John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the senior Member of the House of Representatives. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, do I have the right to close in this debate?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, let us throw in the flat tax while we are at it, too. As far as the assertion that foreign firms are not seeking to avoid suits in this country, I would ask all the members on and off the Committee on the Judiciary to review the case of Floyd Miles versus Morita Iron Works which took place in Cook County. The defendant avoided jurisdiction by selling aerosol machines through a straw man in Japan. Because there were insufficient contacts in Illinois, Mr. Miles could not seek compensation. So therefore, all we are saying is let us look at the overall contacts nationwide as other countries do. By the way, this is not some prejudicial law to people who are not citizens of this country. Rather than limit it to their relief to a particular State, it is simple fairness in the utmost. So suggesting that this amendment already adopted would kill product liability reform is unbelievable. I do not think the Members of this body or the other body are subject to the manipulations of foreign manufacturers, the European Economic Community or lobbyists that they may hire to be working here. Let us keep within some limits of reasonability and continue to approve the amendment that has already been adopted by the House. If I had not brought this motion to instruct conferees, every reasonable conferee would be under the same responsibility to remember what his colleagues had done in the Congress anyway. But to have this provision now being attacked as if product liability will survive or go down in defeat based upon making foreign corporations equally liable reaches the point that is almost ludicrous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], our distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXVIII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 956 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Conyers moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 956 be instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in section 107 of the House bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], before the dean's explanation has taken hold.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], who has worked tirelessly across the years for improved telecommunications legislation.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Question: How many know whether or not there will be an unprecedented increase in media concentration if this measure becomes law? Answer: Not many. But does it? Well, the answer is that at a time that we need greater and more diverse media voices, this measure before us will eliminate the national radio and television ownership rules, scale back local concentration rules, and allow corporations to simultaneously control broadcast and cable systems. Disheartening? I think so. Can it be improved? Of course. How do we do it? Send it back to the committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] who has brought a great energy and intellectual impact to this legislative process.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the industries involved in this bill, oh, have we heard from the industries. We have heard from the lobbyists that the industries have hired, oh, have we heard from the lobbyists. We have heard from the consultants that the lobbyists have hired. We have heard from the law firms, we have heard from all of them. Someone said, ``We never want to hear from them again.'' Well, you will not for about 50 years, because that is how long it will take for us to get around to another communications act. Why did you hear from them? What did you hear from the consumers? Oh, them? Well, what did you hear from the citizens? Oh, yes, right, John. Well, here is what they said, this is a $70 billion giveaway to broadcasters in this bill. I like broadcasters, folks. But the bill contains a provision which gives current broadcasters a block of publicly owned radio spectrum to increase their revenues by providing several free and pay-per-view channels, paging transmission and other nonprogram services without giving the public anything in return. Now, that from the Consumers Federation of America. Did they come and visit you? Have you received any visits from their lobbyists? I do not think so. So what we are doing, ladies and gentlemen, in broad daylight, and I know we are sober, we are giving corporate welfare to a broadcast industry which is already among the most powerful. This gift is especially outrageous at a time when we propose massive budget cuts for scores of important social programs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], who has done extremely important work on the antitrust provision in this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for supporting my discussion last night in the Committee on Rules, when the Congress had finished its work, when we found out that this conference report would be brought forward today in less than 24 hours, violating the most time- honored rule in the procedures of bringing legislation to this House. The same rule that Speaker Gingrich has spoken with great passion about; the same rule that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, chairman of the Committee on Rules, has preached to me about across the years, this rule is now being violated for reasons that I cannot fathom. Let me make it clear that this is the most important 111 pages in a conference report in terms of economic consideration that my colleagues will ever in their careers deal with. The fact of the matter is that there are very few, if any, persons that have read, not to mention understand, what is in the report. That is why we have a 3-day rule layover. Now, in all fairness, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] because he has cooperated with me throughout this process as a conferee. In all fairness, I want to commend the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who has not only afforded me every courtesy but has allowed me to have 20 minutes in the debate that will shortly follow. But ask this question, as I urge my colleagues to return this rule to the committee: Who knew that that noxious abortion portion was in the conference report? Nobody, until it was found out about last night. Who knows many of the other provisions, I have a whole list of them here, that could not possibly be known about, much less understood in terms of their implications? The reason that we honor the 3-day rule is simply because there are no amendments possible on a conference report. We can only vote it up or down. We should have a 3-week delay on this measure, since we are going out this afternoon. So 3 days would be a very modest consideration. That is why I am asking that this measure be returned to the Committee on Rules for the observation of the 3-day rule.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the traditional 20 minutes in opposition under the rule.

Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, I do not.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very, very important that we look as carefully as we can at a trillion-dollar-a-year industry legislation. First of all, I want to tell everybody in this Chamber, there are a lot of things I like in the bill; I like a lot of things. The Antitrust Division part that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and I worked on tirelessly is in this bill, and I support it strongly. We keep the Antitrust Division at the center of the telecommunications debate, and I am pleased that we all agreed upon that. It is important that the Department of Justice have an enhanced role in reviewing the Bell entry into long-distance, and we have been very successful. But, Mr. Speaker, let us get to the reservations. Are there any? Well, you have not read the 111-page conference report, so I will give you the benefit of just a few of the problems that you might want to know about before we cast this ballot in less than an hour. The cable provisions allow for deregulation before the advent of competition, raising the specter of unregulated monopoly. Two Congresses ago we spent considerable time and energy, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] was leading that, in adopting legislation to protect consumers from price-gouging; and we were finally able to pass the bill over President Bush's veto. This Congress, we have new leadership that has decided that consumer protection must take a back seat to industry demands, although a small concession to consumers was made by delaying the date of price increases until 1999. This is not Conyers, this is the Consumer Federation of America: ``Even with the significant improvements, the bill does not stimulate enough competition. For every step taken to encourage competition, the bill has provisions which undermine its goal. Instead of promoting head-to-head competition between cable, telephone, and other communications companies, the bill allows mergers and corporate combinations that will drive up cable rates and undercut competition.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], who has served with unusual distinction in his career on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, why do we have to give the broadcasters spectrum not being used for free, over-the-air TV? It is a gift, no matter how it is described. It is a huge, charitable, wealthy, corporate gift. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the insurance premium issue is not a red herring. It is a matter of both reality and public policy. If we were able to auction it to the networks, everyone has recognized it could generate billions and help balance the budget. This bill gives the insurance premium to the networks rent-free, and no Member will be able to justify this at a time when we are chopping Medicare in order to balance the budget. I want to thank Chairman Bliley for making the process of debate and consideration of this important economic bill open and bipartisan--for members of both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.