The history of television and its delivery systems is one of short duration, but marked by many technological advances. I believe it was the forerunner to the Information Age in which we live. For many of us, the majority of our TV viewing years were spent viewing 2 or 3 channels that were received through an antenna on our home's roof. Today, the advent of cable and satellite broadcasts has expanded the number of channels, but they require a fee to be paid.

Recently this committee and the House have passed legislation that attempts to deal with the problem of indecency in television programming. Most of the recent examples of indecency have come from live broadcasts, which the programmers contend they did not contemplate. Today we have the opportunity to take a step toward protecting the American family from indecency that can be anticipated by giving them a choice as to the programs that come into their home. This choice is commonly referred to as a la carte.

At present, programmers require providers, both cable and satellite, to purchase large packages as a condition for receiving the broadcast networks. The latter have been given to the programmers by the Congress and represent an asset of the American public. The providers, in turn, require the consumer to purchase packages that may include programs they do not want and may regard as objectionable. Although the cable industry has agreed to block these channels at the consumer's request, the consumer is still being required to pay for something he does not want to receive. However, since the cost of the packages to the providers is contractually cloaked in perpetual secrecy, we do not know the exact costs.

Today, I will offer an amendment that will allow families to choose the channels they want and to begin to reign in the escalating costs for television reception. It will grant authority to the FCC to examine the bundling of programming that is being forced on providers and will allow providers to offer their programming to their customers. Thereby, a customer can choose the channels he wants or can select a package that is family friendly. This proposal is not a mandate. No one will be forced to provide a la carte if it's technologically or economically unable to do so.

This is a step in the right direction. It is my opinion that this committee should take this step and give the FCC the authority to monitor this important issue. It is also my opinion that unless this step is taken, the public is going to start asking why the six top programming conglomerates who own or have interest in 153 cable channels, including 30 of the top 36, can routinely tie and bundle families of programming services on a take it all or get nothing basis. If the programmers and this committee do not think it is appropriate for the FCC to examine these issues, then the Judiciary Committee could very easily give this authority and more to the Justice Department by simply amending the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to include television programming as a service that cannot include contractual tying agreements, and by further amending the Clayton Act to include television programming as a commodity that may not have price discrimination which has an anti-competitive effect.

If these steps were taken, all of the contracts would be unsealed and subject to review for illegal tying arrangements and for any other provisions that would be considered anti-competitive and a restraint of trade on commerce. My proposal today is a much more moderate approach that would allow the problem to be examined and resolved within the confines of the FCC.

For those of us who represent rural areas, many of our constituents who have purchased high definition TVs should be allowed to receive HD transmissions if they fall in the so-called digital white areas. I believe this issue should be addressed in this legislation.