Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge that Senators come to use time on these amendments. We are down to about an hour before the majority leader will start us voting, and we are trying to get agreements on amendments and we are negotiating. If anybody who wants to make a speech, we will make arrangements to speak in general on the bill or on an amendment. I urge Senators to come to the floor to finish this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, could I briefly state that I have received a series of letters--the first of which I became aware of last night, from Time Warner. The first letter stated something that was not true, and it was sent to various people. As discussed with you and your staff, this agreement is entirely contingent on the removal of the program access provisions . . . And so forth. That was not true. So last night, I faxed to Timothy Boggs a letter stating in part: At no time during our conversation did I indicate that any specific action by Time Warner would result in deletion of the program access provisions. I have had no further conversation with HBO/Time Warner about this matter since that meeting. My staff has not portrayed my position as being anything other than the industry negotiations suggested on May 4. Nothing I said during our short meeting could be construed as suggesting some sort of quid pro quo, which would be wrong, if not illegal. I resent the inference in your letter that I suggested something other than an industry-negotiated solution. I have this morning obtained a letter from Time Warner saying ``* * * the facts are exactly as outlined in your letter.'' It goes on to say that ``* * * at no point did we seek or reach understanding with you or your staff regarding any change in the legislation.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these three letters printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 12:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the McCain amendment No. 1285, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Simon modified amendment No. 1283, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Lieberman amendment No. 1298, with the remaining provisions of last night's consent agreement remaining in place.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCain amendment and to vote the other amendments down. The arguments have been made. So I yield back the remainder of my time. I yield back all time.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. [[Page S8437]] The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1283, as Modified

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to table the Simon amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will table this amendment. We voted on this last week in the leadership package, the Dole - Daschle - Pressler - Hollings package. We voted something like 78 to 8. This matter has been settled in this bill. It takes apart the leadership package. I urge everyone to table it. It is more regulation and I ask we proceed. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1298

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to table this amendment. This amendment is undoing the leadership package, the Dole- Daschle package, which we voted on already. The Dole-Daschle package and the committee bill will increase competition and will cause consumer rates on cable to go down as more entrants enter the market. I urge that we table this amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to the two Senators from Alaska and Hawaii. They are two giants of the Senate and giants in our committee. They will both be conferees. They have provided enormous leadership. We just feel, at this time, that we have carefully crafted an agreement, and the checklist, and so forth, might come apart. So we have decided to delay this discussion until conference. I want to pay tribute to both of them being willing to help move this bill forward. I thank them very much.

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I hope we can turn now to the Heflin amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Alabama. I know he is leaving the Senate next year. We will miss him. This is a good amendment. We agree to it. I think it will help smaller cities in rural areas. We are prepared to pass congratulate my friend.

Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, could I just make a statement on the program access issue? [[Page S8440]]

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dole amendment. Coming from a rural, small-city State, I have long been concerned with program access. In fact, in the 1992 cable bill, my main reason for supporting it was not the pricing side so much as the program access side. It is a controversial thing, but I think the pricing side of it was a mistake but the program access side was a necessary thing. To understand this amendment, or this issue, remember that program access is not something that everybody has. I remember one of our REA's, which transmit TV signals by microwave, wanted to get ESPN on their channel and they could not even get ESPN to return a phone call because they were too small. So there was a need for program access. And this amendment is continuing in that tradition. So this is a subject that all of us have worked on for years. The program access portions, I think, of that act have worked at least to help the smaller cities and to help the rural areas where they transmitted by microwave from one farm to the next where it is too expensive for cable lines to run. Nobody will sell those people programming because it is not worth it financially. There are myriad interests concerned with this issue. I know the Black Entertainment Network has endorsed this amendment for the same reason, that they are very much in need of program access. There has been much discussion over the program access provisions contained in S. 652. From the beginning of this process, I wanted to deal with the problem which many small operators have faced in being charged higher rates for programming. S. 652's program access provision is important to small cable operators, especially those in South Dakota. Program providers strongly object to this provision. I suggested to the program providers that they work with the small cable operators to seek an industry agreement which could make a legislated solution unnecessary. The president of the National Cable Television Cooperative, Michael Pandzik, the organization that purchases programming on behalf of the small cable operators, wrote to me that the cooperative has reached agreement on the small cable rates on programs from the major vertically integrated entertainment companies. As a result, I support the amendment by Senator Dole to strike the program access language change in S. 652.

Mr. PRESSLER. I am sorry, would my friend----

Mr. PRESSLER. The majority leader offered it for himself and spoke for it.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, if the Senator from Nebraska wishes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, I am. I have a long tradition of support for program access. I voted for the 1992 cable bill mainly because of program access issues. Yes, I am recommending that.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes. I have stated my views in my letter. But the underlying substance of this amendment I support.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes. I gave an example when the Senator was not here of some of my rural telephone co-ops having difficulty getting ESPN. We had to get the Vice President out there. My reason for supporting the 1992 Cable Act was program access. The substance of the amendment is good for the country, I believe. It is very much in keeping with that. I wrote a letter back to Time Warner regarding that matter and have placed it in the Congressional Record. They wrote me a letter back. The National Cable Television Cooperative group supports it very strongly. I have a letter from them. I cited this earlier. We are pleased to report that the National Cable Television Cooperative has reached agreements with Time Warner's Home Box Office Unit, Showtime Network, Inc.'s Showtime and the Movie Channel Services, and Viacom's MTV Network Services (MTV, VH1, and Nickelodeon). As a result of this important change in circumstances, we no longer believe that the changes to the program access provisions of the Cable Act proposed in Sec. 204(b) of S. 652 are necessary, and we can accept the removal of those provisions from the bill. As you know, other conflicts remain. Despite repeated attempts by the Cooperative, we have failed to conclude master affiliate agreements with many non-vertically- integrated networks which are exempt from existing law. For example, we were recently notified by Group W of their intent not to renew our long-standing contract for Country Music Television. (Originally negotiated by NCTC with CMT's former owners in 1989, prior to CMT's purchase by Group W/ Gaylord). Group W has also steadfastly refused to conclude a contract with us for The Nashville Network. The most difficult of many other examples we could cite would be that of ESPN. So, in any event, I think we are all aware of these problems. I support the substance of the amendment. I disagree with the way Time Warner dealt with that particular letter. I wrote them a strong letter back, and they wrote me a letter stating my letter was absolutely accurate, and they apologized.