Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we are now 3 minutes from casting the one vote that every consumer in America is going to understand. They may appreciate that you are going to give them the ability to have one more long distance company out there, but they have already, in fact, enjoy dozens of long distance companies in America. But every cable consumer in America knows that in their hometown there is only one cable company, and the telephone company is not coming to town soon. Under Shays-Markey, when the telephone company comes to town, no more regulation. What the bill says right now is, even if the telephone company does not come to town, the cable companies can tip you upside down and shake your money out of your pockets. So you answer this question: When cable rates go from $25 a month to $35 a month, every month, are you going to be able to explain that there is competition arriving in 3 or 4 years? Keep rate controls until the telephone company shows up in town, then complete deregulation. That is what this bill is all about, competition. When the telephone company begins to compete, if it ever does, no rate control. But until they get there, every community in America for all intents and purposes is a cable monopoly. They are going right back to the same practices once you pass this bill. Support the Shays-Markey amendment. Protect cable consumers until competition arrives.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself at this point 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the consumers of America should be placed upon red alert. We now reach an issue which I think every person in America can understand who has even held a remote control clicker in their hands. The bill that we are now considering deregulates all cable rates over the next 15 months. But for rural America, rural America, the 30 percent of America that considers itself to the rural, their rates are deregulated upon enactment of this bill. Now, the proponents are going to tell you, do not worry, there is going to be plenty of competition in cable. That will keep rates down. For those of you in rural America, ask yourself this question: In two months do you think there will be a second cable company in your town? Because if there is not a second cable company in your town, your rates are going up because your cable company, as a monopoly, will be able to go back to the same practices which they engaged in up to 1992 when finally we began to put controls on this rapid increase two and three and four times the rate of inflation of cable rates across this country. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I have an amendment that is being considered right now on the floor of Congress which will give you your one shot at protecting our cable ratepayers against rate shock this year and next across this country, whether you be rural or urban or suburban. We received a missive today from the Governor of New Jersey, Christine Whitman. She wants an aye vote on the Markey-Shays bill. Christine Whitman. She does not want her cable rates to go up because she knows, and she says it right here, there is no competition on the horizon for most of America. So this amendment is the most important consumer protection vote which you will be taking in this bill and one of the two or three most important this year in the U.S. Congress. Make no mistake about it. There will be no competition for most of America. There will be no control on rates going up, and you will have to explain why, as part of a telecommunications bill that was supposed to reduce rates, you allowed for monopolies, monopolies in 97 percent of the communities in America to once again go back to their old practices.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from California for their amendment. It is a significant improvement over the approach of the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. This deals with the reality that the Internet is international, it is computer-based, it has a completely different history and future than anything that we have known thus far, and I support the language. It deals with the content concerns which the gentlemen from Oregon and California have raised. Mr. Chairman, the only reservation which I would have is that they add in not only content but also any other type of registration. I think in an era of convergence of technologies where telephone and cable may converge with the Internet at some point and some ways it is important for us to ensure that we will have an opportunity down the line to look at those issues, and my hope is that in the conference committee we will be able to sort those out.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 2-4.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we have two choices in this bill. The whole notion of an open architecture cyberspace-based competition is undermined by what has happened between the full committee and the manager's amendment. What we had determined at the full committee was that if, in fact, the telephone company used common carrier facilities in order to build their cable network, that it would have to have an open architecture, so that any provider of information, any 18-year-old kid, any producer, would be able to use this common carrier network in order to get their ideas into every home. Mr. Chairman, that was in contrast to the old cable model where if the telephone company built another cable system, but under design of the cable companies of the past, then they would be regulated like a cable company, get a franchise. This bill takes that open architecture concept, throws it out the window. We must go back to that if we are going to enjoy the full benefits of this information revolution. What is most troubling to me about the manager's amendment is that it takes the open access, common carrier model for telephone company delivery of video and makes that optional. The information superhighway had always been heralded as an opportunity for consumers to get 500 channels of television, and for independent, unaffiliated producers of information to use the network and reach the public. The bill had set up an appropriate balance I believe. It told the phone companies that when they got into the cable business they had a choice. They could build separate facilities, and overbuild cable systems to provide video services. If they did that they would be regulated as a cable company is regulated--under title 6 of the Communications Act--and they would have to go out and obtain a franchise just as cable companies do. The second option--if they wanted to use their phone network facilities and construct a system using a common carrier, equal access network to send video services to consumers--the legislation provided a video platform model. This video platform model ensured that unaffiliated, independent programmers, software engineers, the kid in the garage--could obtain access to the phone company's network and provide video, interactive, multimedia services to consumers too. After all, every consumer ratepayer had helped pay for the phone network, shouldn't everyone have a right to use the information superhighway. These openness rules were provisions establishing rules also under title 6 of the Communications Act. The bill specifically said that there would be no burdensome title 2 traditional phone company, utility type regulation. The bill already dealt with that and did it well. The managers amendment, on the other hand, would allow a phone company to build a closed, proprietary cable system on a common carrier phone network architecture. No other independent film producer, unaffiliated programmer, video game maker can claim a right to carriage. Only the phone company. This isn't the open road people have in mind when they think of cyberspace. In fact, the very notion of cyberspace in antithetical to closed, proprietary systems where only one provider of information is allowed to rule the road. One of the principles of common carriage for 60 years has been that any service you make available to one entity, you have to make available to all comers. This managers amendment lets the phone company--on a common carrier facility--make access available to itself and no one else. I think that is a giant step backward and for that reason I oppose the managers amendment. It is bad for small, independent, unaffiliated providers of information, for entrepreneurs and inventors. I believe that if phone companies are going to use the phone network--a communications network that all ratepayers have paid for-- that access for video services should not be the sole domain of the phone company, but rather an open superhighway for other creative geniuses as well.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I reclaim the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, to make this final point: We sell 25 million television sets a year in the United States. In 2 years there will be 25 million homes with a V-chip that costs 18 cents that every parent can use to protect their children. That is what a yes vote on recommittal means. My colleagues will still have the Coburn study, if they want it, but parents will have something out of this as well, the protection when they are not in the home, when they are not in the same room, to be able to block out the violence and sexual programming that their 3-, and 4-, and 5-, and 6-year-old little boys and girls should not be having access to, should not be in their minds. Please vote ``yes'' on recommittal so that we can build the V-chip into this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.

Mr. MARKEY. I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the point that I am going to make right now is that you have had a nice vote. You have now voted to have the 2000 study of whether or not violence and sexual programming on television has an impact on adolescent children. The conclusion to that study is not in question. The only question now, Mr. Speaker, is going to be whether or not, as we in our recommittal motion let the Coburn study stay in place, we add in now the [[Page H 8504]] Markey V-chip amendment as the recommittal. That is it. The Coburn study stays in place, and we add on the V-chip as the recommittal motion. That is all there is to it; it is no more complicated. Mr. Speaker, we ask that Members who care about parents in this country please vote for this recommittal motion so that both Coburn and the V-chip can be given to them as weapons against the excessive sexual and violent programming on television in our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana. [Mr. Burton], and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we are being told that we do not have time to debate the telecommunications bill in the light of day, so the U.S. Congress can debate whether or not students on campus have the right to be able to organize student activities any way that they want. That is what we are taking time out here in the U.S. Congress to do. Now, every one of these activities has been authorized either by the State legislature, the university officials, or by the students themselves. They have determined in each one of these States how they want to have these activities on their own campuses conducted. In about 4 hours, we are going to have a vote that the majority opposes that is going to give parents the right to be able to block violence that is invading their living rooms for their adolescent children. Many on the majority side are opposed to the Government intervening there, and yet here we are with the majority telling us their 18- to 20-year-old sons and daughters on campus cannot make up their own mind on how they want to organize to ensure that they have a public interest activity that they are able to advance as they see fit.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. The gentleman from Texas has already pointed out that it affects one- sixth to one-seventh of the American economy. We should not be debating a bill that affects one-sixth to one-seventh of the American economy at midnight in the United States Congress. We should not be doing this. We cannot have a good debate on cable. We cannot have a good debate on long distance. We cannot have a good debate on the V chip. We cannot have a good debate on privacy. We cannot have a good debate on the Internet. We cannot have a good debate on any of these issues which profoundly affect the satellite, the cable, the telephone, the computer, the software, the educational future of our country. This bill will make most of the rest of the legislation which we are going to deal with on the floor of this body a footnote in history. This is the bill. We are taking it up at midnight. We are going to tell all the Members, after they vote on the rule, that they should go home, that there will not be any votes. America is sound asleep. This is not the way to be treating one-sixth to one-seventh of the American economy. The Members should be here. Their staffs should be in their offices. The American people should be listening. We are talking about issues that are so profound that if they are not heard we will have lost the great opportunity to have had the debate, to have had the educational experience which the Congress can provide to the country. Now, some Members say, well, who cares, really, it is just a battle between AT&T on the one hand and the Bell companies on the other? Who really cares, is kind of the attitude that some Members have about it. Well, my colleagues, this is more than how many gigabits one company might be able to provide or how many extra thousand cubic feet of fiber optic that one or another company might provide. This is about how we transmit the ideas in our society. Whether or not we give parents the right to be able to block out the violence and the explicit sexual content that comes through their television set goes to how our children's minds are formed. Whether or not consumers are going to have one cable company or two cable companies in their community 1\1/2\ years from now goes to the question of whether or not they are going to have a monopoly or a real choice in the marketplace. Whether or not we are going to have a single company able to purchase the only newspaper in town, two television stations, every radio station and the cable system in every community in America is more profound than any other issue we are going to be debating on the floor this week, this month or this year. This rule should be voted down. We should take up this bill in the light of day with every issue given the time it needs to be debated.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to begin by complimenting my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. I have worked with the gentleman for three years on this legislation, and he and I have spent hundreds of hours talking about these issues and trying our best to come to common ground, and on many issues, we have, and many of those issues are in this bill. I think it is there that, in my opinion, the monumental parts of this bill are contained. I cannot thank the gentleman enough, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] on that side and all of the Members, and on this side, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and all of the members of our committee for all of the hard work which they have put into this bill over the last 3 years. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, since last year when we were considering this bill, there have been additions made to the legislation that were never under consideration in 1994. It is there primarily that the serious flaws in this legislation appear. For example, one, I repeat myself, but it is very important. It is wrong to allow a single company to own the only newspaper, two television stations, every radio station in the entire cable system for a single community. It is just wrong. Second, I have no problem with deregulating the cable industry, if there is another competitor in that community. For 100 years in this country we have regulated monopolies. Mr. Chairman, my career on the Committee on Commerce has been dedicated to deregulating toward competition so that we do not need to regulate monopolies any more, in electricity, in telephone, and in cable. But the honest truth of the matter is that there will be no competing cable system in most communities in America 2 years from today and 5 years from today. We should not subject those captive ratepayers to monopoly rents. It is wrong. Whenever a competitor shows up, total deregulation. That should be the heart and soul of this bill: Competition. Third, the V-chip. We are creating a universe that is going to go from 30 to 50 to 60 to 100 to 200 to 500 channels. Mothers and fathers who will want this technology in their home for the wide variety of programming that will be available will also be terrified at what their child may gain access to when they are not home, or when they are in the kitchen. A violence chip upgrades the on-off switch. That is all it does. It allows the parent to upgrade a 1950s on-off switch to something that they can have on or off when they are not in the room. That is all we are talking about. It only matches this 500 channel universe. Mr. Chairman, these are the issues that we have to include in this bill if we are to move into the 21st century: Competition and protection of the consumer. I would hope that those amendments would be adopted. Let me make another point. Here is the complaint form that is going to have to be filled out. For example, if you have 200,000 cable subscribers that are owned by the company in your area, 6,000 people have to fill out this form in order to complain about rates sky- rocketing when there is no other cable company in town that they can turn to, because rates are too high or quality is too low. Six thousand people out of 200,000 subscribers filling out a form that would basically make the 1040 form look attractive to most of them. Mr. Chairman, this is not a complaint form. This is not a way in which ordinary consumers are going to be able to appeal when their rates go back up three times the rate of inflation before we put that cable rate protection on the books in 1992. I am not looking for the kinds of radical changes that people might think. I am looking for common sense changes.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, as the international community watches, Europe's bloodiest conflict since World War II enters its 40th month. In the heart of Europe, villages are burning, innocent civilians are driven from their homes, women are raped, families are separated, and men are systematically executed in a campaign of terror unmatched since the days of Hitler. It was once said that ``the revolution will not be televised.'' Mr. Chairman, this genocide has been televised, analyzed, and quantified. We know how many Bosnians have been murdered, we know which cities and towns have been destroyed, we know who the aggressors are, where they operate, and what they plan to accomplish. Still, we do not stop them. There are consequences for our inaction. The supporters of ethnic war everywhere are watching: Hutu rebels in the refugee camps of Zaire; Moslem extremists in the Middle East; white supremacists throughout Europe. By remaining silent accomplices to genocide, we are sending a loud and clear signal to the opponents of racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance: proceed with your plans, we will not object. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, we are paying a bizarre tribute to the very principles on which the United Nations was founded. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter stipulates that ``nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.'' Bosnia is a recognized member of the United Nations. Yet we refuse to permit the Bosnian Government to exercise its right of self-defense. The embargo imposed on Bosnia prevents a democratically elected government from protecting itself from the forces of hatred and separatism. Although intended to contain the Balkan conflict, the embargo has served merely to guarantee its outcome. With the heavy equipment of the former Yugoslav army in the hands of the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Government is left to fight with substandard weapons. It's a fight they cannot win. There are no good choices in Bosnia. There are no easy solutions to the problems in the former Yugoslavia. We must, however, allow the Bosnians themselves to try to solve their own problems. We must lift this unjust embargo and permit them to defend themselves. It is their right, and it's our duty.