310 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
310 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
====================================================
|
|
################ #############
|
|
################ ## #
|
|
## #############
|
|
## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ###
|
|
## # # # # # # # # ## # # # #
|
|
## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### #
|
|
## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # #
|
|
## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### #
|
|
====================================================
|
|
Free Speech Media, LLC
|
|
July 27, 1995
|
|
Number 10
|
|
5 pages
|
|
====================================================
|
|
Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb
|
|
Please direct comments and inquiries to cwhitcom@bentley.edu
|
|
====================================================
|
|
The Telecom Post is posted to several distribution lists and is also available
|
|
from the CPSR listserv. To subscribe, send to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the
|
|
message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR NAME.
|
|
The Telecom Post will be published weekly while the U.S. Congress works on
|
|
a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S information delivery systems.
|
|
=====================================================
|
|
TOPICS
|
|
|
|
1. The Roller Coaster Ride of Regulatory Reform
|
|
|
|
2. H.R. 1555 - The Battle Lines are Drawn
|
|
|
|
3. Istook Amendment - a Gag Order on Nonprofits
|
|
|
|
4. Appropriations
|
|
|
|
REGULATORY REFORM
|
|
|
|
S.343, The Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act has become a
|
|
political football. Bill sponsor and presidential hopeful Dole,
|
|
has filed and lost 3 cloture votes (setting limits on the time
|
|
allowed for debate). He is under a great deal of pressure from
|
|
industry to get a bill passed quickly and with a month-long
|
|
recess coming up next week, wants to fit this feather into his
|
|
cap to use on the campaign trail after vacation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Citizens for Sensible Safeguards have been diligent about
|
|
keeping the online world informed on a daily basis as to the
|
|
progress on this bill. Their position is that it is a totally
|
|
unsalvageable bill. Regardless of what compromises are struck,
|
|
this bill should go down to defeat. Given the political
|
|
reality, however, a second objective is to keep as many Senators
|
|
opposed to the bill as possible which would later give the
|
|
President stronger grounds for a veto. Should the bill pass the
|
|
Senate, it is likely to become even more despicable after the
|
|
House/Senate conference to reconcile the two bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. 343 requires that all regulations, existing and new, undergo
|
|
extensive cost/benefit analysis before they are enacted. All
|
|
alternatives are to be weighed. The chosen option is subject to
|
|
litigation over whether it was the optimal choice. Within 3
|
|
years every major rule (those with an economic impact of over
|
|
$50m) must be reviewed and if the review is not successfully
|
|
completed in the 3 year period, the process is begun to repeal
|
|
the rule. The overload this will certainly cause on the agency
|
|
will result in many good rules evaporating. "Sweetheart Deals"
|
|
that waive protections and substitute "alternative" compliance
|
|
measures are shielded from judicial review. The votes on this
|
|
bill are very close. It appears Dole is trying to attract the 2
|
|
or 3 Democratic votes he needs by developing individual
|
|
amendments. The Democrats sent the Republicans a letter
|
|
indicating that they intend to look at the bill as a whole
|
|
rather than it parts but identifies five major issues that, if
|
|
changed, would make the bill acceptable. The fence-sitting
|
|
Democrats are Conrad, Robb, Rockefeller, Baucus, Mikulski,
|
|
Pryor, Feinstein, Graham and Jeffords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HR 994, The Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995 has come
|
|
out of committee with a vote of 39-7. This bill would cause
|
|
agencies to review all major rules every seven years for
|
|
existing rules and every 3 for new rules. If the review is not
|
|
done in time the rule is unenforceable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HR1555 - READYING FOR BATTLE
|
|
|
|
When we last visited HR1555, the Bells were lobbying Commerce
|
|
Committee Chairman Bliley (R-VA) hard to get rid of the
|
|
checklist language requiring "facilities-based" competition
|
|
exist in the Bell market that is comparable in price, quality
|
|
and scope to the Bell's before it is allowed into the long
|
|
distance market. Bill sponsor, Jack Fields (R-TX) has been
|
|
working to rid the bill of this language. All eyes have been on
|
|
Speaker Gringrich to see where he would throw his support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the opposite corner sits the long distance industry. Should
|
|
the changes to that language take place, they have vowed to do
|
|
everything in their power to kill the bill. Consumer activists
|
|
can be found in this corner as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bliley did a good job of standing firm under pressure for some
|
|
time, however, this week it looks like he gave in to the
|
|
"back-door dealmaking" process that is becoming de rigueur in
|
|
this Congress. He reported to the long distance industry and
|
|
their lobbying arm, the Competitive Long Distance Coalition
|
|
(CLDC) that he "had no choice" in the matter. He found himself
|
|
in this predicament once the Speaker stepped in to insist on
|
|
less regulation, more simplicity, and swift progress to the
|
|
floor. Though this bill was born in a bi-partisan climate, this
|
|
move may well trigger exactly the battle the House was
|
|
desperately trying to avoid. Though the actual language has not
|
|
appeared, Fields claims that it will represent the spirit of
|
|
"facilities-based" language but will allow the Bells an earlier
|
|
entry into long distance. It is conceivable that the report
|
|
with the new language will not surface until shortly before - or
|
|
just after - the bill comes to the floor. Therefore the bill
|
|
remains behind closed doors and there's no telling what might
|
|
emerge. Could be that Bliley has the last word after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look for a mass media blitz this week as the long distance
|
|
industry pulls out the stops to defeat the bill. Numerous
|
|
groups have filed letters of protest with Gingrich. Rep. Fields
|
|
has already issued them a warning "No one, not even AT&T and the
|
|
rest of the long distance industry, can kill this bill. I would
|
|
consider any group that tries to slow the legislative process to
|
|
be anti-consumer. I would also advise any segment that may be
|
|
thinking about trying to slow the process of the danger of
|
|
creating enemies that will end up being on the conference
|
|
committee" (when the House and Senate bills are reconciled).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stay tuned - the word is they intend to get to this before the
|
|
August 4 recess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lost in the shuffle is Judiciary Chairman Hyde's (R-IL) bill,
|
|
HR1528, that would secure a place at the checklist table for the
|
|
Department of Justice to weigh in on the proper time to allow
|
|
Bell entry into long distance. The bill has been filed though
|
|
the final language is not settled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Administration seems to be making an attempt to slow down
|
|
the process by prolonging debate on the appropriations bills
|
|
currently on the floor. If the bill waits until the tail end of
|
|
the appropriations stream, it may not come up before the recess.
|
|
However, a "closed rule" provision which would place strict
|
|
time limits on floor debate and restrictions on the number of
|
|
amendments allowed could manage to wedge the bill into the
|
|
schedule before the appropriations bills are completed. Should
|
|
the bill get delayed till September, it will face a much more
|
|
contentious and partisan Congress than it would now.
|
|
Presidential campaigns will be kicking off shortly and
|
|
grandstanding will be the name of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE, AND EDUCATION
|
|
APPROPRIATIONS BILL
|
|
|
|
Nonprofit Gag Rule
|
|
|
|
The House Appropriations Committee has included an amendment to
|
|
the Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education
|
|
Appropriations bill sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK),
|
|
David McIntosh (R-IN), and Robert Ehrlich (R-MD) known as the
|
|
Nonprofit Gag Rule. This amendment would deny federal funds to
|
|
nonprofits which advocate above a specified threshold. This
|
|
threshold is a complex formula of direct and indirect costs,
|
|
number of years of advocacy, and associations with others who
|
|
advocate. It would force nonprofits to choose between providing
|
|
community services and speaking out on public policy matters.
|
|
Nonprofits are already prohibited from using federal funds to
|
|
lobby and this has successfully accomplished the spirit of what
|
|
Nonprofit Gag Rule attempts to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rep. David Skaggs (D-CO), in opposition to the requirements of
|
|
the bill, uses an hypothetical example of a college professor
|
|
with an NSF research grant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the bill's restrictions, the professor could
|
|
have spent no more than 5% of his own income on
|
|
political activity for the previous five years. Heaven
|
|
only knows how he would be supposed to deal with the
|
|
political expenditures of his independently wealthy and
|
|
activist wife, assuming they file a joint return.
|
|
Meanwhile, he would have to have his entire research team
|
|
and all the lab equipment and supply firms complete a
|
|
questionnaire and account for their political activity.
|
|
If any of them had spent over 15% of her/his income on
|
|
political advocacy that year, (s)he's off the team
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He concludes, "I'm embarrassed to have to be associated with
|
|
such a sorry idea as this part of this bill even long enough to
|
|
argue and vote against it. However else this bill may be
|
|
improved, if these provisions are retained the bill should not
|
|
become law."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rep. Istook introduced a second amendment, the Campus Gag Rule,
|
|
that would have denied federal funds to colleges and
|
|
universities that fund student groups working in lobbying,
|
|
public policy or political campaigns. That amendment was
|
|
defeated 17-32 but may reappear when introduced to the floor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This bill is also scheduled for floor debate next week. For
|
|
questions on how to help contact Patrick Lester
|
|
(lesterp@rtk.net) or call OMB Watch, Independent Sector, or the
|
|
Allliance for Justice at 202-332-3224.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
|
|
|
|
CPB appears to be receiving $240m for fiscal year 1998 rather
|
|
than the 0 many feared. However, the subcommittee's
|
|
recommendation would also make all appropriations contingent on
|
|
each organization being officially authorized. In other words,
|
|
since CPB is not currently authorized by Congress past fiscal
|
|
year 1997, the 1998 appropriations would not be disbursed.
|
|
|
|
A single sentence might eliminate the requirement of CPB to fund
|
|
an independent production organization. That organization, to
|
|
date, has been the Independent Television Service (ITVS). ITVS
|
|
is concerned that this sends a negative message as to the
|
|
importance of independent and diverse programming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPROPRIATIONS
|
|
|
|
The results of the Senate & House Appropriations Committees are
|
|
as follows:
|
|
|
|
Bad News:
|
|
Office of Technology Assessment - terminated. An amendment for
|
|
reorganization by Sen. Hollings (D-SC) was voted down, 11-13.
|
|
(Senate)
|
|
|
|
Americorps is a eliminated. (House)
|
|
|
|
The Environmental Protection Agency is cut by 1/3 (House)
|
|
|
|
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development down 23% (House)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good News:
|
|
Government Printing Office is reduced but not eliminated.
|
|
(Senate)
|
|
|
|
The Library of Congress survives as does the Depository Library
|
|
Program.(Senate)
|
|
|
|
The Congressional Record, copies of bills, reports, and other
|
|
documents will continue to go to constituents. The importance of
|
|
government information and its dissemination to its citizens was
|
|
reaffirmed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
|
|
Another file downloaded from: NIRVANAnet(tm)
|
|
|
|
&TOTSE 510/935-5845 Walnut Creek, CA Taipan Enigma
|
|
Burn This Flag 408/363-9766 San Jose, CA Zardoz
|
|
realitycheck 415/666-0339 San Francisco, CA Poindexter Fortran
|
|
Governed Anarchy 510/226-6656 Fremont, CA Eightball
|
|
New Dork Sublime 805/823-1346 Tehachapi, CA Biffnix
|
|
Lies Unlimited 801/278-2699 Salt Lake City, UT Mick Freen
|
|
Atomic Books 410/669-4179 Baltimore, MD Baywolf
|
|
Sea of Noise 203/886-1441 Norwich, CT Mr. Noise
|
|
The Dojo 713/997-6351 Pearland, TX Yojimbo
|
|
Frayed Ends of Sanity 503/965-6747 Cloverdale, OR Flatline
|
|
The Ether Room 510/228-1146 Martinez, CA Tiny Little Super Guy
|
|
Hacker Heaven 860/456-9266 Lebanon, CT The Visionary
|
|
The Shaven Yak 510/672-6570 Clayton, CA Magic Man
|
|
El Observador 408/372-9054 Salinas, CA El Observador
|
|
Cool Beans! 415/648-7865 San Francisco, CA G.A. Ellsworth
|
|
DUSK Til Dawn 604/746-5383 Cowichan Bay, BC Cyber Trollis
|
|
The Great Abyss 510/482-5813 Oakland, CA Keymaster
|
|
|
|
"Raw Data for Raw Nerves"
|
|
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
|