J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I earlier withdrew it, but I heard the Senator from South Dakota say----

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a modification of my amendment be accepted.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the managers of the bill, and I have a modification that I would like to get unanimous consent to be included which does not change the substance of the bill; it merely clarifies to what civil penalties it refers. It says ``civil penalties, damages or interests,'' as opposed to just ``civil penalties.'' I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be modified in that fashion.

Mr. KERREY. I have an easy answer for that. For example, when the companies get into providing ancillary services, they will always say, no, this is not coming from the ratepayers, it is coming from the shareholders. They do this all the time. When the company is offering a defense of something, or when we are identifying something that we are concerned may be billed to the ratepayer, they will provide information to the FCC saying that it is being charged to the shareholders, not the ratepayers. The bill provides, in section 224, civil penalties and damages if the company violates the interconnection requirements. But my concern is that there is uncertainty as to whether these are going to be imposed, and even if they are, what the level is going to be. And what the amendment attempts to do is protect the ratepayer from having to shoulder the burden of any civil penalty that might end up being imposed, damage or interest, assessed against the local exchange carrier for violating the interconnection duties imposed on them by the legislation. It seems to me----

Mr. KERREY. What the Senator from South Carolina is saying is exactly right. It has always been a dispute with consumers who object to things a certain company is doing, as to whether or not a charge is being assessed to the shareholder or the ratepayer. That has always been in dispute. At both the FCC and the State public service commissions, they have attempted to answer this, and they have mechanisms that allow them to do this kind of separation. This is an attempt to protect the ratepayer in the event that the local exchange company is fined. As I said, there is considerable uncertainty. The fines are rather substantial--in some cases, a million dollars a day, and in one case $500 million, which could potentially be assessed against a local exchange company if they violated the terms and conditions of this new law. If you presume that a $5 million fine is levied against a local exchange company, it seems to me the ratepayer should not be penalized as a consequence of a mistake being made by a company that is trying to move from a monopoly situation to a competitive environment. This amendment says that, if civil penalties are imposed or damages or interests are imposed according to the law, we just merely make sure that they are not going to pass it in particular to a captive ratepayer that has no other option.

Mr. KERREY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. KERREY. With civil penalty damages.

Mr. KERREY. That is correct, and no civil penalty damages.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I gave the desk the only copy of the modification I have. I am not even able to look at my own copy.

Mr. KERREY. It should be both in the heading and the text. The change needs to be in the heading and the text.

Mr. KERREY. Would you like block letters? Let me have staff work on this while I talk about the amendment.

Mr. KERREY. Civil penalties is not clear. That is the interpretation that I was given. I was attempting to clarify this thing. I was told civil penalties is not clear.

Mr. KERREY. No, I am putting ``interest'' and ``damages'' in.

Mr. KERREY. I will.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it takes almost no time at all. I would like to get staff to clear this up. It is a single-line amendment. It should not be that difficult to have staff write this up in block letters.

Mr. KERREY. I understand. I put insertions in this thing, and I need it written out in a single line. I do not need to lay the amendment aside. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that my request for modification of this amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment in accordance with the agreement of both managers.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration, amendment 1310.

Mr. KERREY. Is there an amendment before the body?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the last word merely is that the Senator from Alaska is right, I am not worried about the minimum requirement in 255. I think it needs to be strengthened. This amendment does precisely that, it attempts to strengthen the requirements of 255 prior to being given permission for interLATA service.