain-der. We are taking away the right ofacess from a legitimate business.

This is a legitimate business. It maybe different than NBC or ABC or C-SPAN, but It is something that mil-lions and millions of people watch andthey like to watch. If they do not likeit, they can turn it off, switch chan-nels.

Cable operators are the gatekeepersto America's living rooms. Cable is inmore than half of the households inthis country, and that percentage isgrowing. If it is not on cable, morethan half the people will not see It.

For example, TCI and Comcast, twovery large cable operators, controltheir own version of a home shoppingtype program called QVC. This putsthese large cable companies in directcompetition with the Home ShoppingNetwork. Of course, they do not wantto carry It.

Channel 14, a black station righthere in Washington, carries HomeShopping. TCI will not carry channel14 as a result. Therefore, this local sta-tion, predominantly owned by African-Americans, can only reach less thanhalf their audience. This is not right.

Many local stations carry program-length advertising. For example, manyreal estate businesses have half-hourshows to display the houses they havefor sale. They buy the time. That iswhat the whole program is about.

Now I personally am not much intowatching those kinds of programs. Iam not really much into watchingthese home shopping programs. I donot think I have ever watched one formore than a minute or two. But I canturn the channel, as I do, or I can turnoff the TV set.

I should have the right, if I want towatch a real estate presentation for ahalf-hour, hour, or 15 minutes, or Ishould be able, if I care to, Mr. Presi-dent, to watch Home Shopping for aslong as I want or as short a period oftime as I want. There should not be anexception to this one network becauseof the type of Programming it is

Who are we going to go after next?Ioca statlons need this revenue to

S 572 January 29, 1992

Janwy 2M, *M CO£surive. 'T. Koe 5bhping Networkempioy 6,m people nationwide adis affiliated with about 8 stationsbeyond the 12 they own In this economy, should we be legislating morepeopae out o wor I think t. HoneShoppng Network Is a legitimate, aviable, and a good business

We should be creating jobs here inCongress, accordng to what we weretold last night Nrthe Chamber acrossthe HalL And I agree with what Presi-dent Bush said We should not beeliminating Jobs.

The Home Shopping Networkshould be treated like any otherbroadcaster. They meet all the PCCcriteria with regard to public service.They are a legitimate business, theyprovide a service people want, andthey deserve to be treated fairly.

People have a right to choose whatthey watch If we do not provide must-carry for Home Shopping we will belimitLng their choice without theirconsent This, I think is unfair. It isnot right And some would say It is un-concirnnahle.

This amendment, Mr. President,should be defeated.

I yield the floor.Mr. PRESSLER addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from South DakotaMr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I

rise to say that I feel very stronglythat thts amendment by my colleaguefrom Louisiana would not be hn thebest Interests of broadcasthg

What happen, I think we all know,is that when a cable company owns apart of a shopplng network, that net-work is allowed on the air-I thinkthat is the case in the District of Co-lumbia-bet the other ones are not orother competition. I thnk what we aredong here is that we are ensuringcompetiion.

Now, a cable company can own apart of a shopping network nd, Ifthat Is the case, then they wlB let thatone on the air but no other. And thatis really what we are talking abouthere in the boldest of ternm.

So by vte of this legislatio thecompetition would also be on the dr.And a networ, ff owned In part by thecable TV, could not be vered r thinkthat Is what It really bolla dow to

So we want that comLpetition I thinkthe bill as written, is very geed in thisarea, and r strong oppose tUsamendment

Mr. BRIAUX addremed the Cair.The PREBIDIN OFFICFE~ The

Senator from I ruistanMr. BREAUX Mr. Presidet, I Ju

want to a couple of comments Ido nDot want to intere wfth anybodyelse's desre to be recogned and Iwill be happy to yield in ust amoment.

I want to pt a statement in theR cao frou the Consumer Federa-tion of America They o not have anax to grtnd In tis. They do not repre-sent a cable company. They do not

qGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATErepresent a networ. They d not rep-

t a broaeast statiou But theyare cemerned about the Interests ofthe Arnerks people

The Coumer Federat . ia sup-port of what we are trying to do-andI will submit their letter for theRlcoRan-ys they are very concernedthat the anrce public resource that weare talking out. the public ahrwaysis being used for full-time oe shop-pine. In exchange for the free ue ofthis resource, broadcasters agree toserve as 'public trustees,' and promiseto place the public's needs ahead oftheir own."

That is what stations who get broad-cast licenses are supposed to follow.that type of standard a public intereststandard, not just their pocketbookstandarc

And that Is why you see the Con-sumer Federation of America. whichdoes not have n ax to grind. they donot have a dollar In this fight, they donot have an economic Interest in thisfight, but they do have an InterestThat Interest happens to be the Amer-ican consumer. That is why they sup-port what we are trying to do alongwith other groups and organtatiotsmlike the Media Acess ProJect whichwatches what Is coming out over thearways National Cable Television As-socat on which does have an interestin this; 9nll Rural Cable TV Associatlon-tn support of this

The only other point I would makeis that we are not trying to keep thesecomlmnles that have 24-hour commeri-cal broadcast.s broadcastng one adafter the other. ofl the eb/e systemMy amendment says nothing in thebill shll require or deny a stationwhich does nothlng but broadcatcozmercai from beig O a cablenetwork.

What we are saying is let us be w-traL May cable systems already carrthese shopping type of psogramSome o the cable systems carry morethan on They do it because theyth it lk the right thing to do. Itserves the needs of the people.

My point is that we should not makethem do it We should not mandatethem donfn I They have the right tonegotiate with a cable company to geton their system. If they do not, theycan ust broadcast ust ike any otherbroadcast station that is not n a cablesystem.

My amendment i supported by theConsmer Federtion of Ameria andother Intest groups that do not havea dog In this itfit from an economicstandpoint. The remon they supportthis amendment Is because ft doesserve the ubte Interests After all weare taIrg about coammmeatfons. Weare talk about the public interestbecaue we are tkin about thepublic airaves.

I th the bottom line ie that noth.ing In my amenmhnent prohibits ahome sopping type of program frombeing on the eable systeLm. 1 just saysthe cable system does not have to re-

S573qdre them to have space on that cablesystem.

Mr. RAHAM. Will the Senatoryield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX. I will be happy to.Mr. GRAtHA Reading the amend-

ment, It states:Nothing in this section shall require a

cable operstor to carryin on any tier, orprohibit a cable operator from carrying onany tier. the stgnal of any commercial tele-vision station or video programmng servicethat Is predomnantly utllted for the trans-misalon of es presentations or program-length eommerclal.

Would that require the cable opera-tor to apply a consistent standard?That is. Lf there were, let us say, threechannels which came under the deftni-tion of "predominantly utilized for thetransmission of sales presentations orprogram-length commercials." theywould have to Include all three? Orcould the cable operator say I willcarry two but not all three? Or onebut not all three?

Mr. BREAUX. As long as the cableoperator, under my amendment, hasthe right to carry a station or a broad-cast signal that is predomlnantly a 24-hour-a-day commercial broadcast sta-tion, that does nothing but broadcastcommercials. that cable operator hasthe right to decide to carry them ornot carry them.

They would also. hIn my interpreta-tion have the right to decide whichthey would want to carry or whichthey would not want to carry.

Mr. GRAHAM. 8o the Senator issaying. In my hypothetcal. if therewere three staions that met the deLi-niton, the cable operator could decidethat he would carry A and B but notCT

Mr. BREAUX. He could carry noneof them, he could carry one of them.or he could carry all of them.

Mr. RAHAL If the theory Is thatthere is something perverse about thistype of oadastng that does notwrant It being given the status ofmutcarry, why should the cable op-erator be able to make two decisons:Fst, whether he wants to carry anyor aU of that type of programmininad, th second. the right to pickand chooe among smtratl cable opera-toa?

Mr. BREAUX. I think the theorybehind the bil-and others may beabe to speak to that-requrfng must-carry for the networks, NBC, ABC,CBI public televslon, or what haveyoma, I that these programs on thosestations meet the public interest, meetthe public necessty, meet the stand-ards by which a normal station isgiven a broadcast ene: Serving thepublic nterest, local communtty's in-tere, with a diversity of program-ming which Includes everything thatoccurs in the loael community, news,weather, sports plts entertainmentprogramming. It is a diversity comingfrom those type of networks and thosetype of signals

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992Therefore, must-carry is appropriate

for those type of signals that meetthat spectrum of public interest re-quirements.

My amendment says that a stationwhich does nothing but broadcastcommercials 24 hours a day is not astation that is deserving of a require-ment that it must be carried.

They can 6e carried or they do nothave to be. But they should not beforced to be carried.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator fromFlorida yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. Could I continue toask a couple of more questions of theSenator from Louisiana?

Mr. REID. Of course.Mr. GRAHAM. My concern is what

we have really done here is we haveput the individual cable operator inthe position of exercising economicdiscrimination. The allegation hasbeen made that the effect of thiswould be that those over-the-air orcable-generated predominantly adver-tising channels which have an eco-nomic affiliation with the cablesystem are going to be preferred, andthat those that do not have an affili-ation with the cable system will beprecluded.

It would seem to me that, as theSenator explains the amendment, Itwould allow that type of economic dis-crimination.

Mr. BREAUX. I would respond bysaying to the Senator from Florida,two points essentially. No. 1, they cando that already. Cable companiesdecide right now, without must-carry,what type of programming they puton. Many cable companies put pro-grams that they produce on theircable systems. So it is already the cur-rent system where they make an eco-nomic decision on what they are goingto show.

If they have an interest in the pro-gram, they may be more inclined toshow that program. If it is a cable pro-gram that has a great deal of interestin their community, that they do notown, they would probably also putthat one on their cable system.

My point is that it is wrong for thisCongress to force a cable company toput on their system a station that doesnot in any stretch of the imaginationmeet the traditional public interest,public need and necessity test.

If they want to do it, let them do It.But do not make them to It. And thatis why the Consumer Federation ofAmerica says this is the wrong thingto do and they support this amend-ment

Mr. REID. Will the Senator fromFlorida yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I re-quest the floor for purposes of yield-ing to a question and then making astatement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GoRE). The Senator from Florida isrecognized.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the Sena-tor from Nevada.

Mr. REID. Under the amendment asit has been submitted, does the Sena-tor know whether a company that of-fered 12 hours and not 23 hours, orwhatever the case might be, wouldthey be subject to this discriminatorylegislation?

Mr. GRAHAM. The language of theamendment states "* * * is predomi-nantly utilized for the transmission ofsales presentations or program-lengthcommercials." The word "predomi-nantly" is not defined.

Mr. REID. Predominantly couldmean different things to differentpeople, could It not?

Mr. GRAHAM. I suppose it couldeven mean a plurality of time. Let ussay you broadcast 10 hours of commer-cials, 6 hours of weather, and 6 hoursof other programming, that since thepredominant-the plurality of yourtime ,would be in commercials, thatyou would be potentially subject tothis definition.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senatorfrom Florida yield back to me so I canelaborate on that point?

The intent of "predominantly uti-lized for the transmission of sales pres-entations or program-length commer-cials," the purpose in defining it thatway is to give the Federal Communica-tions Commisslon, which enforcesthese rules and standards, the direc-tion from the Congress to what is In-tended.

As far as the exact number of hours,the Federal Communications Commis-sion could be involved in determiningwhat is predominantly a commercialbroadcast station.

There Is flexibility in there for fair-ness. But I think it is clear what weare trying to accomplish, and the FCCsees no problem with taking that defi-nition and applying it to the circum-stances that are in effect in the busl-ness today.

Mr. REID. If I could-I recognizethe Senator from Florida has thefloor-it seems to me, and I am askingthe Senator from Florida if he mightagree, that this is very typically whatwe do-that is, the Congress does. Wepass a law that says "predominant"and then we ask the administrativeagency to define what we mean whenwe do not know what we mean.

Mr. GRAHAM. That would be trueexcept, in this case, unless there issomething beyond what is printed inthe amendment, It looks to me as ifthe Judgment is going to be made notby a governmental agency such as theFCC, but will be made by the cable op-erator as to whether the program is"predominantly utilized for the trans-mission of sales presentations," andthen the Judgment having determinedit meets that standard, whether tokeep It off the air or not. I do not see adirective for the FCC to generate aconsistent standard of regulation thatcan be used to make that determina-tion on predominantly utUized

Mr. REID. I was responding to theanswer from the sponsor of theamendment.

I will ask the Senator from Floridaone additional question. There is nodispute TCI and Comcast are largecable operators and control their ownversion of a home-shopping-type pro-gram with no limited hours. It is calledQVC. Under this amendment, theycould do anything they want to do,but yet this network would be dis-criminated against. Is that your under-standing?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, thatappears to be the way the amendmentis structured. You do not have toapply a consistent standard. If youthink that your viewers should bescreened from having to view any ofthese programs, that is one issue.

But what, as I gather, is going tooccur here is the cable operator willpick and choose which channels toallow on the air and which to shutdown, and there is going to be a strongeconomic incentive to only allow onthe air those channels in which thecable operator has an economic inter-est.

Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senatorsyielding for questions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I be-lieve that we have here a clear case ofeconomic discrimination. The Senatorfrom Louisiana correctly points outthat the current law allows cable oper-ators to do exactly what they would beallowed to do if his amendment wereadopted. That is the reason that weare considering this legislation, is dis-satisfaction with the current law.

One of the aspects of that dissatis-faction with the current law is the factthat cable operators are not currentlyrequired to provide access to their sys-tems to all of the FCC-licensed sta-tions within their broadcast area. Thatis one of the significant objectives ofthis legislation, an objective thatwould be compromised If this amend-ment were to be adopted.

Second, we are not talking hereabout rogue, pirate television stations.All of these stations have an FCC li-cense or they would not be operatingover the air unless they were licensedand regulated pursuant to FCC stand-ards. I assume, thereby, that the FCChas applied Its consistent standards ofpublic Interest in granting and con-tinuing the license to these stations.

I believe that we are going down avery slippery slope if Congress nowhas to say we are going to establishanother set of standards and values onprogram content beyond that whichwe have previously assigned the FCCto make. As the Senator from Nevadasuggested, if today the judgment isthat we should keep off the air a sta-tion that broadcast predominantlythese 30-minute programs of peopletelling you how to sell real estate, orhow to make a fortune in the goldmarket. or all of the other areas, sta-tions that have that as their predomi-

S 574

Jalury A Imt CONGRESS SAL tBCOR- - SENATEnt pIrog tnxl to tsrrow me wgs to to tst our sandards do rtn-gion are such that we shead preekuda particular sect from having access tothe must-carry provision. that we aregoing to put them. at a secondary andinferior status in terms of our ownstandards of what is appropriate con-tent)

I believe that we made a wise judg-ment In placing this standard with theFederal Communfttions Commissionrequiring them, through a very openand arduous processa to establishstandards for broadcast Licensees andthen to enforce those standards Andwe would be making a serious error ifwe were to impinge upon that Judg-ment.

I believe that the Issue was raised inthe letter from the Consumer Federa-tion about the limitation on numbersof channels. The fact is the technolo-gy of most cable TV systems today Inof a massive explosion of the ability todeliver channels. The company that Iam particularly familiar with in Flori-da. has indicated that they are aboutto put on several channels reserved forpay-for-view in order to take advn-tage of that new market opportunity.

I do not believe that there is any.reasonable Issue here that cable TVcapacity is going to be strained by en-forcing a consistently applied. m t-carry protvon for an of the FCC- 11-censed programs within the particulararea

Finally, Mr. President, I return tothe very serious issue of economic ex-clusion and the congressional involve-ment in program content. We areabout to establish a legislative stand-ard that is extremely vague, a servicethat is predomirnantly utilized for thetransmission of sales presentations orprogram-linked commercials.

Just recently, we celebrated a 40thanniversary in America It was. the40th anniversary of the NBC program"Today." There were many critiqueswritten of the 40-year experience of'Today.- One of the recurtrng crfti-cisms of the 'Today" program wasthat throughout its period, it has beenexcessively-I think the term was usedsomewhere between puffery and pan-dering. in the sense that It promotedthe programs and Interests of the Na-tional Broadcasting Co. in its own pro.gram content.

Are we going to say that a programlike the "Today" show would faIlunder the category of being essentiallya sales presentation or progrm-linkedcommercial for its own network be-cause of someone's characterization ofits propensity to use Its content to ad-vance the interests of the network? Ibelieve that would be a serious errorfor the Congress to involve itself inthat issue.

Mr. President, we are moving in aproper path In terms of assuringaccess to cable TV for all legitimateFCC-licensed broadcasters. We shouldnot comprornse the attainment of

that oalbae by the aptio et tofsmxeudment.The PRETSD Go OFICE. Who

seek recoiriton? The Senator fromSouth Dakota.

Mr. PRESSLEa. ML Presldent, Iwould like to direct a questimo to theauthor of the amendment when be re-turns to the floor.

Let me. first of all, add a few re-marks. I am very much concernedabout the precedent this type ofamendment would create. Is it nowtime for Congress to begin to regulatewhat Americans choose to watch? Ithink not. This amendment is clearlysubjective content regulation

As I understand, the networks af-fected directly by this amendment areconsidered by the FCC to be regularstations licensed by the FCC andmeeting all the FCC qualificatfornThe argument being made here todayis that limited spectrum should not betaken up byhome shopping servicm

I could 'ask the same questio,whether the .000th rerun of "HappyDays" should take up spectrum space.The must-carry provisions in S. 12have been carefully drafted. To singleout these stations alone for exclusionof st-carry provism would makethese very provisions subject to constt-tutional challenge.

I would like to ask the author of theamendment two questions First,would carriage of any over-the-air sta-tion under S. 12 jeopardie in any waythe carriage of other cable ervices

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, Iwould respond to the Senator bysaying there is a limited number ofchannel space available on cable sys-tems, which is one of the reasons whyI am offering my amendment If wehave to require that ABC NBC, CBSpublic television, and others be carried

n the cable system and also requirethat we carry statiors that do nothingbut broadcast commercials. am veryconcerned that the space on thesecable systems will not be sufficient.

So you nay see a cale system cary-ing 24 houwr of cimer il. andellnating pubki television, or NBC,for that matter.

It Is one of the reasons why theamendment Is being offered. Weshould not force a camle system tocarry a station that does nothing butbroadcast eommercia

Mr. PRI-SLESR But Is it not tnruethat there are a vast number of slotsavalable? For example, In the Districtof Columbia the cable channel I donot believe, have ever been filled, asfar as I can tell from my cable which Ireceive at home.

Mr. BREAUX. That is true In someareas. In many areas it is not tru.

M r. P SSER In what areas Is itnot true?

Mr. BREAUX. Crowley, LA, myhometown

Mr. PRESS.L It has been my ob-servatLon that there is spectrum avail-able in mot cable situatiorn.

MN Mr ZMXL Tha t it any nottue. The Spmetru Is gettr sma-erand smaller as we have more and moreprogramnrng and statMons and net-works that are being formed on a day-to-day basis I would offer my amend-nent if there was mnliated space onthe spectrum for a cable company. Iwould offer my amendmnent if a cablehad 100 channel and It only had 5being used. I do not think we ought toelevate the status of the station thatbroadcasts nothing but commercials toa must-carry status It is the public In-terest we are talking about which I donot think we meet.

Mr. PRESSLER. I think the princi-ple that no cable services would betaken off the air is a true principle; isthat not correct?

Mr. BREAUX. In some cases, yes,and in other cass. no.

Mr. PRESSLER. Let me ask myfriend how he would deal with thecable monopoly situation I note theWall Street Journal had a long articlethe other day about TCL r ask unani-mous consent that the Wall StreetJournal article be printed in theRZCwD.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be prirted in theRancD. as follows

LProm the Wall Street Journal. Jan. 27.192]

CXBZ. Ckud- How Gr r TC1 Usrs Sn.r-DuLsaM MRuDD SL To DorTsATI MPAm

¢BY Johrmn L Roberts)rxcnwooa, Coro.-I] many ways. Tele-

Communications Inc is a classic tale ofboottnap Antrepreneshtp Pro a tinycoapany struggng in the acrubland ofWest Texa, TC has buidt titelf Into theworld's bigest cabtlevlao enterprise.One of ever five American cable users Iswired nto TCI i one way or another, andbot 20%- of the Industry's entire revenue

flow to ths behemoth.To many of It rival and customer

thlloh. TOC represe not the best butthe w in OAmeria burmnem-a monopo-Htlic. stro-arm bully. they say. thatsqueesa ether cable operators denies freeamopetftio to programmers and flagrantlydsropts the plams of rvals. The "rlnglead-er in the "eable Cos Nostra" h what SeAlbert Gre Jr. of Tennessee calls TCL Con-tends Met Cohen the mayor of Morgan-town, N.C_ where TCI operates a cablesystem: I is trying to crush our ctty gov-enrment.'

TCI. which owns more than 1.000 cablesystems. i also very tightly controlled. BobMagQne. TS founder and chairman andJotin C. Maone. Its chief executive. builtand domted the company In partthrough nternal seft-del. an lnvestiga-thon by The Wtal Street Journal shows. Inone e.e, the two old to TCI a group ofUtah cable systems the company apparentlyalready owne

GCTI=JI CONTROL

Their stock trantio-otten on par-tially diaclmd In tederal 1n and uramllyunavailable to other harebo merma ormay rnot hae violated securities law thelaw prohibits cVomatios from withholdngheportanL btorma from sireholdoBut the ohbecte od the dealings appearscear. Through these and other ac-tio the two An built one of the mt In-

S 75

S 576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEfluentlal and feared companies in the televi-sion industry. and granted themselves effec-tive control over it. Many contend that con-sumers ultimately paid the price, as TCIworked to squelch competition In the cableindustry.

TCI emphatically denies engaging in anyquestionable transactions with its top twoofficers or anyone else for that matter. Anysuggestion that "when we paid Magness andMalone shares we were paying them forassets we alqdy owned is false," a spokes-man says. He cautions, however. that thedenials and elaborations are based on the"collectlve recollection" of TCI executives,and that he didn't consult Messrs. Magnessand Malone. who declined to be interviewedspecifically about the transactions. Further,the company says It was unable to retrieverecords from storage that bear on the inter-nal stock dealings.

The spokesman says allegations the com-pany is a bully in the market are also false.He says TCI Just tries to offer the best serv-ice at the best possible price, amid risingcompetition.

For his part, Mr. Malone does say in aninterview that, in general, TCI's transac-tlons with its top officials are merely a wayof supplementing salaries and teaching topbrass about different aspects of the cablebusiness. "TCI has one of the lowest, if notthe lowest, salary structures in corporateAmerica." he said. The deals have "allowedus to build wealth over time."

Messrs. Magness and Malone are paid abit under S500,000 a year each and control acombined 36% of shareholder votes in TCI.When TCI spun off some assets into a com-pany called Liberty Media Corp.-a more de-signed to answer charges that TCI hadbecome too dominant-the two executivesquickly acquired 56% of the voting shares ofthat company, too. The market value oftheir combined holdings is nearly $700 mil-lion.

The accumulation of that wealth and thesheer girth of TCI will undoubtedly drawthe interest of the US. Senate this week. aslawmakers begin debating whether thecable industry has become monopolistic andwhether additional regulation is needed.TCI and Liberty Media operate in 48 statesand dwarf their next-largest rival TimeWarner Inc. TCI alone generates cash nowof $1.7 billion a year-more than ABC, CB8,NBC and the Fox network combined.Annual revenue approaches $4 billion. TCIand Liberty owns stakes in four of the top10 cable channels and have an interest innine of the top 25, including Cable NewsNetwork, Turner Broadcastling System.Turner Network Television. the DiscoveryChannel and Black Entertainment Televi-sion.

The company's critics say TCI's verticalintegratlon-ownership of both the localcable systems and the channels that provideprogramming for those systems-gives itunfair power and is one of the best argu-ments for greater regulation of the indus-try. The company's outside shareholders,however, couldn't be happier. A dollar in-vested in TCI stock in the mid-1970s isworth more than $800 now. TCI has "givenus a tremendous return," says Keith Hart-man, with Associated CommunicationsCorp., an investment company in Pitts-burgh. Associated's $7 million investment inTCI in 1979 has swelled to well over $300million. If TCI were sold today it wouldprobably fetch at least $15 billion.

No shareholder has benefited more thanBob Magness a cigar-chomping, rough-hewn rancher who started TCI with thePurchase of a single system in MemphisTexas. At age 68 he is worth over $00 mil-lion. For all his wealth, Mr. Mages es-

chews the life style of the rich and famous,For two decades he has lived in a modestranch house atop a plateau overlookingDenver. "You go to his house for dinner andeveryone takes his shoes off, more or less,"says Rudy Wunderlich, a friend. The cablemagnate has been known to shift a cigar toa corner of his mouth, resting it there whileeating a T-bone steak. "He ain't very happyin a tuxedo," another friend says.

These days, Mr. Maness spends littletime on TCI's day-to-day affairs He raiseshorses and collects Western art, passions hepursued with his first wife and businesspartner, Betsy. She died in 1985, and he hassince remarried.

He formed his cable company in 1958. Aslore has it, Mr. Magness, a short and ruggedOklahoman, sold some cattle for funds tobuy the franchise in Texas. (A franchise isthe right to build and operate a cablesystem, and is usually awarded by local au-thorities.) Prom there, he and Betsy begancollecting cable systems in MontanaNevads, Colorado and Utah.

IrNDINfG SUPPORT

B the mid-1960s, Mr. Magness neededbaCkers He found two in Salt Lake City-the Oallivan family, which owns the localnewspaper, Salt Lake City Tribune, and theHatch family, owners of local television sta-tion KUTV. (The family isn't related to thatof Sen. Orrin Hatch.)

The investment by the Hatch familywould prove problematic years later, whenthe federal government barred "cross-own-ership" of local TV stations and cable sys-tems in the same community. But with thefamilies' help, Mr. Magness incorporatedTCI in 1968 and took it public In 1970.

By 1973, though, TCI was flirting withbankruptcy: Mr. Magness, it seemed, lackedthe skill to build and manage TCI as amodem enterprise. So he turned to Mr.Malone, a young Connecticut native andYale-educated financial virtuoso who wasthen the president of a TCI supplier.

Shortly after taking over as TCI's presi-dent, Mr. Malone summoned TCI's impa-tient lenders to a meeting, the story goes.and gave them an ultimatum: either backoff or take over the company. The lendersbacked off. and TCI was able to refinmace.Its quest for expansion resumed, fueled bymountains of new debt.

Today. Mr. Malone, age 50, is cable's mostvisible and formidable figure. He crafted theindustry's $580 million rescue of Ted Turn-er's debt-laden business in 1987, which en-abled TCI to gradually take a 25% stake inTurner Broadcasting System Inc.

Yet for all of his influence, the soft-spoken, Mr. Malone remains a stranger tomany in the field. Says cable broker BillDaniels, who shares a skybox atop Denver'sMile High Stadium with Mr. Malone: "I Justdon't know anyone close to him."

Mr. Malone. who holds two master's de-grees and a doctorate in operations re-search, has served a TCI's strategic thinkerand financial alchemist, deftly managingthe company as a portfolio of cable assetsand buying, shifting, marrying and decou-pllng them in ways that boosted their value.More than any other industry executive.Mr. Malone pulled the financial communityonto the cable bandwagon, getting WallStreet to focus on the business's surgingcash flow.

But that higher profile had a downside: Itincreased the chances that TCI mightbecome a target of corporate raiders.

That risk grew in 1979 as Salt Lake City'sHatch family prepared to sell off Its sizablestake In TCI to comply with the ban oncos-owerhlp. "With the Hatches gone.[Mr. Malone] felt the company was more

January 29, 19 92

vulnerable," says James Hoak Jr., a formerexecutive at Heritage Media a TCI-ownedgroup of cable systems.

What to do? TCI started to address theproblem In 1979 by creating a new class ofstock, Class B shares, that had 10-to-1voting power over the more widely 'heldClass A shares. Now TCI had only to find away to get the bulk of the Class B sharesinto friendly hands-such as those ofMessrs. Magness and Malone.

Thus began a series of transactions socomplex they almost seemed designed to be-fuddle. First, the Hatch family's TCI stakewas acquired by an investment concerncalled Tele-Communicatlons InvestmentInc., which after the transaction controlled24% of TCI Class B voting stock and 43% ofthe weaker Class A shares. Through a previ-ous transaction, TCI owned half of that In-vestment company, so TCI's managementthus controlled half of the investment com-pany's vote. But TCI management appar-ently was looking for a way to gain an eventighter grip on TCI.

Messrs. Magness and Malone embarked ona bout of labyrinthine self-dealings that ul-timately would have TCI pay them a hugechunk of the super-voting shares In onecase. the dealings involved four separatecompanies with almost the exact samename-two owned by Messrs. Magness andMalone, two owned by TCI-and the swap-ping of Utah cable franchises and systemsamong them.

BACK A"ID FORTH

Acting through small subsidiaries. TCIfirst bought up franchises around Salt LakeCity. Then TCI transferred the franchises-it Isn't exactly clear how-to separate Mag-ness and Malone companies with almost thesame names as the TCI units. Later. TCIbought the Magness and Malone entities-even though TCI had owned some of thefranchises in the first place.

The price: nearly one million of the super-voting CIam B shares. which TCI paid toMessrs. Magness and Malone over fiveyearL The stock, amounting to 13% of allshareholder votes by early 1991 and worthabout $140 million at the time, essentiallygave the two top executives enough votingpower, when added to their existing stakes.to block any move they didn't like.

Records don't make it clear, but it appearsthe transactions could have gone one of atleast two ways: Messrs. Magness and Malonepaid only a small sum for TCI's Utah fran-chises and sold them back at a huge profit:or the pair received the franchises free andsold them back to the company. Either way.the transfers weren't disclosed to the Secu-ritles and Exchange Commission.

What is known about the transactions isthis.

The deals began in 1979. Because of thecross-ownership ban. and because the Hatchfamily stake in TCI hadn't yet been sold.TCI couldn't pursue any new cable systemsin the Salt Lake City market. the companysaid in public filings TCI nonethelesswanted the unawarded Utah franchises in"friendly hands," Mr. Malone recalled in anInterview.

So the TCI board urged Messrs. Magnessand Malone to form their own private com-pany to pursue the Utah franchises, withthe Idea that TCI would ultimately buy theproperties from the executives. They andtheir Immediate kin set up a new entity:Community Cable of Utah Inc.

APnLYINO FOR FRANcHIsS

TCL it turns out, had a subsidiary thatused that same name as a trade name.Through last subsidiary, and despite theban oD c s-ownershlp, TCI had already

January 29, 1992 CONapplied for and received quite a few Utahcable franchises, government records show.

For example, in 1979 the towns of SpanishPork. Sandy. Salem. and Payson City allawarded franchises to a TCI subsidiaryknown as Community Cable of Utah Inc.But this Community Cable of Utah. recordsshow, was registered in Nevada The Mag-ness and Malone-owned Community Cablewas incorporated in Utah and was, legally, aseparate and unrelated entity.

All of these franchises. however. wouldend up belonging taMessrs. Magness andMalone. Records don't make clear how thishappened.

In February 1981. after the Hatch familystake in TCI had been sold. TCI acquiredMessrs. Magnese and Malone's CommunityCable of Utah. paying them and theirfamily members 360.000 Class B shares ofTCI. The company's assets. listed in disclo-sure documents. Included at least one of thevery same franchises and the system builtunder it-Sandy-that TCI's CommunityCable unit had acquired a few years earlier.The assets also included 260.000 shares ofClass A stock.

TCI executives give contradictory ac-counts of how TCI's Sandy franchise endedup as the property of Messrs. Magness andMalone. First, Bernard Schotters. a TCIspokesman. said the franchise had belongedto the two executives to begin with, but thatSandy officials insisted on naming the TCIsubsidiary as the official owner.

Then, he and another spokesman, RobertThomson, revised the explanation to saythat TCI, indeed, had first owned the Sandyfranchise, but had "assigned" It to anotherMagness and Malone entity, CommunityTelevision of Utah. In return. Messrs Mag-ness and Malone "paid" TCI by grantingTCI the right of first refusal to buy theSandy property back.

But local records show that CommunityTelevision of Utah isn't owned by Messrs.Magness and Malone-It is yet another unitof TCI. The various explanations moreover.contradict a filing TCI made with Sandy of-ficials in the late 1980&s In It, TCI said ithad received the Sandy franchise back in1979. when TCI was telling shareholdersthat it was federally barred from doing sobecause of the crossover restrictions. Today.In explaining its past actions. TCI says Itwas wrong to tell shareholders that Itcouldn't own a franchise; in fact, TCI says,it was permitted to seek a franchise, but notto own and operate the cable system builtunder the franchise.

TCI and its two top officers and their fam-lies. who now were flush with the addition-al 360.000 Clas B shares, then-repeated theself-dealing. What they gained. again, wasgreater control of TCI itself. Here's how Itworked:

In selling their Community Cable to TCI.the two men held back five cable systemscovering 12.000 homes in central Utah. TCInever identified the specific systems inpublic filings But records indicate theywere the franchises that had been grantedto TCI's Community Cable of Utah througha 100%-owned TCI unit. In any case, Messrs.Magness and Malone now owned them andshifted them into yet another new entitywith the same name. TCI says today. Thisversion of Community Cable of Utah wasregistered in Colorado.

In April 1983, they exchanged the five sys-tems for a 21% stake in a new TCI companyformed to make acquisitions. TCI valued theassets of their Community Cable of Utah at$3.8 million. The acquisition company,meanwhile. went on to buy another cablesystem.

In December 1985,. TCI bought out thetwo men's stake In the acquisition company.

JGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEThe price: 600,000 shares of Class B stock InTCL worth almost $23 million. On the sameday, TCI paid them another 50,000 Clam Bshares, valued at $1.9 million, to acquire an-other 21% stake the two men had in yet an-other TCI entity. which had purchased acable system in Buffalo, N.Y. That 21%stake had cost the two Just $210,000 only ayear earlier. according to TCI proxy state-ments.

TCI's two spokesmen, Messrs. Thomsonand Schotters. provide contradictory expla-nations for the turn of events.

First, Mr. Schotters said TCI itself ob-tained most of the live Utah franchises inquestion-despite TCI's earlier claim, inproxy statements that it wasn't allowed todo so. He said TCI. it turns out, was allowedto seek franchises-it Just couldn't build andown the systems. Messrs Magness andMalone did the building outside of the TCIcorporate umbrella with TCI financing. hesaid. But he added that TCI isn't surewhether It ever transferred ownership ofthe systems to the two men.

Later. the TCI spokesmen said the Mag-ness and Malone company had been award-ed at least t*o of the franchises involved byUtah authdnitles. But local records show allfive Utah franchises were directly awardedto TCI's subsidiary. TCI can't explainwhether it transferred the rights to its toptwo executives-or when, or for what price.

Combined and adjusted for stock splits,the more than one million Class B sharesthat TCI paid Messrs. Magness and Maloneover the years became 10.5 million Class Bshares as of January 1991-before LibertyMedia was spun off-with almost $140 mil-lion and equal to about 13% of all TCIshareholder votes.

Today the Magness and Malone combinedholdings give the two veto power over anydecisions at both TCI and Liberty Mediathanks in part also to substantial paymentof Clas B shares they've received undertheir employment contract&

PLAYINo TOUGHAs the two men built their empire, leaving

behind this maze of dealings, they wereslowly developing a reputation for hardballtactics with local governments and rivals.Six years ago, for example. TCI beganwaging war on Morganton, N.C, population28,000.

The battle was over the company's cablefranchise in Morganton, which was expiringand which the town council decided not torenew. Service was "atrocious," Mayor MelCohen charges today, and the town beganstudying whether to build its own cablesystem

TCI argued that government ownershipwould be illegal and countered by suingMorganton. akng $35 million In damanes.The town won. but TCI has been appealingthe decision ever since, continuing to collect$1.3 million a year In local cable revenues.At one point, TCI offered to sell the systemto a buyer group. But the town balked afterlearning one of the buyers was partly ownedby TCL

Then last year. TCI hired a lobbying firmthat formed "Cltizens Opposed to City-owned Cable." The group gathered petitionsignatures to force a vote by citizens onwhether the cable system should be ownedprivately or by the government. Morgantonofficials contend there was a catch: The pe-tition included a measure-drafted by TCI-that would have virtually guaranteed TCI alifetime franchise if the vote was in favor ofprivate enterprise. The local board of elec-tions rejected it, and another court battlewa on.

Undeterred. TCI targeted Mayor Cohenand an Incumbent town councilman for

S 577defeat in elections last Oct. 8, the mayorsays. The TCI-funded citizen group ran asmany as three newspaper ads a day in thethree weeks preceding the election, One pic-tured two buzzards sitting on an electric lineand read: "Morganton politicians are sittinghigh on the perch"

wImtlnia TmH cLE'IONAll told. TCI spent about $144.000 on the

campaign-dwarfing the $400 to $600 the in-cumbents say they each spent to get re-elected. In the end. the mayor and the coun-cilman both were re-elected.

TCI's Mr. Thomson generally confirmsthe events in Morganton but says he ex-pects the two sides to settle the dispute."We anticipate calmer heads will prevail."he says

TCI has played a similar form of hardballwith Its rivals. Its source of power lies in thefact that the sheer size of its systems canmake or break a new channel-and keep arival channel from reaching many Americanhouseholds That size also gives it enormousleverage in demanding lower prices from in-dependent channels.

The company's move into programmingbegan in earnest in 1979 when It investedS180.000 in a start-up called Black Enter-tainment Television. From the mid-1980son. TCI acquired stakes of 5% to 50% inAmerican Movie Classics the DiscoveryChannel the Family Channel, and TurnerBroadcasting and its three cable outlets.Cable News Network, Turner Network Tele-vision and Superstatlon TBS.

Critics say TCI displayed Its power lastyear when it fought to win control of theLearning Channel an award-winning educa-tional channel that was 51%-owned by trou-bled Financial News Network Inc

FPNN was bound for bankruptcy-court pro-ceedings, and It put the Learning Channelup for sale. Several bidders emerged. includ-ing the Public Broadcasting System, theLifetime cable channel-and DiscoveryChannel. 49%-owned by TCL

Initially. analysts estimated the LearningChannel might be worth $80 million ormore. But as FNN's woes worsened, offersdropped. Lifetime offered $40 million, out-bidding TCI's Discovery. and began negoti-ating a final deal Then TCI elbowed In.TCI's Mr. Malone suddenly decided that theLearning Channel had declined in quality.and he ordered TCI's local cable systems-which accounted for as many as one-third ofthe channel's total subscribers-to dumpthe service.

That, of course, made the Learning Chan-nel a less attractive property to the biddersat Lifetime, which is owned by CapitalCities/ABC Inc_ Viacom Inc. and HearstCorp. Executives from Hearst and ABC de-scended on Mr. Malone in Denver andpleaded with him to keep the LearningChannel on TCI systems, according to offil-clials with Lifetime. They outlined plans toimprove the channel and pledged to freezethe rate paid by TCI systems for the chan-nel for two years

But Mr. Malone said TCI couldn't promiseit would carry the redone channel if the salewent through, according to people familiarwith the meeting. Today Mr. Malone sayshe had worried that a bankruptcy Judgemight force TCI to continue carrying thechanneL He also says that, in his opinion.Lifetime's revival plans weren't firm. "Wewanted to put them on notice that we haveno obligation to carry" the channel he says.He also said TCI was concerned that theLearning Channel would raise its rates afterit was cquired by Lifetime.

Lifetime soon abandoned its bid. A short-time later, the Learning Channel got an-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992other byer-TCl's Dicover Chnnel,which snapped up the Leaming Channel for$31 million After maklng ome progr-mling changes TCI decided I was fine afterall keeping It on many, though not all, Tsystems. Cr chief oerating officer. C.Sparkman. says that TCI '"ad nothing todo with whether Lifetime or Discovery" ac-quired the Learmin Chael, and that TCIdid nothing untoward during the bidding.

er rv h ON 7Mmpled ebotAnother rivd has also complained about

TCr's extensive control over both themedium and the message. Home ShoppingNetwork's chief executive. Roy M. 8Peer,charged In testimony to congressional su-commlttees lat year that TCI "systemat-cally refuses" to carry Home Shoppng onTCI systems because of Its own sizable stakein a rival chamnel, QVC. (Lberty now holdsthe QVC ate.)

Home Shopprng mnaged to sign up only3.7% of TCI's subiber base, although tssign-up rate was 47% for moat other topc oerable ator the service aid in a 1990filin with the FederalCommission. Home Shopping aid TCI wasthus depriving It of hunmdreds of mililorm ofdollars in revenue and was increasing tscosta.

Mr. Speer declined to be Interviewed. ButIn his testtmony he detailed years of allegeddiscrimintlon by TCL TC's Englewood,Colo., system once told Home Shopping ntcouldn't carry the retwork because it com-petes with QVC, Mr. 8peer aid. In 198,TCI directed two system It had acqulred inPalco County, Fa.. to eancel Home ho-ping and replae t with QVC. he said InAprIl 1990, TCI's top California managertold Home Shopping there was "no way" hissystems could carry It, venm that TCI had astake in QVC. Mr. Speer charged

TCI denie it discriminates nst HomeShopping but declines to comment further.In a letter last summer to Sen. Daniel KInouye of Hawaii. TCI said it believes t LaHome Shopping's largest carrier, accountingfor one-quarter of Home Shoppins view-e.r

The fortunes of QVC. meanwhile, aresoarin. Whil Home Shoppng Networposted an $8.9 million lo o one-timecharges in ts most recent fiscal year. QVCreported almost $5 millio in profit in theirst half on 391 milllon in ale which

were up almost 22.If TCI can be hard on rivals, It sometimes

is no more gentle with consumers Lastsummer It launched Encore, a low-pricedmovie channel, using the "negativeoption"ucrber all had to pay extra forit unlen they explicitly told TCI they didn'twant It. The company figured that puttingthe burden on customers to say no promisedto corral 80% of TCI households for EncoreIt also says it had to use the strategy be-cause of technical Imitatlri in many of itscable systems. A Texas newspaer called thestrategy "sneaky." others said it was anti-consumer, and a Judge halted it. At least 10states sued, and TCI had to abandon thegimmick nationwide.

But the setback was something of an ex-ception. Usually TCI gets its way. In 1985,for example, when General Electric Co.'sNBC network et plans for an all-news cablechannel, officials assumed it "couldn'thappen without TCL" recall Lawrenoe K.Grosran president of NBC News at thetime But in the end. TO merely playedNBC off aainst CNN. whose rogrammingthe cable company was alrady carrying. A-cording to Mr. Oro.snan, TCI ued a pro-posed alliance with NBC to got prie breaksfrom CNN. and then backed awat from theNBC proposaL

Several years ater NBC tred again Bythis time, TCI had taken a stake n TurnerB .rodcastig. To win TCI's support NBCpromised that Its new chmel, C'NBCwould focus on buine and finane nsteadof runnn an all-nes format that wouldcompee with Cable News Network mypeophle amiir with the tranaactko NBCalso greed to pay TCI $20 million for afledglln TCI channel called Tempo. Sen.

ore, In a 1989 Senate hearln on mediaownership, called that payment a -shake-down" by TCL

rNUE-coleqCX ]PRoWSvONNBC Chalrman Robert Wright and TCI

scoffed at the shakedown allegaton, andTCI denied It had fored NBC to avoid com-petng with CNN. But Mr. Wright testifiedthat most cable companies 'requlred. if youwill," a non-ompete provison and said Itwasnt exctly what we would have pre-

ferred" TCI and NBC have since Joined Inseveral bine ventures

Afraid that TIrs dul role in owningcable systems and channels would promptthe federal goernment to try to break upthe company. Messrs. Magness and Malone

noelved a plan that would appear to dost tb-while letting them retain total

control of the empire.Lxt year TCI spun off $605 million of

mets n the form of a new company, Liber-ty, and sold Liberty to TCI shareholders bygivht them the optin of swapping some oftheir TCI shmes for share in the new com-pany. But TC set up Lity as a secondvercaly interted company with cablesystems of It own.

What's more, Liberty purports to be an in-dependent company, but it employs mostlyTCI people. has Mr. Malone a its chairman.and has five TO executis on its board ofsix directrs.

This s-clled spinoff should be renamed'All in the Famiy.,"' said a critical staffreport to the Senate Conmerce Committee.

Liberty shares hae more than tripled inprice from an originl $230 to $770 a sharein les than a year of trading. The swift risehas some anysts wondering whether theappreciation is warranted. -It is ridiculouslyovervalued," contends Frederick A. Moran.president of Moran Asset Management Inc,a money management company. He recentlyadvised clienta to dlump Liberty shares.

Mesm Magnes and Malone own 56% ofLibety's shareholder votes and were able tograb such a dominant stake because manyother shareholders in TCI didn't elect toparticipate tn the swap.

Under Mr. Malone's control, Liberty habeen especially generous to him; he owns184000 shares worth $12/ million. Recordsshow he obtained 100,000 Liberty sharesthrough opto in lieu of salary in one fellswoop, even though his contract at the timelimted him to 20,000 shares a year for thenext five years In October. Liberty direc-torS let Mr. Malone exercise all of the op-tios at once

Exercising the option cost Mr. Malone$25.6 million, but he had to put up only$100.000 in cash, according to Liberty fill-ings with the SEC. Moreover. Mr. Maloneraised the mwey by selling part of his per-sonal stake n Liberty's QVC channel backto Liberty. He gave the company a $25.5 mil-lion note for the ret of the stock with -low annual interest rate of 7154%. Mr.Malone later paid off part of the debt bygiving Lberty aome of his TCI stock

To leen their risk wher Iberty wlun off, Mews Magnmes and Malme

structured the deal to Insulate themsevfrm smy mm s even Uf it meant dsina~Laerty ltelL Under the tem they se

which weren't available to Liberty's outsideshareboe-Lberty mat arrane thePurchase of stakes held by the two execu-tres ad the Gallivan family, the early TCIbacker. at a guaranteed price if these share-holders are eer forced by regulators todivet. The guaranteed price b an averageof the stock's price over a specific trudingperiod

"The actions -Liberty] may be required totake In order to satUsy such obligatIons...could have an adverse effect on the compa-ny's butness financial condition and pros-pects," the company warned in SEC filings.

Mr. PRESSLER. If a monopoly suchas that owns a portion of the shoppingnetwork, what is to prevent it justadding to its monopoly? How wouldmy colleague deal with the monopolyissue? The cable monopoly wouldnever allow any other shopping net-work onto its system if they owned aportion or had some economic rela-tionship with another shopping net-work. This is exactly what they aredoing now in many systems.

Mr. BREAUX. My amenment 'doesnot in any way affect antitrust laws.We do not amend the Antitrust Act.Nothing is changed in existing anti-trust laws. If they are violating anti-trust laws by doing that now, they willbe violating it after my amendment. Isuggest that a cable company wouldput a competitive home-shipping typeof program on if the public demandedit, if they thought they could makemoney doing it. If they thought theywould not make money doing it, theywould not put It on. Nothing in myamendment affects antitrust laws. If Itis illegal today, it would be illegal afterthe amendment is adopted.

Mr. PRESSLER. Nothing in theamendment affects the antitrust laws,that is true, but under the currentsystem a monopoly has complete con-trol to block out anybody else. That isexactly what is happening. I suggestto my friend that. indeed, this amend-ment will add to the monopoly prob-lem.

Mr. BREAUX. If that is illegaltoday, It would be illegal tomorrow. Ifit is legal today, It Is still legal aftermy amendment. My amendment doesnot affect that. If what they are doingis an antitrust violation, it is illegaland they should be prosecuted for it,but this amendment does not touchthat.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, inconclusion, I am in disagreement withmy friend on that point because Ithink his amendment will add to themonopoly problem substantially. Thelarge cable companies which own apart of shopping networks will justallow those networks on the air, and.unless S. 12 passes, other competitorsdo not have a chance. There would beno competition. I am also totally p.z-zled by the stand of the ConsumerFederatlon of America. It seems to methat the more competition, the morealternaves for the oimsuma I yieldthe flow.

S 578

January 29, 1992 CONMr. DANPORTH addressed the


Senator from Missouri.Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President. I

think the arguments against thisamendment have been pretty wellmade. I do not know whether SenatorGRAHAM, of Florida, intends to offer asecond-degree amendment or not. Istrongly oppose the present amend-ment in the form it takes right nowfor the reasons already given by otherSenators.

First of all. In connection with thecolloquy just engaged in by SenatorPRESSLER and Senalor BREAUX, I amnot sure how efficacious the antitrustlaws are under this situation. I am along way from pi acticing law andmuch less antitrust !aw. I am not surethat a unilateral refusal to deal wouldconstitute a good antitrust case.

But in the point of fact what isbeing done right now and what waspointed out by the Wall Street Jour-nal article that was just put in theREcoRb is a very real problem. It is aproblem which does lock out a compet-itor in the home shopping area. TCI,which is the largest of the cable com-panies, according to the article in theWall Street Journal, "'Systematicallyrefuses' to carry Home Shopping onTCI systems because of its own sizablestake in a rival channel, QVC." That isthe quote from the Wall Street Jour-nal article.

So in point of fact without must-carry applying to the home shoppingstations, the home shopping stationswill have no access to TCI cable com-panies. I do not know if they have agood antitrust case or not. I do knowthat even the best antitrust case takesyears to get through the courts.

The second point, which is a broaderpoint and a very Important point, doeshave to do with content regulationand does have to do with whether weon the floor of the Senate want tomake qualitative distinctions amongvarious kinds of TV programming. Dowe want to say that if there is such athing as must-carry, then that must-carry privilege extends to certainkinds of television content and not toother kinds of television content? Thatis what this amendment would do. Itwould say that there is certain contentof television programming that we donot like and that we want to treat dif-ferently from other kinds of televisionprogramming. That, to me, Is a highlyquestionable process for the Senate toenter.

For those two reasons. I oppose theamendment that has been offered bythe Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senatoryield for a question? The Senatorraised the question, and I think theSenator from South Dakota also refer-enced TCI company which is Telecom-munications. Inc. This issue. as bothSenators will remember, was raised inour hearings in the committee. Thequestion I would like to ask is that the

GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

information I have-it may be theSenator's information is different. If itis, I think we ought to have It on therecord. The letter from TCI to Sena-tor PRESSER says:

We believe TCI is Home Shopping Net-work's largest cable affiliate. Home Shop-ping Network has access to over 80 percentof the TCI subscribers. On TCI's owned andoperated system and on the Storia systemthat TCI manages. Home Shopping Net-work programming may be seen by 3.5 mil-lion subscribers out of a total of 6.8 million.

That is. 60 percent plus of TCI sub-scribers get Home Shopping Network.The reference was made on the floorthat somehow TCI Is preventing HomeShopping Network from competing ontheir system. This letter says just theopposite, that 60 percent of the TCIsubscribers get Home Shopping Net-work over their cable system. Is thatincorrect information?

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, re-sponding to the Senator, I can simplyread from the Wall Street Journal ar-ticle, which has been placed in theRzcoRD. And I will read the article.

This is a quote:Another rival has also complained about

TCI's extensive control over both themedium and the message. Home ShoppingNetwork's chief executive, Roy M. Speer.charged in testimony to congressional sub-committees last year that TCI "systemati-cally refuses" to carry Home Shopping onTCI systems because of Its own sizable stakein a rival. QVC. (LIberty now holds the QVCstake.)

Home Shopping managed to sign up only3.7% of TCI's subscriber base, although Itssign-up rate was 47% for most other topcable operators, the service said In a 1990filing with the Federal CommunicationsCommission. Home Shopping said TCI wasthus depriving it of hundreds of millions ofdollars in revenue and was increasing itscosts.

Mr. Speer declined to be interviewed. Butin his testimony he detailed years of allegeddiscrimination by TCL TCI's Englewood,Colo., system once told Home Shopping itcouldn't carry the network because It com-petes with QVC. Mr. Speer said. In 1988..TCI directed two systems it had acquired inPasco County. Fla.. to cancel Home Shop-ping and replace it with QVC, he said. InApril 1990,. TCI's top California managertold Home Shopping there was "no way" hissystems could carry It. given that TCI had astake in QVC, Mr. Speer charged.

TCI denies it discrimlnates against HomeShopping but declines to comment further.In a letter last summer to Sen. Daniel K.Inouye of Hawaii, TCI said It believes It isHome Shopping's largest carrier accountingfor one-quarter of Home Shopping's view-ers.

The fortunes of QVC, meanwhile. aresoaring. While Home Shopping Networkposted an $819 million loss on one-timecharges in Its most recent fiscal year. QVCreported almost $5 million in profit in thefirst half on $391 million in sales, whichwere up almost 22%.

That is really all I know. I would saythat however the facts turn out, with-out having must-carry available toHome Shopping, the fate of HomeShopping is really in the hands of TCIor other cable companies And, there-fore, It is a matter of simply relying onthe good graces of the cable operator.

S 579I might say as a general rule that

those who say that we should not passthis legislation, that there should beno possibility of regulating the cablecompanies or no meaningful possibili-ty of regulating the cable companies,are saying very much the same thing.They are saying that cable companiesshould be trusted; that cable compa-nies will do the right thing withoutbeing hemmed In in any way either bycompetition or by regulation.

I think that the story in the WallStreet Journal 2 days ago shows whatall of us know intuitively, and what allof us know intuitively is that If thereis a monopoly that is unregulated,that monopoly is going to be abusive.That is what is at stake, I think, inthis amendment.

Mr. BREAUX. Of course, that is thewhole thrust of the bill of the chair-man and the ranking minoritymember-to regulate cable companies.I am all for a degree of regulation. Ithink it is appropriate. But the pointabout Home Shopping Network notbeing able to make it without must-carry, I ask the Senator, the figureswhen we had them before the commit-tee showed that they had grown fromnet sales of $160,000 in net sales in1986 to nearly $1 billion in net sales in1990. They did that without must-carry.

Before we start crying for HomeShopping Network not having must-carry, they are doing very well. I thinkthe Senator would have to agree withthose kind of net sale figures. That iswithout must-carry.

Mr. DANFORTH. Of course this isdisputed in the article that I just readfrom. I would simply say that it is anabuse, in the opinion of this Senator.It is an abuse for a cable operator tobe able to say we will accept a programfrom our affiliate company, QVC, andrun that on our cable, and we will ex-clude a competitor.

For those who believe, as I believe,that competition is the real answer,not regulation, the point is we shouldopen the door for competition. Andunder the present state of affairs,competition can be precluded by theoperation of the cable company.

It is not the intention of the spon-sors of this legislation to regulate forthe joy of regulation. That is not theintent. As a matter of fact, under thelaw that we have, the ability of a mu-nicipality to regulate rates sunsets Ifthere is another multichannel provid-er.

Similarly. the whole reason for pro-viding in the legislation what is notprovided in the substitute, namely fornondiscrimination in the case of verti-cal Integration, and the case of provid-ing some limits on horizontal expan-sion by cable companies-the wholepurpose of those provisions which arein the bill and not in the substitute-isto increase competition and to providefor a vital competitive system.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATESome people who claim that they

are taking the conservative position bybeing against any and all regulation, Itseems to me. myself, therefore, sythat what they are for is a competitivemarketplace But If we end up passinglegislation that does not further thecause of a competitive marketplaceand which has a severely stunted regu-latory system such as in the proposedsubstitute, .they are asking for asystem which is simply a continuationof the status quo, namely unrgulatedmonopoly.

Mr. PRE>ELER addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from South Dakota

Mr. PRESLERM Mr. President, Iwould like to point out that the lettersent to me, also, I belleve says that asubsidiary of TCI owns over 20 percentof QVC. It h true, as my friend sathat TCI does carry Home Shoppingon many of Its affiliates But the pointis wherever they want to control theycan exercise their monopoly power.They can, and they do.

I think this is the significant pointthat we must remember.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere further debate on the amend-ment? If not, the question is on agree-ing to the amendment.

Mr. BREAUXW Mr. President, I risebecause I thought that there wereother speakers on the amendment whoare on the floor.

Mr. PRESSR. Mr. President, Iwish to speak on the main bill I havea short statement if I can do that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Louisiana has the floor.

Does the Senator seek recognition?Mr. BREAUX I seek recognition.Do other Senators seek to speak on

the amendment?Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a

short comment on this amendmentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Montana.Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would

just, in this debate on this particularamendment, say I am supportive ofthe amendment as It is offered by theSenator from Louiinna Wheneveryou take a level playing field, andwhenever we start talkin about regu-lation and deregulation and this typeof thing I would say then QVC would,under the must-carry rule, have sortof the best of both worlds

They have over-the-air shoppingand have been allowed to take advan-tage of the cable operation as welLMaybe we would have to go out, and ifHome Shopping Network wanted topurchase a station, they could not bedenied the purchase of that stationJust because of content.

I am a broadcaster, and I think prob-ably we went through this samedebate whenever we were talklngabout children's TV, that there weremany of us In the Congres that didnot like 30-minute4-long commercalIn both-the children's programmngand the commercalsthe program

content was Just basically one longcommerclaL

I Just do not believe that this fulfillsthe traditiona and accepted format ofbroadcasting as we know it In thiscountry; in other words, offering localbroadcast news weather reports,emergency conditionsf and Items likethis that broadcast companes usuallyoffer to a community.

80o I support the amendment, be-cause of the fact that I have a bigproblem with seeing not only 3O-minute-long commercials but alsohour-long commercials, and It wouldprobably disrupt the traditional broad-cast s we know it In our own localcommunities.

I congratulate the Senator fromLoulshna for the amendment, and Iyield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I askfor the yeas and nays.

The.. PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere' sufficient second?

There Is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Florida.Mr. ORAHAM. Mr. President, I rise

for the purpose of explaining asecond-degree amendment that I willoffer. I want to give an explanationbefore offering It

Mr. President, the Issue here ls whoshould decide on the appropriatenessof an FCC licensed over-the-air sta-tion, to secure the benefits of themust-carry provisions in 8. 12.

The amendment which has been of-fered says that decision should bemade by the cable operator under apotentially economically discriminato-ry set of circumstances. That is, thatthe cable TV operator could elect toallow one or more, but not all of theprograms that have a similar. pre-dominantly advertising, format totheir content.

I believe that that clearly raises thespecter of; A, economic discriminationby the cable operator to the benefit ofa cable channel or over-the-air chan-nel with which they have an economictie; B, involves the Congress in a veryserious issue of content determinationbeyond that which has already beenreached by the FCC.

Therefore, Mr. President, I will offera second-degree amendment whichwould direct the FCC within 90 daysto commence the process of reviewingbroadcast television stations-whoseprogramming consists predominantlyof sales presentations-to determinewhether they are serving the publicInterest, convenience, and necessity.The Cnmmison shall take Into con-sideration in the viewing of such sta-tlons, the level of competing demandsfor the channels allocated to such sta-tions, and the role of such stations inproviding competition to nonbroadcastservices offering similar programmingIn the event that the Commisson oo-clde that one or more of such sta-tiom re not serving the public Inter-

est convenience. and necessity, theCommission shall allow the licenseesof such stations as reasonable periodwithin which to provide different pro-gramming, and shall not deny suchstations a renewal expectancy due totheir prior programming.AmNVirT NO. I531TO AWMKWDMT No. 1502

tPurpose: To require an inquiry by the Fed-eral Commnicattons Commission con-eerning broadcast televsion stationswhose progralng consists predomi-nantly of ales presentations)Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I be-

lieve that this amendment would keepthis issue where it should be, and thatis before the FCC, which will be apply-ing a consistent, not an economicallydiscriminatory, standard. Therefore, Isend to the desk a second-degreeamendment.


The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Florlda [Mr. GiOuwl

propose an amendment numbered 1503 toAmendment No. 1502.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection, It is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the appropriate place, insert the fol-

lowing new section:USE OF r'ITA TEZ5 srIM STATIONS

Smc . Within 90 days after the date ofenactment of this Ac the Federal Commu-nicaton Commsion shall commence anInquiry to determine whether broadcast tel-evlslon stations whose programming con-slats predominantly of sales presentationsare servin the public interest. convenience.and necessiy. The Commission shall taketo consideration the vkewng of such sta-

tions, the level of competing demands forthe channels allocated to such statibrs andthe role of such stais In provlding compe-tition to nonbroadcast services offeringsimilar programmlng. In the event that theCommision concludes that one or more ofsuch stations are not serving the public in-terest, convenience. and necesslty, the Com-missin shall allow the licenses of such sta-tions a reasonble period withn which toprovide different programmin. and shallnot deny such stations a renewal expectancydue to their prior programming.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, theamendment Is as I described It. It di-rects the FCC to commence an inquiryto determine whether broadcast televi-sion stations which consist predomi-nantly of sales advertising are servingthe public interest, convenience, andnecessity, and provides for steps thatwould be followed, should the FCC-ina consistently applied administrativeprocedure, subject to Judicial review-reach a determination that thosestandards of public interest, conven-ience, and necessity are not In factbeing maintained.

Mr. BREAUX. Wlll the Senatoryield for a quetion?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.Mr. BREAUX This amendment says

bseal1Y that the PCC shall make aninquiry whether the statior are meet-

S580 Januaruy 2.9, 1.9.9-2

JsnasaF e4 199* C~lin the pil: lnterest, convenience,and necessity test.

x it the Intent of the Senator th ef-fering this that that inquiry shall-make a determination that they are infact meeting that test and describinghow they are meeting that test?

Mr. GRAHAM. The FCC, under itsstandards of licensure, will make ajudgment as to whether the station isserving the publd"I'nterest, conven-ience. and necessity on the basis uponwhich stations are licensed. If a sta-tion is found to meet those standards,then it would qualify as a must-carrystation under the provisions of S. 12.

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator willyield. this is the point I am making onthe amendment: is it the interpreta-tion of the author that they can comeback and say yes, without spelling outhow they are meeting the public inter-est, convenience, and necessity.

Mr. GRAHAM. The FCC has, as acore part of Its responsibility, to makejudgments under congressional au-thorization, as to which licensees meetthose standards of public interest, con-venience and necessity, and theywould be required under this inquiryto determine-determine being a wordof administrative and legal signifi-cance-to make a determination that astation whose programming consistspredominantly of sales presentationsare meeting the public interest, con-venience, and necessity test. Theanswer to the question Is yes.

Mr. BREAUX. Would the author ofthe amendment agree to a unanimous-consent amendment to his amendmentwhich .would say after the word neces-sity: "and how they are doing so"?.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think that is sub-sumed in the word determine. TheFCC has to make a determination,which Is a legal finding, that a stationwhich consists predominately of salespresentation is serving the public in-terest, convenience, and necessity.

Mr. BREAUX. So it is the author'sintent that it would be a requirementthat they would spell out what theyare doing that meets these publictests?

Mr. GRAHAM. That they wouldmake a determination, as they wouldin any other case of making such afinding, and that It would be a publiclyarrived at and a publicly availablestatement of the basis upon whichthey would reach that Judgment.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President thisamendment completely eliminates myamendment. Of course, I am sure thatis the intent of the author to do that.It is not surprising, and I respect himfor it.

The problem with the amendment ofthe Senator from Florida is that thisFCC, as lackadaisical as they havebeen in approving broadcast licenses,has already made that determinationThey made the determination thatthese stations that do nothing butbroadcast commercials 23 hours a dayare meeting the public interest and ne-cessity test. That is how they got the

;GESSE10AL REfOE-3- SENATElicen in the ftz place. That is theproblm.

Thel FCC has already approved thelicenses for these local broadcast sts-tions, allowing them to do nothing butbroadcast commercials 23 hours a day;and in order to give them the license,they had to make the determinationthat they are meeting the public inter-est and necessity test This FCC hasalready done that. And that Is thereason why we have a problem. I sug-gest that a television station that usesthe public air waves is supposed tomeet the public Interest tests andpublic necessity test, because It is thepublic air waves, and It is not meetingthat standard when the only thingthey do is broadcast commercials 23hours out of a 24-hour period.

My amendment says that at least donot elevate them further by givingthem must-carry status. We shouldnot say that- a station that does nothave weather, does not have sports,does not have local news, does nothave national news, does not haveinternational news, stock market re-ports, music, any kind of discussion ofany type of value other than we areselling these rings, and these dresses,and suits, and shoes, should have to beelevated to a must-carry statusShould a cable company have theright to carry them if they want to?Of course. Does my amendment pro-hibit them? Of course, It does not.

What we are doing now is saying,without my amendment, that a cablecompany absolutely has to carry a st-tion that does nothing but broadcast23-hour-a-day commercials, even ifthat means that they will have toknock out other programming thathas valid entertainment or publicvalue.

I Just think that when you see theConsumer Federation of Americasaying how concerned they are thatthese full-time home shopping stations would be elevated to must-carrystatus, that Is wrong. I think that iswhy you see these groups that do nothave any emnmlc interest In thisbattle supporting this amendment.

We could- argue all day long aboutthe three broadcast networks thathave these home shopping networks.But we al know, quite frankly, theyare making millions of dollars doing.this Some what to put the others outof business They want to be the onlysurvivor_

When you have interest groups thathave no economic dog in this fight,like Consumer Federation, you seethat we truly are talklng about thepublic interest. And the public interestIs served by saying that they shouldnot be elevated to must-carry status

With all due respect to my goodfriend from Florida, who says I amgoing to offer a substitute that will re-quire the FCC to make this determina-tion as to whether these stations meetthe public interest and necessity test,this FCC-which so many Membershave severe complaints about, which is

the reaon why we have a cable bil uphere for many Mnembers-s not qual-fledeto mke-ta4 dcasion.

They have already made It. Theysaid that is a public interest and neces-sity station that meets all the require-ments. I would like to see them speclfi-cally tell this Senator and all of ushow a station that does 23 hours a dayof commercials, interspersed with one60-minute slot on heartworms and aveterinarian's recommended cure. Ismeeting the whole public interest andnecessity test.

Is this what public interest is allabout? I suggest that it Is a lot morethan that and, therefore. the substi-tute amendment should be defeated.

Mr. DANFORTH addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICERP TheSenator from Missouri.

Mr. DANFORTH Mr. President, Isupport the second-degree amendmentoffered by the Senator from Florida. Ithink it is the more prudent way toproceed, to allow the FCC to studythis matter, rather than adopting theBreaux amendment which I think is abig step toward content regulation.

I ask for the yeas and nays on theGraham amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere a sufficient second?

There is not a sufficient second.AMXIDMET NO. 1803. LS MODIMD

Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.The Senator from Florida.Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to modify theamendment which I have submitted inthe form that is currently at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER- TheSenator has a right to modify thepending amendment.

The amendment (No. 1503), as modi-fied, is as follows:

Ih the pending amendment, on line 2 be-nning with nothing etr through ILne

7 and insert the followng:Wlthin 90 days after the date of enact-

mrnt of this AM the Federal Communica-tlona Commission shall commence an In-quiry to determine whether broadcst tele-vision stations whose programming consistspredominantly of sae presentatlons areserving the public Interest convenience, andnecessity. The Commission sh~a take intocoldr-tion the viewing of such stations.the level of competingU demnd for thechannels alloated to such stan and theroe of sach statons in providing competi-tion to nonbro&dst ervices offering slmi-lar progamming In the event that theCommsion concludes that ne or more ofsuch statlom are not serving the public In-terest. convenience. and necessity, the Com-mission shall allow the licensees of such sta-tims · reasonable period within which toprovide different programmin and shallnot deny suchs atons · rewal expectancydue to their prior programming

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I rise tosupport the second-degree amend-ment. I do so. in part, because I shareour colleague's concern about the fail-ure of the Federal CommunicationsCommission to ensure that owners of

S581

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992local broadcast licenses meet reasona-ble public interest standards.

It is a fact that the FCC has. overthe past 13 years, totally abandonedthe principle that holders of licensesfor precious broadcast spectrum per-form in a manner that is in the publicinterest. Year after year the Reagan-Bush administrations, through theirFCC appqntees. have whittled awayat this pfriciple, established so firmlyin the 1934 Communications Act andbipartisan actions until 1981.

Abandonment of protections forchildren, abandonment of the fairnessdoctrine, proposals to auction off radiospectrum to the highest bidder, thelist goes on and on.

Mr. President, the amendment byour colleague from Florida approachesthis problem from the right direction.I am troubled that the practical effectof the Breaux amendment would be tofurther stifle competition, to furtherenhance the monopoly powers of mostvertically-integrated and most anti-competitive, intimidating cable compa-ny-TCL

The natural effect of the Breauxamendment would be to deny cablecarriage to a home shopping servicewhich has had no choice but to ac-quire a local broadcast license in orderto be carried by these cable companiesintent to keep an independent shop-ping service off the air.

Whether or not you like home shop-ping channels on cable, you have to beskeptical about the motivations of acompany such as TCI and its subsidi-ary shopping service, in refusing tocarry a competitor.

I eagerly support the second-degreeamendment to force the FCC tostrengthen the public interest stand-ard for local broadcasters whether formostly commercial programming, suchas home shopping channels, or for anyother local broadcaster.

But to use the must-carry rules togive a competitive advantage to acable-owned channel against onewhich has avoided the acquisitiveclutches of companies such as TCI issimply wrong.

I urge our colleagues to support theGraham second-degree amendment tothe Breaux amendment.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, Iask for the yeas and nays on theGraham amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere a sufficient second? There ap-pears to be a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is

there further debate on the amend-ment?

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President,Senator DoLz would like to speak forabout 3 or 4 minutes on an unrelatedsubject, and I believe he is expected onthe floor momentarily.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator fromMissouri yield?

Mr. DANFORTH. Yes.Mr. LEARY. Mr. President, I tell my

colleagues who are waiting for the dis-

tinguished leader, I do have an amend-ment that I understand is acceptable.

I am wondering if, in the 3 or 4 min-utes we are waiting, the managers andthe distinguished Senator from Flori-da would be willing to entertain aunanimous-consent request to setaside the pending matter to allow myamendment-and I assure the managersI will take no more than 3 or 4 min-utes

Mr. INOUYE. No objection.Mr. LEAHY. I make that unani-

mous-consent request.The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-

out objection, the pending first-degreeand second-degree amendments aretemporarily set aside, and the Senatorfrom Vermont is recognized for thepurpose of offering an amendment.

ANM]rsMI NO. 1504(Purpose: To amend the Communications

Act of 1934 to require cable television op-erators to provide notice and options toconsumers regarding the use of converterboxes and' remote control devioe and toassure compatibility between cable sys-ternms and consumer electronics)Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk and ask forits immediate consideration.



The Senator from Vermont LMr. LzArlproposes an amendment numbered 1504.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 111, between lines 21 and 22,

insert the followIng:NOTICE A"D OPTIONS TO CONSUIRSI RGARDINO

CASIX ZQUIPMENTStc. . The Communications Act of 1934

(47 US.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by addingafter section 624 the following new section:"nonscE A oPnoNs ro cosONm5a5 REGARD-

INa coNSUM: rLiCTRONICs EQUIPMENT.

"Smc. 624A. (a) This section may be citedas the "Cable Equipment Act of 1992'.

"(b) The Congress finds that-"(1) the use of converter boxes to receive

cable television may disable certain func-tions of televisions and VCRs. including, forexample, the ability to-

"(A) watch a program on one channelwhile simultaneously using a VCR to tape adifferent program or another channel:

"(B) use a VCR to tape consecutive pro-grams that appear on different channels; or

"(C) use certain special features of a tele-vision such as a 'picture-in-picture' feature;and

"(2) cable operators should, to the extentpossible, employ technology that allowscable television subscribers to enjoy the fullbenefit of the functions available on televi-sion and VCRs

"(c) As used in this section:"(1) The term 'converter box' means a

device that-"(A) allows televisions that do not have

adequate channel tuning capability to re-ceive the service offered by cable operators;or

"(B) decodes signas that cable operatorsdeliver to subscribers in scrambled form.

"(2) The term 'VCR' means a videocas-sette recorder.

"(d)(1) Cable operators shall not scrambleor otherwise encrypt any local broadcastsignal, except where authorized under para-graph (3F of this subsection to protectagainst the substantial theft of cable serv-ice.

"(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) ofthis subsection. there shall be no limitationon the use of scrambling or encryption tech-nology where the use of such technologydoes not interfere with the functions of sub-scribers' televisions or VCRs.

"(3) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section. the Commissionshall issue regulations prescribing the cir-cumstances under which a cable operatormay. if necessary to protect against the sub-stantial theft of cable service, scramble orotherwise encrypt any local broadcastsignaL

"(4) The Commission shall periodicallyreview and, if necessary. modify the regula-tions issued pursuant to this subsection inlight of any actions taken in response toregulations issued under subsection (I).

"(e) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section, the Commissionshall promulgate regulations requiring acable operator offering any channels the re-ception of which requires a converter boxto-

"(1) notify subscribers that if their cableservice is delivered through a converter box.rather than directly to the subscribers' tele-visions or VCRs, the subscribers may beunable to enjoy certain functions of theirtelevisions or VCRs including the abilityto-

"(A) watch a program on one channelwhile simultaneously using a VCR to tape adifferent program on another channel:

"(B) use a VCR to tape two consecutiveprograms that appear on different channels:or

"(C) use certain television features such as'picture-in-picture';

"(2) offer new and current subscriberswho do not receive or wish to receive chan-nels the reception of which requires a con-verter box, the option of having their cableservice installed, in the case of new subscrib-ers or reinstalled. in the case of currentsubscribers, by direct connection to the sub-scribers' televisions or VCRs, without pass-ing through a converter box; and

"(3) offer new and current subscriberswho receive, or wish to receive, channels thereception of which requires a converter box.the option of having their cable service in-stalled. in the case of new subscribers. orreinstalled, in the case of current subscrib-ers, in such a way that those channels thereception of which does not require a con-verter box are delivered to the subscribers'televisions or VCRs. without passingthrough a converter box.

"(f) Any charges for installing or reinstall-ing cable service pursuant to subsection (e)shall be subject to the provisions of Section623(b)1).

"(g) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section, the Commissionshall promulgate regulations relating to theuse of remote control devices that shall-

"(1) require a cable operator who offerssubscribers the option of renting a remotecontrol unit-

"(A) to notify subscribers that they maypurchase a commercially available remotecontrol device from any source that sellssuch devices rather than renting it from thecable operator; and

"(B) to specify the types of remote controlunits that are compatible with the convert-er box supplied by the cable operator and

S 582

January 29, 1992-(2) prohibit a efble operator from taking

any actim thst prevents or m Iany way db-bies the converter bx supplied by the

cable operator from operating compatiblywith commercially available remote oQntrolunits.

·'(h) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section, the Commission. inconsultation with representatives of thecable industry and the consumer electronicsindustry, shall report to the Congress onmeans of assuring compatibility betweentelevisions and VCRs and cable systems sothat cable subscrtbers'Wfl be able to enjoythe full benefit of both the programmnningavailable on cable systems and the functionsavailable on their televisions and VCRs.

(i) Within I year after the date of enact-ment of this section. the Commlion shallissue regulations requiring such actions asmay be necessary to assure the compatibil-ity interface described In subsection (h).".

Mr. LEAKY. Mr. President, this is abill that is long overdue. Thanks tothe concerted efforts of the distin-guishea floor managers, SenatorsINouyr and DAmPrORsT, Senator HOL-LnIGS and others including SenatorsGoma MrrzxmAum, and L.KERMAN,we are now within reach of passing abill that can bring rellef to belea-guered cable consumers and a muchneeded boost to competition.

TH CALZ MONOPOLY

Let there be no mistake. The root ofthe problem in the cable industry isthat cable is an unregulated monopo-ly. and you do not need to be a rocketscientist to know that that meanstrouble. It means prices on a one-wayticket up. It means service that rangesfrom mediocre to worse. It meanscable companies that can treat youany way they want with no fear of acompetitor that will sell you a betterproduct and no fear of a cop on thebeat to keep the monopoly in line.

Just ask the citizens of Vermont,where cable rates rose 48 percent be-tween 1986 and 1990; or the citizens ofNewark NJ, where cable rates rose 130percent in that period; or the citizensof Jefferson City. MO. where ratesrose 186 percent.

The industry's voluntary actions andself-imposed service standards do notchange a thing. An unregulated mo-nopoly will as sure as the Sun risesrevert to form-raising prices and cut-ting comers with no fear of a competi-tive response. And you can bet that ifthe threat of this bill had not beenhanging over cable's head for the past2 years. we would not have seen eventhe modest steps that cable is so quickto boast about.

THE CABIZ BILL-S. 12S. 12 Is a good bill that strikes the

right balance between regulation andcompetition. It regulates rates only aslong as a cable system is a monopoly,phasing out regulation as soon as bonafide competition takes hold. It encour-ages competition by telling progran-mers that are controlled by cable oper-ators that they must sell their pro-gramming to cable competitors at afair price. If competitors like satelliteand wireless cannot get fair access tocrown Jewel programming like TNT.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATECNN, or Showtlme, then competitionXl doomed.

TH cABU sUSrmUT

Cable, meanwhile, is supporting aTrojan horse substitute, hoping toderail this legislation. The substituteitself is flatly unacceptable. It wouldgut the rate regulation provisions of S.12 and eliminate the procompetitiveprovisions that guarantee program-ming to satellite and wireless.

Meanwhile. cable acts as if requiringit to make its programming availableat a fair price to potential competitorsis a monstrous Injustice. But the In-dustry has a short memory. In 1976. ifCongress had not granted cable theright to transmit broadcast program-ming for a small fee, the industrynever would have made It out of thecradle. Cable was able to grow precise-ly because it was given access to pro-gramming that others created. Nowthat the shoe is on the other foot,cable operators howl at the idea thatthey should make programming avall-able to upstart competitors.

Nor is there a God-given right forcable to be vertically integrated in thefirst place. Congress could-and per-haps should-have proclaimed longago that cable operators could not ownor control programmers. If cable sys-tems and cable programmers had re-mained in separate hands, many of theanticompetitive problems we now facecould have been avoided. But giventhe vertically integrated world we livein now, with most top programmersowned by cable operators, the least wecan do is demand that cable's competi-tors have access to programming onfair terms To do less Is to consignthose competitors to defeat and Amer-ica's consumers to the whims of mo-nopoly power.

C5m.r BQVIP SILLMr. President, the main thing that

the absence of competition allows amonopoly to do is ignore the best in-terest of its customers. We all knowthat when competition is lively andvigorous, companies leapfrog eachother to provide consumers the bestand most user-friendly choices. Lookat computers Look at long distancetelephone service. Look at televisionsand VCR's. But when the consumer iscaptive, monopolies can do what isbest for monopoly and let the custom-er be damned.

That is exactly what has happenedin the world of cable equipment. Cableoperators have every right to try toprotect the security of their premiumprogramming. But they show littleregard for their customers when theychoose a means of protection that willsabotage the customer's television andVCR. Thanks to the converter box.you will not be able to watch a pro-gram on one channel while taping an-other; or tape two consecutive pro-grams on different channels; or takeadvantage of the picture-in-picturefeature on your new cable-ready TV;or even use the TVs remote controlunit. In other words, you will not be

S 583able to use ana of those features youpaid. for. But as far as the cable com-pany is concerned that is your hardlucl

It is not as though scrambling werethe only way for cable operators toprotect their premium channels.Other means of signal protection existsuch as trapping. Moreover, there arenew technologies on the drawingboard now that may make It possiblefor companies to scramble without dis-abling the functions of televisions andVCR's. But with no need to beat outcompetitors or satisfy regulators, cablehas had no incentive to worry aboutthe customer's problems-and will con-tinue to have no incentive unless weprovide it.

In November. I introduced legisla-tion to begin correcting the cableequipment problem and I am today of-fering the substance of my bill as anamendment to S. 12.

My amendment is designed to createmore user-friendly connections be-tween cable systems on the one handand televisions and VCR's on theother so that consumers will actuallyget to use the TV and VCR featuresthey paid for.

It would provide an incentive tocable operators to use technology thatdoes not interfere with the functionsof televisions and VCR's;

It would require cable operators togive customers the option of having allunscrambled channels connected di-rectly to a cable-ready TV or VCR.avoiding the converter box whereverpossible;

It would require cable operators toallow customers to buy their ownremote control units from any sourcerather than having to pay $3 or $4 amonth-month after month. yearafter year-for a remote control thatprobably does not cost more than $30;and

It would direct the FCC. in consulta-tion with representatives of the cableand consumer electronics industry, todevise a means of assuring that cablesystems and televisions and VCR's willconnect in a compatible manner thatallows consumers to get the benefit ofthe programming available on cableand the features available on televi-sions and VCR's.

The effort to create a user-friendlyconnection between cable systems andconsumer electronics Is more impor-tant now than ever before. New tech-nologies that are beginning to come online-such as digital compression,which packs more programs onto asingle channel-will force more andmore consumers to rent converterboxes and lose the full benefits oftheir televisions and VCR's. The timeto insist on new standards that willcreate a consumer-friendly environ-ment for years to come is now.

co.uDSIO'.

President Bush has been bendingover backward lately to show that heunderstands times are tough and that

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEhe cares about hard-pressed averageAmericans. Here is an opportunity toshow It. I realize, of course, that ourcountry's economic problems are muchbigger than cable television. But 55million cable households have' beenpaying too much to get too little fortoo long. Every month, year in andyear out, they are getting ripped offby inflated cable bills. Instead oftrying te gut this legislation, insteadof promising to veto it, instead ofstanding up for America's No. 1 un-regulated monopoly, let the WhiteHouse show it cares by standing up forthe American consumer.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the distin-guished Presiding Officer, SenatorGoar, be added as a cosponsor of myamendment.


Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senatorfrom Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from HawalLMr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have

had the opportunity to discuss thismeasure with the author of the bill,and we are prepared to accept it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. DANFORTH. The amendmentis acceptable, Mr. President.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I want tooffer my strong support to the Sena-tor from Vermont for his amendment.He was among the first to realize thatthe practice of local cable scramblingwould be a devastating blow to televi-sion consumers everywhere.

Cable-ready televisions and video re-corders have been a real boon for con-sumers, but that technology is in seri-ous jeopardy.

It Is obvious what Is going on here,cable operators don't like consumershaving some control over the cablesignal once it comes into their homes,so they plan to require that the con-sumer completely rewire his home andthen rent a decoder box from thecable company, in some cases at anoutrageous price.

Moreover, it is patently clear tothose of us concerned about the si-phoning of programming from free,over-the-air television to fit cable'spay-per-view strategy. The Congressmust soon take a very close look atthis corporate strategy, one that maybe inherently anticonsumer. I for oneplan to ask the chairman of the Com-merce Committee, and the chairmanof the Communications Subcommitteeto hold hearings this year on the pro-gram siphoning issue, in particular theproblem of sports siphoning.

For now, Mr. President. SenatorLEHY'S amendment is a solid step inthe right direction, to slow this aggres-sive effort by the cable companies torender obsolete millions of televisionsand video recorders in their pursuit ofnew cash flow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere further debate on the amend-ment?

If not. the question Is on agreeing tothe amendment.


Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote.



Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distin-guished Senator from Florida for hiscourtesy and the distinguished manag-ers of the bill for their typical andwell-established courtesies.

Mr. PRESSLER addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from South Dakota is recog-nized.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, ifindeed we are waiting for a few min-utes, I ask unanimous consent to makea statement on S 12.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator is entitled without unanimousconsent to speak on the bill.

The Senator from South Dakota isrecognized.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Irise in support of S. 12, the Cable TVConsumer Protection Act. This legisla-tion represents a fair and comprehen-sive approach to the problems facedby millions of consumers. I want tothank Senator DAuroaRT for his per-sonal leadership on this issue. Andwithout the guidance of ChairmanHOLLnOs and Senator Inouwx, consid-eration of this important consumerlegislation would not have been possi-ble.

This bill contains many provisions Ihave included to prohibit cable televi-sion operators from discriminatingagainst smaller cable operators, orother multichannel video program-ming distributors, with regard to price,terms, conditions, or availability ofprogramming.

SmalL, independent cable operators,home satellite dish distributors, andwireless cable operators have had tocompete for years against the largercable television operators for program-ming on an unfair playing field. Thevertically integrated multisystem oper-ators [MSO's] have long had a lock onprogramming. Outsiders find there isno way to join the MSO/video pro-grammer club.

The cable giants have a stranglehold on programming and will not letgo.

Access to programming is a seriousproblem for rural South Dakotans.Some programmers have absolutely re-fused to make programming availableto those home satellite dish distribu-tors who serve rural backyard dishconsumers. Discriminatory pricing andrefusals to deal with rural home satel-lite dish owners penalize consumers inthe smallest towns and the farms andranches in south Dakota and America

Today satellite dish consumers pay500 percent more for television pro-gramming than consumers using othertechnologies.

Sections 640 and 641 of this bill com-prehensively address this problem byending the practices of discriminatorypricing and refusals to deal with ruralhome satellite dish consumers. Thesesections are by far the most importantportions of this bill. They will fostercompetition. Let me explain exactlywhat these sections will do.

First, national programmers affili-ated with cable operators would bebarred from refusing to deal withother multichannel video providers.They would be required to deal withgroups of small and independent cableoperators which form purchasinggroups, on terms similar to those givento the giant cable systems. These pro-visions are procompetitlon.

Let me just say, that if all Stateshad cable operators like my friends inSouth Dakota, we would not be heretoday. The problem we face, however,is that large cable TV operators havecreated a unregulated monopoly-amonopoly accountable to no onewhich competes with no one. S. 12 isneeded to increase competition and re-strain cable rates.

As a Republican, I favor vigorousand effective competition as opposedto regulation. Consumers favor compe-titlon as well. In Milbank, SD, we havetwo competing cable TV operations. Asa result, cable subscribers in Milbankpay 50 percent less for their cableservice than surrounding communities.

I, too, had shared the desires of Sen-ator DAmrORHI and Chairman HOL-LuMGs to examine closely any seriousproposals or alternative approaches.The alternative legislation that I un-derstand will be offered later in thedebate, however, says nothing aboutprogram access for many of South Da-kota's small and independent cable op-erators and rural home satellite dishowners across America

This bill also contains a carriageoption provision, which I support. Themust-carry provisions of S. 12 are veryclear. Implementation of local signalcarriage rules is essential for the pres-ervation and further development ofservices which local broadcasters haveinitiated.

I urge my colleagues to support ourefforts to bring competition to thecable marketplace.

What we have now is an unregulatedmonopoly. We want to have competi-tion. Indeed, there have been manygood things done by the cable indus-try. They have wired our Nation inpart. There are positive aspects. Butwe can have an even more positive out-come with the passage of this legisla-tion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to have an editorial from the Wa-konda Times printed in the CoaGREs-SIONAL RcoaoD.

S584 Jo n ua ry 29, 1992"

January 29, 1992There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in theRCORD., as follows:

[Prom the Wakonda (SD) Times, Jan. 1I,1992]

CAsLl TV IDousTrt NmsD COYPrrlTIIOIt's the business of 'business to make

money, and it's difficult. even un-Americanto complain when a business succeeds and isprofitable. Indeed. the more profitable thebetter, according to the great American tra-dition. .,"L

There are some exceptions. We regulatethe profits of those industries that clearlymonopolize the marketplace. For the mostpart, this regulation focuses on utilities.such as the telephone company. natural gasand electric suppliers where the demand isinelastic. That is the price can skyrocketbut consumer use remains stable.

And in some instances, such as naturalgas. it is beneficial to a community to havebut one supplier. Duplicating the distribu-tion system of a natural gas pipeline wouldbe an inconvenience (torn up streets. for ex-ample) and inefficient.

The South Dakota Public Utilities Com-mission oversees regulated industries. It setsa reasonable profit margin to protect con-sumers-approximately 12 percent-andcarefully scrutinizes the companies ftnan-cial records to determine if they are beingrun efficiently and in the best interest ofconsumers.

Which brings us to the cable TV industry.It is arguable whether cable TV is a "nec-

essary" industry for consumers. TLaskSchoenfelder. a member of the PUC. com-pares cable TV to the telephone. Whilemost people could get along without tele-phones or cable TV. they are inclined toretain those services once they are ccus-tomed to them.

There is little argument, however. on theissue of whether cable TV is a monopoly. InSouth Dakota, only one city, Milbank, hastwo competing companies.

We don't know for sure whether these mo-nopoly companies are gouging their custom-ers. Since cable TV is unregulated, they donot have to disclose their financial recordsor defend their profit margins to any publicbody.

This unusual situation-an unregulatedmonopoly selling a much sought after serv-ice-has created some interesting facts andfigures. and raises an interesting question.

Why are the rates of South Dakota's larg-est cities so similar? The companies servingHuron, Brookings, Mitchell, Aberdeen. andSioux Falls charge between $19 and $20 permonth for basic service. Yankton and Ver-million get similar service for $22.

In that one instance where there is com-petition. in Milbank. cable TV subscribersthere get a nearly Identical package La Ver-million subscribers, but for $10.45 a monthless, a savings of almost 50 percent.

Another interesting exmaple is Beresford.where cable TV service is provided by thecity. Subscribers there get 22 channels for$12.55. That's a good price by South Dakotastandards. Furthermore, the Beresfordcable TV systems pays its own way and alsoprovides a tidy profit ($90,000 in 1991) forthe city.

However, as we reported last week, statelaw currently does not allow most munici-palities to enter the cable TV business. Thatlaw should be changed. If there is anythingthe TV industry needs in South Dakota, it'sat least the possibility of competition.

Furthermore, in a city like Vermillionwhich is property tax poor and sees many ofits sales tax dollars drained off by malls inSioux City and Sioux Falls. cable TV couldbe a service that the city could provide at

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEreasonable rates and also produce a profit tofund city services, such as police and fireprotection, that are not revenue producingin themselves

One thing is for certain. the cable TV in-dustry needs more competition and more ac-countability.

A .NmDzTr No. 1503, AS MODMFD

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.LAUTrNBERG). The Senator from Mls-sourt.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, theminority leader is not present on thefloor. I do not know of anyone whowants to speak on this amendmentfurther, and therefore it would be mysuggestion we proceed to vote on theGraham amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Louisiana.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the letter Iearlier referred to from the ConsumerFederation of America be printed inthe RscoRD.

There being/no objection, the letterwas ordered 'to be printed in theRzcomD, as follows:

CoNsmum FDERATIon or AmYmcA,Washington, DC, June 19, 1991.

Hon. DAsna ISout.Senate Communication, Subcommittee,

Washingtor DC.DCan 8NATroR INoUrY I am writing on

behalf of the Consumer Federation ofAmerica (CFA) to express our position onfull-time, over-the-air home shopping sta-tions We commend you and your Subcom-mittee colleagues for examining the publicinterest obligations of broadcasters, includ-ing home shopping licensees

CFA is concerned about the use of ascarce public resource-the public's air-waves-for full-time home shopping. In ex-change for the free use of this resource,broadcasters gree to serve as "public trust-ees" and promise to place the public's needsahead of their own. Home shopping broad-casters turn that obligation on its head. Thevast majority of their "programming," isnothing more than the offering of goods forsale. It does not benefit the public. On theconstitutional hierarchy, such commercialspeech falls far below the value placed onspeech about issues and idess. Even theworst entertainment programming has someartistic merit, and is preferable to non-stopsales pitches.

The FCC has been unwilling to addressthis problem. Far from placing limits onsuch overcommercialzation. the Commis-sion has recently interpreted the new Chil-dren's Television Act of 1990 as exemptinghome shopping formats from the commer-cial time limits imposed on programs direct-ed at children.

Unfortunately. the FCC's approach tofull-time over-the-air home shopping is asmall part of a much larger problem. Con-tinued congressionl acquiescence will sendthe wrong message to the FCC. We there-fore urge you to take steps to require theFCC to allocate limited broadcast spectrumto broadcasters that serve the public's inter-est and not their own.

Sincerely.GzNz Kiu.a ,

Legi ve Director.Mr. BREAUX Mr. President, I move

to table the pending amendment.Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and

nays.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is

there a sufficient second?

S 585There is a Sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motionto lay on the table the amendment. asmodified, of the Senator from Florida[Mr. GRAHAM]. The- yeas and nayshave been ordered. The clerk will callthe roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-ator from Iowa [Mr. HARXlN] and theSenator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY],are necessarily absent.

The result was announced, yeas 33,nays 64, as follows:

BaucusBentsenBidenBorenBrdleyBreauxBumpersBurnsCoatsCochranDeschle

AdamsAkakaBlnganatBondBrownBrsyanBurdickByrdChaleeCohenConradCrag

D'AmaoDanforthDeConcinDoddDoleDomenkiExonFowlerOGrn

[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]YEAS-33

Dixon PryorDurenberger RothFord SanIorHeflin Shelb)Helms SimonJohnston SmithKEaebaum SpecteKAsten SynmrLott WellstNickles WlrthNunn Woffol

NAYS--4Glenn MilkutGore Mltche

In fort on MoyntGraham MurkoGrrmm PackwOrm.ley PellHatch PresleHatfield ReldHollUins RlegleInouye RobbJeffords RockeiKennedy RudmiKerry SarbarKohl SuerLautenberg Seymo

~,l wLhy SimprLevin StevenUeberman ThurnrLugar WallogMcCain WarneMcConnellMetzenbsum

r

one

rd

eUhan

ood

er

fellerLnlne

or

iond

I

ANSWERED "PRESENT'-I

NOT VOTING--Harkin Kerrey

So the motion to lay on the tablethe amendment (No. 1503) as modi-flied, was rejected.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent to vitiate the yeasand nays which have been ordered onthe second-degree amendment.

Mr. H.ELMS Mr. President, reserv-ing the right to object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere objection?

Mr.-TEL.MR. Reserving the right toobject, the Senator may not wish to vi-tiate the yeas and nays yet, because Ihave a second-degree amendmentwhich I send to the desk.

I have no objection.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

second-degree amendment is pendingat this time.

Mr. GRAHAM. I renew my unani-mous-consent request to vitiate theyeas and nays on the second-degreeamendment.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEThe PRESIDING OFFICER Wlth-

out objection, the request to vittatethe vote Is agreed to.AMDCRIET N0. 1I TO £M FT No. 1s50

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I askfor a rollcall vote on the second-degreeamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wouldthe Senator repeat his request

Mr. GRAHAM. I their is no furtherdebate orr" he second-degree amend-ment, I ask for a rollcall or a voicevote on the second-degree amendment,

The PRESIDING OFFICER Thankyou. Is there any further debate?

If not, the question Is on agreeing tothe amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I sug-gest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection, it Is so ordered.

ORDER OF PROCEDUREMr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder

if I might use 5 minutes of my leadertime.


THE STATE OF THE UNIONADDRESS

Mr. DOLE Mr. President, last night,George Bush came through In theclutch. Despite all the high expect-tions, and all the hype, and all of lastnight's standard partisan criticism, thePresident delivered an extraordinaryState of the Union Address.

It had real substance, real vision,and real solutions for real people. Thefact is, the President Is the only one intown with a comprehensive plan forAmerica-for the economy, for Ameri-can workers, and for the free world.

Now that they have heard from thePresident, the American people arewaiting to hear from Congress ThePresident is right-Congress shouldnot keep them waiting.

This morning, President Bush dem-onstrated his commitment to gettingthe job done for America-and gettingit done quickly-by coming to CapitolHill to meet with the leaders of Con-gress, on both sides of the aisle, andboth sides of the Capitol.

I can report today that after thePresident's meeting with RepublicanSenators our side in strongly behindthe President and his ambitiousagenda I was impressed by our group'sextraordinarily high level of unity, op-timm uand enthiasnfm to get to work.

We told the President we're ready toroll up our sleeves and help him meethis March 20 deadline for enacmentof his eoonomic program me ritmay not think the deadline Is irer-

tant, but I can tell you. PresidentBush is committed to It and so are we.

As I have said before, the Americanpeople are in no mood for bus/tem asusual from Congress. They wantaction. they want it quickly, and theywill be watching Congress to makesure we deliver. Now it is time for Con-gress to live up to some high expecta-tions, for a change.

Mr. President, I thank my col-leagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from NebraskaMr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that I might be al-lowed to proceed for not more than 5minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, re-erving the right to object, the pend-

ing business, I believe, Is the secod-degre amendment on the Breauxftrstdegree medment. Is that cor-rect? I believe that the objection to avoice vote on that second-degreeamendment has now been removed. Iwould ask that we proceed with thepending business

The PRESIDING OFICER. TheSenator from Nebraska has the unani-mousconsent request. Is there an ob-Jection to that?

Mr. EXON. I have made a requestfor 5 minutes as if in morning businessto respond to the statement that hasjust been made by the Republicanleader.

Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator willJust hold for 10 seconds, and allow usto have the voice vote on the second-degree amendment, then I would haveno objection.


The Senate continued with the con-sideration of the bill

The PRESIDING OFFICER Isthere further discussion about theamendment?

If not, the question is on agreeing tothe amendment.


Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Imove to reconsider the vote by whichthe amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay thatmotion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wuagreed to.

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

ORDER OF PROCEDUREThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Nebraska.Mr. EXON. I k unanimous consent

to proced a if in morning businessfor no longer than 5 minutes.

The PRPI DMING O1;FICEE With-out objection, It sJo ordeed.

THE STATE OF THE UNIONADDRESS

Mr. EXON. Mr. President. I Just lis-tened to my good friend from Kansas,the Republican leader, mploring ev-eryone to-get behind the President'seffort. I guess a meeting was held withthe President today by some of themembers of the Republican Party, andIt is not surprising that they pledgedto get behind the President's efforts.

I, too, want to work with the Presi-dent, as I think all on this side do. ButI would simply say that I would like tostart out by saying that I have taken alook at the defense numbers and I amfearful that many Members of theHouse and Senate and the public atlarge, when they heard the announce-ment that $50 billion was going to bealashed from the defense budget fromthe President's lips last night, auto-matically assumed that since we havehad a defense budget in the range of$290 to $295 billion in outlays in 1992,that $50 billion would drop It downinto the $240 to $245 billion rane

I advise all now that I am not readyto accept the President's proposals forlots of reasons; not the least of whichis that the peace dividend that every-one assumes was announced last nightis not a peace dividend.

The facts of the matter are that In1992 we had outlays of about $295 bil-lion in the 050 defense part of thebudget. Under the President's budgetproposal that was submitted to ustoday, after taking into considerationthe $50 billion slash the outlays In1997 will be $289 billion That, there-fore, turns out to be less than a 3-per-cent reduction in outlays for defenseby the year 1997.

That certainly, in my opinion, Mr.President, is not going to pay for thewhole mass of programs that thePresident announced last night thatare obviously going to cost In the bU-lions and billions and billions of dol-las. The assumption was that the"peace dividend" was going to pay forthese programs, so that we could agreethat the President will not furtherraise the deficit. Nothing could be fur-ther from the truth as reality willeventually show.

The $50 billion that the Presidentannounced last night in slashes in de-fense was not from the present de-fense numbers. At least $46 of the $50billion was a cancellation of programsthat were In the works, programs thatare going to be canceled, most ofwhich I agree with from what thePresident told us last night. But It Isnot going to create a peace dividend topay for the program and reduction inrevenues that the President outlined.

So before people Jump on the band-wagon. before people say, oh. yes thatis a very great roram and we couldtake that $0o billion as a peace divi-dend and cash in o it on al of thesegood program, I think we should takea look t the nzbez. I would onlysuggest caution.

S 586 January 2, 1992

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEI thank the Chair. I thank my eol-

leagues-Mr. HOLLINGSC addressed the

Chair.Mr. MITCHELL addressed the


majority leader is recognized.Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President,

there will be ample opportunity for afull debate on the substance of theproposals made la'R evening by thePresident here In the Senate.

We welcome those proposals, and wewill. of course, accord them the carefulconsideration to which they are enti-tled. It is not my intention at this timeto debate the substance of those pro-posals. I will do so at an appropriatetime, when they are before the Senate.

I would like to address the subjectwhich has been raised by the distin-guished Republican leader, my friendand colleague, about prompt action todeal with the recession. and to encour-age recovery and long-term growth.

I told the President this morningthat we would act promptly. We willact as promptly as possible. We willmove forward to deal with the very se-rious problems facing our economy, inan attempt to encourage Job creation.recovery from the recession, and sus-tained long-term growth, which is theobjective and the goal we all share. Wewill do so, not because of any deadline,but rather, because It is what isneeded in our country.

When we talk about promptness inresponding to the recession, we mustkeep in perspective the circumstanceswhich have led us to this day. Therehas been a very lengthy delay in re-sponding to this recession, a delay of21 months, caused entirely by thePresident's inaction on the subject.For a full 18 months, President Bushand his administration denied that thecountry was in recession. Until just afew months ago, the President stated.and repeated over and over again, thatthere was no recession.

Since it was the administration's po-sition that there was no problem,they, of course, offered no solution. Fl-nally, when it was obvious to all Amer-icans that the country was indeed inrecession-in the longest recessionsince the Second World War-thePresident acknowledged the existenceof the recession. But at that point heasked the Congress and the Americanpeople to wait for 3 months, until hefigured out what to say and what topropose last evening.

We honored that request. The Presi-dent did then take 3 months to figureout what to say and what to proposeand made his proposal last evening,and accompanied It with the demandfor action and a deadline, unilateralnot the basis of any consultation ordiscussion with any member of thecongressional leadership, as far as Iknow-certainly not with myself.

So, Mr. President, I want to makeclear that we want to act, we intend toact, and we will act, not because of

this so-called deadline, but because Itis the right thing to do. It is what theeconomy needs It is what the countryneeds

I hope that, in the course of thecoming months, we will have the op-portunity to debate fully and carefullyeach and every one of the proposalsmade, to evaluate them in the light ofcurrent circumstances, and where wedisagree-as Is inevitable in the demo-cratic process-to have the opportuni-ty to offer constructive alternatives.We look forward to that debate, welook forward to action, and we lookforward, most of all, to improving thestatus of the economy and the well-being of the American people.

I yield the floor.Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the


Senator from South Carolina.

CCABLE TLEVISION CONSUMER IPROTECTION ACT

The Senate continued with the con-sideration of the bill

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Irise in support of the Cable TelevisionConsumer Protection Act of 1991. Pas-sage of this bill is necessary to respondto the needs of the cable consumer inthe ever-changing world of communi-cations.

I have followed the communicationsindustry for decades and am contin-ually impressed by its progress andachievements. Who would havethought a decade ago that over half ofthe American public would be willingto pay to watch television? After all,we had the best television in theworld, and we could receive it for free.Yet, it Is clear that the public seessomething special in cable television-over 60 percent of American homesnow subscribe to cable, and people arewilling to pay a significant amount toreceive It.

This tremendous growth in the cableindustry has produced much of value.Most cable subscribers have access to36 channels, and this amount is stead-ily increasing. Many systems alreadyoffer twice as many channels as beforeenactment of the Cable Communics-tions Policy Act of 1984-the 1984 act.This Increase in capacity has been ac-companied by a great increase in theprogramming that is offered, and heretoo, more is on the horizon.

This growth also has produced sig-nlficant problems, however, and theseproblems cannot go unnoticed. Cableis no longer an optional luxury, It hasbecome an integral part of the commu-nications network and will even moreso in the future as more informationand entertainment programming aretrnsmitted via fiber optic cable& Inrecent years, the cable industry hastaken advantage of this privileged po-sition as the sole distributor of Amert-ca's programming. The CommerceCommittee ha been presented withmountains of evidence of unreasonable

rate increases, customer service prob-lems, and various anticompetitivemarket practices. I know that certainof these problems are the result of badactors, but nonetheless, we cannotignore these problems.

Recently, I learned of a situation inmy own State of South Carolina in-volving two communities next door toone another, served by the same cablecompany. The citizens of one commu-nity are paying more for much lessservice than those in the other com-munity-in Greer, SC, Cencom Cableprovides 36 channels of programmingfor $23.95, while in Mauldin. SC, cus-tomers pay $25.95 for only 21 channelsof programming. This problem is notlimited to one community. A recentconstituent, who in the last 3 yearshas lived in three different communi-ties in the Myrtle Beach area, in-formed me that in one community shewas charged $15 per month for 45channels, in another community 13miles away she was charged $15 permonth for 25 channels, and in a thirdcommunity she was charged $20 permonth for 14 channels. She has aright to be outraged and frustrated.Everyone is frustrated, but there islittle that the local authorities can doabout these discriminatory practicesonce the franchises are awarded. Wemust ensure that these examples ofabuse can be corrected.

There is more here than just isolat-ed actions by certain bad actors. Thecable industry is no longer a second-class video distributor that only re-transmits broadcast programming. Itnow serves more than half of Ameri-can homes, and that amount in in-creasing. Furthermore, it has de factoexclusive franchises. It appears wellon its way to becoming the dominantvideo distributor, and we must be at-tentive to the problems that monopo-lies create.

When the cable debate first began 4years ago, I was skeptical of the needfor new legislation. The 1984 actseemed to have succeeded in achievingmany of Its goals. However, I havebecome convinced that there is a needto adjust the environment in whichcable operates S. 12 responds to thelegitimate needs of consumers forlower and more reasonable rates,better customer service, and the needfor greater competition. S. 12 does notoverturn the 1984 act; It is a reasona-ble bill intended to address the legitl-mate concerns about the provision ofcable service.

Last Congress, under the leadershipof Senator IlouVz, the chairman ofthe Communications Subcommittee,the Commerce Committee began toexamine what should be done to ad-dress abuses by the cable industry andthe concerns raised by consumers. Thecommittee carefully and deliberatelycompiled an extensive record throughnumerous hearings and meetings Thecommittee then drafted legislation

January 29 199e S 587

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEthat represented a true consensus ofthe committee's members

In fact, that legislation was reportedby the committee by a vote of 18 to 1.The legslation we are consideringtoday is very similar to that blL Likeits predecessor. it. too. was approvedlast yer with the strong committeevote of 16 to 3. Bparthsan support.Straight acoss the board

This kle tion reflects my concernand those of my colleague about theneed to have some control over ratesand to ensure that customers are properly served. While we want to encour-age the continued growth of progra-ming, the increase in channel capacity.and the development of new technol-ogies, we must prevent monopolsticpractices.

The cable ndustry has made severalarguments against the bill FPint Ithas been asserted that the cable indus-try Is not a monopoly. Cable systemsargue that they face some competitionfrom over-the-air broadcasters andfrom video rental store. However,most often there exists no multlchan-nel competitor, and most people sub-scribe to cable because of the widegroup of satelte-delivered signals car-ried by their local cable operator. Eventhe 'cable industry recognizes this fact.Recently Warner Cable sued the cityof Niceville, FL, to stop the city fromfollowing through on a proposal tobuild its cable system to compete withthe Warner system. This company didnot want competition. With this domi-nance comes monopolistic abuses ofconsumers

Even the largest cable operator inthe country says cable Ib a monopoly.In a brief filed in Pederal Court, in a1989 case, TCI versus Commissioner ofthe Internal Revenue Service, TCIsaid:

The value of a cable franchise followfrom the proection from cnpeUtion thatit provides the holder. 81ince the hold willhave a monopoly. the prDpet've cable op-erator would be able to generate a cash nowthat would result in a supernormal returnon his Investment * ' .

Some contend that consumers haveother choices, and that they do nothave to subscribe to cable. Again eventhe cable industry does not see It thatway. Quoting once more from TCI'sbrief before the court. TCI stated:

There Is no good will n a monopoly. Cus-tomers return not because of any satifac-tlon with the monopolist but rather be-cause they have no other choicea

In addition. it has been asserted thatcable subscribers are no longer com-plaining of poor service and highrates However, everywhere I travel inSouth CaroHlns I hear complaintsabout cable's treatment of its custom-ers, compaints that the cable industryis concerned about payment comingfirst and the customer last. In 1990alone, cable rates roas the countryrose an average of 13.1 percent morthan twice the rate of infation.

IAst year, in response to aconre.-anal action on cable egslon, the

eable Industry suddenly came to lifeand instituted voluntary customerservice standards Voluntary standardsare nice, but they are only voluntaryand cannot be relied upon to protectthe consumer. 80 far these standardsdo not seem to be workldng. One of myconstituents wrote to tell me that henotified the cable company that hewanted to terminate his service be-cuse of the constant rate ncreases.The company did not respond for 6monthl He finally cut the cable him-self because he was afraid that hewould be charged with stealing thecable operator's programming. 8omuch for Voluntary service standards

s. 12 requires that the PCC adoptminimum standards that will apply toall cable operators. The need for suchstandards Is further evidenced by theactivities of one cable operator In sign-Ing up customers for a new sertvice, theinfamous Encore Channel, withoutthklr knowledge, and then Idmpsending a bill to the customen for the'service they did not order in the firstplace This kind of behavior cries outfor correction.

It has been argued that 8. 12 'wUlallow cities to micromanage cable mar-keting and practlce This Is not avalid argument. S. 12 requres the FCCto adopt national standards for regula-tion of basic cable rates and permitsthe cities to regulate those rates onlywithin the national gudelines. More-over, the bfll permits the FCC, but notthe cities, to regulate rates for tiers ofprogrammng other than the basic tieronly If a prim facie case s made thata rate increase is unreasonable. More-over, there is no regulation of pro-gramming services offered on a perchannel bas, such as HBO and Show-time.

Turning to the access to program-ming provisions of this legislation. 8.12 prohbits vertically ntegrated cableprogrammers from unreasonably re-fusing to deal with other multichannelvideo distributorsa. I must say that Ihad some reservations about theseprovisions I recognize that cable oper-ators created many of the programservice that are available today whenno one else would. However. I also ree-ogntze that there are times when stepsmust be taken to help promote compe-tition in the marketplace. For exam-ple, in the late 1950's cable operatorswere given the right to carry broadcaststations for free, in part, to help stim-ulate competition to broadcast sta-tion. In the 1970's, in another at-tempt to stimulate competition thePCC adopted the financial interestand syndication rules which limit theability of the networks to own andcontrol programming. In the 1990's wefind that competition to cable Is stl-fled by the Inability of competitors toobtain programmng. Two communi-ties in South Carolia have recentlyfaced this very problem. In those com-munitie Orangeburg and Bennetts-vine, the exstg cable operators hveenterd into excusve sgreements

with certain program services and, asa result, the competing cable operatorscannot get access to those service.This is frustrating the development ofcompetition. necessitating the accessto programmlng provisions in & 12.

Congress passed the 1984 act Inorder to spur the development of anexciting and necessary technology. Isupported that legislation-SenatorINoUrt and I were the original cospon-sors in order to deregulate cable--andthe goals of that legislation seem tohave been realized The cable Industryin well on Its way to being fully grownand Ls capable of standing up to any-body. Now Congress must act to meetthe future needs and gols of our na-tional communIcations policy. In 1992,that means meeting the desires, andprotectilg the rights, of consumerswhile still encouraging the growth ofan industry that provides a servicewhich the publc wants 8. 12 does justthat.

I believe that we need & 12. It estab-lishes national guidelines for rate reg-ulaton and customer service, pro-motes competition in the .mnltchan-nel video marketplace, and ensurescOnsUmers continued ccess to their

al broadcast signals The mesthonic aspect of the cable industrtsoppotkion to floor considertion ofthis legislation is that many of theprovldons in this legislation are theresult of the Commerce Committee'sdiscuons with the cable Industrylast Congrem when we were consider-ing EL la0. Ironcaly, . 12 containssome of the provisions that the cableindusty agreed with only 2 years ago.

The bill we are considering todayseeks the proper balance among thecompeting objectives of protectingconsumers and encouraging competi-tion, while at the same time permit-ting the cable industry to grow andprosper.

It represents a substantial effort onthe part of all the members of thecommittee. And I particularly thankand han the work of both SenatorINours and Senator DanMORn fortheir leadership and hard work on thisbill.

I urge my colleagues to support thisvery important legislation.

And. by way of emphasis, Mr. Presi-dent, It was Senator IsouvX andmyself who led the way for cable overmany, many years. I authored the poleattachment bill We went in to thetelephone companies and said no useto get the rights of way. We went intothe cities and said no use to get add-tional rights of way. And we led theway for the expansion of the cable In-dumtry and Its prosperity. And thereare no regrets about It.

I lie to see people make money. Ilike to see more programmng Butwhen the cable industry runs adver-tisements that these regulati aregoing to ncrase able rates and thatwe are tryng to run them out of busi-ness, they are mesleming the public.

S 588 Januay 29, 1992

CONGRESSIONAL RBCORD - SENATEThey have been absolutely unreason-able throughout this process. We haveinvited them to work with us and theyhave declined all of our offer. Theywant a license to continue takin ad-vantage of consumers through theirmonopoly power. I urge my colleaguesto support this important consumerlegislation.

I thank the Chair, and yield thefloor.

The PRESIDINQ( OFFICER. TheSenator from North Carolina.

aMJrDMNT nO. 1505 TO AMIDIsi2rT NO. 1502

(Purpose: To provide notice to cable sub-scribers before they receive unsolicitedsexually explicit programs)Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk and ask forits Immediate consideration.



The Senator from North Carolina [Mr.Hzmsl] proposes an amendment numbered1505 to amendment No. 1502.

Mr. HEL.MS Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER With-out objection, It is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:At the end add the following new uection8rc. . Section 624(d) of Communications

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 544(d)) In amended byadding the following new paph:

"(3XA) If cale operator provide a "pre-mium channel' without charge to cable sub-scriber who do not subscribe to the "premi-um channe(s)", the cable operator shall.not later than 60 day before such -premi-um channel Is provided without charge-

"(1) notify all cable subscrbers that thecable operator pla to provide a "premlumchannel(s)" without chase and

"(lu) notify all cable subscribers when thecable operator plans to provide a "premiumchannel(sr without charge, and

"(UI) notify all cable subscrbers that theyhave a right to request that the channelcarryins the "premium channeaY' beblocked, and

"(iv) block the channel carrying the "pre-mium channel' upon the request of a sub-scriber.

"(B) For the purpose of this paragraph,the term "premium channel" shall meanany pay service offered on a per channel orper program bai, which oflers moviesrated by the Motion Picture Associaton aX. NR17 or R."

Mr. HE.LM. Mr. President, I havebeen advised that the managers of thebill would accept this amendment, so Iwill not go into a great deal of detail.Yet, I want to make clear the purposeof the amendment.

The pending amendment will pro-ride protection lor children, and entirefamilies, now being asaulted--and Iuse that word advisedly-assaulted byunsolicited sexually explicit movies oncable television.

Mr. President, why is this legislationDeeded? Well recently, premium'movie channels-for example 1BOand Cinemax-have discovered arather crafty marketing techniqueknown a free weekend Here is howit WorkL

EBO offers all cable subscribers freeaccem to its movies for one weekend.They figure it is sort of like a sampleof soap; people will try it and thenthey will buy It.

But the problem is that millions offamilies refuse to subscribe to thesemovie channels because they do notwant their children to be exposed tothe violence, the disgusting dialog. andthe sexually explicit scenes so preva-lent on HBO and other movie chan-nels. In essence, the programmerswant to do an end run around thesedecisions made by families who do notwant this kind of material piped Intotheir homes. That is the reason theydo not subscribe to HBO or Cinemax-they know what is on there.

HBO, and Cinemax, for example,and up peddling their garbage whereand when it is not wanted.

Just imagine. if you will, Mr. Presi-dent, a mother who is watching televi-sion with her 7-year-old daughter. Shebelieves she has taken the necessaryprecautions because her family doesnot subscribe to the movie channels.But she flips the channel and all of asudden she is assaulted by scenes froma movie called "Slave Girls FromBeyond Infinity." This happened, Mr.President.

Even worse, many young childrenwill be exposed to these movies with-out the knowledge of their parents.Parents often do not know that thefree weekend is available on their set.

A great many of the movies present-ed on movie channels are -rated. As amatter of fact, during one recent HBOfree weekend, 33 percent of the movieswere rated R.

I am informed that a few of themovies border on soft core pornogra-phy.

Mr. President, the pending amend-ment will require that the program-mers and the cable companies respectthe subscribers' decision not to sub-scribe to the movie channel So thepending amendment simply keeps anonsubscribing family from being of-fended by unsolicited movies. Thecable company must notify Its sub-scribers that a so-called free weekendis coming up, and, further, that anysubscriber wishing to do so has theright to require the cable company toblock the undesired channel.The subscriber must call the cable

company and ask that the channel beblocked or that the cable companyprovide a lockout device.

I should point out that current lawalready gives cable subscribers theright to have a channel blocked if It isobscene or indecent. So0 this amend-ment merely makes sure that subscrib-ers will be notified of these rights.You would be surprised how manysubscribers do not know that theyhave that right.

Mr. Presdent, this amendment doesnot prohibit free weekend promotionsFurthermore. it applies only to chan-nels that carry X-rated or -rated

movies, so it does not apply to chan-nels like the Disney Channel

Some people, obviously, want to viewthese types of movies, which is whythey subscribe to these premiummovie channels. And that is OK. Thisamendment does not prevent their re-ceiving the free weekends.

If a subscriber wants the free week-end, he or she does not have to do any-thing at all It will come automatical-ly, as It does now.

Mr. President, some may say I amtrying to impose censorship-theyalways say that sort of thing-therebyendangering the protections of thefirst amendment.

The Supreme Court spoke Just thisweek on the constitutionality of an-other little piece of legislation that Ioffered in this Chamber regardingDial-a-Porn. The Supreme Court letstand the opinion by the appellatecourt, which found our Dial-a-Porn tobe constitutionaL

Mr. President, some may ask If thereIs any constitutional problem with thisamendment. It Is constitutional toallow a subscriber to voluntarily re-quest that his line be blocked. This isalready current law. The amendmentmerely requires cable operators tonotify subscriber. of their right.

This Is similar to a law that allowspeople to prevent sexually explicit adsfrom entering their homes. The Su-preme Court found that law to be con-stitutional In Rowan v. United StatesPost Office, 397 UjS 728 (1970).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that a letter addressing the con-stitutlonal issue be printed In theRzcoD at the end of my remarks.


(See exhibit L)Mr. HEMS. Mr. President. the

amendment aimply seeks to protectunsuspecting families and their chil-dren from ambush by these so-calledpremium channels. In a sense, It guar-antees that such families will not be indanger of what I regard as a sneakattack. The amendment requries thatfamilies be forewarned about undesir-able and unwanted programming.

Mr. President, I think the amend-ment speaks for itself. I am willing tohave it approved on a voice vote, ifthat is the wish of the managers ofthe bill

Axmmrc~ 1AMcAN FAomLY

AssocAnoron Lw Cmrritrupelo, S. January 23, 1992.

Senator Jon Hmzs-Dirksen Senate O.ice Butldina,Was4faton. DC

DAo S=ATo HFLso- Recently AmericanFamily Amoiatkn brought to your atten-tion a concern that had been expressed byseveral individuals mncernmng the presenta-tion of prnotUonal material on able televi-sion. I would like to take this opportunity tosubmit additional information on this issue.

The proposed regulation haa its founda-tion a requrement of notce to cable sub-crtber that promotional material wil be

forthoming on the cable ytem This

S589J~anuary 29, 1992

January 29, 1992CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

notice requirement is analogous to that re-quired for individuals diseminating sexual-ly oriented material through the mails Onsuch mailed matter the person sending thematerial must mark on the outside of theenvelope that the advertisement is sexuallyoriented 39 U.S.C. sec 3010. A notice tocable subscribers in advance of the promo-tional period serves the same purpose.

Secondly, the proposal would allow thecable subscriber the ability to prevent un-wanted mutmrial from entering his homethrough the promotional periods. The abili-ty to prevent offensive and unwanted mate-rial from intruding into the home was ad-dressed by the Supreme Court in RoDan i vUnited States Post Office, 397 US. 728(1970). in the context of certain mail mat-ters. I would direct you specifically to theCourt's discussion regarding the rights ofthe householder in relationship to therights of the sender of unwanted materialThe Court stated:

"Weighing the highly important right tocommunicate, but without trying to deter-mine where it fits into constitutional im-peratives. against the very basic right to befree from sights, sounds, and tangiblematter we do not want, it seems to us that amailer's right to communicate must stop atthe mailbox of an unreceptive audience."397 US. at 736-37.

The same relationship between the rightsof the cable subscriber and that of the cableoperator exists The cable subscriber whochose not to receive material presented onthe premium channels retains that right toprevent such material from being shown inhis home even if that material is deliveredat no additional cost. The Rowan Courtwent on to state that "Nothing in the Con-stitution compels us to listen to or view anyunwanted communication whatever itsmerit; we see no basis for dcording theprinted word or pictures a different or morepreferred status because they are sent bymail. The ancient concept that 'a man'shome is his castle' into which 'not even theking may enter' has lost none of its vitality,and none of the recognized exceptions in-cludes any right to communicate offensivelywith another." 397 US. at 737.

The cable companies may continue tcoffer the promotional periods for the premiurn channels They should, however. be required to give the subscribers notice of suckupcoming periods and afford the subscribela reasonable opportunity to continue to prevent the material from being disseminateinto his home. The burden to the cable company is minimal and does not nfringe uporIts rights to communicate under the FirsAmendment.

Thank you for your attention to thlmatter. If I can be of assistance to youplease do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely.PEcar M. HonEs,

Legul CounseL

The PRESIDING OFFICER (MrWmrTH). The Senator from Hawaii

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I haveconferred with the author of theamendment. I have studied thamendment and I am prepared tbaccept It.

The PRESIDING OFFICEIR ThSenator from Mississippi

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I woullike to take a moment to again complment the distinguished Senator frorNorth Carolina for moving into aarea that clearly did need addressing.think this is an amendment all Menbers can support. We have checke

with the leadership on our side, on thecommittee, and we are prepared toaccept the amendment also.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere further debate? The Senatorfrom North Carolina-

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the distin-guished Senator from South Carolina[Mr. TEuRMo"mD], be added as a co-sponsor.


Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Irise in strong support of the amend-ment offered by my colleague fromNorth Carolina. Senator HInLs. Thisamendment should be a noncontrover-sial amendment. I support S. 12, theunderlying measure, and strongly be-lieve this amendment is an importantaddition to the bill.

This amendment ensures that cablesubscribers will not be subjected to un-solicited sexually explicit movies oncable premium channels Many premi-um "pay" channels on cable televisionhave discovered a new marketing tech-nique commonly referred to as "freeweekends." This occurs when theyremove the blocks from their subscrip-tions which permits free access tomovies for a weekend. In other words,cable subscribers whose signals arealways blocked when they turn to paychannels will find that they are beingprovided the programs free of charge.Obviously, the marketing goal is tohook the viewer into subscribing oncethe free weekended is over.

The problem with the free samplesof premium pay channels is that manyfamilies do not subscribe to thesechannels because programs and moviesare aired which contain vulgar lan-guage and sexually explicit scenes.Nevertheless, the pay channels havedecided for the customer that theyshould have access to this program-ming.

Mr. President, the Helms amend-ment places a reasonable limit upon

I the current practice of unsolicited free- weekend. The amendment simply re-n quires that before a cable companytcan provide subscribers with free pre-m mium pay channels, It must firsta notify the cable subscribers of their

plan to do so, inform them that thefree channels can be blocked, andblock the line if requested to do so.This would apply only to the thosepremium pay channels which offer XR, or NR-17 rated movies.

e Critics of this amendment may claime that by simply turning the channele opponents of free weekend can avoidD the sexually explicit programmini

they find offensive. Yet, this ignore/e the fact that this explicit material b

entering the privacy of another'ld home completely unsolicited. Furtheri- more, children cannot be monitore(n every minute of the day.n Mr. President, I am satisfied tha~

I this provision passes constitutionaa- muster since it is similar to currend law regulating the mailing of unsolic

ited sexually explicit advertisements.That law was upheld by the SupremeCourt in 1970.

Mr. President, I find troubling muchof what we, as a Nation, watch on tele-vision. In fact, I feel there is far toomuch violence and sex on television.However, many people do choose towatch this material. Nevertheless, therights and desires of those who findthese pay ,channels to be offensivemust be respected. If they have madethe decision not to subscribe to a par-ticular premium service, then theyshould have an opportunity to preventthe unsolicited airing of this materialin their home.

For these reasons, I urge my col-leagues to support this importantamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Isthere further debate on the amend-ment? If there be no further debate.the question is on agreeing to theamendment.

The amendment (No. 1505) toamendment No. 1502 was agreed to.

Mr. HE.MS. Mr. President. I moveto reconsider the vote by which theamendment was agreed to.



Mr BENTSEN. Mr. President, I risein support of pending legislation intro-duced by my distinguished colleaguefrom Missouri. Senator DANPoRTa:The Cable Television Consumer Pro-tection Act of 1991 (S. 12). For severalyears now, I have received many com-plaints about the cable industry-pri-marily about high rates and poor serv-ice. The Senator from Missouri hastirelessly led the fight to enact legisla-tion that would address these impor-tant concerns. Mr. President, I thankmy colleague from Missouri and thechairman of the Commerce Commit-tee-Senator HoLLnGs--for their ef-forts in bringing this issue before us.

Throughout my career, I have em-phasized the importance of encourag-ing and maintaining competition inthe marketplace as the best way toensure that both consumers and busi-

rness are treated fairly. I have alsoworked to encourage our Nation's busi-

Inesses to develop and improve thosetechnologies that will increase theaccess of all Americans to valuable in-formation about our rapidly changingsociety. Without a doubt, the develop-ment of the cable industry in this

. country has played an important roleIin this regard. Millions of Americans-

an estimated 54 million households-now rely on cable television as a major

s source of information and entertain-sment.

In 1984, Congress sought to establishI a national policy to guide the develop-

ment of the cable industry by enactingt the Cable Communications Policy Act.1 It was then determined that the Fed-t eral Government, along with State:- and local governments, had important

S 590

January 29, 1992 CONroles to pay in the development of na-tional cable policy. In the absence ofcompetition for cable operators, Con-gress decided that these entities, alongwith the Federal CommunicationsCommission, were responsible for en-suring that the public interest in rea-sonable rates and quality service wasprotected. In so doing, they were alsoresponsible for continuing the growthand development of the cable indus-try.

As a result of the 1984 act, the cableindustry has flourished and has sub-stantially changed the way the Ameri-can public makes use of the broadcastmedia. It is estimated that cable serv-ice is available to over 90 percent ofthe Nation's households, and the cableindustry now earns billions in annualrevenue. Thus, cable television hasclearly become the dominant mediumfor video distribution in this country.However, Mr. President, It must be ad-mitted that the 1984 act did not stimu-late effective competition in the cableindustry.

As a result of its tremendous growth,the cable Industry has acquired consid-erable market power that is oftenharmful to consumers and competing-video distributors. Specifically, con-sumers have, in many instances, beenforced to accept substantial increasesin the rates charged to them for cableservice. It is clear from numerous con-gressional hearings and studies that,over the past several years, averagecable rates have increased dramatical-ly-well beyond the underlying rate ofinflation. Moreover, the quality of cus-tomer service is a constant source ofconsumer complaints. Also, video pro-grammers are often leveraged out ofcontrol over their product, while com-peting video distributors find it diffi-cult, if not impossible, to acquire anyreal market strength.

I know that the cable industry hasrecently made an effort to addresssome of these concerns, as my distin-guished colleague from Oregon, Sena-tor PAcKwooD, has noted. These ef-forts, however, do not eliminate theneed for Federal regulation of this in-dustry-especially since real competi-tion still does not exist.

In most of our Nation's communi-ties, cable companies have no realcompetition-in fact, it has been deter-mined that only 53 of the approxi-mately 11,000 cable communities inthis country have a second competingcable franchlse.-There is no significantcompetition from other multichannelvideo providers like wireless cable anddirect broadcast satellite systems. Thisclear lack of competition, combinedwith the recent record of rate in-creases and service complaints, de-mands governmental intervention toencourage fair competition and pro-tect the rights of consumers.

Without this intervention, the rightsof consumers will remain substantiallyunprotected.

rGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE'Without this intervention, cable

rates will continue to escalate wellbeyond the rate of inflation.

Without this intervention, manyAmericans will find themselves unableto afford cable service.

And, finally, without this interven-tion, overall customer service andtechnical standards in the provision ofcable services will not improve.

The legislation introduced by myfriend from Missouri goes a long waytoward addressing these concerns.This bill directs the FCC to establish,within certain guidelines, minimumstandards for rate regulation, custom-er service, and technical requirements,that will operate in the absence of ef-fective competition. Further, local gov-ernments are given the authority toenforce these standards against localcable companies as necessary and ap-propriate.

The bill addresses widespread con-cerns about concentration and verticalintegration in the cable industry. Italso requires that all competitors ofcable companies be given equal accessto programming.

The bill also contains provisions de-signed to preserve the public interestin access to important local news,public affairs, and entertainment pro-grammlng-while providing broadcast-ers the opportunity to receive faircompensation from cable operators forthe retransmission of their signals.

In sum, the pending legislation isnecessary to satisfy the Government'scompelling obligation to protect therights of consumers where marketforces are insufficient. I would prefernot to create a new system of Federalregulations-but. history tells us thatwhere competition does not exist, therights of consumers will ultimately betrampled upon. Thus, enacting thislegislation is an appropriate action forCongress to take-until effective com-petition takes root in the cable indus-try.

I urge my colleagues to support thepassage of the pending legislation.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I rise instrong support of the cable televisionconsumer protection legislation, S. 12.

Thanks to a Jump start from Con-gress in the 1984 Cable Communica-tions Policy Act, cable TV has becomea fixture in many American homes.Cable has also established a strangle-hold over consumer pocketbooks. Inmore than 99 percent of the markets,only one cable company exercises con-trol Thanks to this system, rates haveincreased by more than 60 percent na-tionwide.

-Here is a typical example of whathas happened in Washington State.Late last year, a man from Tacomasent me a cartoon in which someonereads a Christmas card to another: "Atthis Joyous time of year we offer youthis verse * * * expect another rateincrease on January first." The secondperson replies "I hate getting Christ-mms cards from the cable companyl"The man from Tacoma also included a

copy of his Christmas card: It was anotice from his local cable companyraising rates on January 1, 1992. Hecircled the new monthly basic rate andinscribed "Againt?"

With unemployment at 9 millionpeople and the economy in a chronicrecession, any rate increase has aharmful effect on American house-holds. Rate increases have an especial-ly harmful impact on persons on fixedincomes. Cable TV has become a life-line to the world for many senior citi-zens. As the National Council ofSenior Citizens points out, seniors onfixed incomes find it hard and harderto pay the skyrocketing cable rates.

Shocking rate increases for individ-ual households since the 1984 CableCommunications Policy Act was en-acted make the rate regulations sec-tion of S. 12 the most important provi-sion in this bill. I have appended to mystatement figures from the ConsumerFederation of America showing cablerate increases in Washington State.The average rate increase since 1986for our five markets was 85 percent.

Another significant section providesfor what is known as must-carry. I aman ardent supporter of public televi-sion. The must-carry provision is es-sential to protect public television andthe rights of small independent com-mercial stations. Without this, thesestations could be swept off cable or besaddled with obscure channel positionson the cable dial

The must-carry provision also guar-antees the actual distribution of publictelevision and small independent com-mercial TV stations One station inWashington, KCJ channel 17 inYakima, has been trying for 2 years toget picked up by cable. This is the onlylocally owned, commercial televisionstation not on cable. It also happens tobe the only Hispanic station, whichserves the large and growing Hispanicpopulation in the Yakima Valley. Thisbill would help KCJ and Hispanicviewers in the valley.

The retransmission consent provi-sion of S. 12 requires more equity inthe business relationship betweenlocal TV broadcasters and the cablecompanies. This provision takes a bal-anced approach. I believe some localaffiliates of major TV networks. whenthey predict their financial future isuncertain at best under cable deregu-lation. I do not want to see local TVstations fall into bankruptcy likemany of our deregulated airlines.

Finally, the access to programmingprovision is designed to stimulate newforms of transmitting, such as high-definition satellite-transmitted TV andaudio. This section will help U.S. in-dustry pioneer new forms of communi-cation. Clearly, this would also en-hance our international competitive-ness

A Washington State senator recentlywrote me that he receives annuallyhundreds of letters from cable televi-sion customers complaining about

S 591

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992

poor service, Increasin rate, and alack of choice. A mayor of a major cityin the State of Washington recentlywrote me the following note:

For the put 2* years City staff ha beenengoed in refranchisin negotatlns withour local cable operator. We have discoveredthat few of the public benefit envisioned bythe supporters of the 1964 Cable Act havecome to fruition, and the process of craftinga franchise' ihch meets the community'sfuture cable-related needs and Inteests Isfrustrated for all sides involved.

The mayor goes on to point out thatnot only do he and his city council en-dorse S. 12. but so do the NationalLeague of Cities. the US. Conferenceof Mayors, and the National Associa-tion of Counties. Many local electedofficials would like to see an eventougher bill. Wherever possible. weshould fashion as strong a consumerbill as possible.

S. 12 also loos to future competl-tion, especill from new wirelesscable systems. Section S of S. 12 pro-vides competitors of the existing cablesystem with fair access to program-ming. The Skyline Entertainment Net-work, a wireless system In Spokane.WA claims that big cable system oper-ators will try to maintain their monop-olies by trying to weaken or eliminatethe fair access provision in the bill.Skyline and a similar wireless systemin Yakima WA, are good examples ofthe type of new systems that section 6will encourage.

In conclusion, Mr. President, let merepeat: S. 12 is a good bill We need torestore reasonable regulation, balance,and sanity to today's cable market-place. 8. 12 will help us accomplishthis

According to the Consumer Federa-tion of America the following figuresillustrate the extent of cable rate in-creases in the State of WashingtornaKuZRTO--- CAuBLuVO0 OF WAorSEasmTO

198-411.95 for basic service (25 chanunels) (Nation Wide Cablevion Inc.)

Dec 1991-119.20 for limited basic (25channels): $20.55 for expanded basic (31channels).

Feb. 1992-0.20 for Ihmited bsic (26channels); $2255 for expanded basic (31channels).

Increase: December 1991-81% for sidmilaroffering.

Increase: Pebruary 1992-69% for simlaroffering.

Note: There will be a 5% rate Increse forlimited basic service and a 10% increase forexpanded basic service in Pebruary 1992.

1988-49.45 for basic (22 channels).D&C. 191-8s.s.3 ro LMIT'D C IC (12 CHA.N-

WI,8; 550.Sa ro XPxAD DaSIC 133 CHAN-

Increase: 117% for similar but expandedoffering.

sEArtEr-Tc cAm5VsrIo or w raTL nc.196I10.55 for basic (14 channels)

(Group W Cable of 8eattle).Nov. 1991--20.00 for baic (35 channels).Increase: 90% for baic service.

ro1 3--CO cAuL SPOKAM

196-1.00 for basic (3 channel).Dee. 1991-41991 for bsc (33 chsnnels).Increase: 81% for baslcerrl

TAcoMA-TcI cAu-sVsliO or TaCOMA [Dc.1986-42.9 for basc (32 channes)

(Group W of Tacoma).Dec 1991--$20.03 for limited basic (26

channels): $21.03 for expanded basic (31channels).

Feb. 1992-42203 for expanded basic (33channels).

Increae: December 1991-82% for similrofferirng.

Increase: February 1992--0% for similaroffering.

Note: There will be a 5% rate increas forexpanded bac service in Pebruary 1902.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I sug-gest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-outobjection, it is so ordered.

AMIDMMT NO. 150. A1 As NDCMr. INOUYE. What is the pending

business, Mr. President?The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

pending question is the amendment bythe Senator from Louisiana, as mend-ed and further amended.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the rollcallrequested on that amendment be vitl-ated and that we take It up immediate-ly.

The PRESIDING OFFICERI Isthere objection? The Chair hearsnone. and It is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere further debate on the amend-ment of the Senator from Louisiana?

The question is on agreeing to theamendment.

The amendment (No. 1502). asamended, was agreed to.

Mr. rHnMS I move to reconsiderthe vote.



Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. INOUYE Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection. It Is so ordered.

AMNDNmIT iNO. 1560

(Purpose: To provide for carriage of closedcaption transmission)

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, inbehalf of the Republican leader, Mr.Dom I am pleased to send an amend-ment to the desk and ak for its Imme-diate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follormThe. Sear_ from Hawaii Mr. Imm-Ol

for Mr. Dowa propoms an amesXSmet nm-bared 150

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection, It is so ordered-

The amendment Is as follows:On page 97, lines 11 through 12. strike

"and accompanyling audio" and insert In lieuthereof ". accompanying audio. and LIne 21closed caption".

On page 108,. line 2. strike "and accomnpa-nying audio" and insert in lieu thereof ., ac-companying audio. and Line 21 closed cap-tlion".

On page 63. line 21. strike "(27)" andinsert in lieu thereof "(28)": and on page 71.strike all on line 2. and insert In lieu thereofthe following:

"(21) the term 'line 21 closed caption'means a data signal which. when decoded.proves a visual depiction of Information st-multaneously being presented on the auralchannel of a television signal; and".

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, Just over ayear ago Congress passed the Televi-sion Circuitry Act which will requirethat all television sets beginning inJuly 1993 must be capable of providingclosed captioning. There are approxi-rnaely 20 million television sets soldannually. As a result of this act, morethan 24 million Americans who arehearing impaired will be able to accesstelevision coverage via captioning.

With passage of the Americans WithDisabilities Act and more recently theinstallation of closed captioning ofSenate floor proceedings, Congress hasbecome more sensitized to the needs ofhearing-impaired citizens who deserveand want to take part in the democrat-ic process. We must go one step fur-ther to ensure that the same consider-ation is given to all cable viewers. Theamendment I am offering today willprovide greater guarantees of caption-ing-which Is so vital to hearing-Im-paired viewers-by ensuring that cabletelevision scrambling does not inter-fere with the provision of captioningcoverage.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President thisamendment is a very simple one. ItJust says that cable will also provideclosed captioning a networks do atthe present time. This is to accommo-date those with special disabilities.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, certainlythere is no objection on this side ofthe aisle to the distinguished Republi-can leader's amendment. As is alwaysthe case he is very sensitive to thosewith disabilities and wishes to havethis available for those persons withhearing impairment

I think It is certainly commendableand something we should do. So wewould be happy to accept this amend-ment.

The PRESIDINO OFFICER, Isthere further debate on the amend-ment? If not, the question is on agree-ing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1506) warsagreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. I moveto reconsider the vote by which theamendment was agreed to.

S 592

January 29, 1992 CONMr. LOTT. I move to lay that

motion on the table.The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. I sug-

gest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous conseridthat the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-3ut objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER OF PROCEDUREMr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous con-

sent that the distinguished Senatorfrom North Carolina be permitted tospeak as though In the morning houron a subject other than the matterbefore us.


THE FISCAL YEAR 1993 BUDOETOF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. President. Ithank the distinguished chairman forhis courtesy and want to take thisbrief time to talk about the budgetthat we received late last night orearly this morning.

For nearly 5 years now I have stoodin this Senate to talk about the seri-ousness of debt and debt coverup, at-tempting to get the President andmany of my colleagues to pay more at-tention to debt.

The Federal debt Is the single mostserious threat we face in this countrytoday. It is a fundamental part of oureconomic downturn; not the onlyreason, but a significant reason. It islike the Berlin Wall holding backbadly needed reforms to create moreJobs and train more workers, and tostrengthen our future.

The President's budget estimatesthat we will owe $316 billion in inter-est on that debt in fiscal 1993, makinginterest the largest single entitlementin the Federal budget. We could elimi-nate all defense spending in 1993 andnot save enough money to pay our in-terest on the obligation for that year,interest that is rapidly consuming theFederal budget.

One reason our debt has grown solarge over the past decade is the debtcoverup. If the people do not know,the people cannot act. The President'sdeficit numbers do not reflect theannual increase in the public debt.And when the budget numbers arefully reported they are reported inways that most people simply cannotunderstand.

The budget proposed by the Presi-dent today is a perfect example ofthis. The numbers are all there, butyou have to know what to look for andhow to find it. I serve on the BudgetCommittee. I have carefully reviewedthe President's budget proposals each

[GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEyear I have served in the Senate, and Iprobably understand these budgets aswell as anyone else. But this budgetproposed today takes the cake. The ac-counting is so creative that I am notsure what they have done.

Table 2-3 on page 25 of the Presi-dent's budget lists the creative varietyof deficits and numbers. It might beconstrued as deficits. That misleadsthe public and misrepresents the realproblem of the debt.

For fiscal year 1993 it lists deficits at$352 billion; deficit excluding interest,$138 billion; deficit excluding depositinsurance and interest, $62 billion; def-icit on an accrual basis, $333 billion. Ido not know why these last three defl-cits are listed or what they mean.

Next the President's budget listsSocial Security reserves and interestseparately. and at the bottom belowthat it has a figure of $90 billion, inthe place that you would think thedeficit would be listed. I asked severalpeople to look at this table and tell mewhat the deficit is. And they have an-swered $90 billion. Well, that is not so.That $90 billion is one more exampleof coverup.

Most of the interest in trust fundsurpluses they use to mask the truesize of our annual deficits, and that Isnot the deficit.

This table on page 25 is more of thePresident's budget tomfoolery.

None of the deficit figures listed onpage 25 of the President's budget re-flect the amount they will add to thedebt in 1993. The real deficit, theamount of money we will spend thatmust be borrowed is not listed any-where on that page where deficits arelisted. To get that figure, the annualdebt increase, the true deficit, the ac-counting deficit, you must turn topage 289 of the President's budget andfigure it out.

If you take the time to do this, youwill see that the President estimatesthat we will add $464 billion to thedebt in fiscal year 1993, and that is adeficit of $464 billion that we face, not$352 billion, or $138 billion, or $333 bil-lion, or $90 billion; but our deficit forthe coming year will be $464 billion,almost half-a-trillion dollars

I might also point out that the totalinterest owed on the Federal debt isalso not listed in this table. A muchsmaller interest figure, net interest, islisted. Net interest does not includeany interest we pay or owe, that is, toSocial Security and other trust funds.But we owe it. We have put IOIUs into cover It. We have to pay it back.

So It is easy to see that, once youfind the figures, this is a large part ofthe coverup that has kept the Ameri-can public from knowing just how seri-ous our deficit and debt situation is. Incase anyone is interested and wants tofind the total interest, you must turnto the appendix of the President'sbudget. Total interest for fiscal year1993 comes to $316 billion, almost ex-actly $100 billion more than the net

S 593interest figure listed on page 25--moreof the coverup.

Mr. President, this tomfoolery is de-ceitful and dishonest and needs to beoutlawed. I propose Just that.

Three years ago, almost to the day, Iintroduced S. 101,-the Honest BudgetAct, to require an honest accountingof the Federal budget, that the operat-ing account within that budget be bal-anced. I reintroduced that legislation ayear ago, and entitled It the HonestBalanced Budget Act, because we canhave an honest budget, and we can getat balancing the budget right now.

The central point of this legislationis a new, but honest, definition of theFederal deficit, one so simple that itshould not be disputed. No accountantdisputes it. In fact, accountants wouldinsist on this as a definition of deficit.S. 101 defines a deficit as the annualincrease of the Federal debt subject tothe statutory limit. Nothing more,nothing less. It includes gross interest,which is an honest figure, not net in-terest, which deceives and excludesthe use of trust fund reserves forcoverup. No fudging with off-budgetmaneuvers, no creative accounting, notomfoolery, just clear, straightfor-ward, honest accounting that anyAmerican can understand.

S. 101 keeps the unified budget, butalso requires a more businesslike pres-entation that more clearly exposes ourfiscal problems.

The unified budget is split into threeeasily understood parts. Social Securi-ty and all Federal retirement programspending and receipts are listed apartfrom the general operating spendingand receipts. They are in a column oftheir own, where we can see what theyare, where they cannot be used forcoverup. All of those funds, thosetrust funds, are not our money. Wemerely are the trustees. All paymentsto those retirement programs, bothemployer payments transferred fromgeneral operating revenue, and ear-marked trust fund revenue, are includ-ed in that accounting, that trustmoney.

S. 101 also requires that all interestobligations be clearly listed in a debtand interest account, separate from re-tirement, separate from general oper-ating accounts Also clearly listed hereis the annual debt and the annual debtincrease; the real deficit and the realdebt are there for everybody to see. Iexpect everybody to get agitated andexcited about wondering why we donot do something about them.

All other general revenue receiptsand spending are listed in an operatingaccount that must be balanced eachyear. With the exception of this bal-anced budget requirement. S. 101simply requires us to account for Fed-eral spending in a way that exposeshonestly and simply the fiscal problemof debt and interest that we havefaced now year after year for a decade.

If we apply these accountingchanges to the President's budget pro-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEposal for 1993, we see a clear andhonest deficit of $464 billion-almost ahalf trillion dollar-and a total inter-est obligation of $316 billion. a heftysurplus in our trust fund, and a some-what manageable general operatingshortfall that can be managed and bsl-anced. The President, Members ofCongress. and the American publicwould have a better picture of theproblem anai better understanding ofwhat must be done if we ever hope topull ourselves out of what now seemsto be a bottomless pit.

Be honest. That is the message. It Isa fairly fundamental principle ofAmerican Government. Thank you.


The Senate continued with the con-sideration of the bill.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I want tothank you for your outstanding lead-ership on legislation. I am particularlypleased to note that this bill will guar-antee viewers access to programmingservices of their local public televisionstations.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman,for his kind words. L too, am pleasedthat this legislation will require cablecarriage for all distinct local public tel-evision signals. Public stations providecritical services to their communities,and the Government has a substantialinterest in seeing that these servicesreach the viewers who have paid forthem-not only with their PWederalState, and local tax dollars but, inmany cases, through their own vohm-tary contributions-

Mr. GORE. Mr. President. I have astatement relative to the unique serv-ices provided by local public stationsand to the substantial government In-terest that will be served by givingthem must-carry status with theirlocal cable systems.

Mr. President. this statement Is anaddition to the excellent report of theSenate committee on a. 12. Althoughthe report contains a discussion of theneed for carriage of local broadcastsignal on cable systems and why car-riage requirements are constitutionalit does not fully address the uniquereasons why carriage of public televi-sion signals serves an important gov-ernmental interest and is constitution-aL

Public television serves importantgovernmental interests which are inaddition to and distinct from thoseserved by commercial broadcast sta-tions. For nearly 40 years, Mr. Presi-dent, the Federal Government has rec-ognized the need for, and has support-ed public television-as an alternativeto commercial television-to meet theNation's educational, Informatonaland cultural needs. A early a 1952,the PCC set aide 242 channels In thespectrum for the exclusive use ofpublic television. In the Public Broad-casting Act of 1967. Congress foundthat "it furthers the general welfare

to encourage public broadcsting r-Lees" and that "it Is neceary and p-propriate for the Federal GovernnLentto complement, assist and support anational policy that will effectivelymake public broadcast services avail-able to all citizens of the UnitedStates" Since 1972. Congress and theexecutive branch have cooperated inefforts to fund public television, withan investment of $2.3 billion.

This substantial congressional sup-port constitutes only a small portionof the total public investment in thesystem. Over two-thirds of all publictelevision stations are licensed to Stateand local government agencies publiccolleges and universities school dis-tricts and other public groups whichhave provided public service program-ming at a State and local taxpayer in-vestment of $3.9 billion since 1972. Butthe largest source of support forpublIc television has come from theAmerican people who have contribut-ed a total of $5.1 billion in the last twodecades.

Public television takes on even great-er importance today as this countryrefocuses Its efforts to improve theNation's schools Public television sta-tions bring top-quality instruction tomore than 29.5 million elementary andsecondary students in 70,000 schools invirtually every school district in thecountry. In addition, the stations, inconjunction with the PBS AdultLearning Service, have enabled 1.4 mil-lion adults to study for college degreesfrom their homes. The stations havealso prepared thousands of out-of-school adults to earn the equivalent ofa high school certificate through tele-course programs, and have in place 500literacy tasks forces throughout thecountry helping people learn to read.Public television stations also serve ascatalysts to mobilize local communityorganizations and volunteers to ad-dress national problems such as teen-age use of alcohol and drugs, racialharmony, domestic violence, childcare AIDS the environment, andother critical social issues.

These are some of the less knownservices provided by public television.Many of you are undoubtedly aware ofpublic television's other educationaland entertainment jewels, including Itsunmatched children's programminglike "Sesame Street," .Mister Rogers'Neighborhood," "Reading Rainbow"and "3-2-1 -Contact"; Its distinctivenews and public affairs programminglike "The MacNeU/Lehrer NewsHour" and "Frontline," and Its distin-guished documentaries such as "Nova"and "National Geographic Special."Public television's recent presentationof the "The Civil War" captured theintellect and emotion of the entireNation and is now being used byteachers to bring life Into classroomcourses on the Civil War.

In my own State, Mr. President,public television I vitally Important,particularly In the role It plays inbringing educational opportunities to

South Carolina rural schools. SouthCarolina Educational Television servesmore South Carollnians than anyother educational institution over515,000 schoolchildren, over 7,000 col-lege students, over 25.000 medical per-sonnel and 6.500 law enforcement per-sonneL Judges and magistrates. It Is amember of a consortium of public tele-vision stations that deliver educationalprogramming to 600 schools in over 20States on a live, interactive basis di-rectly by satellite. Through this con-sortium high school students In pre-dominately rural schools can take ad-vanced, college placement courses thatwould otherwise be unavailable to thestudents, such as Japanese, Russian,physics and probability and statistics,from some of the best teachers in thecountry. South Carolina ETV alsoruns "The Children's Place," a Stateagency-sponsored day care center thatfunctions as the production center forthe Nation's most widely used trainingtapes for early childhood educators.

South Carolina ETV has also servedas a valuable community resource byinvolving local community organiza-tions ad volunteers In addressing serl-ous local issues. For example, SouthCarolina ETV sponsored an outreachprogram on teenage drinking and driv-ing and provided a bank of phonesstaffed by drug and alcohol abusecounselors to handle calls Most re-oently It launched a nationwide out-reach campaign focused on childrenand their families with the documen-tary, All Our Children with BillMoyers."

These are just snippets of publictelevision's vital contribution to SouthCarolina These outstanding publicservices are duplicated throughout theUnited States Public television is ful-filling Congress' goal of providing asource of high quality alternative tele-communications services for all citi-zens of the Nation as well as promot-ing the broader national goal of educa-tional excellence. The Governmenthas a substantial Interest In ensuringthat these services remain fully acces-sible to the widest possible audience.

The must carry rules for public tele-vision, contained In section 615 of 8.12, are needed to ensure that theAmerican public has access to thispublic service programming which it.along with Congress, has supportedfor the last three decades. The FCC, inits cable report, recommended adop-tion of must carry rules for public tele-vision because of Its unique servicesand the Government's expressed inter-est in Its viability. The National CableTelevision Association has also en-dorsed these rules

Unfortunately, Mr. President, cableoperators are continuing to droppublic television stations from cablesystems. The committee report on 8.12 sets out in great detail evidencewhich demonstrate that cable opera-tors have dropped broadcat stationsfrom cable system in the absence of

S 594 Januar~y 2S, 1992

January 29, 1992 CONlmust carry rules. I would like to sup-plement that excellent report with ad-ditional evidence demonstrating non-carriage of public television stations.The 1988 FCC cable carriage report re-ferred to in the committee report,made separate findings related topublic television drops and switches.Cable systems reported 463 Instancesof noncarriage of public television sta-tions affecting 153 statlons and 541 in-stances of channe'l shifting affecting182 stations.

It is my understanding that thedrops and switches are continuing.Since the beginning of 1991 alone, theAssociation of America's Public Televi-sion Stations has received reportsfrom numerous stations that havebeen dropped or switched. Many ofthe dropped stations were licensed topublic colleges and universities-thestations most likely to carry more In-structional and educational program-ming.

The committee report clearly ex-plains why cable viewers do not, as apractical matter, have the option ofreceiving a dropped station over theair. Very simple, noncarrlage of a sta-tion results in cable viewers being cutoff from that station. The committeereport recognized that how cable oper-ators exercise their gatekeeping powerdepends on the type of broadcastlngstation involved. Public television sta-tions are uniquely vulnerable to non-carriage As we all know, Mr. Presi-dent, cable systems are for-profit en-terprises and naturally seek to carryprogramming which maximizes dollarsand audience. Public television, in ful-filling Its mandate to serve those audi-ences not served by commercial enter-prises, carries much progrmming thatcable systems finds economically unat-tractive.

The Impact of noncarriage is par-ticularly devastating to public televi-sion stations. The largest single sourceof funding for public television is fromprivate individual contributions Whena local cable system drops a public tel-evision station, its contributions fromIts cable viewers are in jeopardy. With-out the key financial support from itscable audience, a public television station can easily slip below the level ofviability required to continue to pro-vide service to Its broadcast audience.Stations not only lose audience andcontributors, they also lose paying en-rollees to their college telecourses, andelementary and high school studentsare deprived of their Instructional pro-gramming. I was amazed to learn that69 percent of the public television sta-tions that provide instructional pro-grammlng to schools distribute thatprogramming via cable.

I understand there are concerns thatthese must carry rules are unconstitu-tional based on two prior court deci-sions. Mr. President, the committeereport contains an excellent analysisof why must-carry rules for all broad-cast stations-including public televi-sion stations-are constitutional I

iGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEwould only note some additional argu- commurments that are available in applying quired ithe O'Brien test to the must carry sion strules for public television. First, the unless tGovernment has substantial interests, the opelin addition to those which support car- sessedriage rules for all broadcast signals, in copyrigtthe carriage of public television lig- riage ofnal. I have Just discussed these Inter- Paragests in some detail They include: En- limitedsuring the public television can contin- againstue to serve the important Government plicableinterest of advancing the educational under tLgoals of the Nation through the deliv- Copyrigtery of educational informational and are requcultural programmlngr, and preserving system;the substantial investment of Con- not cargress, local governments, and individ- Moreov(ual subscribers in public television -mandaThe rules will further these interests system (by ensuring that cable operators will In thnot be permitted to continue acting as tor maunfettered gatekeepers of this impor- publictant public service. subsectl

Second, different facts demonstrate the opethat the proposed rules for public tele- costvision are narrowly tailored to aorom- percentplish the Government's objectives cable olwith minimal effect on cable systems tant tel1I understand from data compiled by with ththe Assocation of America's Public na coTelevision Stations that if mandatory copyricarriage of all qualified local public later dstations were required, 84 percent of than thithe Nation's cable systems would only Ously 1be required to carry one public service; of the13 percent might have to carry two paaservices; and 3 percent of all systems of relmmight be required to carry two or t the rmore services, and these are found In able toseven of the largest television markets IttionHowever, the burden on cable systemsmay be even less under the proposedrules They require that cable systems Acarry only qualified local public sta- ptions that request It, and do not re-quire that systems carry duplicative Mr.programming serviceas behalf

This minimal regulation surely Is unanimjustified to further the Government's Relatioisubstantial interest in mairng sure from futhat all Americans have access to the Resolutquality educational and informational proceedprogramming which they support ation.through their direct contributions as The Iwell as through their state and federal out objtax dollars. The c

cuanICAowx or s·moro alas)b is a A olI would also like to clarify paragraph see of

(2) of subsection (). This provision Juformal cwhich is similar to the "network non- other puduplication" provisions of subsection(i), is designed to address the relation- The pship between the act and Federal the preminutescopyright law. In some nstances a nuqualified public television station maymeet the definition of a local station Theunder subsection (kX2) of the act.while simultaneously qualifying a dis- Mr.tant under section 111 of the Copy- dent, Iright Act-and therefore triggering Senatorthe payment of copyright royaltiea of FloriThis situation could arise, for exam- and Ha'ple. if a public television station's prin- of this rcial community reference point is The Iwithin 50 miles of the cable system's out obieprincipal headend but more than 35 Mr. Imlles away from any point in the cable dent, I

S 595ity. A cable operator is not re-

t add any such public teevil-Ltion under this legilationhe station agrees to reimbursertor for the Incremental costs

against the system underit law with respect to the car-such station.raph (2) thus creates a veryexception to the general rulepayment for carriage. It Is ap-only to stations that are localhis act but distant under theht Act; only to stations thatuired to be carried on the cableand only to stations that wererlied as of January 1, 1990.er, these provision are notory and may be waived by theoperator.se cases in which a cable oper-.y seek reimbursement from atelevision station under thison, it may seek to collect onlyrator's incremental copyrightrnder the Copyright Act, the)age of gross receipts that aperator pays for carrying dis-evlsion station tends to declinee total number of distant sig-arrled. Thus, the additionalht costs actually resulting fromdded stations will often be lessose from stations carried previ-

it s my understanding that useterm "incremental" in this

ph, indicates that the amountbursement should be computednarginal cost actually attrlbut-the addition of that particular

RDING A FORMAL CEASE-IRE N EL SALVADOR[NOUYE. Mr. President, inof the majority leader, I askous consent that the Foreignns Committee be dischargedrther consideration of Senate

ion 248 and that the Senateto its Immediate consider-

YRESIDINO OFFICER. With-tion, it is so ordered.

lerk will report.iution (t. Re. 248) expreins theLh Benate regardin the ignrdng on16 1912. of the agreements for ·eese-fire In El 8alvador. and forrpose.PRE8IDING OFFICERI Undervious order, there is to be 10s of debate evenly divided onolution.enator from Minnesota

Ammr2uL cooa ossDURE OERGE. Mr. Pred-ask unanimous consent thatWAm DrCowrcm. OrAHa

id, KzmDY. WALLO, CHAWrrrna be added as cosponsorsrohreuonRPEIDOIN OFFICER With-ecton. It is so ordered.)URNBOERGE Mr. Presi-further ask unanimous consent

J

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992(b) It is the gense of the Senate that-.(1) the Unied State should remain com-

mitted to providing appropriate ssistanceto the government and people of El Salv-dor that promotes the procem of reconstru-tion. reconcllation, and further strengthen-ins of democracy and democrtle insttu-tlons;

(2) the United States should remain com-mitted to seeking and encouraing othermembers of te Internatonal community tocontribute materially to this process in ElSalvador and

(3) the United States should remain com-mitted to cooperating with United Nationsefforts to monitor compliance with thepeace agreements in El Salvador and otherefforts pertaining to the United Nationsrole in postwar El Salvador.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsiderthe vote.

Mr. DURENBERGER. I move to laythat motion on the table.


OXDtn OFr rOCUMr. MITCHELL Mr. President, I

have discussed the status of the cur-rent bill with the managers, with thedistinguished Republican leader, andwith Senator PACKWOOD, who is a prin-cipal author of a proposed substituteamendment, and. as a result of thatdiscussion, there will be no furtherrollcall votes this evening.

Senator PACKWOOD Indicated his in-tention to offer his substitute amend-ment at 11 anm. tomorrow. when theSenate returns to consideration of thepending bill. And the managers advisethat It is their belief we can dispose ofthat amendment and all other amend-ments of which they are now awareand, hopefully, complete action on thebill tomorrow. That means there willbe votes during the day, and ua Sena-tors know from our prior practice andfrom the written notice I have provld-ed to each Senator prior to now,Thursday is the day on which we canexpect a session in the evenings andvotes. So it is my hope we can com-plete action on the bill tomorrow a Ihave Just stated and described.

The managers, Senator Imovys, Sen-ator DANrORara, Senator PACxwooD,and Senator DoLE are here. The state-ment I made arises out of discussions Ihad with them on this point.

I will be pleased to yield now to Sen-ator PAcKWOOD.

Mr. PACKWOOD. Here is what Ihave been able to find out. The Sena-tor from Hawaii has been very gener-ous with me, giving me the time Ineed. I am prepared to start tomorrow.I cannot get a UC with llmits on time.This is one we will spend more timetrying to get a UC than if we juststart.

Mr. MITCHELL, I thank the 8ena-tor for that. I think the best way toproceed is to proceed. I expect thenwhen we conclude this evening-

Mr. PACKWOOD. I might say tothe leader that this may require menot to attempt to have a vote on theluxury boat ta. But he has no Inter-est in that. It does not matter.

Mr. MITCHELL I will be there, Iasgure the Senator of that. I will bethere voting on that matter wheneverIt arises But I hope we will be able tocomplete action on this bill tomorrow.In any event, we will begin and pro-ceed with that intention.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, willthe majority leader yield to me?

Mr. MITCHEL YesMr. JOHNSTON. I wonder. Mr.

President, If I may ask unanimous con-sent that It be in order for me to intro-duce a bill at this point and proceedfor 3 minutes

The PRESIDING OFFICER Isthere objection?

Mr. GORE. Reserving the right toobject, If I might make a brief Inquiryof the Senator from Oregon before heleaves the Chamber. Might it be possi-ble later this evening for the amend-ment the Senator intends to proposetom9rrow to be printed in the Rzcoanso that we might be able to see what Isincluded in the amendment? I will notobject to any UC, and, if It is a burden,I will Just take it as it is But it wouldbe helpful to some of us who havebeen waiting to see it. I do not thinirthere will be any UC anyway.

Mr. PACKWOOD. I will tell youwhat I will do, Mr. President. I gave tothe manger of the bill-here is whathappened. I had it drafted, and It wassubject to a point of order. It was inthe legislative counsel's office, and Ipassed around the amendment as itwould read, but it was in the old form.

I will put It into the RCORno but givethe Senator a copy of what it waswhen it was subject to a point of orderand Maure him as It comes it will beno different.

Mr. GORE. As long ea the substanceof It Is clear and accessible for us tolook at. I thank my colleague very.much.

The amendment is as follow:On pae 4 beginning with line 8 strke

out all through line 21 on page 56 and insertIn lieu thereof the following:TITLE I--SHORT TrLE. PFINDINOGS

STATENCENT OF POLICY, AND DEFI-NITION8

AC InL HORT LLThis Act may be cited a the "Cable Tele-

vison Competition Act of 1992".

The Congress finds and declares the fol-

(1) In the early 1980s. the development ofthe able tevision industry in the United

tates stalled. The industry's plans to wirethe Nation's lart citie were in disarray.Overdesigned and uneconomlcal cable sys-tems were not attracting subscribers in suf-ficient numbers, lrge because of inad-equate programming. At the same time im-portant le ogrammig services werefaiiLng because of low ratings and low reve-nue. Cable faced a dilemma It could notattract additional subscribers and ncreaserevenue without new and innovative pro-gramming yet It could not afford to developsch proamming without addltionrl sub-scribers and Increased revenu

(2) In 19I4, the Congss moved to dealwith this risis in a comprehenive manner.The Csbe Communaton Policy Act of1984 was designed to encourage the rowth

of cable systems and cable programming ef-forts for the benefit of consumers throughthe elimlnAtlon of unnecessmry and burden-some regulation by local franchising u-thorties.

(3) As the Pederal Communications Com-mission stated In its 1990 report on thecable television industry, the Cable Commu-nications Policy Act of 1984 hua achievedmuch of what Congress intended. Prior to1984. cable service was available to only 70percent of American homes, and less than60 percent of cable subscribers were servedby systems with at least 30 channels. Today,cable service Is available to 90 percent ofAmerican homes, and 90 percent of cablesubscribers are served by systems with atleast 30 channels. Since 1984. the cable tele-vision industry has invested over $5.1 billionin plant and equipment, and annual invest-ment in basic cable programming has morethan tripled.

(4) The cable television industry's pro-gramming efforts since deregulation havebeen of particular benefit to consumers.Prior to 1985. there were approximately 40cable networks available to subscribersToday. more than 70 cable networks areavailable to subecrtbers, and plans ar beingmade to launch more than a dosen new net-works in the near future. Through thesenetworks cable televtion offers consumersa diverse range of specialized programmingoptions. tncluding gavel-to-gavel coverage ofthe proceedings of Congress home shoppingservices. music vide. 24-hour news report-ins. classic movies. and documentariesCable television enables a consumer to pickthe programming that best meets his or herindividual needs and desires

(5) The growth of the cable television in-dutry since deregulation was fully Imple-mented in 1988 has not been free of contro-versy. State and local franchising authori-ties and cable ubscrber have complainedabout rate Incrases and poor customerservice. The cable television industrys com-petitors have arued that the industry's fl-nancl trength vertical integration intoprogramming, and statutorily-mandatedacess to both distant and local broadcastsignals hve given the industry n unfairadvantage in the video marketplace.

(6) Although some cable operators haveclearly abued the freedom of action afford-ed them by the Cable CommunicatIonsPolicy Act of 1984L much of the current crlt-idc-m of the cable television industry Is mi&-directed

(7) In particular, the debate over cablerates is misleading. In 1972. when the Feder-a1 Communication Commissio affirmedthe leglity of local rate regulation. the sv-erage price of basic cable ervice was $5.85.At the end of 1988. it was 1633- percentless than the $17.53 consumers would havepaid If cable rates had simply kept up withincreases in the Consumer Price Index(CPI). The substantial rate increases inexces of the CPI since full deregulation atthe end of 198 primarily reflect years ofexcesive loal rte regulation that keptboth rates and investment in better pro-gramming and additional ervices artfe l-ly low. Finally,. the latest Oeneral Account-ing Office survey of cable rates indicatesthat increases In the so-called "bottom line"measurement of cable rates-the averagemonthly subecriber bill-have moderatedsubstantially over the past two years. In1990. the "bottom line" increased less thanthe overall rae of tnfatlL

(8) In the words of the Pederal Commai-ctLon Commislon, todegs video marketpla la "hlchb dynamic sector In themidst of trandiot" whare relately newtechnologies ouch a cable televon and

S 600

Jcnuary 29, 19Shome videotape machines have strnnychallenged the formerly domnt broadcast television industry, and even neertechnologies such as direct broadeast stel-lite service are wsiting In the wings In sucha dynamic environment, It I difficult to distinguih long-term systemic problems fromshort-term transitory ones.

(9) The record now before the Congressdoes not justify massive re-regulation ofcable rates; aorogation of the traditionalrights of video progamnmers to control theuse of the vioeo programming they develop:or imposition of additional restrictions oncross-ownersnip, horizontal growth, and ver-tical integration in the cable industry. Infact. all three of these approaches have thevery real potential of crippling the growthof cable programming and service optionswithout significantly benefiting consumers.They also raise serious constitutional questlons under the Pirst Amendment.

(10) To the maximum extent, priorityshould be placed on encouraging competi-tion in the video marketplace rather thanre-regulating caole television.

(11) At the same time, in light of increa-ing importance of cable service to consum-ers nationwide, the Federal Communica-tions Commissnrion in accordance with theuniversal service policy of the Communica-tions Act of 1934. should be authorized toensure reasonable access to cable systems-

(A) by regulating the rates charged forbasic service by cable systems not subject toeffective competition, and

(B) by establishing customer service andtechnical standards for all cable systems.

On page 56, redesignate paragraph (8) asparagraph (12) and renumber the nexteleven paragraphs in the section according-ly.

On page 62, beginning with line 1, strikeout all through line 9 on page 63 and insertin lieu thereof the following:SC.w 1I1. STATKIMET or POLICY.

It is the policy of the Congress in this Actto-

(1) build upon on the substantial succesof the Cable Communications Policy Act of1984 in addressin current concen over thecable industry's conduct and trends in thevideo marketplae a a whole;

(2) continue, through market-orientedmeans, to encourage the cable Indutry andother video programmers and video pro-gramming distributors to provide, in an effi-cient and effective rmnner, the widest poed-ble diversity of information sources ndservices to the public;

(3) further the Interests of consuners byenhanclrr competition in the video pro-gramring market by reducing the regula-tory tburden on the cable Industry's competi-tors, prtlcularly the broadcast television In-dustry.

(4) utilize, to the fullest extent, the exper-tise of the Pederal Communications Com-mision to monitor changes in the videomarketplace and determine whether admi.Istrative or legislative action particularlyaction to further reduce regulatin ineeded to respond to such changes: and

(5) avoid imposing additional regulationon the cabhie ndustry or any other videoprogrammer or video prorammin distribu-tor unles such regulation Is clearly necesary to protect the interest of the public.

On age 3. beginnng with line 10. strikeout all through line 11. and insert in lieuthereof the followingsWc Ift DwLTmotIT

(·) Section 602 of the CommunicationsAct

On page 71, begnning with ine 3. strikeout all through line 22 on page 93 and biertin lieu thereof the following

CONGRESSONAL RECORID-SENATE(1) Section O02 of the Communiation Act

of 1934 (47 U-C. 522), s amended by thissection is further amended by amendingparagraph (4). as so redesignated. to read asfollows;

'(4) the term 'basic cable service' meansany service tier which includes retransmit-ted local television broadcast signals; public.educational or governmental access chan-nels; or video programming services provid-ing comprehensive. gavel-to-gavel coverageof the proceeding of either House of Con-greas;".TITLE II-EXPANDINO COMPETIiON

IN THE VIDEO MARKErPLACETHROUOH REDUCED REGULATION

8EC 1i. RLIMINATION OF THE RESTROCTION ONMULTIPLE OWNERSHIP OF BROAD-CAST STATIONS

In order to encourage the development ofregional broadcast operatlons and networksand enhance the ability of the broadcast n-dustry as a whole to compete with the cabletelevision industry and other video program-ming distributors, the regulation adopted bythe Federal Communications Commission tolimit the total number of broadcast stationsin any service that can be owned. operated,or controlled by a party or group of partiesunder common control (47 C.FR.733555(d)) ib hereby repealed.SEC 2t0 EXPANSION OF THu {UtRAL XSnOC4

To THI cAuBL-TELPHON cRossOWNERSHIP PROHIBTO~K

Section 613(bX3) of the CommunicationsAct of 1934 (47 US.C. 533(bX3)) is amendedby striking "(as defined by the Commis-sion)" and inserting after the period the fol-lowing: "For the purposes of this paragraph.the term 'rural area' means a geographicarea that does not include either-

"(A) any incorporated place of 10.000 in-habitants or more, or ny part thereof: or

"(B) any territory, incorporated or unin-corporated. included in an urbanized area(as deflned by the Bureau of the Census aof tl, date of the enactment of the CableTelevision Competition Act of 1992).".

SBC 2La RANCEISE REFORn(A) lFamcams Rzirwmass-Section 62B of

the Communications Act of 1934 (47 US.C.546) is amended-

(1) in subsection (a). by Inserting "writ-ten" before "request" and by inserting atthe end of the subsection the followingCommencement of proceeding under this

section by the franchising authority on itsown initiative or timely submismon of awrftten request by the cable operator specif-lcally ain for the commencement of suchproceedings h required for the cable opera-tor to invoke the renewal procedures setforth in subsections (a) through (g). In ac-cordance with the provisions of subsection(J). the franching authority may on Itsown Initiative commence proceedings underthis subsection during the 6-month periodafter the tenth anniversary of the currentfranchise term":

(2) in subsection (b)-(A) by inserting the followin new paa-

graph at the beginning of the subaectioa"(1) The frnchising authority shall have

1 year from the date It commencs on Itsown initiative proceedng under subsection(a) or from the date It receives a timely writ-ten request from the cable operator specifi-cally aking for the commencement of suchproceedng to complete such proceedingsThi period may be extended by mutualagreement between the franchising author-ity and the cable operator.";

(B) by renumbering the following para-graphs accordingly;

(C) by deleting "a proceedings in para-graph (2). as renumbered, and inserting in

S601lieu thereof "proceedings under subsection(a)"; and

(D) by Inserting "reasonable" before"date" in paragraph (4), as renumbered:

(3) In subsection (c), by inserting 'pursu-ant to subsectlon (b)" before the firstcomma, by deleting "completion of any pro-ceedings under subsection (a)" and Insertingin lieu thereof "date of submission of thecable operator's proposal pursuant to sub-section (b)". by Inserting "cable" before thethird occurrence of "operator". and by in-serting", throughout the franchise term"after "whether":

(4) by amending subsection (d) to read asfollows:

"(dxl) Any denial of a proposal for renew-al which has been submitted in compliancewith subsection (b) shall be based on one ormore adverse findings made with respect tothe factors described In subparagraphs (A)through (D) of subsection (c)l). pursuantto the record of the proceeding under sub-section (c).

"(2) A franchising authority may not basea denial of renewal on a failure to substan-tially comply with the material terms of thefranchie under subsection (cXl)(A) or onevents considered under subsection (cH X B)in any case in which such failure to complyor such events occur.

"(A) after the effective date of this titleand before the date of enactment of theCable Television Competition Act of 1992unless the franchising authority has provid-ed the cable operator with notice and theopportunity to cure, or

"(B) after the date of enactment of theCable Television Competition Act of 1992unless the franchising authority has provid-ed the cable operator with written noticeand the opportunity to cure.

"(3) A franchising authority may not basea denial of renewal on a fallure to substan-tially comply with the material terms of thefranchise under subsection (cXIXA) or onevents considered under subsection (cXlXB)in any case where it is documented that thefranchising authority-

"(A) ha waived its right to object, or haseffectively acquiesced, to such failure tocomply or such events prior to the date ofenactment of the Cable Television Competi-tion Act of 1992, or

"(B) has waived In writing Its right toobject to such failure to comply or suchevents after the date of enactment of theCable Television Competition Act of 1992"';and

(5) at the end of the section. by insertingthe following new subsections

"(1) Notwthstanding the provision of sub-sections (a) through (h) of this section, anylawful action to revoke a cable operator'sfranchise for caue shall not be negated bythe initiation of renewal proceedings by thecable operator under this section.

"(J) Notthstandin any other provisionof law, a franchising authority may estab-liah as part of any franchise or franchise re-newal granted after the date of enactmentof the Cable Television Competition Act of1992 a provision permitting such franchis-ing authority to commence the process setforth in subsections (a) through (g) of thissection during the 6-month period Immedl-ately following the tenth anniversary of thecurrent franchise term. regardles of the du-ration of such frnchise or franchise renew,· a beyond such date. Nothing in this subsec-tion shall be construed to prohibit a cableoperator from seeking renewal under sub-section (h).".

(b) MuLIPn, FawcxaSs--(1) Section621(a) of the Communications Act of 1934(47 U..C. 541(a)) is amended-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992(A) by strking "1 or more" In paragraph

(1):(B) by adding at the end of paragraph (1)

the following. "No franchising authorityshall grant an exclusive franchise to anycable operator or unresonably refuse toaward to an applicant an additional com-petitive franchise with terms substantallyequivalent to thoee granted the incumbentcable operator. Any appliant whose appli-cation for an additional competitive fran-chise has been dfiied by a final decision ofa franchising authority may appeal suchfinal decision pursuant to the provisions ofsection 635."; and

(C) by adding at the end thereof the fol-lowing new paragraph:

"(4) In awarding a franchise, the franchis-ing authority shall allow the applicant'scable system a reasonable period of time tobecome capable of providing cable service toall households in the geographic area withinthe jurisdiction of such franchising author-ity.".

(2) Section 635(a) of the CommunicationsAct of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 555(a)) is amended byinserting "621(aX)," immediately after"section".

(c) No PoHIrsmoN AGAINST A LocAL oRMmnwcirAL Auroarrr OPrATI- AS a MUL-TICNAwmL VImzo PRooAammo DsT'raxu-ToL-Section 621 of the CommunicationsAct of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541) is amended bysdding "and subsection (f)" before thecomma in paragraph (bXl) and by addingthe following new subsecton at the endthereof:

"(f) No provision of this Act shall be con-strued to-

"(1) prohibit a local or municipal author-ity that is also, or Is affiliated with, a fran-chising authority from operating aM a multiU-channel video progamming distributor inthe geographic are within the jurdlictionof such franchising authority, notwith-standing the grantng of one or more fran-chises by such franchising authority, or

"(2) require such local or municipal au-thority to secure a franchise to operate a amultichannel video progrmming distribu-tor.".SEC 2L MONITORINC CO(MPErTiON IN THE VIDEO

MARKETPLACL(a) BmwAL RzroRT Rzsqm -Starting

in 1993. the Federal Communications Com-mission shall prepare and submit to thePresident and Congress biennial reports re-garding the level of competition in the videomarketplace. Such a report shall be submit-ted not later than 60 days after the conven-ing of each new Congress.

(b) Cownrrr or RzrorT.-() Each reportsubmitted pursuant to this section shall ex-amine, among any other fectors deemed a-propriate by the Federal CommunicationCommission, changes in-

(A) the structure of the domestic andinternational video marketplace, includingownership and Joint venture patterns, verti-cal and horizontal consolidation. and mar-keting and pricing approaches;

(B) the viewing and buying habits of thegeneral public;

(C) video programming production anddistribution technology; and

(D) the legislaUve and administrative reg-ulatory structure that shapes the video mar-ketplace

(2) Each report submitted pursuant tothis section shall discuss the impact of thefactors set forth in paragraph (1) on thelevel of competition in the video market-place and shall make specific recommend-tions regarding adminitrve and legil-tlve steps that could be taken to reduce theregulation of, and enhance competitionwithin, the video marketplace

TrTLE m-AMENDMENT8 TO THECABLE COMMUNICATIONS POLICYACT OF 1984 AND OTHER MAT'ER8

SC M1. RCUUIATION OF CABLX LATE.(a) Section 623 of the Communications

Act of 1934 (47 USC. 543) is amended toread a follows:sac. 6 RIULAOMN or CABL s ATEa.

"(a) Scors or RATe RnULAriOW Aurnor-rrr.-No Federal agency or State shall regu-late rates for provision of cable service or in-stallatlon or rental of equipment (includingremote control devices) used for the receiptof such service except to the extent provid-ed under this section and section 612. Nofranchising authority shall regulate ratesfor provision of cable service provision ofany other communications service providedover a cable system to cable subscribers, orinstallation or rental of equipment (includ-ing remote control devices) used for the re-ceipt of such services except to the extentprovided under this section section 612, andsection 62L

"(b) RAT RmnLATir r Ts Coms-sxoN.--(1-)If the Commission finds that acable system is not subject to effective com-petition. the Commission shall determineand prescribe Just and reasonable rates forthe provision on such system of basic cableservice and the installation or rental ofequipment (including remote control de-vices) used for the receipt of such service.The Commission shall further ensure thatsuch cable system, in the provision of pro-gramming services offered on a per channelor per program bsus, does not unreasonablyor unjustly discriminate against subscriberswho subscribe only to bsic cable service orotherwise penalize such subcribers forchoosing to subscribe to a regulated servicetier.

"(2) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of the Cable Television Competi-Uon Act of 1992, the Commission shahll pro-mulgate procedures. standarc, require-ments, and guideline to establish Just andresonable rates to be charged by a cablesystem not subject to effective competitionfor basic cable service and for the installa-tion or rentsal of equipment (includingremote control device) used for the receiptof such service

"(3XA) Except as provided in subpara-graph (B), no provision of this Act shall pre-vent a cable operator from adding or delet-ing from a basic cable service tier any videoprozrammin-

"(B) No cable operator shall delete from abasic service tier retransmitted local televi-sion broadcast signl public, educationaror government access channels; or videoprogramming services providing comprehen-sive, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the proceed-ings of either House of Congress: Providedhowever, That a cable operator may movesuch signs channels, and services to acommon basic service tier.

"(c) RATX R LATon srBY a F acmsnrwoAuroarrr.--(l) Within 180 days of thedate of enactment of the Cable TelevisionCompetition Act of 1992, the Commissionshall promulgate regulations to authorize afranchiing authority. If it so chooses, to im-plement subsection (bXl) in lieu of theCommission and in a manner consistentwith the procedures, standards, require-ments. and guidelines established pursuantto subsection (bX2).

"(2) Upon petition by a cable operator, theCommission shall review the implementa-tion of subsection (bXl) by a franchising au-thority. If the Commission finds that suchfranchising authority ha acted inconst-entl with the procedures, standarda re-quirements and gudelines established pur-suant to subsection (bX2), It shall grant ap

propriate relief and, i neew, revokesuch franchising authority's authorzatonto implement subsection (bX 1).

"(d) CoNssrnmAxow or RATS INcNRAs Rr-Qoursm-A cable operator may file with theCommission, or - fanchising authority au-thorized to regulate rate pursuant to sub-section (c), a request for a rate increase inthe price of a baslc cable service tier or Inthe price of installing or renting equipment(including remote control devices) used inthe receipt of basic cable service. Any suchrequest upon which final action is not takenwithin 180 days shall be deemed granted.

"(e) Emrn m CoKmrm Ow DMrrm.-Forthe purposes of this section, a cable systemshall be considered subject to effective com-petition if-. "(1) one or more independently-ownedmultichannel video programming distribu-tors offer service, in competition with suchcable system, to at least 50 percent of thehomes passed by such cable system, and

"(2) at least 10 percent of such homes sub-scribe to such service.

"(f) DIscnmATInoN Paoasrrm.--(1) Acable operator shal have a rate structurefor the provision of cable service that is uni-form throughout the geographic area cov-ered by the franchise granted to such cableoperator.

"(2) No provision of this title shall be con-strued to prohibit any Federal agency.8tate, or franchising authority from-

"(A) prohibiting discrimination amongsubscribers to any service tier; or

"(B) requiring and regulating the installa-tion or rental of equipment to facilitate thereception of cable service by hearing-im-paired individuals".sC a2. CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARID AND RE-

QUIlRaMrSSection 632 of the Communications Act of

1934 (47 U.S.C. 552) is amended-(1) in subsection (a), by inserting "may es-

tablsh and" immediately after "authority";(2) by amending subsection (b) to read a

follows:"(b) EwroarKwT Powlas or PFncmsroxo

AuTHoRa.--A frnchising authority mayenforce-

"(1) any provision, contained in any fran-chise. relating to requirements described insubsection (a), to the extent not inconsist-ent with this title;

"(2) any customer service standard estab-lished by the Commission pursuant to sub-section (d); or

"(3) any customer service requirementthat exceeds the standards established bythe Commission pursuant to subsection (d)but only if such requirement-

"(A) exists as part of a franchise or fran-chise renewal on the date of enactment ofthe Cable Television Competition Act of1992; or

"(B) is Imposed by-"(i) a municipal ordinance or agreement in

effect on the date of enactment of the CableTelevision Competition Act of 1992, or

"(U) a State law."; and(3) by dding at the end the following

new subsections"(d) EsrTaLIsx or CUSToUm SXRVICX

SrxaAn s w Tx Corassxow.--The Com-mission, within one year after the date ofenactment of the Cable Television Competi-tion Act of 1992, hall, after notice and anopportunity for public comment, prescribeand make effective regulatlons to establishcustomer service standards to ensure thatall cable subscribers are fairly served.Thereafter, the Commson shall regularlyreview the standard and make such modifi-catiom s may be neceary to ensure thatcable subscribers are fairly served.

S 602

January 29, 19 CON"(e) Couumsow Rivm or A P*AFcaa-

me Aurmo-rrT's EsmmomT or CvuroKSauvics SrAnDR AND Rzqoum wr.--Upon petition by a cable operator, the Com-mission shall review the enforcement by afranchising uthority of customer rvicestandards and requirements under subsec-tion (b). If the Commission finds that suchfranchistng authority ha acted inconsit-ently with the authoriation granted bysubsection (b). It shall grant appropriaterelief.".SEC 03. MINIMUMi'%CHNICAL STANDARDs AND

TESTING REQ'IREMENTS.Section 624(e) of the Communications Act

of 1934 (47 U-S.C. 544(e)) is amended to readas follows:

"(e) ESTAlSHMIu rr AND EnroaRcnwr orMINIM] TEaCHNICAL STANDARDa BY THS COM-MIssio.--1XA) The Commission shalLwithin one year after the date of enactmentof the Cable Television Competition Act of1992. prescribe and make effective regula-tlons that establish minlmum technicalstandards, and requirements for testingsuch standards. to ensure adequate signalquality for all classes of video programmingsignals provided over a cable system, andthereafter hall periodically update suchstandards and requirements to reflect Im-provements In technology.

"(B) The Commission shall establishguidelines and procedures for complaints orpetitions asserting the failure of a cable op-erator to meet the standards or require-ments established pursuant to this subsec-tion and may require compliance with andenforce any such standard or requirement.The Commission shall also establish procedures and guidelines for the enforcement ofsuch standards and requirements by a fran-chising authority.

"(C) The Commisson. upon a determina-tion that such action is required In thepublic tnterest. may modify or waive anystandard or requirement established pursu-ant to thls section upon petition from acable operator or franchisn authority.

"(2) Neither a State nor political ubdivl-sion thereof nor a franchising authorityshall establish or enforce any technicalstandards or testing requirementa in addi-tion to or different trom. the standards orrequirements established by the Commis-sion.

"(3) Upon petition by a cable operator, theCommission shall review the enforcement ofminimum technical tandards and testingrequirements by a frnchsing authority. Ifthe Commission finds that such frnchisingauthority has acted inconsistently with theprocedures nd guidelines establhed pur-suant to paragraph (1XB), It shahl grant ppropriate relief.".sC 364. HOME WIRINu

Section 624 of the Communications Act of1934 (17 USC. 544) amended by adding atthe end the following new subeectio:

"(g) Within 120 days aftr the date of en-actment of this subnectoL, the ComInioshall prescribe rules and regulatios concerning the disposition after a subcriber toa cable system terminates servi of nycable installed by the cabe operator withinthe premises of such subcriber.".

On page 93. beginnin with line 23. strikeout all through line 24 and Insert n lieuthereof the following:sEc. I34L araATNSMIso COW .

(a) SectkLn 325 of the CommunicationsAct

On page 9 beginning with line 20, strikeout all through line 21 and nert n lieuthereof the following:seC. , CAR m~ 0oP LOCAL BUOADCANW S;-

NAIPart II of Title VI of the Communication

GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEOn pmae 111. beginninl with line 22. strike

out all through line 23 and Insert In lieuthereof the following:SC 7T. J'DICIAL REVIEW.

Section 635 of the Communications Act ofOn page 112. begInning on line 14. strike

out all through line 26 on page 116 andinsert in lieu thereof the following.SEC. 6. DIRECT BROADCAST SATErrE SERVICE.

(a) M1L PsrDror. RrQummurrs.--(1)The Federal Communications Commissionshall require. an a condition of any provi-sion initial authorization or renewal there-of, for a direct broadcast satellite serviceproviding video programming. that the pro-vider of such service reserve a portion of itschannel capacity. equal to not less than 4percent nor more than 7 percent of such ca-pacity, exclusively for nonduplicated, non-commercial education and informationalprogramming.

(2) Such provider may utilize for any pur-pose any unused channel capacity requiredto be reserved under this section pendingthe actual use of such channel capacity fornonduplicated. noncommercial educationalrnd Informational programming.

(3) Such provider shall meet the require-ments of this section by leasing capacity onits system upon reasonable termrs condi-UonL and prices based only on the directcosts of tranmitting programming suppliedby national educational programming sup-pliers, including qualified noncommercialeducational television stations. other publictelecommunications entities. and public orprivate educational institutlons Such pro-vider shall not exercise any editorial controlover any video programming provided pur-suant to the section.

(b) 8Trmr PALm.-There I establslhed astudy panel which shall be comprised of onerepresentative each from the Corporationfor Public Broadcasting the National Tele-communicatonr and Information Adminis-tration. and the Office of Technology As-sment. selected by the head of each suchentity. Such study panel shall within 2year after the date of enactment of thisAct, submit a report to the Congres con-tsinng recommendat on-

(1) methode and strtegies for promotingthe development of programming for tram-mision over the channels reserved pursuantto paragraph (1),

(2) methods and criteria for selectitn pro-cramming for such channels that avoid con-ficts of interest and the exercise of editort-al control by a direct broadcast satelliteservice provder, and

(3) identifying existing and potentialources of funding for administrative and

production costs for such programming.(c) Dumrmrow.-As used in this ection.

the term "direct brodcast satellite system"includes

(1) any stellite system licensed underpart 100 of title 47, Code of Federal Regula-tior and

(2) any distributor using a fixed servicesatellite system to provide video service di-rectly to the home and licensed under part25 of title 47. Code of Federal RegulationsSC. U9EAtABIA't!Y.

If any provision of this Act, or the aPl-cation of such provision to any person orcircur stance.shall be held Invalid. the re-mainder of this Act. or the application as towhich It is held invalid shall not be affectedthereby.sc. m. FcrrTIVi DATr

Except as otherwise specified in this Actthe requirements of this Act shall be effec-tive 60 days after the date of enactment ofthis Act. The Pederl ConmmunicatiosCommissi may promulgate such regulA-

S 603tions _ it determines as nssary to Imple-ment such requirement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere objection to the request of theSenator from L-ouisiana?

Mr. PRESSI4R. Mr. President. re-serving the right to object, and I shallnot object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from South Dakota.

Mr. PRESSLER. I have two amend-ments to this bill that have beenagreed to by both sides. If I couldoffer those either immediately orright after.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if Imay respond.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I be-lieve the majority leader actually hasthe time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President. Iyield to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the leader.We are prepared to take up theamendment immediately after this col-loquy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is the unanimous-consent re-quest of the Senator from Louisiana.If there is no objection. the request is

-granted.

MEASURE HnE, AT DESKMr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent it be in orderfor me to introduce a bill. that It beheld at the desk until the majorityleader moves to advance it in accord-ance with the rules.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere objection? Without objection, itis so ordered.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, thebill I send to the desk on behalf ofmyself and the Senator from Wyo-ming, Mr. WALLOP, is the same bill as8. 1220, with the exception of four sec-tions which have been deleted. Thosefour sections are the so-called ANWRor Arctic national wildlife drilling sec-tion the corporate average fuel effi-ciency section, the CAFE section: theWEPCO section, dealing with an ex-ception to the Clean Air Act; and aused oil provision. Otherwise, this billIs identical to 8. 1220.

Mr. President, we have not yet se-cured full consent from all the partiesinvolved as to exactly how we aregoing to proceed. but Senator WALLOPand I send this bill up to the desk andthe majority leader later will begin toinvoke the provision.

I believe it is rule XIV of the rulesunder which a bill may be held at thedesk and advanced immediately to thecalendar.

We are not asking for any extraordi-nary provisions other than the abilityto get it on the calendar. This will nei-ther waive the motion to take up theright to filibuster, the right to amend.or any of those kinds of things.

It is our hope, Mr. Preslident-frank-ly, It is my expectaton-that a corm-prehensive energy package as just sent

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992to the desk will be considered, and ex-peditiously so, early next week. It ismy hope, Mr. President, that It will besupported on both sides of the aisle,and that we will have what constitutesa very far-reaching and very compre-hensive and very effective, very bal-anced national energy policy.

The CAFE we hope, we trust, willnot be included-.ere, and not consid-ered; the ANWR provisions and theother two provisions we hope will notbe at all even considered as part ofthis package. But the rest of this billdoes constitute a very extensive, bal-anced, effective national energypolicy.

We look forward, If we get theseagreements, to considering this earlynext week and passing it early nextweek.

Mr. President. I thank the majorityleader. I thank my colleague from Wy-oming, Senator WALLOP and all othersinvolved in the negotiations thus far,which have been very, very successfulup to this point.

Mr. GRASSLEY addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Iowa is recognized.

ORDER OF PROCEDUREMr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous

consent to speak for 4 minutes as If inmorning business.


TAX BENEFITS FOR HIGHEREDUCATION

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, nowthat President Bush has delivered hisState of the Union Address, I am suremany Members of this body will takethe opportunity to comment on thePresident's economic plan and hisvision of a new America. Several Re-publican Members of this body didthat earlier today.

However, in the meantime, and as amember of the Senate Finance Com-mittee, I am going to have the oppor-tunity to make my own comments, andI am going to do that later on. But atthis point, I wanted to take a few min-utes to address a very specific provi-sion of the President's plan that Ihave a particular interest in and havebeen supporting for a long time.

The specific provision I am referringto is the one to restore the interest de-duction on student loans.

Mr. President, since 1987, I havesponsored legislation to restore the in-terest deduction on student loans. Ithas been a long struggle and, unfortu-nately, one that is not over yet. But,up to this year, I have never had theadministration's support. It is ex-tremely encouraging to finally be get-ting that support.

Last Friday, Senator Boaa Joinedme in introducing a new version of mypast legislation The new bill is an im-provement on the previous legislation

because it gives taxpayers a choice be-tween a credit or a deduction and non-itemizers will be helped along withitemizers.

Earlier last December, as membersof the Finance Committee, both Sena-tor BoRam and I participated in aseries of hearings regarding an eco-nomic growth package. At that time,Senator Boaxm and I stressed the needto address our Nation's long-termneeds by including a restoration of taxbenefits for higher education in aneconomic growth package. We subse-quently contacted President Bush em-phsizing this need. It is very satisfy-ing to see that the President listenedto these concerns and agreed to in-clude a restoration of these educationbenefits in his new economic plan.

Mr. President, there is Just no ques-tion that more needs to be done for in-dividual taxpayers to help them withtheir specific educational needs. Byphasing out the interest deduction onstudent loans in 1986, Congress effec-tively imposed an additional tax on in-dividuals who are attempting to betterthemselves or their families throughhigher education.

Mr. President, the present law pre-cluding interest deductions or creditsfor higher education is neither fairnor productive, and it Is time to makean adjustment. We all agree that edu-cation is a national investment whichwill be a determining factor in thefuture of America. A well-educatedwork force is vitally important if weare to compete effectively in the inter-national marketplace. Restoring taxbenefits for higher education is an ex-pression of the value we place on edu-cation and Its role in maintaining theposition of the United States as theleader of the free world.

There is strong support for restoringthese benefits in Congres The Presi-dent has now Joined our effort. It isnow time for the congressional leader-ship to get on board and Join us insupporting the education and futureof America by adjusting the Tax Codeto provide assistance to Americans forreasonable educational expenses.


The Senate resumed considerationof the bill.

Mr. PRESSLER addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from South Dakota is recog-nized.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Ihave two andmdments that I believehave been agreed to on both sides.

ADMTf NO. 1SO11

(Purpose: To amend section 21)Mr. PRESSLER Mr. President, I

send an amendment to the desk andask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report,

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.Plassat] propoces an amendment num-bered 1508.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that reading of theamendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection. it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:Strike all on page 113. line 22, through

page 118, line 14, and insert in lieu thereofthe following.

DIRICT aROADCAST SAT;tLLITE SIRVICzS

Sc. 21.(a) The Federal CommunicationsCommission shall, within one year after thedate of enactment of this Act, submit to theCommittee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation of the Senate and the Com-mittee on Energy and Commerce of theHouse of Representatives a report analyzingthe need for, and the form, nature, andextent of. the most appropriate public inter-est obligations to be imposed upon directbroadcast satellite services in addition towhat is required pursuant to subsection(bX 1). The report shall include-

(1) a consideration of the national natureof direct broadcast satellite programmingservices

(2) an evaluation of a phase-in of suchpublic interest obligations for direct broad-cast satellite services commensurate withthe degree to which direct broadcast satel-lite services have become a source of effec-tive competition to cable systems and

(3) an analysis of the Commission's au-thority to impose such public interest obli-gatlons recommended in the report withoutfurther legislation.

(bX)( Notwithstanding its report to beprovided pursuant to subsection (a). TheFederal Communications Commission shallrequire, as a condition of any provision, ini-tial authorization. or authorization renewalfor a direct broadcast satellite service pro-viding video programming, that the providerof such service reserve a portion of its chan-nel capacity, equal to not less than 4 per-cent nor more than 7 percent, exclusivelyfor nonduplicated. noncommercial educa-tional, and informational programming.

(2) A provider of such service may utilizefor any purpose any unused channel capac-ity required to be reserved under this sub-section pending the actual use of such chan-nel capacity for noncommercial education-l, and informational programming.(3) A direct broadcast satellite service pro-

vider shall meet the requirements of thissubsection by leasing, to national education-al programming suppliers (including quali-fied noncommercial educational televisionstations other public telecommunicationsentities, and public or private educationalinstitutions), capacity on its system uponreasonable prices, terms, and conditions.taking into account the nonprofit characterof such suppliers. The direct broadcast sat-ellite service provider shall not exercise anyeditorial control over any video program-ming provided pursuant to this subsection.

(c) There is established a study panelwhich shall be comprised of a representativeof the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,the National Telecommunications and In-formation Administration, and the Office ofTechnology Assessment selected by thehead of each such entity. Such study panelshall within two years after the date of en-actment of this Act submit a report to theCongress containing recommendations on-

(1) methods and trategies for promotingthe development of programming for trans-mission over the Public use channels re-erved pursuant to subection (bXl):

S 604

January 29, 1992(2) methods and criteria for selecting pro-

gramming for such channels that avoidsconflict of interest and the exercise of edito-rial control by the direct broadcast satelliteservice provider

(3) identifying existing and potentialsources of funding for dmilnistratlve andproduction costs for such public use pro-gramming-. and

(4) what constitute reasonable prices,terms, and conditions for provisions of satel-lite space for publhi use channels.

(d) As used in this section. the term"direct broadcast satellite service" in-cludes-

(1) any satellite system licensed underpart 100 of title 47, Code of Federal Regula-tions; and

(2) any distributor using a fixed servicesatellite system to provide video service di-rectly to the home and licensed under part25 of title 47. Code of Federal Regulations.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, thisamendment will take America's publictelevision stations into the 21st centu-ry. The amendment ensures that thequality programming provided by ourlocal public broadcasters will be avail-able to consumers via direct broadcastsatellite.

The DBS provider will be required tolease to the national educational pro-gram suppliers capacities on its DBSsatellite based on reasonable terms. Inthe future this will require that theFCC ensure 4 to 7 percent of DBSchannel capacity to be made availableto educational and informational pro-gramming.

Mr. President, as you know, high-powered DBS is a promising near-termcompetitor to cable. DBS already isavailable in Europe and Japan andshould be coming to American viewersin early 1994 with the scheduledlaunch of two competing DBS services,sharing the same satellite, one provid-ed by Hughes Communications, Inc.and the other by U.S. Satellite Broad-casting owned by Stanley Hubbard, atrue visionary in the communicationsfield. DBS will offer home viewersover 100 channels of diversified pro-gramming, including pay per view and"niche" programming, availablethrough small easy to install disheswhich can be mounted on a window.

Consumers will be able to purchaseall the electronics needed for DBS atconsumer electronics stores and havethe whole system operational and in-stalled for less than $700. The smallsize of the receivers will enable urbanAmericans to receive direct satellite-to-home TV in much the same way asmany Americans in my home State ofSouth Dakota have been receiving Itover the large C-band home satellitedishes. The' much lower cost of DB8receivers and electronics should be at-tractive to people living in rural andmountainous areas who do not yetown home satellite dishes. DBS alsomay be the swiftest means to bringhigh definition television to the Amer-ican viewers, again as is happening inJapan.

I have several technical amendmentsnecessary to ensure that the proeom-petitive provisions of section 6 do not

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEcreate unintended burdens for DBS.Several minor language changes willsafeguard against DBS being inadvert-ently placed at a competitive disadvan-tage. I believe that these amendments,which I intend to offer en bloc, areacceptable to the chairmen of the com-mittee and the subcommittee, Sena-tors HOLLINGS and INouyrm to theranking minority member, SenatorDAIFORTH, and to Senator GORE. whohas long been a leader in direct-to-home satellite broadcasting issues.

Mr. PRESSLER. I urge adoption ofthe amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I amauthorized to speak in behalf of themanager of the Republican side, Mr.DrnORTH. He and I have consulted onthis matter, and we support theamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere further debate on the amend-ment? I-not. the question is on agree-ing to tie amendment.


Mr. PRESSLER Mr. President, Imove to reconsider the vote by whichthe amendment was agreed to.



ANIrDXrr No. o1509

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Isend an amendment to the desk andask for Its immediate consideration.


The bill clerk read as follows:The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.

ParsL] for himself and Mr. McCAIN, pro-poses an amendment numbered 1509.

On page 79. line 21, insert before theperiod at the end the following. ". withoutany obligation or the direct broadcast satel-lite distributor or the programmer to paythe costs necessary for C-band distribution".

On page 80, line 14, immediately after"A". insert "fixed service".

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, asmany know, high-powered DBS is apromising near-term competitor tocable. DBS already is available inEurope and Japan and should becoming to American viewers in early1994.

With a scheduled launch of two com-peting DB8S services sharing the samesatellite, one provided by HughesCommunication, Inc. and the other byU.S. Satellite Broadcasting owned byStanley Hubbard, a true visionary inthe communications field, DBS willoffer home viewers over 100 channelsof diversified programs including pay-per-view and niche programming avail-able through small easy-to-installdishes that can be mounted on awindow.

Consumers will be able to purchaseall the electronics needed for DB8 atconsumer electronic stores and havethe whole system operational, in-stalled for less than $700.

The small size of the receivers willenable urban Americans to receive

S 605direct satellite-to-home TV in muchthe same way as many Americans inmy home State of South Dakota havebeen receiving It over large C-Bandhome satellite dishes. The much lowercost of DBS receivers and electronicsshould be attractive to people living inrural and mountainous areas who donot yet own home satellite dishes.DBS also may be the swiftest means tobring high-definition television to theAmerican viewers again. as It is hap-pening in Japan.

I have several technical amendmentsnecessary to ensure that the procom-petitive provisions of section 6 do notcreate an unintended burden for DBS.several minor language changes thatwill safeguard against DBS being inad-vertently placed in a competitive dis-advantage.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of theamendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. themanagers of this bill, S. 12, are in sup-port of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President. I joinmy colleague from South Dakota incosponsoring this amendment whichaddresses the need to foster competi-tion and a fair marketplace. Only afair, competitive marketplace willeliminate the problems facing consum-ers in receiving video programming inthe home.

Competition is the cornerstone ofour free-market system. It is the deter-mining factor in whether consumerswill receive quality service at a faircost. The amendment Just offered willassist would-be video service providersin giving consumers all of the optionsavailable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Isthere further debate on the amend-ment? If not, the question is on agree-ing to the amendment.


Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Imove to reconsider the vote by whichthe amendment was agreed to.



Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I be-lieve that concludes our business forthis evening and, with the concurrenceof the leader, we are prepared toreturn tomorrow morning at 10o'clock, at which time we will considerthe Packwood-Kerry. et al.. substitute.We hope that we will be able to re-solve all matters by the afternoon.

HONORING THE WASHINGTONREDSKINS' SUPER BOWL VIC-TORYMr. MITCHELL. Mr. President,

Sunday was a great day for the peopleof Washington. On that day, residentsof Maryland, Virginia, and even peopleas far away as West Virginia, allbecame honorary citizens of Washing-ton, DC.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEmodify certain provisions relating tothe treatment of forestry activities

I. 1070

At the request of Mr. MoYNami. thename of the Senator from Vermont[Mr. JEFoaDs] was added as a cospon-sor of EL 2070, a bill to provide for theManagement of Judicial Space and Fa-cilities.

L, 203s05At the request of Mr. PaRYo, the

name of the Senator from Idaho [Mr.SYmxs] was added as a cosponsor of S.2085, a bill entitled the Federal-StatePesticide Regulation Partnership.

SzATZ JOInT ESOLUTION 233sAt the request of Mr. BrmD, the

names of the Senator from Alaska[Mr. STrvzs]. the Senator fromWashington (Mr. ADAS]. the Senatorfrom Hawaii [Mr. AAwrA], the Senatorfrom North Dakota LMr. B'RDICK',and the Senator from New Mexico[Mr. DoummCI] were added as cospon-sors of Senate Joint Resolution 233, aJoint resolution to designate the weekbeginning April 12, 1992. as "NationalPublic Safety TelecommunicatorsWeek"

S-ATS CONCURmmiT RIsOLUTION 43

At the request of Mr. DODD, thename of the Senator from Kansas[Mr. DoL] was added as a cosponsorof Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, aconcurrent resolution concerning theemancipation of the Baha'l communi-ty of Iran.

SZWATI CONCURRMT R.SOLIAON 70

At the request of Mr. SAmoaRD, thenames of the Senator from Vermont[Mr. JoaDs] and the Senator fromWisconsin [Mr. Ko.L] were added ascosponsors of Senate Concurrent Res-olution 70. a concurrent resolution toexpress the sense of the Congress withrespect to the support of the UnitedStates for the protection of the Afri-can elephant.

snZATZ ES&OLUTION 1 0At the request of Mr. RmIz, the

name of the Senator from Alabama[Mr. S:LBy] was added as a cospon-sor of Senate Resolution 109, a resolu-tion exercising the right of the Senateto change the rules of the Senate withrespect to the "fast track" proceduresfor trade implementation bills

SEATZ R IOLmUTIO 24At the request of Mr. Corxe, his

name was added as a cosponsor ofSenate Resolution 248, a resolution ex-pressing the sense of the Senate re-garding the signing on January 16,1992, of the agreements for a formalcease-fire in El Salvador, and for otherpurposes.

At the request of Mr. Dixox, hisname was added as a cosponsor ofSenate Resolution 248, supra.

At the request of Mr. DURENZRoGx,the names of the Senator from Virgin-la (Mr. WARmER], the Senator from Ar-lzona [Mr. DNCCoNcDml, the Senatorfrom Florida [Mr. GaHAIl, the Sena-tor from Massachusetts [Mr. KEway-DY], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr.

WALLuo]. the Senator from RhodeIsland [Mr. CaArm] and the Senatorfrom Oregon (Mr. HATFmLD] wereadded as cosponsors of Senate Resolu-tion 248, supra.

SEATE REMOLUTIO1 24At the request of Mr. IY'AAro, the

name of the Senator from Arizona[Mr. DrConcn] was added as a co-sponsor of Senate Resolution 249, aresolution expressing the sense of theSenate that the United States shouldseek a final and conclusive account ofthe whereabouts and definitive fate ofRaoul Wallenberg.

SENATE RESOLUTION 252-RELA-TIVE TO THE STATUS OF IS-RAELI PRISONERS OP WARAND MISSING IN ACTIONMr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr.

Moymamu) submitted the followingresolution; which was referred to theCommittee on Foreign Relations:

EL RDz 252Whereas the 8yrian Arab Republic in a

party to the Geneva Convention Relative tothe Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereaf-ter in this resolution referred to as the"POW Convention");

Whereas parties to the POW Conventionare obligated under Article 118 to releaseand repatriate POWs without delay afterthe cessation of hostilities and under Article120 to honorably bury. iff possible accordingto the rites of the religion to which they be-longed, POWs who died in captivity and torespect, maintain. and permanently marktheir graves;

Whereas the unresolved fates of RonAnad Yehuda Kat4 Zachavy BaumeL TzvlPeldman Joseph Pink, and RachamimAlsheh, Iwrael prisoners of war and misngin action (POWs/MIAs), remain a source ofdeep rancor between Syria and Irael;

Whereas the Israell POW/MIA sue. If al-lowed to fester, could poison the currentpeace talkl Now, therefore, be it

Resoved, That the Senate urges the Gov-ernment of Syria-

(1) provide the strictest accounting of allIsraell POWs/MAs;

(2) tmmedlately release and repatriate anylivin Israeli prisoners of war in Its custodyor the custody of Its proxies in Lebanon,and

(3) recover and return to Israel with ap-propriate military honors the bodies of Is-raell soldiers interred in Syria or in former-ly Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon.· Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I riseto submit with my good friend andfellow New Yorker Senator MoYwniAma resolution calling upon the Govern-ment of Syria to account for, andwhere necessary release and repatri-ate, Israeli prisoners of war and miss-ing in action.

The unresolved fates of Ron Arad,Yehuda Katz, Zachavy Baumel, TzvlFeldman, Joseph Pink, and RachamimAlsheh, Israeli prisoners of war andmisning in action-POW's/MIA's-area source of such deep rancor betweenSyria and Israel that it could poisonany peace agreement between the two.

As a party to the Geneva Conven-tion Relative to the Treatment of Pris-oners of War, Syria is obligated underarticle 118 to release and repatriate

POW's without delay after the cessa-tion of hostilities and under article 120to honorably bury, If possible accord-ing to the rites of the religion towhich they belonged POW's who diedin captivity and to respect, maintain.and permanently mark their graves.

Americans are all too familiar withthe anguish of POW's/ MIA's. Argu-ably, this issue more than any otherhas shaped United States-Vietnam re-lations. Such deep antagonism maymean little when two nations are sepa-rated by the Pacific and at peace. butIsrael and Syria share a commonborder and are technically still at war.

If a permanent peace is to beachieved, Syria must abide by its Inter-national obligations and settle themystery surrounding the fates of RonArad, Yehuda Katz, Zachavy Baumel,Tzvl Feldman, Joseph Fink, and Ra-chamlm Alsheh.

I hope my colleagues will see fit tojoin in cosponsoring our resolution.·

SENATE RESOLUTION 253-CON-GRATULATING THE WASHING-TON REDSKINS ON THEIR VIC-TORY IN SUPER BOWL XXVIMr. MITCHELL (for himself, Mr.

DoLz, Mr. SAAmslrS, Ms. MruVLSKx,Mr. Rosm, and Mr. WAmuxa) submittedthe following resolution; which wasconsidered and agreed to:

8 Rza 253Whereas the Washington Redskins were

victorious in Super Bowl XXVI;Whereas the Buffalo Bills are to be con-

gratulated for their outstanding season andsecond straight Super Bowl appearance;

Whereas, Coach Joe Gibbs and his coach-ing staff put together an almost flawlessgame plan;

Whereas the Washington metropolitanarea Including all of Maryland and Virginiajoin in the pride of our local heroes; Now.therefore, be It

Resoved, That the Senate congratulatesJack Kent Cooke, Coach Joe Gibbs, and theentire Redskins organization for their out-standing season flawless playoff record andmagnrlicent victory in Super Bowl XXVI.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED


LOTT (AND BURNS) AMENDMENTNO. 1497

(Ordered to lie on the table.)Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr.

BuRNs) submitted an amendment in-tended to be proposed by him to thebill (S. 12) to amend title VI of theCommunications Act of 1934 to ensurecarriage on cable television of localnews and other programming and torestore the right of local regulatoryauthorities to regulate cable televisionrates, and for other purposes, as fol-

At the appropriate lace in the bill, nsertthe fOllowtnD

S 608 January.29,1992

January 2, -199M CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE

8 c . Section c62() of the Com Duncations Act of 19834 (47 U.SC. 542(c)) Isamended to read a follows:

"(c) Each cable operator may Identify. inaccordance with standrds prescribed by theCommission. a a separate ine item on eachregular bill of each subscriber. each of thefollowing.

"(1) The amount of the total bill assessedas franchise fee and the identity of thefranchising authorlty to which the fee Ispaid.

"(2) The amount of the total bill assessedto satsfy any requirements Imposed on thecable operator by the franchlse agreementto support public, educational, or govern-mental channels or the use of such chan-nels.

"(3) The amount of any other fee, tax. as-sessment. or charge o any kind mpoed byany governmental authority on the transac-Uon between the operator and the subscrib-er.".

INOUYE AMENDMENT NO. 1498

Mr. INOUYE proposed an amend-ment to the bill S. 12. supra, as fol-lows:

Strike all on page 6,. line 11. throughpae 67. line 14. and insert In lieu thereofthe followlng:

"(20XA) the term local commercial televi-sion station' means any full power televisionbroadcast station. determined by the Com-mission to be a commercial station. lcensedand operating on a chnnel regularly as-signed to its community by the Commissionthat with respect to a partculr cablesystem, i within the ame televislon marketas the cable system (for purpose of thissubpragraph. a television broadcasting sttion's television market shal be defined asapecified in secton 7335d) of title 47,Code of Federal Regulatior, as In effect on

ay 1, 1991, except that, tollowing a writtenrequest, the Commission may. with respectto a partcular television broadcast statlon.include or exclude communities from suchstation's television market to better effectu.ate the purposes of this Act);

"(B) where such a television broadcat sta-tion would, with respect to a particularcable system, be considered a distant signalunder sectlon 111 of title 17. United StatesCode. It shall be deemed to be a local com-mercial television statlon upon agreementto reimburse the cable operator for the in-cremental copyright costs asessed agLtnsuch operator a a result of beitn carried onthe cable system:

"(C) the term local commercia televisionstation' shall not include television trmia-tor station and other passive repeaterswhich operate pursuant to put 74 of title47. Code of Pederal Regulation, or any suo-car regulation thereto;

On page 6, lIne 3. strike "and" and Insertin lieu thereof "or".

On page 6. line 24. insert "ay one" b-mediately before "service".

On page 8. lines 3 through 4. strke "orany person having other media Interests.

Strike all on page 87, line 6. through pae88. lne I, and insert n lieu thereof the fol-lowina

CUSTOMIR inVICa

8r 10(a) Section 632(a) of the Communi-catlorm Act of 1934 (47 U.JC. 552(a) isamended-

(1) by inserting "may establish and -mediately after "authorty-

(2) by striking . as part of a franchise m-cludb a franchise renewal subject to ec-tion 62)", and

(3) In pragrph (1) , by bherft bmed-tely after "operator the followg "that

(A) subject to the provisions of subsectio(e). exceed the standrds st by the Com-mission under this section. or (B) prior tothe isuance by the Commiion of rulespursuant to subsection (d)/1). exist on thedate of enactment of the Cable TelevisionConsumer Protection Act of 1991".

(b) Sectlon 632 of the CommunlcationsrAct of 1934 (47 U..C. 552) is amended byadding at the end the following new subsec-tion:

"(dXl) The Commission. within 180 daysafter the date of enactment of this subsec-tion. shall. after notice and an opportunityfor comment. issue rules that establish cus-tomer service standards that ernure that allcustomers are fairly served. Thereafter theCommisdon shall regularly review thestandards and make such modfications asmay be necessary to ensure that customersof the cable industry re fairly served. Afranchising authority may enforce thestandards established by the Commission.

"(2) Notwtthstanding the provisions ofsubsection (a) and this subsection. nothingIn this titkle'shall be construed to preventthe enforcement of-

"(A) any municipal ordinance or agree-ment, or

"(B) any State law,.conceernin customer srvice that Imposescustomer service requirements that exceedthe standards set by the Commission underthis section.

Strike all on page 94. line 3. through page95, line 19, and nsert in lieu thereof the fol-lowing:

"(bXl) Pollowing the date tht is one yearafter the date of enactment of ths subsee-tion. no cable system or other multichannelvideo programming distributor shall re-tramit the signal of a broadcasting ttion, or any pert thereof,. without the ex-pre authority of the originatin station.except as permitted by section 814.

"(2) The provisions of this section shallnot apply to-

"(A) retranmision of the signal o a non-commercial broadasting station;

"(B) retra mion directly to a home sat-elite antenna of the ignal of a broadcst-Ing station that t not owned or operated by.or affiliated with. a broadcastg network. ifsuch signal was retransmitted by a satellitecarrier on May L 19L1;

"(C) tranission of the signal of abroadcastin station that i owned or oper-ated by, or affiliated with a brodcastnnetwork direcUly to a he satelllte ante-na If the household receiving the signal isan unserved household or

"(D) retransmision by a cable opertor orother multichannel video progrmming dis-tributor of the signal of a superstaon ifsuch signl was obtained from a satelltecarrier and the originating staton was a -petti on May 1. 199LFor purpses of this paragraph, the terms'satellite carr, 'superstation'. and un-serrd household' have the meaninps giventhose term, respeetvely. in ection 119(d)of title 17. United States Code. as In effecton the date of enactment of this subsectio

"(3XA) Within 45 days after the date ofenactment of this subsection. the Comms-sion shall commence a rulemaking proceed-ib to establish regulation to overn theexercie by television broadcast stations ofthe right to grant retrar sion contunder th subsection and of the right tosidgnal arriage under ction 14. and suchother regulations a are necesary to admin-ster the itations contaned in paragraph

(2). The CommMsidon shall consider in suchproceeding the Impact that the grant of re-

tra sa eosent by tlevison tautiomay have on the rate for basic cable servceand shall enure that rates for baic cableservice are reaonable. uch rulemakingproceedin shall be completed within sixmonths after Its commencement.

"(B) The regulations requtred by subpara-graph (A) shall require that television sta-tlons, within one year after the date of en-actment of this subsection and every threeyears theresfter. make an election betweenthe right to grant retransmission consentunder this subsection and the right to signalcarriage under section 614. If there is morethan one cable system which serves thesame geographic area a station's electionshall apply to all such cable systems.

"(4) If an originating television stationelects under paragraph (3XB) to exercise Itsright to grant retransmission consent underthis subsection with respect to a cablesystem. the provisions of section 614 shallnot apply to the carriage of the signal ofsuch station by such cable system.

"(5) The exercise by a television broadcaststation of the right to grant retransmissionconsent under this subsection shall notInterfere with or supersede the rights undersection 614 or 615 of any station electing toassert the right to sig carriage underthat section.

"(6) Nothing in thi section shall be con-strued as modifying the compulsory copy-right license established In section 111 oftitle 17, United States Code, or as affectingexisting or future video programming lens-in agreements between broadcasting sta-tions and video programmerts.

Strike all on page 101. lines 5 through 7.and Inert in lieu thereof the following.

"(A) any such station. If It does not deliverto the principal headend of the cable systemeither a signal of -45 dBm for UHF signalsor -49 dBm for VHF signals at the inputterminals of the signal processing equlp-ment shall be required to bear the costs as-ociated with delivering a good quality

signal or a bsebnd video signal;Strike all on page 108 line 20. through

page 109. line 5. and Insert in lieu thereofthe following:

"(3) The dsil of a qualified local non-commercl educational televisIon stationshall be carried on the cable system channelnumber on which the qualified local non-commercial duational television station isbroadcast over the ahr,. or on the channel onwhich t was carried on July 19. 1985. at theelection of the stati or on such otherchannel number as i mutually agreed on bythe station and te cable operator. Theign of a qualified local noncommerchleducational television station shall not berepostioned by a cable operator unless theoperator. at least 30 days n advance of suchrepositioning has provided written notice tothe statio and to all subscribers of thecabe system. Por purposs of this pargraph, repositioning clude deletion of thestation rom the cale system-

On page 112. lines 3 through 9. Insert "or615" mmediately after 614" esch place It

On pge 113, lines 3 through S. strike "Forpurpose and all that follows through "un-reasonable.".

On page 09. line 7. strike "Rederal" andInsert in lieu thereof "Federal".

On page 7, add "and" at the end of line 7.Strike al on pe 96. lines 24 through 25,

and inset in lieu thereo "local commercialtelevisien station anud.

On page 96. line 7. trike "carriers andInsert in lieu thereof "carri ".

S 609

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1992GORTON (AND MEIZENBAUM)

AMENDMENT NO. 1499Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mr.

Mrrm Atum) proposed an amendmentto the bill . 12, supra, as follows:

At the appropriate place insert the fol-lowing new section:

SIRVlC{S AND ZQUMT INOT ArIMATIV.LY

Sc. . Section 623 of the Communica-tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 543). La amend-ed by section 5 of this Act, is further amend-ed by adding at the end the follnwing newsubsection:

"(1) A cable operator shall not charge asubscriber for any service or equipment thatthe subscriber has not affirmatively re-quested by name. For purposes of this sub-section, a subscrlber failure to refuse acable operator's proposal to provide suchservice or equipment shall not be deemed tobe an affirmaUtive request for such rervice orequipment".

GORTON AMENDMENT NO. 1500

Mr. GORTON proposed an amend-ment to the bill S. 12, supra, as fol-lows:

At the appropriate place, insert the fol-lowing new section:

PrortcON Ofr s oUC I- rIVACT

Src . Section 631(cX1) of the Communi-cations Act of 1934 (47 USC. 551(cXl)) Isamended by Inmeting immediately beforethe period at the end the following. "andshall take such actions a are neceary toprevent unauthorized access to such infor-mation by a person other than the subscrib-er or cable operator".

INOUYE AMENDMENT NO. 1501

Mr. INOUYE proposed an amend-ment to the bill E8 12, supra, as fol-lows:

On page 83. between lines 20 and 21,insert the following new subsection

(d) Section 612 of the CommunicationsAct of 1934 (47 US.C. 532) Li amended byadding at the end the following new subsec-tion:

"(iX1) Notwithstanding the provision ofsubsections (b) and (c), a cable operator re-quired by this section to desinte channelcapacity for commercial use may use nysuch channel capacity for the provision ofprogramming from a qualified minority pro-gramming source if such-aurce is not affIll-ated with the cable operator), If such pro-gramming is not already carried on thecable system. The channel capacity used toprovide programming from a qualified mi-nority programming source pursuant to thissubsection may not exceed 33 percent of thechannel capacity designated pursuant tothi section: No programming provided overa cable system on July 1. 1990, may qualifya minority programming on that cablesystem under this subsection.

"(2) For purpose of this subection-"(A) the term 'qualified minority pro-

grammimng source' means a programmingsource which devotes ignifiantly all of itsprogramming to coverage of minority view-points, or to programming directed at mem-bers of minority groups, and which is over 50percent minority-owned and

"(B) the term 'minority' includes BlacksHispn. Ameran Indian, AU& Na-tive Asian, and Pacift Islander".

BREAUX AMENDMEN NO. 1502Mr. BREAUX proposed an amend-

ment to the bill S. 12, supra, as fol-lows:

On page 103, after line 24, add the follow-

"(g) Nothing in this section shall require acable operator to carry on any tier, or pro-hibit a cable operator from carrying on anytier, the signal of any commercial televisionstation or video programming service that ispredominantly utilized for the transmissionof sales presentations or program-lengthcommeral

GRAHAM (AND BRYAN)AMENDMENT NO. 1503

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr.BRYAN) proposed an amendment toamendment No. 1502 proposed by Mr.BRaXAU to the bill 8 12, supra, as fol-lows:

At the. appropriate place, insert the fol-lowing ew section:

USE or CuMAWN TIVIMIOW STATIONSSac. . Within 90 days after the date of

enactment of this Act. the Federal Commu-nications Commission shall commence aninquiry to determine whether broadcast tel-evision stations whose programming con-sits predominantly of sales presentationsare serving the public Interest, convenience,and necessity. The Commission shall takeinto consideration the viewing of such sta-tions, the level of competing demands forthe channels allocated to such stations andthe role of such stations in providing compe-tition to nonbrodcast service offering simi-lar programming. In the event that theCommission concludes that one or more ofsuch statons are not serving the public in-terest, convenience, and necessity, the Com-mission shall allow the licensees of such sta-tions a reasonable period within which toProvide different programming, and shallnot deny such stations a renewal expectancydue to their prior programming.

LEAHY (AND GORE)AMENDMENT NO. 1504

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr.GoaR) proposed an amendment to thebill S. 12, supra, as follows:

On page 111, between lines 21 and 22,insert the following:NOTICE AND OPTIONS TO CONlUMKsU RaAIuDLaN

CABL5 EQUPMErr8rc. The Communications Act of 1934

(47 U.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by addingafter section 624 the following new section:"WoTICZ AND OFTIONS TO CONSUMRS toARD-

INO CONSUVm UzCTAOIcI IQUIKTNr."S. 624A. (a) This section may be cited

as the "Cable Equipment Act of 1992'."(b) The Congress finds that-'(1) the use of converter boxes to receive

cable television may disable certain func-tions of televisions and VCRs, including, forexample, the ability to--

"(A) watch a program on one channelwhile simultaneoualy uaing a VCR to tape adifferent program or another channel:

"(B) use a VCR to tape consecutive pro-grams that appear an different channels or

"(C) use certain special features of a tele-vision such a a 'picture-in-picture' feature;and

"(2) cable operators should to the extentpossible, employ technology that allowsabl television subscribers to enjoy the full

benefit of the fumctons available on televl-sion and VCRs

"(c) As used In this section:"(1) The term 'converter box' means a

device that-"(A) allows televisions that do not have

adequate channel tuning capability to re-celve the service offered by cable operators;or

"(B) decodes signals that cable operatorsdeliver to subscribers in scrambled form.

"(2) The term 'VCR' means a videocas-sette recorder.

"(d)(1) Cable operators shall not scrambleor otherwise encrypt any local broadcastsignal except where authorized under para-graph (3) of this subsection to protectagainst the substantial theft of cable serv-ice.

"(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) ofthis subsection, there shall be no limitationon the use of scrambling or encryption tech-nology where the use of such technologydoes not Interfere with the functions of sub-scribers' televisions or VCRa

"(3) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section. the Commissionshall issue regulations prescribing the cir-cumstance under which a cable operatormay, If necessary to protect against the sub-stantial theft of cable service. scramble orotherwise encrypt any local broadcastsignaL

"(4) The Commission shall periodicallyreview and, If necessary, modify the regula-tions issued pursuant to this subsection inlight of any actions taken in response toregulations issued under subsection (I).

"(e) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section, the Commissionshall promulgate regulations requiring acable operator offering any channels the re-ception of which requires a converter boxto-

"(1) notify subscriberz that if their cableservice is delivered through a converter box,rather than directly to the subscribers' tele-visions or VCRs4 the subscribers may beunable to enjoy certain functions of theirtelevisions or VCRs, Including the abilityto-

"(A) watch a program on one channelwhile simultaneously using a VCR to tape adifferent program on another channel;

"(B) use a VCR to tape two consecutiveprograms that appear on different channels;or

"(C) use certain television features such as'picture-in-picture';

"(2) offer new and current subscriberswho do not receive or wish to receive chan-nels the reception of which requires a con-verter box. the option of having their cableservice installed, in the case of new subscrib-ers, or reinstalled, in the case of currentsubscribers, by direct connection to the sub-scribers' televisions or VCRs. without pass-ing through a converter box; and

"(3) offer new and current subscriberswho receive, or wish to receive, channels thereception of which requires a converter box,the option of having their cable service in-stalled, In the case of new subscribers orreinstalled, in the case of current subscrib-ers, in such a way that those channels thereception of which does not require a con-verter box are delivered to the subscribers'televisions or VCRs, without passingthrough a converter box.

"(f) Any charges for installing or reinstall-ing cable service pursuant to subsection (e)shall be subject to the provisons of Section623(bXl).

"(g) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section the Commissionshall promulgate regultion relating to theuse of remote control devices that shall

S 610

January 29, 1992 CON"(1) require a cable operator who offers

subscribers the option of renting a remotecontrol unit-

"(A) to notify subscribers that they maypurchase a commercially available remotecontrol device from any source that sellssuch devices rather than renting it 'tom thecable operator. and

"(B) to specify the types of remote controlunits that are compatible with the convert-er box supplied by the cable operator. and

"(2) prohibit a cable operator from takingany action that prevents or in any way dis-ables the converter box supplied by thecable operator from operating compatiblywith commercially available remote controlunits.

"(h) Within 180 days after the date of en-actment of this section. the Commission. inconsultation with representatives of thecable industry and the consumer electronicsindustry, shall report to the Congress onmeans of assuring compatibility betweentelevisions and VCRs and cable systems sothat cable subscribers will be able to enjoythe full benefit of both the programmingavailable on cable systems and the functionsavailable on their televisions and VCRs.

"(i) Within 1 year after the date of enact-ment of this section, the Commission shallissue regulations requiring such actions asmay be necessary to assure the compatibil-ity interface described in subsection (h).".

HELMS (AND THURMOND)AMENDMENT NO. 1505

Mr. HIELMS (for himself and Mr.THuRMoNrD) proposed an amendmentto amendment No. 1502 proposed byMr. BaRAux to the bill S. 12, supra, asfollows:

At the end add the following new section:SEc. . Section 624(d) of Communications

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 544(d)) is amended byadding the following new paragraph:

"(3XA) If a cable operator provides a "pre-mium channel" without charge to cable sub-scribers who do not subscribe to the "preml-um channel(s)", the cable operators shallnot later than 60 days before such "premi-um channel" is provided without charge-

"(I) notify all cable subscribers that thecable operator plans to provide a "premiumchannel(s)" without charge, and

"(li) notify all cable subscribers when thecable operator plans to provide a "premiumchannel(s)" without charge, and

"(il) notify all cable subscribers that theyhave a right to request that the channelcarrying the "premium channel(s)" beblocked. and

"(iv) block the channel carrying the "pre-mium channel" upon the request of a sub-scriber.

"(B) For the purposes of this section, theterm "premium channel" shall mean anypay service offered on a per channel or perprogram basis, which offers movies rated bythe Motion Picture Association as X. NR-17or RL"

DOLE AMENDMENT NO. 1506Mr. INOUJYE (for Mr. DOLE) pro-

posed an amendment to the bill S. 12,supra, as follows:

On page 97. lines 11 through 12, strike"and accompanying audio" and insert in lieuthereof ". accompanying audio, and Line 21closed caption".

On page 108. line 2. strike "and accompa-nying audio" and Insert in lieu thereof ", ac-companying audio. and Line 21 closed cap-tion".

qGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEOn page 63. line 21. strike "(27)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(28)"; and on page 71.strike all on line 2. and insert in lieu thereofthe following:

"(27) the term 'Llne 21 closed caption'means a data signal which. when decoded.provides a visual depiction of information si-multaneously being presented on the auralchannel of a television signal: and".

SIGNING OF A CEASE-FIRE IN ELSALVADOR

DURENBERGER AMENDMENTNO. 1507

Mr. DURENBERGER proposed anamendment to the resolution (S. Res.248) expressing the sense of theSenate regarding the signing on Janu-ary 16, 1992, of the agreements for aformal cease-fire in El Salvador, andfor other purposes, as follows:

On page 3. line 14, strike the words"commit itself." and insert in lieu thereof"remain committed."

On page 3. line 20, strike the words"commit itself." and insert in lieu thereof"remain committed]"

On page 3. line 24. strike the words"commit itself." and Insert in lieu thereof"remain committed."


PRESSLER AMENDMENT NO. 1508Mr. PRESSLER proposed an amend-

ment to the bill S. 12. supra. as fol-lows:

Strike all on page 113, line 22. throughpage 116, line 14, and insert in lieu thereofthe following.

DIRCT BROADCAST SA SATLLT RVICESSor 21. (a) The Federal Communications

Commission shall, within one year after thedate of enactment of this Act, submit to theCommittee on Commerce. Science, andTransportation of the Senate and the Com-mittee on Energy and Commerce of theHouse of Representatives a report analyzingthe need for, and the form. nature, andextent of. the most appropriate public inter-est obligations to be imposed upon directbroadcast satellite services n addition towhat is required pursuant to subsection(b l). The report shall include-

(1) a consideration of the national natureof direct broadcast satellite programingservices;

(2) an evaluation of a phase-in of suchpublic interest obligations for direct broad-cast satellite services commensurate withthe degree to which direct broadcast satel-lite services have become a source of effec-tive competition to cable systems; and

(3) an analysis of the Commission's au-thority to impose such public interest obli-gations recommended in the report withoutfurther legislation,

(bXl) Notrithstanding Its report to beprovided pursuant to subsection (a). the fed-eral Communications Commission shall re-quire, as a condition of any provision. initialauthorization, or authorization renewal fora direct broadcast satellite service providingvideo programming, that the provider ofsuch service reserve a portion of its channelcapacity, equal to not less than 4 percentnor more than 7 percent. exclusively fornonduplicated, noncommercial educational.and informational programming.

S 611(2) A provider of such service may utilize

for any purpose any unused channel capac-ity required to be reserved under this sub-section pending the actual use of such chan-nel capacity for noncommere/al education-al, and informational programming.

(3) A direct broadcast satellite service pro-vider shall meet the requirements of thissubsection by leasing, to national education-al programming suppliers (Including quali-fied noncommercial educational televisionstations, other public telecommunicationsentities, and public or private educationalinstitutions). capacity on its system uponreasonable prices, terms. and conditions,taking into account the nonprofit characterof such suppliers. The direct broadcast sat-ellite service provider shall not exercise anyeditorial control over any video program-ming provided pursuant to this subsection.

(c) There is established a study panelwhich shall be comprised of a representativeof the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.the National Telecommunications and In-formation Administration. and the Office ofTechnology Assessment selected by thehead of each such entity. Such study panelshall within two years after the date of en-actment of this Act submit a report to theCongress containing recommendations on-

(1) methods and strategies for promotingthe development of programming for trans-mission over the public use channels re-served pursuant to subsection (b)( 1):

(2) methods and criteria for selecting pro-gramming for such channels that avoidsconflict of interest and the exercise of edito-rial control by the direct broadcast satelliteservice provider

(3) identifying existing and potentialsources of funding for administrative andproduction costs for such public use pro-gramming, and

(4) what constitute reasonable prices.terms, and conditions for provision of satel-lite space for public use channels.

(d) As used in this section, the term"direct broadcast satellite service" in-cludes-

(1) any satellite system licensed underpart 100 of title 47, Code of Federal Regula-tions and

(2) ny distributor using a fixed servicesatellite system to provide video service di-rectly to the home and licensed under part25 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.

PRESSLER (AND McCAIN)AMENDMENT NO. 1509

Mr. PRESSLER (for himself andMr. McCANu) proposed an amendmentto the bill S. 12, supra, as follows:

On page 79, line 21, insert before theperiod at the end the following. ". withoutany obligation on the direct broadcast satel-lite distributor or the progrunmer to paythe costs necessary for C-band distribution".

On page 80, line 14. Immediately after"A", insert "fixed service".

WELFARE DEPENDENCY MEAS-UREMENT AND ASSESSMENTACT

MOYNIHAN AMENDMENT NO.1510

Mr. FORD (for Mr. MoYwrurA) pro-posed an amendment to the bill (S.1256) to direct the Secretary of Healthand Human Services to develop andimplement an information gatheringsystem to permit the measurement.

janz'ary 29, 1992 co!~igressional record senate s 561€¦ · janz'ary 29, 1992 co!~ usan...

Documents