J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERREY. I was actually going to ask the managers--I do not know-- if the opponents to this amendment were going to use all 13 minutes?

Mr. KERREY. There is no question the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is raising a very legitimate concern. When we lift the restrictions on manufacturing in general, which we are doing in here-- and we heard earlier the distinguished Senator from Arizona coming down and saying that we finally got out of this domestic content stuff in there. That was there out of a concern we try to keep some of this manufacturing business in the United States. There is no question that is a legitimate concern.

Mr. KERREY. I am not the sponsor of the amendment. The distinguished Senator from Maine is. However, he would decide in that regard. I certainly would have no objection to what the Senator proposes. I yield the floor. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. Well, I must say, Mr. President, I rise with some trepidation. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina has made a very impressive legal case as to why the language in the bill, as it is written, is satisfactory and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, prior to him, laid out a number of reasons why the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota is wrong. I say to my colleagues that I do not come here representing the long distance companies or any other companies. I come here representing the consumers, first of Nebraska, and then of the United States of America. And I hear in the arguments offered here that, first of all, this would be an unprecedented thing for the Justice Department to do. Well, if it is our fear of breaking precedent that is the problem with this amendment, then we should not enact this legislation. This legislation is unprecedented, is it not? I ask the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, is this legislation not itself unprecedented? Has the Congress of the United States of America ever considered a law that would take such a substantially regulated monopoly with such size and move it into a competitive environment? When have we done this before, of this size and magnitude?

Mr. KERREY. The AT&T divestiture was done by the Department of Justice, not the Congress.

Mr. KERREY. My point here is, to say that what we are asking for with this amendment is unprecedented leads me to the question, is this legislation itself not unprecedented? Is not what Congress is considering with S. 652 unprecedented? I do not come to the floor and say let us not do S. 652 because it is unprecedented. I understand it is unprecedented. We are in unchartered waters. We have not done this before.

Mr. KERREY. I yield.

Mr. KERREY. The Senator is saying that the Congress, the fact that we had divestiture of AT&T in 1985 was the failure of the U.S. Congress?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Dakota what would he propose Congress do?

Mr. KERREY. Pleased to yield.

Mr. KERREY. If Congress did it in 1985, they could not have done it as well as the Department of Justice. The regional Bell companies at the time of the filing of the consent decree object to restrictions placed on them on manufacturing, on services, and they objected because they wanted to get into all the things. The consent decree said we will have competition. It said we will move from a monopoly to competition. This is the agency of the government that has enabled us to do that. The U.S. Department of Justice has done it. That is what I see. I see them as an agency that has produced competition, in an unprecedented time, once before, and now in another unprecedented time. In my judgment, we need them not to produce duplication, not to produce a duplicative process. It is a parallel process. Do you not go to one agency and then to another. I tend to walk through, as I see, the process. I feel odd arguing, because in S. 1822 last year, we had all this pretty well settled. Last year's legislation came out with a 18-2 margin. I believe, basically, that did what the Dorgan amendment is now asking for. I point out, as well, one of the statements that was made here that this thing could drag on a long, long time. Well, the amendment tends to deal with that. I point out to my colleagues that there is a determination, a process, that says that the Attorney General, not later than 30 days after receiving an application, shall issue a written determination. There is a time certain in here of the 90 days. Now, maybe 90 days is too long. Maybe it ought to be somewhat shorter. There is an attempt made here not to lengthen the process. Indeed, I believe very strongly that the law as it is written without this amendment is an invitation for lengthy litigation. But most importantly, Mr. President, my fear with this, and it is a sincerely based fear, I do not come here pulling for the long distance companies, or represent one interest or another. I come many times in this debate to say this: We are going to vote on this in final passage some time in the next year. We will have a vote on final passage. Members need to understand that they will be held accountable for that vote. Who will hold them accountable? Who will say, ``You cast the right vote.'' In the early difficult days, it will be the companies who have taken an interest. It will be the corporations that have been in town talking to Senators, day in and day out since the committee began its work in the early part of this year, and since the committee started its work last year. The companies that have been in town saying ``We like this provision, we don't like this provision,'' all the delicate balance that has been referenced. Either get a pat on the back, or a wave, or some smaller number of fingers directed in your direction. I urge my colleagues to understand that the much more important test of whether or not this piece of legislation is going to be something Senators are either proud of, or for the rest of your political career--perhaps shortened by this vote--Senators are explaining why they thought it would do something else. This piece of legislation either produces lower prices and higher quality to 100 million residential users of information services from 9 basic industries, or anybody that votes ``aye'' on this thing has a lot of trouble. I do not care what AT&T says. I do not care what the RBOC says. I do not care what the cable companies say or the broadcast people say, or anybody else says. Out in that hallway or in your office or through the mailbox or through E mail or any other kind of communication, they may tell Senators they are doing the right thing, but the real test is going to come a year from now, 2 years from now, 3 years from now when this rubber begins to meet the road. The question then will be, what do the consumers say? What do the citizens say? Dare I mention it, what do the voters say, who have not asked for this piece of legislation? I say now for the 8th or 9th or 10th time, this is not something that has been driven by town hall meetings. This is not on talk radio. This is not something that is coming as a part of the Contract With America. No one has polled this. No one has reached out and said, we will do focus groups and find out what is going on here. This is being driven by legitimate corporations with a sincere desire to do something that current law says they cannot do. So we are trying to do something that is unprecedented-- unprecedented to take a large sector of our economy and move it from a monopoly status into a competitive environment. And if we only worry about whether or not the existing corporations are going to be able to get what they want, in my judgment, not only would the consumers be unhappy, because they do not get the competitive choice they need. In my judgment, as well, all the promises of jobs we are talking about all the time, are not going to be fulfilled. Because, rest assured, when jobs are created they are going to be created by companies that do not even exist today. New entries, like we saw with Microsoft, new entries like we saw with Intel--we are going to see new entries that are going to be creating the jobs of tomorrow. And, unless this legislation permits, with no reservations, competition at the local level, it is unlikely that either the consumers of the United States of America, or those people in America who are trying to find jobs, are going to be terribly happy with the product. I am going to go down a few things I have heard said here this evening. I do not know how much longer I will talk. I will talk a while. We are going to come back in tomorrow and have plenty of time to go through some additional matters. Let me go through some of the things that were referenced. I have heard it said this is more regulation and more delay. I am prepared to argue and present it is not. I am prepared to argue in fact that the existing legislation, unless it is changed by the Dorgan amendment, is going to be more regulation and more delay. I have heard it said the Department of Justice is going to take on legions of new employees. It is not true. Indeed, the much more likely possibility is it will be the FCC that has to take on legions of new employees because they are not used to doing this kind of work. that come the FCC's way is going to produce an increase in that bureaucracy and not an increase in the Department of Justice. I have heard it said, and I referenced it earlier, this is going to create duplication. It is not. It is a concurrent process, a simultaneous process of application. The FCC does the work it is supposed to do. The Department of Justice does the work it is supposed to do. There is not an overlapping of permit requirement here. One agency has one responsibility; another has another responsibility. There is a time certain, as I indicated already in the amendment. In my judgment we have made an effort with this amendment to try to take into account the concerns that people have. Are we going to have more regulation? Is this going to create duplication? Is this going to mean more paperwork and delay? It will not mean more of any of those things. It will mean less. I have heard it said, as I indicated earlier, that this is an unprecedented intrusion by the Department of Justice into an industry. Mr. President, this whole venture is unprecedented. I hope colleagues understand that. It is an unprecedented action. It is an unprecedented bipartisan action, and I trust and hope this amendment will become an unprecedented bipartisan action as well, because, unless we improve this legislation with this change, those who vote ``yes'' on this bill, I believe sincerely and genuinely, will regret having done so. Mr. President, I hear that this is a dangerous precedent.

Mr. KERREY. I will stipulate that I agree that Congress failed in not being able to resolve the various conflicts and pass legislation to break up AT&T in the 1980's and come up with a legislative solution. A failure of the Reagan administration, as well, not to be able to exercise sufficient leadership. I stipulate here on the floor tonight that it was a failure of the Reagan administration, a failure of the U.S. Senate in the 1980's, and a failure of the United States House of Representatives to be able to get this job done. [[Page S8013]] Is that a fair stipulation? Am I expressing something with which the Senator from South Dakota would disagree?

Mr. KERREY. I yield.

Mr. KERREY. Absolutely is. Is there any situation, Senator, where governmental entity has produced so much good? Is there? Tell me the bad things that have happened since the consent decree was filed.

Mr. KERREY. It is not the chicken and the egg.

Mr. KERREY. I will.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me go through a few more things here. I appreciate that. I have only a few things.

Mr. KERREY. If we had taken the IBM track in 1984, does the Senator think it would have cost a couple of cents for phone service in South Dakota? I do not think so.

Mr. KERREY. I say to the Senator from South Dakota, had we done that, had we tried to follow the model of IBM, we would have had to do a number of other things. We would have had to say there is no public purpose in having universal service to all Americans.

Mr. KERREY. But AT&T and IBM are wholly different cases. IBM is a company that manufactured hardware and software for the consumer and business industry. There is no public purpose there, in saying we have to make sure every single American household has a computer. Whereas AT&T was a monopoly created with the 1934 Communications Act, with a franchise and a specific instructions to achieve universal service for all Americans. So, in the one case----

Mr. KERREY. I ask my friend from South Dakota, does he think it would have cost a couple of cents in Rapid City, SD?

Mr. KERREY. The point in fact is the Justice Department put the pressure on IBM, caused IBM to spin off two relatively insignificant, at the time, inventions. One was----

Mr. KERREY. The Department of Justice had a very constructive impact on IBM and on the U.S. economy. They had them spin off a couple of little things. One was an operating system called MS-DOS. And a couple of guys, high school or college dropouts up in Seattle, they built Microsoft. And Intel was the second company that got spun off, because the Department of Justice said we have a monopoly here. It is unacceptable. You are going to control too much of the economy. We are going to require some action. I understand you are using an example. I find the example difficult frankly on two grounds: One, in the case of IBM, you are dealing with a company that is different than AT&T. AT&T is a licensed monopoly by law created as a monopoly. The question is how do you go from that monopoly to something you now want to become a competitive industry? That is what I find most remarkable about the objection to this amendment--that if you are looking for a Federal agency with experience taking a monopoly situation to a competitive situation, why in heaven's name would we not go to the Department of Justice that has the most experience doing it and the most successful experience doing it? They have the track record. They have the personnel. Tell me where the FCC was in all of this. Describe to me the FCC's role either in IBM or in AT&T in a transition from monopoly to competition.