Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER. I did not specifically mean they were opposed to the Boxer-Levin amendment. They are for the bill and the Boxer-Levin amendment would change the bill. But I should not say that they are against the Senator's amendment specifically.

Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend will yield----

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I yield myself my remaining 5 minutes. That will give the Senator from California a chance to finish. Let me say that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boxer- Levin amendment because we have resolved the cable television issue, we have achieved a good compromise and a good settlement. But let me go on and say that the amendment supposedly prevents an operator from moving a popular service in a regulated basic tier and offering it on a less regulated cable programming service, a CPS tier. But most such migration has already occurred off the basic tier. Only a few mostly smaller systems have large basic tiers. The Senate bill already provides protection against higher prices on the CPS tier should an operator migrate services and seek a steep rate increase. I think that is called the bad actor provision that is in the legislation. The amendment is not needed to protect the channel location of local broadcasters. I have already pointed out that they are already there and under the must-carry provisions. It is not needed to protect access channels on basic tier, either. The Cable Act requires them to be carried on basic along with broadcast signals, and cities already can require these channels as part of any franchise that is granted. The amendment freezes certain program lineups on smaller systems for no [[Page S8325]] good reason except it gives cities editorial power over a cable operator's programming. Let me conclude by saying that I think the Boxer-Levin amendment is not a good idea. It is a regulatory idea. This is supposed to be a deregulatory bill. It is said: What will the family do on the farm in South Dakota? I come from a farm in South Dakota. There is a direct satellite broadcasting competitive alternative. There is going to be a video dial competitive alternative. We are going to have the electric utilities able to get into telecommunications. If we pass this bill, there is going to be so much competition and so many alternative voices and sources that prices are going to collapse. There are going to be more services available, and they are going to be competitive. We do not need regulation. For example, if we look at what has shown up in the last few years, the Learning Channel, the History Channel, even ``MacNeil/Lehrer'' has been sold to a private company and is going to make additional public affairs programs for profit. Times are changing. There is more competition out there, more alternatives. The thinking of the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's and 1980's that regulation will bring things to smaller cities and rural areas is not necessarily true. My State is a State of smaller cities and rural areas, but we will benefit greatly from the telecommunications revolution. This bill will help small business and small towns. I have with me the signatures of 500 delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business--meeting this week here in Washington--telling about how much this telecommunications bill will help small business. More than 500 delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business this week have written to President Clinton urging him to support our reform bill, S. 652. We have heard a lot in this Chamber about how corporate interests are influencing this, and so forth. Occurring at this moment over at the White House is the small business conference, and we have 500 of those delegates who sent a petition urging that President Clinton support this bill and that the Congress pass it quickly and that it not put more regulation in it. But this amendment is for more regulation. Mr. President, I will read into the Record portions of a letter to me from the small business owners of America: . . . strongly urging you to enact legislation that will open all telecommunications markets to full and complete competition, ensuring that all Americans enjoy the lower prices and innovative services that unfettered competition will produce. We are pleased to present you with copies of more than 500 letters to President Clinton from delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business seeking White House support for Senator Pressler's Telecommunications Competition Deregulation Act, S. 652 . . . Of all the solutions offered, S. 652 best achieves the goal of streamlined regulation, enhanced competition and consumer protection. By opening the marketplace to all competitors on equal terms and conditions, you will ensure vigorous competition that will deliver economic growth, improve services and lower prices to all Americans. We urge you to pass this legislation in its present form and without delay. So they want this legislation, the small business people of America, and self-employed Americans. And I have heard some people talking about lobbyists out here. Of course there are lobbyists everywhere. They have the right to petition our Government. But here, signing these letters, we have 500 of the leading small businessmen of America gathered in President Clinton's offices for a conference. The small business people of America are for this bill. They do not support over-regulation such as the Boxer amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. Thank you very much.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge Senators to vote ``no'' on the Boxer-Levin amendment. The business of cable TV has been much debated, and we have settled on a bipartisan approach in the committee bill and it has been settled by the Dole and Daschle subsequent amendments and by leadership amendments. The cable TV issue should be left as it is in the bill. This amendment forbids a cable operator from taking any program service off basic service without approval of the local franchising authority. We feel strongly that would violate the spirit of the agreement that has been reached on a bipartisan basis regarding cable television pricing and cable television servicing throughout the United States. The Cable Act of 1984 specifically forbids authorities from specifying particular services to be carried. I am very touchy about giving any authority the power to pick programming or the power of the mayor of the city, for example, to decide what is going to be in the local newspaper or what columns are going to be carried, and which newspapers are going to operate in that city, or what comic strip characters are going to be allowed in that particular city, or what editorial writers are going to operate in that particular area. The Cable Act of 1984 did so to protect the first amendment. It specifically prohibited franchising authorities, and it did so to protect the first amendment right to decide what to carry. This amendment would take that away. It is a major reversal of longstanding cable policy that carefully balances the rights of cities and operators. For instance, if a cable operator wanted to replace a home shopping service with a news service, it could not do so without getting approval or, if it wanted to replace one classic movie channel with another, it would be forbidden unless the city agreed. The amendment is not needed to protect the channel location of local broadcasters. They cannot be removed, in any case. The cable operator must already carry local TV stations on the basic tier. It is not needed to protect access channels on basic, either. The Cable Act requires them to be carried on basic along with broadcast signals, and cities already can require these channels as a part of any franchise that is granted. This amendment would freeze certain programming lineups on smaller systems for no good reason except to give cities editorial power over a cable operator's programming. Mr. President, the cable agreement, or the agreements in relationship to pricing of cable television, have been worked out very laboriously in the committee, and again in the manager's amendment, and again in the leadership amendment. I think we have the cable thing settled down, or at least I hope so. The Boxer-Levin amendment supposedly prevents an operator from moving a popular service from a regulated basic tier and offering it on a less regulated cable programming service--CPS--tier. But most such migration has already occurred off the basic tier.

Mr. PRESSLER. I will speak against this amendment, if I may do so now. I yield myself, Mr. President, 5 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the first vote, it be in order to move to table the Boxer-Levin amendment. So we can have two back-to-back votes.

Mr. PRESSLER. First of all, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous-consent that it be in order at this time, and may I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45, at the conclusion of the first vote, the Senate then proceed immediately, and I will make a motion to table at that time, but that we continue to debate?

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, I will be speaking against the amendment and I will offer a motion to table at some appropriate time. I could do that now and stack the vote, this next vote, if that would be agreeable to my friend?

Mr. PRESSLER. The parliamentary situation is that there is a vote scheduled at 2:30?

Mr. PRESSLER. I will be opposing the amendment. I ask the Chair, how much time do I have?

Mr. PRESSLER. I would say before we go into a quorum call that we welcome other amendments and speeches by Senators. The Senate is open for business, and we will conceivably lay this aside if somebody else comes with an amendment. And with that I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Quite understand because we think it means you are trying to shift costs and also it would be very rare that a company would want to shift competitive services revenues to noncompetitive services revenues as far as we can see. But I would have to oppose this amendment as it is presently drafted.

Mr. PRESSLER. On this amendment, I will have to oppose it because we do not feel it does what the Senator seems to be saying it does. I am not questioning the draftsmanship. But I wonder if our staffs could discuss it a little bit and see if we cannot--very frankly, we cannot-- --

Mr. PRESSLER. Does my colleague mean shifting cost or shifting revenues? Because it would seem that it would be logical you were shifting costs.

Mr. PRESSLER. But the way the amendment reads, it would have the effect of shifting revenues from competitive services to noncompetitive services. Was the intent of that----

Mr. PRESSLER. We have no problem with the amendment and we are prepared to accept it.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am going to have to question this amendment. I want to confer here. Do we have a copy of this amendment here? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I must oppose this amendment reluctantly. I am all for consumers. But to have a person appointed who is nominated by the National Organization of State Utility Consumer Advocates, then we would say we need a corporate advocate. We need a racial minority advocate. We need this and that. So I feel strongly this would not be an appropriate amendment. It is my present intention to move to table it and to ask for the yeas and nays. I think we would have serious problems that this would create, serious problems. I just do not believe in legislating, appointing one type or one group having access to the board.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am told by leadership that they are now prepared to vote. If we could lay aside this amendment and come back to the Kerrey amendment No. 1344, I will move to table at that time, if that is agreeable with my friend from Nebraska.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that the Gorton amendment now be adopted by voice vote.

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 send two amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration en bloc. The amendments are modified versions of the amendments Nos. 1284 and 1282 by Senators Simon and Moseley-Braun. They are acceptable to the bill managers and have been cleared on both sides of the aisle.