John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman withhold his unanimous- consent request and let me make mine?

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

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] had indicated he wishes to do business with his amendment tomorrow. I think that is a fine idea, and I would like to see him have that opportunity.

Mr. DINGELL. It just so happens, I will inform the gentleman, that I am, according to what I understand, the manager of the bill on this side, and I am simply trying to proceed and carry out those functions.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I have no objection to the gentleman making that unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would permit, that has been discussed with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. He feels no objection. I have discussed it with other members of the committee and other Members managing the legislation. This meets the approval of the leadership on the Republican side. I would urge the gentleman to go along. It does not prejudice the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], who happens to be a very close friend and comes from the same State I do.

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

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

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the Committee of the Whole resumes consideration of the bill H.R. 1555 pursuant to House Resolution 207 on the legislative day of August 3, 1995, it shall be in order to consider the amendment numbered 2-2 in House Report 104-223 notwithstanding earlier consideration of the amendment numbered 2-3 in that report on the legislative day of August 2, 1995.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1555. H.R. 1555 is a big bill, but not a flawless bill. While I continue to have serious reservations about several of its provisions, it accomplishes many important goals. It will inject a healthy dose of competition into the communications industries--competition for cable service, competition for local telephone service, and more competition for long distance service. These are good provisions, and will benefit our constituents and our economy. The bill will also get the Federal judiciary out of the business of micromanaging telecommunications--and that is good too. In fact, this has been a goal of mine since the breakup of the Bell System back in 1984. The bill outlaws the practice known as slamming--when subscribers are switched from one carrier to another without permission. And it includes penalties that should serve as an effective deterrent to this noxious practice. In moving to a competitive environment, the legislation protects several industries from unfair competition. H.R. 1555 includes safeguards to ensure that burglar alarm companies, electronic and newspaper publishers, and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment are not victimized by unfair competition. H.R. 1555 requires that if the Federal Communications Commission adopts standards for digital television, that the rules permit broadcasters to use their spectrum for additional services that will benefit our constituents. Having said all these good things about the bill, however, it is important to note that it is not perfect. It contains many compromises that were necessary to move the bill along. I'd like to compliment my colleagues, Tom Bliley and Jack Fields, for the manner in which they have treated me and all the minority members as the bill moved through the process. We reached many compromises on the technically complex and detailed provisions of this bill, and they have worked with me with fairness, grace, and wit. There are other areas, however, that need more work. These include the premature deregulation of the cable industry, the provisions eliminating limits on the ownership of mass media properties, and the absence of provisions that require the installation of the V-chip in television receivers. Mr. Markey intends to offer amendments to correct these deficiencies, and we will debate them later on. Last year, the House suspended the rules and passed comparable legislation, H.R. 3626, by a vote of 423 to 5. Our bill did not pass the Senate--for a variety of reasons--and so we have been forced to go through this process all over again. I suspect that many of our colleagues dearly wish that the Senate had acted, so that we could have avoided much of the controversy of the last couple of weeks. Mr. Chairman, on balance, H.R. 1555 is an improvement in current law. With its problems corrected by the adoption of the Markey amendments, it will be a downright good bill. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Markey on his amendments, and vote for the adoption of H.R. 1555. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln]. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues were listening to the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana about what this bill is going to do. I want to commend my good friend from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and our good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] who is one of the finest Members in this body. We have had a good debate. It has been an enlightening debate, an intelligent discussion of the legislation before us. I think that is important. I was rather troubled earlier about the ill will which we saw sprinkled around in the discussion. I think that was a bad thing. This legislation is extremely important not only to all of us individually and to our people but indeed to the future of the country. It has been a long time since the modified final judgment was adopted. These have been bad times for telecommunications and for communications and for that industry. It also has had bad consequences for the country. I want to repeat to my colleagues that this offers a chance now to utilize a good, new regulatory system which will enable us to begin to bring on new technology and to bring into play the forces of competition, which will serve all of our people both in terms of product and in terms of quality and in terms of cost. That is important. It also will open up the process. I had been bitterly critical of the curious process which has gone on under the modified final judgment. It has been inadequate. It has been unfair, and it has been a closed process. The business of regulation of the telecommunications industry has gone on in a closed courtroom where no one could find out what was going on, no one could participate in the pleadings. No one could appear without the leave of the court and the people who were the principal beneficiaries of that particular modified final judgment. It is important that we get rid of that. And even if this were a bad bill, I would say that almost any price is worth paying to get rid of a system which is so basically unfair. It is so basically unseemly and so inconsistent with the system that this country has, so closed to innovation, and so closed to the participation by the people whose interests are affected by it, and so controlled by the beneficiaries of it. This is one of the curious examples where government has been controlled for the benefit of the people who did in fact do the governing, AT&T, the Justice Department, working with the judge. He was a good judge, but a bad process. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I want to commend the staff which has worked, Mr. Regan, Ms. Reid, Mr. Ulman, and Mr. Michael O'Rielly, as well as my dear friend and colleague, Mr. David Leach, who have all worked so effectively to put together the packages before us.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it also is because the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] would prefer to bring up his amendments tomorrow, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] would prefer to bring up his amendments tomorrow. This would facilitate the business of the House, and also is an accommodation to the Members.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. H.R. 1555 is a complex bill. It deals with a complex industry. It comprises a substantial portion of the American economy. There are a lot of controversies in this legislation, and it should not be dealt with cavalierly. It is a matter of some regret to me we are proceeding late at night and that we have not had more time for this. But, nonetheless, the bill that would be put on the floor by the rule resolves many important questions, and it pulls out of a courtroom, where one judge, a couple of law clerks, a gaggle of Justice Department lawyers, and several hotel floors of AT&T lawyers, have been making the entirety of telecommunications policy for the United States since the breakup. The breakup of AT&T was initiated by its president, Mr. Charley Brown, and it was done because he had gotten tired of having MCI sue him instead of competing with him because of antitrust violations by AT&T. The crafting of that agreement led to a situation where the entirety of the telecommunications policies of the United States were dealt with in a closed courtroom, where no other party could participate. This legislation resolves that question. Now, does it do so perfectly? Probably not. But I will remind my colleagues that this bill will resolve a conflict between the very rich and the very wealthy, and that fairness under those circumstances is impossible to achieve. I will discuss later how there is competition in the long distance services of the United States and how the rates of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint fly in perfect formation. They fly like the formation of the nuts and bolts in an aircraft, all tied together by invisible forces, which has led to a situation where they all make money and nobody gets into that because of the behavior of Judge Green and his law clerks and a gaggle of Justice Department lawyers and three floors of AT&T lawyers, who have been foreclosing the participation of any other person in or outside of the telecommunications industry. The bill, is it perfect? No. But it is far better than the situation we have, and it is a good enough bill. I would urge my colleagues to vote for it. The rule, is it what I would have written? Of course not. But it does get the House to the business of addressing an important national question, and that is the question of what will be our telecommunications policy, and will it be decided by the Congress, and will it be decided by the regulatory system, or will it be decided in a court of star chamber, in which no other citizen can participate. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the rule.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bid a fond farewell to a distinguished public servant and to a man who has served this House with great dignity and diligence over a career that has spanned almost three decades, whose last day with the House of Representatives is today. He has served admirably as the Director of the House Office of Photograph, a demanding job in an office that logged over 19,000 visits to offices of Members of Congress and to address other functions in the last year alone. He joined Members of this body on countless missions overseas, including a trip to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf war and the 50th anniversary of Normandy last year. Most of us see Keith Jewell at some point almost every day we are in session. Usually it is as he moves rapidly from one appointment to the next to serve the House, take pictures of Members and our constituents. Once in a while, if you have had time to chat with Keith, the Members will know what a thoroughly decent and hard working man he is and how dedicated he has been to the service of this body as well as the extraordinary leadership which he has given to a competent group of photographers. Sadly, one of Mr. Jewell's staff is also retiring today, Joseph Avery, after some 35 years of service. He, too, has served this institution with great distinction. This is why I have reason to pay tribute, well deserved, to these fine gentlemen. Whether it was on the House steps or on an overseas mission, Keith Jewell has been one of the official recorders of the history of this institution. I wish him great success in the future and happiness as he joins his dear wife, a wonderful woman, Lorren, in a long and, I hope, healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on Mr. Keith Jewell, the official photographer of the House, who is resigning today.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains to me?

Mr. DINGELL. I certainly hope so, because I observe to my good friend that this has been the Agency which has rendered coherent the policies of the Federal Government on the environment, and without it and without this money I do not think we could look forward to the same process being as successful as it has been heretofore. [[Page H 8021]]