John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] for an enlightened discourse on this matter, and I have been looking forward very much to hearing from the friends of the long-distance operators and I am somewhat distressed that I am not going to do so at this time. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate to my colleagues the process under which we are considering this legislation is no different than we have ever done wherever we have had differences between two committees, and the process of working out an amendment between those who supported the bill is an entirely sensible one. Had the gentleman from Texas desired to be a participant in that, he could have, * * * and the result of that is that he did not participate.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to first express my gratitude and respect to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for the fine fashion in which he has worked with us, and also to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee. The work of the gentlemen on this matter, as well as the work of the other members of the Committee on Commerce, has helped bring us successfully to a point where we can consider this major piece of telecommunications legislation. Mr. Chairman, the first item of business, of course, is the managers' amendment. For the benefit of some of my colleagues around here who should remember, but do not, I am going to point out that this is a traditional practice of this body. That is, to assemble an amendment in agreement between the two committees which have worked on the legislation, which can then be placed on the floor and voted on. Mr. Chairman, this is done in an entirely open and proper fashion. It is an amendment which, on both substance and procedure and practice, is correct, proper and good and consistent with the traditions of the House. The House can vote openly and discuss openly the matters associated with the managers' amendment and we can then proceed to carry out the will of the House, which is the way these matters should be done. Mr. Chairman, there were a number of defects and differences in both bills. Amongst those provisions was one which required local telephone companies to subsidize the long distance competitors by setting rates for resale that were economically reasonable to the reseller. Mr. Chairman, that would have caused local rates to skyrocket for the household user. It would have required service which cost $25 to be sold to AT&T for $6; something which would have caused the necessity of subsidizing, then, AT&T at the expense of small business and the local phone user, an outrageous situation. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] worked with me to correct this serious abuse and this failure in the legislation. The committee bill also contained a provision that would preclude the Bell companies from offering network-based information service. That would have prevented these companies from offering a number of services in the market, and denied the customer and the consumer an opportunity to have the best kind of competitive service from all participants. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and I worked out a compromise which permits these services to continue to be offered. That is included in the managers' amendment. The long distance industry has, in a very curious fashion, charged that these changes, and others that are included in the amendment, unfairly benefit the Bell companies. That is absolute and patent nonsense. All that this amendment does is to remove or modify provisions that unfairly protect the long distance industry from fair competition by the Bells, a matter which I will discuss at a later time. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would note that in many ways it does not go far enough. There is no justification, whatsoever, for the out-of- region restriction. The compromise leaves that in place until each Bell company has received permission to originate long distance service in each State in its region. That is not an unfair arrangement, but it is the least favorable from the standpoint of the Baby Bells that is in any way defensible. Mr. Chairman, I also want to remind my colleagues of the scandalous and outrageous behavior of the long-distance lobby. I want to remind them that each Member has been deluged with mail and telegrams, many of which were never sent by the person who appears as signatory. This is a matter which I will also pursue in another forum. Mr. Chairman, this was a deliberate attempt to lie to and to deceive the Congress. It was a deliberate attempt by the long-distance operators to steal the government of the country from the people and from the consumers by putting in place a fraudulent system to make the Congress believe that the people had one set of feelings when, in fact, they did not and had quite a different set of feelings. I would hope that those who will be speaking on behalf of the long- distance industry today will seek to defend that outrageous behavior, instead of attacking a proper piece of legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to make the observation that the gentleman chose not to be a participant in moving the bill forward. If I said that he has sulked, that was in error. I apologize to the gentleman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the word ``sulk.''

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, if I said anything which offends the gentleman, I apologize.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure what the Chair is telling me.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the words referred to.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not quiet sure to what I am supposed to respond.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have asked unanimous consent to withdraw the words. I have said that if I have said something to which the gentleman is offended, then I apologize. I am not quite sure how much further I can go in this matter.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the cost of the chip is as little as 18 cents. For 18 cents on a television set we can give the parent back the control of some of the filth, and some of the smut, and some of the violence that is coming into the living room. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. As I noted earlier in this debate, this amendment is necessary to correct a deficiency in this bill. The Markey amendment amends the Stearns' amendment that was adopted by the committee. While Mr. Stearns was unwilling to compromise on the language of his amendment that repealed the national ownership and cross ownership limitations, we did reach an agreement on the issue of local concentration. That agreement, which is now incorporated in the bill before us, guarantees that there will never be fewer than two independent media voices in even the smallest markets in the country. It further permits the FCC to deny license assignments, transfers or renewals if the Commission determines that the granting of the assignment, transfer or renewal would in combination with a non- broadcast media, result in an undue concentration of media voices in the local market. This is good law, and I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida for his willingness to work with me on this. But while there are safeguards at the local level, H.R. 1555 goes overboard with respect to national limits and cross-media restrictions. The Markey amendment will permit the type of expansion that I think we all agree the networks need. But is does so in a manner that will preserve the local decision-making about programming decisions that has served our Nation well. The Markey amendment also retains the broadcast/cable cross ownership prohibition. This provision is necessary because it ensures that if the ``Must Carry'' provisions of the 1992 Cable Act are struck down by the courts, cable operators aren't in a position to purchase local broadcast stations and then deny carriage to the other broadcasters in a community. It is a provision that is important to our local broadcasters, and important to preserve the public's access to diverse sources of information. Mr. Speaker, I know there are many Members who want to speak in a limited period of time. I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Florida for the cooperation and the concessions which he extended to me and express my good wishes to him. Those changes are good, because they deal with concentration at the local level. That problem, however, is not addressed in the bill itself now with regard to the national level. The question here is are we are going to have real diversity of expression on air waves that are owned by the public and whose operation is licensed in the public interest by the FCC? With the Markey amendment, that will happen. Without the Markey amendment, that will not happen. It is important that we see to it that the marketplace of ideas in this country is as broad and diverse as we can make it, and that all persons have access to it. Without that principle being applied, our government is weakened and hurt, and the public debate on great national issues and discussion of matters of concern to this people are hurt. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Markey amendment. I would say that that is the best way that we can keep in place the diversity of view which is so important in consideration of important national issues.

Mr. DINGELL. My purpose in making a parliamentary inquiry is to ask the Chair this question: If the motion to recommit with instructions occurs, is it not a fact that the matter is immediately reported back to the House, at which time the vote then occurs on the legislation as amended by the motion to recommit with instructions?

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. While many of us differ about parts of the bill, one thing is clear. H.R. 1555 deregulates cable before consumers have a competitive authorization alternative. The provisions of the bill very simply see to it, first of all, that so-called small systems are deregulated immediately and define a small system as one which has 600,000 subscribers. That is a market the size of the city of Las Vegas. So there is nothing small about those who will be deregulated immediately. Beyond this, the provision will deregulate cable rates for more than 16 million households, nearly 30 percent of the total cable households in America, and it will do so at the end of the time it takes the President to sign this. The bill will deregulate all cable rates in Alaska immediately, and more than 61 percent of rates in Georgia, and the rates of better than half of the subscribers in Arkansas, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nevada, and other States. But there is more. This bill will deregulate by the calendar. What happens is that at the end of 15 months, whether there is competition in place or not, deregulation occurs. At that point, what protection will exist for the consumers of cable services in this country who do not have competition? This amendment returns us to the rather sensible approach which we had when we passed the Cable Regulation Act some 2 years ago. It provides protection for the consumers. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, there are three things wrong with this amendment. The first is the agency which will be administering it, the Justice Department. The Justice Department is in good part responsible for the unfair situation which this country confronts in telecommunications. The Justice Department and a gaggle of AT&T lawyers have been administering pricing and all other matters relative to telecommunications by both the Baby Bells and by AT&T. So if there are things that are wrong now, it is Justice which has presided. The second reason is that if we add the Justice Department to a sound and sensible regulatory system, it will create a set of circumstances under which it will become totally impossible to have expeditious and speedy decisions of matters of importance and concern to the American people. The decisions that need to be made to move our telecommunications policy forward can simply not be made where you have a two-headed hydra trying to address the telecommunications problems of this country. Now, the third reason: I want Members to take a careful look at the graph I have before me. It has been said that a B-52 is a group of airplane parts flying in very close formation. The amendment now before us would set up a B-52 of regulation. If Members look, they will find that those in the most limited income bracket will face a rate structure which is accurately represented here. It shows how long- distance prices have moved for people who are not able to qualify for some of the special goody-goody plans, not the people in the more upper income brackets who qualify for receiving special treatment. This shows how AT&T, Sprint and MCI rates have flown together. They have flown as closely together as do the parts of a B-52. Note when AT&T goes down, Sprint and MCI go down. When MCI or AT&T go up, the other companies all go up. They fly so closely together that you cannot discern any difference. This will tell anyone who studies rates and competition that there is no competition in the long distance market. What is causing the vast objection from AT&T, MCI and Sprint is the fact that they want to continue this cozy undertaking without any competition from the Baby Bells or from anybody else. If Members want competition, the way to get it is to vote against the Conyers amendment. If you do not want it and you want this kind of outrage continuing, then I urge you to vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] who is my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. DINGELL. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I can think of no Member who would do a finer job in setting right this matter. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and also my dear friend the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not think that I will object, but I want to make a couple of comments. Like every other Member of this body, I have received a deluge of mail on the subject of this bill. Like the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan] yesterday, I took the trouble to check into the behavior of those who stimulated that mail. I found, as did the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], that the stimulators of that mail had used the names of people who were unaware of the use of their names, that those who put that mail campaign together made false statements about the persons who had signed the letters, and led the people to sign the mail without any correct impression of what the content of the mail or the campaign was to be. Under the proposal tomorrow, I cannot discuss that matter at that time. I want to make it very clear that I intend to follow up on this matter and to see to it that the miscreants who have engaged in this improper practice are exposed in proper fashion and that their behavior which demeans themselves, the legislative practices of this body and the democracy of which we are a part is properly exposed. I will be sending them a letter on behalf of a number of my colleagues about this serious and gross misbehavior. Anyone who would like to join in signing the letter will be welcome at this desk tomorrow. I would also say that I intend to see to it that this kind of practice does not again infect the legislative process.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This bill is not the place to debate the standards, and the time and the fashion of accrediting health professional schools. We should not be using this bill to get crosswise with the legitimate programs of accreditation which rest with the standards of practice of medical professional societies. Since this House convened for the first time this year, I have been hearing from this side of the aisle my colleagues saying it is time for government to get out of decisions which are made by citizens on matters which affect them. I see no reason why we [[Page H 8381]] should not apply that very sensible rule here at this time. Accreditation is something which relates to professional competence, and professional competence requires that people who engage in professional activities should know all about all parts of their business. I happen to personally oppose abortion, but I recognize the need to have a properly trained medical profession in this country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues from Ohio, Mr. Brown, and my colleague from Missouri, the distinguished minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, to introduce legislation which, if enacted, will promote the cleanup of lands containing abandoned or under used industrial facilities where legal, environmental, and financial barriers prevent redevelopment. Contaminated, often vacant industrial sites, known as brownfields, pose significant economic and environmental challenges for communities throughout southeastern Michigan. These challenges are formidable, but not insurmountable. I will explore the issues which determine how to succeed in converting our brownfields in Downriver and Detroit back to engines of economic progress. Industrial properties, contaminated from years of use, are very difficult to redevelop. Even ongoing operations may be difficult to sustain. Cleanup costs are high and liabilities for past contamination scare potential purchasers, developers, and lenders. However, [[Page E 1622]] not cleaning and reusing these sites means that sites with the potential to contribute to local economic development and job creation sit dormant, and pollution remains unchecked. The lack of usable properties in long-term manufacturing centers like those in metropolitan Detroit and other cities encourages builders and investors to look for more distant locations for development. The bill which I am sponsoring with my colleagues will address these concerns by providing more than $100 million over 3 years so that local governments can choose and develop the sites which have the best chance of success if they are cleaned up. The grants will be used to assess the environmental conditions and economic potential of a site. Loans will allow cities and other development authorities to finish the job. Perhaps most important, current Federal laws would be amended to reduce fears of liability for purchasers and lenders. Together with the enhanced public funding, it is hoped that these steps will leverage additional private investment in brownfields. I am pleased to say that local governments in my congressional district are not waiting for this legislation to get started on these efforts. However, organizations like the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments [SEMCOG] and the Port of Monroe assure me that this legislation should help guarantee success. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to see how this legislation fits with efforts to reauthorize the Superfund. Brownfield Bill--Section-By-Section Analysis