The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“WORLDCOM-SPRINT MERGER” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1084-E1085 on June 22, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WORLDCOM-SPRINT MERGER
______
HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 22, 2000
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address a couple of very recent news articles about the WorldCom-Sprint merger. I have been a supporter of the proposed merger since its announcement in October of 1999. My reasons for supporting the merger are the same now as they were then. When we wrote and passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we predicted many things, among them some consolidation in the telecom market. One of the major reasons for this urge to merge is to accommodate positive changes in the industry both domestically and internationally. These changes would be the direct result of greater competition and the resulting growth in the telecommunications sector.
The distinctions between local and long distance have begun to blur and and almost disappear. Telecommunications companies, in order to survive and compete on a global basis need to have global size and reach. The fastest and most practical way to achieve such economies of scale is through strategic unions. The new world telecom company must provide services that will go beyond local or long distance. They must offer a wide range of services including at the very least local, long distance, high-speed Internet access, and wireless.
I believe the proposed WorldCom-Sprint merger is a textbook example of what we in Congress envisioned when we passed the Telecom Act. The combination of these two corporations would create an American company suited to compete with anybody and everybody on a global basis for the foreseeable future. Its size and offerings will create jobs, encourage technological innovations, and promote competitive pricing for consumers.
Given that, you can see why I am so concerned about the recent articles I've read in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal stating that the European Commission is on the verge of recommending against approving the merger. While I'm not privy to the technical reviews conducted by the E.C. and don't know why they may have reached their reported conclusion, I find it disconcerting to see actual quotes attributed to ``senior EU officials'' before the member states have voted. I also find it troublesome to read in the papers statements made by U.S. Department of Justice officials stating that they are inclined to recommend that the merger be blocked. Does the merger review process encourage the publication of intentions, real or imagined, which could have an effect on the final outcome of the review? I doubt that it does, and I am confident that it is not productive to do so. I believe it is important that the all merger review panels have an established and fair process to which they strictly adhere. Perhaps if that can still be done, they will find that this merger brings a great deal to the economy, the telecom industry and the consumers it seeks to serve.
____________________
