Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I, too, believe there may be a potential problem and will work to solve this problem in conference with the House.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for yielding and support his suggestion that the FCC investigate technologies that may cause problems for significant segments of our population before they are introduced into the United States market. Such review is prudent for consumers, and it will help all companies by answering questions of safety interference before money is spent deploying this technology here in the United States. Four million Americans wear hearing aids, and the Senator from South Dakota has raised an important issue. GSM has been introduced in other countries, and problems have been reported. It is reasonable that these problems be investigated before the growth of this technology effectively shuts out a large sector of our population.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. Amendment No. 1341

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am concerned that the language in S. 652 is unclear concerning the requirements that the regional Bell operating companies [RBOC's] must fulfill before they are permitted to provide interLATA, or long distance service. The entry provisions of section 255(b)(1) require that the RBOC must reach an interconnection agreement and must fully implement the checklist under section 255(b)(2). The language is unclear, however, whether the RBOC actually must simply reach an agreement to provide interconnection or whether it must also actually provide such interconnection to a carrier. I would simply clarify that, as one of the principal authors of this legislation, it is my understanding that the legislation requires the RBOC not only to reach an agreement but it must also actually provide such interconnection to a carrier fulfilling the checklist under section 255. I understand that the legislation does not require that the RBOC's comply with both the minimum standards under section 251(b) and the section 255 checklist before being authorized to provide interLATA service. I would clarify one additional point, however, concerning the charges of providing interconnection under section 255. While there is no explicit reference to the charges that the RBOC's may assess for interconnection under section 255, it is my interpretation of the language in section 255 that the RBOC's must provide interconnection under section 255 at charges that are consistent with section 251(d)(6). Indeed, while the reference to section 251 in section 255(b)(1) is not intended to refer to the minimum standards under section 251, it is intended to include reference to subsection (d)(6) in section 251 concerning the charges for each unbundled element under section 255. I appreciate the opportunity to share this interpretation with colleagues.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Is there a modification?

Mr. HOLLINGS. It should be a substitute, I think. It should be drafted as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this deals, of course, with the technical requirements for connection to the telephone exchange service facilities, which is quite appropriate. It does not allude to the research and design with respect to manufacturing. That has been cleared. I join in the distinguished chairman's praise of Senator Warner and his efforts here to clarify this to make certain that everyone could be prepared and on notice as to facilitating the interconnection services. So I join in the amendment as amended, I take it.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Massachusetts. It has been a long road for all of us on our Committee on Commerce. We have been working veritably about 4 years to revise and bring to modern technology the provisions of the 1934 act. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has been a leader in participating as his staff has worked around the clock. I appreciate his comments. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Go right ahead. Amendment No. 1283, As Modified

Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. On behalf of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Dole amendment be set aside so we can bring up the Heflin amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thought the time was limited. I understand the time is not limited on this amendment. I would simply say, with respect to the merits, that programmers give big cable operators the volume discounts and not to the small cable operators. So, in trying to provide for that universal service and to make sure that it is extended, particularly to the high-cost and rural areas, the provision in the bill is that the small cable operators get the similar discounts. With the Dole amendment, that would be removed. There would be high- volume discounts to the big cities, let us say, and higher costs thereby and a diminution of universal service to the rural areas of America. So, this side would oppose the amendment on the merit itself. There is some question in this Senator's mind, without seeing anything further, on how this amendment came to the floor. With that in mind, let me yield to my colleagues who have come. I understand the distinguished Senator from Iowa wants to talk as in morning business while we are waiting.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me join in the sentiment of the Senator from Nebraska. And to elaborate on my previous remark, I just quietly said it disturbed me--the process by which this particular amendment has reached consideration in the U.S. Senate. I figured, as the expression was used earlier, that I did not have a dog in the fight because I had been shown a letter to the Honorable Larry Pressler, the chairman, dated June 13, which has already been included in the Record. I will let my previous remarks be sufficient except that now I am shown another letter that is signed by Timothy Boggs, talking of the agreement. That letter, being dated June 13, says: As you requested, the attached signature page confirms that Home Box Office has reached an agreement with the National Cable Television Cooperative, Inc. for HBO programming. As discussed with you and your staff, this agreement is entirely contingent on the removal of the program access provisions at Section 204(b) of S. 652, prior to Senate action on the legislation. Without the removal of this provision from the bill, the HBO distribution agreement with NCTC would be void. I had nothing to do with it, and nothing was addressed to me. I have now sent the staff to look, because these things surface. I have been given another letter, dated June 13, 1995, signed by Mr. Mark M. Weinstein, with a copy to Senator Bob Dole and Senator Ernest F. Hollings. I ask unanimous consent that the letter in its entirety be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will read that to make certain that my comments are right to the point. This is to Chairman Pressler. Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, at your request, Showtime Networks, a cable programming division of Viacom, has been negotiating in good faith with the National Cable Television Cooperative to reach an agreement regarding carriage of its cable programming services. We are pleased to report that we have reached an agreement between NCTC and Showtime for carriage of our premium cable services. NCTC also requested just recently MTV Networks, MTVN, begin discussions over the basic cable services. Accordingly, MTVN has been negotiating in good faith with NCTC over carriage of the basic cable services. We are committed to continuing to negotiate and hope to reach an MTVN agreement in the near future. We ask for your support in ensuring the adoption of an amendment deleting the volume discount language in S. 652 as previously agreed. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Now, it is incumbent on me, Mr. President, and my dear colleagues of the Senate, I can tell you here and now ``as previously agreed,'' by Mark M. Weinstein--he signs the letter--I can tell you I do not know the gentleman. I have never seen and have never spoken with him. And I have checked with my staff, and we have not had this letter or anything else, have we? It could be that this has been faxed. We are searching the records now because we have been in the Chamber for a week.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will yield. I understand, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska has a one-line amendment. ``No civil penalties assessed against the local exchange carrier as a result of a violation of the section will be charged directly or indirectly to that company's ratepayers.'' Trying that amendment on for size, let us assume I ran a public utility, whether it be, say, a telephone company, cellular or otherwise. I am running a public company and I am trying to comply. Let us say I am president. Unless I take the money out of my pocket, how else am I going to avoid paying the penalty against the company directly or indirectly? How do I do it? It is bound to come out one way or the other. My company, Hollings Communications, has been assessed a $5,000 fine.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. While the distinguished Senator from Virginia is here, there is no one I admire more, and I would be ready, willing, and able to try to respond. It came to my attention in discussing this just in the last hour that they had a provision in here relative to getting into--I did not realize, Mr. President, on page 99, the language appeared about getting into the manufacturing. It reads: . . . if the Commission authorizes a Bell operating company to provide interLATA services. . ., then that company may be authorized by the Commission to manufacture and provide telecommunications equipment, and to manufacture customer premises equipment, at any time after that determination is made, subject to the requirements of this section. . . . So the work of the distinguished Senator from Virginia is accurate. I had always contended that the manufacturer had no relation whatever to long distance. I think it ought to be written somewhere in the Congressional Record that I worked with the Bell operating companies for a good many years on the manufacturing bill. At the time we passed it in the U.S. Senate, 2 years ago--3 years ago now--by a bipartisan 74 votes, it had no relation not only to long distance, but the RBOC's told this particular Senator time and time again, ``We are not interested in getting into long distance. We are not interested at all in long distance. We are trying to get into manufacturing.'' Now, there was a difference. The distinguished chairman and Senators on his side, although we voted it, and that is the way it provided in last year's bill, S. 1822, they had a provision that manufacturing could not commence for 3 years. The compromise was made as appears on page 99 that it was after they got into interLATA it was authorized. I do not question the logic, in a sense, of the distinguished Senator from Virginia. However, then our side, in the negotiations and drawing this measure, said that irrespective of that particular production, namely, the development and actual manufacture of equipment, that we could immediately get into the design, saying: Upon the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1995, a Bell operating company may-- (A) engage in research and design activities related to manufacturing, and (B) enter into royalty agreements with manufacturers of telecommunications equipment. And then in section (b) you have to have a separate subsidiary. So long as they have that separate subsidiary, and they cannot cross subsidize, in any fashion, their research and design activities, the research and design activities have no relation whatever to the checklist, or the checklist is premised on getting in, of course, to long distance service. There is no connection, whatever. And I really think if we were not this far along in the bill I would be talking to my chairman to knock that page 99 out and that provision out. We have agreed to support the bill as is. I understand that some in that particular manufacturing business realize that the research and design, the software, is 90 percent of the business. That is the developmental part. They do not want anyone to get into it as long as they can possibly prevent anyone getting into research and design. Now, if this Senator were king for a day, I would have them into research and design tomorrow morning. I would have no relation whatever to the interLATA services getting into long distance or the checklist. That is why I wanted the Senator to lay that clearly on top of the table here. I am not trying to oppose the Senator, I am trying to support him. There is the reason I cannot support it at this time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague for his comments. monopoly telephone rates

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would direct a question to my colleague with regard to the Stevens amendment on expanded auction authority for the FCC, as amended by the Pressler amendment. These amendments will auction spectrum currently assigned to broadcast auxiliary licensees, and were adopted by voice vote Wednesday evening. This bill now conforms with the Budget Act. Specifically, I do not believe that it is the intention of the sponsors to impede the ability of local broadcasters to continue to deliver on-the-spot news and information.