John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following letters from students in my State be printed as a part of the Record. Kevin LeSaicherre and Leah Poche were youth ambassadors to the annual Smoke-free Class of 2000 Forum. The letters follow: Ponchatoula, LA, March 9, 1995. Hon. Bob Livingston, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Livingston: This week in school I learned quite a bit in regard to how hazardous smoking is to my health. I am a seventh grader at St. Joseph School in Ponchatoula. I heard about the Smoke-Free Class of 2000 and wanted to become involved. I am writing this letter to suggest that all the buildings in Louisiana become smoke free. Can you assist me in this goal? When I go to restaurants with my family, I can still smell cigarette smoke even if we sit in a non-smoking section. That most likely means that my family is receiving second-hand smoke. I believe that people do not deserve second-hand smoke if they are not the ones smoking. According to a graph of high school seniors using 1993 information, 19\1/2\% of boys surveyed smoked and 18\1/2\% of the girls surveyed smoked. This shows that many people are young when they begin smoking. According to the law, most seniors are not even old enough to buy cigarettes. Stores are not supposed to sell cigarettes to people under the age of 18. If people cannot smoke in the buildings of Louisiana, it would make it more difficult of them to smoke. Maybe that would make some of them stop smoking. In addition, the non- smoking public would not be exposed to second-hand smoke. Another plan I have is to change the Surgeon General's warning on the cigarette ads, cartons, and billboards. It should be readable instead of being so small and all the dangers and risks of smoking should be listed. Thank you for your help in these matters. Sincerely, Kevin LeSaicherre.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, in discussing this, we have a national transportation highway system, and yet, some would argue, with a lot of eloquence, that the States should have a right to determine whether it is going to be a highway made of concrete or whether it is going to be a rail system that is used to transport people. The State ought to have a right to make that decision. I have a lot of sympathy that States should make that determination, even though it is a national highway transportation bill. But then when it comes to setting standards for when someone within a particular State should have a right to drink, well, some who make the argument that the States ought to have the flexibility on determining whether they are going to build highways or rail systems, then we are going to supersede you and we are going to determine in Washington what the proper standard is. In one case, we are saying the States have the right to make that determination, and in another area we say you are not smart enough to make the right determination, and we have to do it here in Washington. I am bothered by the inconsistency.

Mr. BREAUX. I was listening to the Senator's arguments, as well as the arguments of the Senator from North Dakota. I think they were very eloquent about the problems we are facing with drinking while people drive. I guess a philosophical question I ask the Senator from New Jersey, because I think the Senator from New Jersey supports the theory that on the use of highway funds for transportation purposes that the States should have a [[Page S 8784]] maximum degree of flexibility--if they want to use highway funds, for instance, instead of building highways, they should have the right to use them for Amtrak and rail systems--how does that square with the argument I think the Senator is making now with regard to standards for when people drink within a State that the Federal Government knows better in that area, but the State knows better in the area of what type of transportation system is better within the State? We are going to tell you what to do when it comes to setting limitations on drinking, but we are not going to tell you what to do with how the money is spent for transportation purposes?

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, I think the discussion is good.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield further? Suppose the State says that is their responsibility, as well; let them make that decision?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, my colleagues, in considering the confirmation of a Presidential nominee I think that we as [[Page S 8729]] Members of the Senate have an obligation to vote on the merits of the nominee's qualifications. I intend to vote for cloture so that we can vote on the merits of this nomination later. I have differed with some of the President's nominees. In fact, I voted against President Clinton's previous nominee for Surgeon General. I feel very strongly that the Senate should not hide behind procedural votes that present the question of the nominee's qualifications from even coming up. We should have the courage to bring the nomination up, debate his qualifications, and then vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the merits. I realize that there are differences of opinion among our colleagues on this nominee, and indeed, on what the proper role of the Office of the Surgeon General should be. This I would suggest should be debated and decided by a vote of the Senate on the merits. I have met with Dr. Foster in my office and discussed his views and also his past practices. He has family connections to my State of Louisiana, and I found him to be a very sincere person. I think, Mr. President, that the Senate owes the President and this nominee a vote on his qualifications and not just a vote on whether to even bring it up. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me applaud the Senator from North Dakota for his comments and his statement on the open-container legislation but particularly on the remarks that he just made about the welfare reform debate that is now underway in this country and, hopefully, soon to be underway in the U.S. Senate. I really believe that welfare reform should not be a partisan issue. I think it is clear that, if we make it a partisan issue, we will not get anything done. We as members of the minority party do not have enough votes to pass a welfare reform bill without our Republican colleagues' participation. I would suggest to my Republican colleagues that they do not have sufficient votes to pass Republican-only welfare reform without the participation of Democrats, certainly not one that can be signed into law or perhaps even one that can pass the Senate. So I think it is certainly clear that we have to work together if we are going to get anything done. To insist on a political issue is insisting on failure as far as welfare reform is concerned. We as Democrats have worked very hard to come up with a bill that makes sense, that is true reform, that recognizes that the problem is big enough for the States and the local governments to work together in order to solve the problem. It is not a question of whether the Federal Government should solve it or the States should solve it. The real answer is the Federal Government and the States and local governments have to work together if welfare reform is ever to occur. It will not be done just by the States or just by the Federal Government. So those who argue that we should give all of the problems to the States I would suggest miss the real solution to this very large problem. I have called the so-called block grant approach analogous to putting all the welfare problems in a box and shipping that box to the States and saying, Here. It is yours. And when the States open up that box they are going to see a whole lot of problems and not enough money to solve those problems. That is not reform. That is shirking the responsibility that we have as legislators who raise the money for welfare in this country. To just shift the problems to the States is not reform. It does not solve anything. It just says that we are so confused and we are so incapable of coming up with a solution that we are going to send the problem to the States, and maybe they will not resolve the problem. The States are starting to recognize and the mayors of this country are starting to realize that the plan that has been reported out of the Senate Finance Committee by the Republican majority will freeze the amount of money available to the States at the 1994 level for 5 years and will tell all of the States that you are going to get the same thing you got in 1994. If you are a fast-growing western State or a low-income State like mine in the South, you are going to be frozen at the 1994 levels and not take into consideration any growth and people moving to your State or any increase in poverty problems that may occur in your State. That makes no sense whatsoever, and it certainly is not real reform. The Republican plan, in addition, says that for the first time we are going to break the joint Federal-State partnership. We are going to tell the States you do not have to spend any money on it if you do not want to. You can take the money that you were spending on welfare reform and you can use it to build bridges or build roads or to give everybody in your State a salary increase if you would like to use it for that purpose. Where is the partnership? Where is the sense of those States and Federal officials working together to solve the problem? In addition, it is not reform if you are weak on work and tough on kids. One of the deficiencies I see in the Republican plan is that it says we are going to measure the success of the plan based on how many people get put into programs. That is the last thing we should measure our success by in welfare reform. The real solution to welfare is the standard by which reform must be judged, not how many people we put in programs, but how many people we are able to put into jobs. Our suggestion is that we should measure the success and reward States that put people in private sector jobs, not by putting people in more programs run by bureaucrats. The bottom line on all of this is that I am calling for our colleagues on the Republican side to be willing to join with us in a bipartisan fashion to craft a welfare reform bill that does not focus on which party benefits but whether we can jointly find long-term solutions. It is clear, if we continue on the present track, that what we will have done is to produce perhaps short-term political gains but long-term guaranteed failures for the people of this country. Why should we be afraid to meet together and talk about this problem and come up with solutions that are bipartisan in nature? I think what we have crafted makes sense. I think it is a good plan. It is not to say that it cannot be modified or improved. We are willing to listen to our colleagues' suggestions in this particular area. It is clear, in my opinion, that the only way we come up with welfare reform that is real reform is to do it in a bipartisan fashion, and I would suggest that is something that the American people want us to do. If we do that, there would be enough political credit for everyone. If we fail to do that, there will be more than enough blame to go around. And this should be something that we do as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Yes. amendment no. 1367

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would use this opportunity to commend both the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from South Carolina, and the chairman of the committee, for the good work they have done. This has not been an easy process, I say to all of our colleagues. We have worked on this for not just a couple of days on the floor, but we have been working on this legislation for several years. In the last Congress, all Members of the committee spent 2 years on this communications bill, and then again the better part of this year, working on trying to bring this product to the floor. There has been a great deal of compromise. There has been a great deal of trying to balance the very competing interests in order to get a 1995 communications bill. I think it is important that all of our colleagues realize that this country has been run by the 1934 Communications Act. That is hard to believe that we have been operating under an act that is 60 years old. Does anybody think that the communications technology of 1995 is anywhere similar to the communications technology of 1934? The answer is, of course, no. The reason everybody has been in court is because Congress was unable to get an agreement that wrote a modern 20th century bill to govern all the decisions about who does what. This legislation makes some fundamental points. That is that we are going to create more competition. Competition is good for society. It is good for consumers. It is good for the development of new technology. This legislation is a fragile compromise. Almost everyone in the industry would like to have more. Some would like to have guarantees with regard to what they can do and what they cannot do. We were trying to really create a bill that was fair to all of our American industries and fair to the American consumer. I think that while this bill is certainly not perfect--nothing we ever do is-- certainly, it represents a major milestone in the communications legislation that has been brought before the Congress over all of these last 60 years since the first passage of the 1934 Communications Act. I congratulate all the members of the Commerce Committee for their input, their suggestions. We have had a lot of cooperation on the floor. A lot of very difficult things have been worked out. I think that is good. With regard to the Dole amendment, I happen to agree with it. I think the amendment by Senator Dole really will encourage more competition and will encourage small cable companies to be able to form cooperatives like they are doing in order to be able to get discounts because they purchase cable services in volume just like the larger cable companies will be able to get volume discounts because they buy large amounts of products from the various producers. I think the Dole amendment really does try to promote additional competition. I think in that sense--it does allow cooperatives to be formed--there is nothing wrong with that. There was a lot made about who does this benefit and what-have-you, I think it benefits the consumer. I think the Dole amendment is a good consumer amendment. It encourages small cooperatives and cable companies to be able to deliver services at a better rate. There is nothing wrong with that. It allows large sellers of cable services to this is the American consumer. I think the ultimate benefit of the entire package we have before the Congress is the American consumer and those who bring about the technology for the 21st century. If there is one thing the United States of America excels in--there are so many things, but one thing is the entertainment industry, the telecommunications industry. We can be proud of that. Other countries would love to have what we have in this country. This bill ultimately will make all of that a lot better and we will all benefit from that product. So I support an affirmative vote on the Dole amendment and certainly support the passage of the telecommunications act that is now pending. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. It is an amendment entitled Breaux-Leahy at the desk.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Breaux- Leahy amendment at the desk be in order.

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

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I have no additional requests for time on behalf of my amendment.

Mr. BREAUX. My answer to the Senator from Florida is simply, yes. The explanation is that it is based on the States' issuing the order, not the effective date. The State of Florida, for instance, would have issued the order in a timely fashion in order to be one of the excepted States.

Mr. BREAUX. I will respond to the Senator by saying that we have tried to take into consideration two types of States in our amendment. The first would be about 10 States that are single-LATA States, which means they only have one division of what can happen in their State. That does not include Florida. The second category includes Florida-- except States which have issued an order by June 1, 1995, requiring this dialing parity, those States would be able to go forward with those orders, and they would be able to implement those orders. The only protection that is required--which I think is a level playing field--is that they would not be able to have joint marketing agreements in those areas. But the State of Florida would be able to go forward with that order and implement it. In essence, the State of Florida would be grandfathered in because they are a State that already issued the order at the State level.

Mr. BREAUX. Yes.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding to me for this purpose and thank him for working with me and with the distinguished chairman of the committee, as well as the distinguished ranking member of the committee, as well as a number of other Members in the body. We have tried to work really for the past 2 to 3 days on trying to develop a consensus amendment, which I think we now have, which I think solves the problem both from a sense of fairness as well as a sense of trying to encourage additional companies to do what they can do best. I think the basic thrust of this telecommunications bill is to promote competition. I think the Commerce Committee has done a tremendous job in reporting to the body a bill that, in fact, does say to all of the companies, whether they be long distance companies or whether they be the so-called regional Bell companies, that we want you to be able to do what you do best, we want you to compete, we want you to provide good service at a good price to the consumers of America. And the big problem is then trying to manage these various companies to make sure everybody is treated fairly. We wanted to try to make sure no company got an economic advantage, because of legislation, over any other company. I think the bill does do that. One of the features of the legislation is that we sort of said, when you can do long distance service, the long distance companies can do local service. It is sort of saying that everybody is going to be able to start competing at the same time. One of the provisions in the bill dealt with a prohibition. It said simply that States could not order long distance companies to be able to receive dialing parity when they do long distance service within an intraLATA situation, within a State. Mr. President, we thought that the Commerce Committee provision that restricted that ability of a State was a good idea. It was consistent with what Judge Greene said. But there were concerns, particularly by the Senator from Vermont, who said that, no, the States should be able to move forward. We have crafted an amendment that the Senator from Vermont really was helpful in putting together, which said that those States that have only one LATA and already have issued orders to require dialing parity would be exempted from that prohibition in a way that would allow that State to take action on ordering parity. This amendment specifies that clearly. It also says, as a precaution and a protection that guarantees equal opportunity for all of the companies, that those States, while they would be able to order dialing parity, they would not be able to allow for joint marketing in those areas. I think that is a good balance and is fair treatment. One of the things I have always advocated is that companies, when they are allowed to move into another area, know that their competition will also be able to compete in their areas at the same time. So, Mr. President, I think that the amendment is clear, as clear as it possibly can be, in dealing with a very complicated situation. I think it continues with the thrust of the committee product, which says we want a level playing field. That is what this amendment addresses dealing with dialing parity. I thank all of the Members who had major input in helping us craft this. It has been a bipartisan effort, worked on by people whose concerns were making sure we treated long distance companies fairly, as well as Members who were concerned about making sure we treated regional Bells fairly at the same time. I think both sides have given a product that we now have pending before the Senate, and it is a good one. I urge my colleagues to support it by a voice vote, which is what I hope we will be able to do to dispose of it.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. I think it is a valid response. I thank the Senator for yielding. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the chairman. I would just like to ask a question of the Senator who is the sponsor of the amendment. He spoke of the-- what was it, the choice chip? It would seem to me that the TV sets already have choice chips. It is called the off and on switch, and when the parent thinks that the program is not proper for a small child in their home, they just go turn it off. And that is a choice chip by a different name. But they have the right to control what their children see right now. I am not sure why we have to order companies to build some other kind of switch to regulate what children see. It is a parental responsibility, I think, to say this is a program that is suitable for my child or it is not. And if it is not, you take the little off-on switch and you go ``flick'' or you can take the remote control and go ``push'' and the program is gone--poof, it is gone, like we already have a choice chip on the TV right now. I would like to ask, what is the problem with the existing chip?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for what I think has been a very articulate statement about his opposition to the pending amendment and why it is not necessary. I wonder, as we have these debates on the floor, about how difficult it must be for all of our colleagues who have not sat through weeks and months and, in fact, years of hearings as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee discussing the very complicated telecommunications bills and language and amendments. I know that, as a member of that committee since I have been in the Senate, it is incredibly complicated to me. We use acronyms and talk about so many different agencies and about long distance versus RBOC's. It is very complicated for all of us, including those of us on the committee. I can just imagine how complicated it is for a Member not on the committee to come to the floor and be immersed in the telecommunications debate, trying to figure out what is right and wrong, and trying to understand a little bit about the history of this legislation, knowing that something happened several years back when we had the Department of Justice involved in breaking up the AT&T operations into separate operating companies known as the regional Bell companies. And we see that we are constantly being bombarded by all of the telecommunications suppliers in this country advertising about their services being better than somebody else's services; you will save a penny here or a penny there if you pick us over somebody else. All of this is truly very complicated. I guess there is no way to get around that, because what we are talking about is multibillion-dollar industries. What I said at a hearing one time when we talked about one side wants to do this and the other side wants to do that, was, ``Who is right?'' I summarized by saying it is like all of these companies were coming before the committee and saying: I want in yours but you stay out of mine. Long distance companies were saying: I want to do local service but you cannot do long distance service. And the local Bell companies were saying: Well, I want to do long distance service, but I do not want you to come do local service. Hence, the summary of the situation being: I want in yours but stay out of mine. I think the committee is to be congratulated for coming up with a scenario whereby we favor competition. We are going to say that the marketplace, when properly allowed to do so, can be the best regulator for the benefit of the consumer. The problem is, we have not had a telecommunications bill really since 1934. For all of our colleagues not on the committee, the reason why the judges have been involved in setting telecommunications policy in this country is because we in the telecommunications bill for the 1990's. The telecommunications bill that we operate under was written in 1934. Does anyone doubt the technology increases we have had since 1934? We have had 60 years of technological developments, and we are still being guided by an act written in 1934. You wonder why we have problems in this industry and you wonder why the Department of Justice has had to use not a telecommunications statute but an antitrust statute to help set telecommunications policy for the 1990's. The reason why it is not being handled very well in many cases is the fact that the law they are applying has nothing to do with telecommunications. It has to do with antitrust. The breakup of the Bell companies was not based on telecommunications policy set by this Congress. It was based on antitrust laws that were concerned about the size and monopolistic practices of companies in this country. Therefore, all of that was achieved in sort of a haphazard fashion. We have a Federal Judge, who, to his undying credit, has done a heroic job in trying to set policy for the telecommunications industry--Judge Greene here in Washington. He has had to do all of that because we have not done our jobs. We have never tried to come up with policy that makes sense for the nineties and the years thereafter. I congratulate the chairman, Senator Pressler, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their long contribution in trying to come up with a bill that balances those interests, that says to the billion- dollar companies on this side and the billion-dollar companies on that side that we, for the first time, are going to create an atmosphere in this country that allows the marketplace to work and fashion what is good for the consumers and good for technology development and for the companies that provide telecommunications services. That is what this bill tries to do. There are those who are going to argue that we cannot change the way we have been doing business because that is the way we have been doing business. We are not going to make any changes in the roles of the various agencies in Government because, well, that is what they have been doing since 1934. I think we have to understand that, with this legislation, we are calling for fundamental changes in the telecommunications business. We are going back to allowing people to be able to compete, and there will be losers and there will be winners among the companies. But I think that the competition that we will provide will make sure that consumers are the ultimate winners in what we do with this legislation. I think it is very, very important. The role of the Department of Justice--and I have a great deal of respect for the junior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, for his comments. I understand the points they make, saying that the Department of Justice needs to be involved in order to protect consumers and make sure nobody does things to other people and other companies that they should not. I understand that. But that was appropriate when the old system existed. I suggest that that is not appropriate under the new system. Let me give examples of why I think the Department of Justice --which is sort of the policeman or the cop when it comes to looking at various industries in this country--should not be, in this case, the policeman, cop, judge, jury, and everything rolled into one. It will still have a role under the chairman's legislation. Their role will be to enforce the antitrust laws of this country. Nothing changes in that. No one can say that this bill somehow guts the Department of Justice's role in enforcing antitrust laws, because it makes no changes in that. They will still look at the whole array of communications companies and apply the antitrust laws of this country to make sure that they are being held up to the standard that the Department of Justice says they should be held to. But what is different is that they will not be the agency that regulates telecommunications in their day-to-day activity. They will enforce antitrust laws, yes, but they will not have to be an agency that sits back and says to all these industries, please come to us and ask if you can provide telecommunications service. Please come to the Department of Justice building and file some more applications which may take 2, 3 years to get filled out because fundamentally the system is being changed. That is the big point that I think needs to be understood by all of our colleagues who are not on the committee--that this legislation of Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings and the majority of the committee fundamentally changes the way telecommunications policy is going to be carried out. Therefore, under the old system when you needed the Department of Justice to enforce the law using antitrust laws, it is no longer necessary, because we have a new document, a new set of rules and regulations, as to how this industry is going to work in this country. The old way was defective. It was written in 1934. Like I said, you had to go back and find antitrust laws to come in and protect the interests of consumers because we did not have the plan, a bill, a document that made sense. This bill makes sense, and this is the new rule book. It says that the Department of Justice's role will be to make sure that antitrust laws are not violated. Let me give some examples. When you have competition and when you have deregulation, then you do not have the same role for the Department of Justice, and that is what we are following in this legislation here today. I will give you an example with regard to the airline industry. The airline industry is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. They look at questions about safety and make sure that airlines are doing what they are supposed to do to make sure that they are economically sound before they come in and start servicing a particular area. When they do that, they do it in a manner that is safe to the consuming public. There is competition and there are prices, and what have you. When you want to start an airline, you do not have to go to the Department of Justice and ask, ``Can I do it?'' You do not go to them for a permit to run an airline in a particular area. Now, if they become involved in antitrust violations, then the Department of Justice can get in right away and say, ``Shut this down; it is in violation of the antitrust laws of this country.'' The airline industry, however, does not have to go and beg to the Department, ``Please approve and give us a permit to serve a particular area.'' That has changed. Why has it changed? Because they have been deregulated. Now competition is how they operate. As long as they do it within the boundaries of antitrust laws, DOJ is not involved in that endeavor, the FAA is, the Federal Aviation Administration. Let me give another example; that is, the trucking industry. When I served in the other body for 14 years, I was on the Transportation Committee. We worked the Department of Transportation, dealing with the trucking industry. I was there during decontrol and deregulation of the trucking industry. A carrier today, when they want to operate, goes not to the Department of Justice to get approval. They go to the Interstate Commerce Commission and get a license to serve a particular area. They look at the financial condition of the company. Can they operate? They look at the soundness of that company. In terms of its equipment, can they operate safely? Do they have enough equipment to do what they are supposed to do? And then they are granted permission to go out and serve areas--by the Interstate Commerce Commission. They do not go to the Department to say ``Please let us be a trucking company.'' The Department still has the enforcement rights of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Of course, if they violate that act, the Department of Justice can come in and shut them down. Now, the two examples I gave, I think, are apropos to the situation we have with the telecommunications industry. We have fundamentally changed how, with this legislation, how they will operate. We are going to allow long distance companies, which in the past have been prevented from providing local service, to provide local service. There will be more people providing local service. It just will not be the regional Bells. There can be MCI, Sprint, AT&T, and a Guess what? In return, we will allow local companies, principally the regional Bells, to be able to provide long distance service. There is going to be competition both in long distance and there will be competition in local service. Therefore, it is the committee's opinion, and I think, wisely reached, that we have a different set of procedures and rules that are going to work. That is why the committee said there is a different role for some of the agencies in Government, that they are not needed to do what they used to do because there is a different setup in the competition of providing telecommunications service. What some of the Federal agencies want, we have new players, a whole new system, but we still want to play by the old rules. We have sort of a paternalistic attitude by some of the Federal agencies that say, ``Well we used do that. You mean you are going to change it? We can't do it anymore?'' Yes, because we have fundamentally changed how business is going to operate in the telecommunications business. This committee, I think, has done a terrific job in trying to say to, for instance, the Bell companies, what they have to do to allow competition to come into the local market. There are pages of this bill that spell it out. It is a very extensive, very detailed list of what all the Bell companies have to do to allow their competitors to be able to come in and compete. This is extraordinary in the sense of telling private industry that this is what they have to do in order to let the competitors come in and try to beat your economic brains out. It is there on page 823, called a competitive checklist. It says a Bell company may provide long distance service if, first, they go through all of these things that they do, to allow the long distance companies to provide local service. It is kind of almost a jump-start. You can get in my business when I can get into your business. But I will do everything I have to let you into my business, because we used to be a bottleneck; we used to be a monopoly; we used to control everything. Now, this legislation says you will not control much of anything. You will have to allow for nondiscriminatory access on an unbundled basis to the network functions and services of the Bell operating companies network that is at least equal in type, quality, and price to the access Bell operating company affords to itself. That is pretty long. It says we will let you do anything with our network that we do with our network that we built. It says, second, the capability to exchange telecommunications between customers of the Bell operating companies and the telecommunications carrier seeking interconnection. So they have to be able to exchange communications between the Bell's customers. That is, we are giving you our customers and you can talk to them. Go for it. Next, nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, conduits, and right of ways owned or controlled by the Bell operating company. That is a very significant requirement that not only are we inviting you to come in and compete with us, but we will give you access to all of our equipment--telephone poles, the conduits, the right of ways. You got it; you want it, come on in, you can use it, provide local service, talk to our customers, use our networks, because we want you to have access to our business. In addition, they say that local loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises, unbundled from local switching or other services; and next, local transport from the trunk side of local exchange carrier switch, unbundled from switching or other services. Finally, local switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other services. All that is very complicated, but what it essentially says is that Bell operating company has to do all of these things, give permission to all your competitors to come in and use your equipment, use all of these things so you can compete for local customers, but in return for that we are going to start providing interLATA service or long distance services. Legislation says the Commission shall consult with the Attorney General regarding that application. The Attorney General may apply any appropriate approval or any appropriate standard that they desire under their rules and regulations. The Commission must find that the requested authorization is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Mr. President, I think that pretty well spells out what this bill is trying to do in terms of long distance versus local service. It spells out why I think the committee has crafted a very good proposition, one that protects the interests of the consumer. The FCC deals with this issue like the ICC deals with transportation, and like the FAA deals with aviation. When we changed the rules in those industries by deregulation and bringing about greater competition, of course, the role of the Department was changed, as well. Like those other industries, those industries that do not have to go to DOJ to get approval or to let them say no to an application, that is not their role. Their role is to look at criminal violations, violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. And all the other criminal rules that the Department has the authority to use when there are potential violations of the antitrust statutes are not affected at all. What is affected is that we are putting into the FCC the proper role that it should have, like we have in these other areas. If we look at the history of the Department in trying to approve all of these mergers, the time that they have taken to give a ruling has increased from an average pending application of 2 months in 1984 to 3 years in 1993. No wonder we have problems making the bureaucracy work, and I suggest that that is a very good example. In addition to having a Federal Communications Commission, we have public service commissions in all 50 States plus the District of Columbia which appropriately and properly will be involved in communication and telecommunication policies and issues, as they have been in the past. Mr. President, I ask that all of our colleagues who are trying to figure out what is the proper answer to this very complicated process that we are involved in will just look at the history of where we have been, the fact that the committee has crafted a very balanced bill. There were differing opinions in our committee as to what the proper role should be. I think after debate, we reported this bill out with a vote of 18 to 2. I think it is very clear that both Democrats and Republicans agree that this is by far the best approach. I would recommend it to my colleagues in the Congress.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator J. Bennett Johnston, in introducing legislation today which makes major reforms in Sec. 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known a the Clean Water Act. We all know Sec. 404 to be the wetlands regulatory program which has caused so much controversy and so many problems. I have heard countless complaints that the program has been implemented in an excessive and restrictive manner for years, imposing unfair hardship on landowners, businesses and local governments. It is long overdue that the Sec. 404 program be reformed. It is long overdue that the program be balanced, reasonable and fair. This bill attempts to achieve those objectives. One of the major features of the bill is its wetlands classification system. I wholeheartedly endorse classifying and regulating wetlands by the their value and function. All wetlands are not equal in value and function, yet for years they have been regulated that way. That way is wrong and we intend to change it. We do not have a wetlands classification system in current law. To be fair and to strike balance and reason in wetlands regulation we must identify and regulate according to the very real differences in wetlands value and function. For the first time, wetlands would be divided into three classes of critical significance, Class A, significant, Class B, and marginal value, Class C. Each class is defined to distinguish the different values and functions found in wetlands. Classes A and B wetlands would be regulated because they provide the most valuable functions. A public interest test would have to be met when regulating these two classes. Class C wetlands would not be regulated because they are of marginal value. Other major provisions of the bill include a definition of jurisdictional wetlands, expansion of wetlands regulatory exemptions and an expansion of regulated activities. Single agency program jurisdiction and administration by the Corps of Engineers is established. Also included in the bill are exclusion of prior converted cropland from Sec. 404 regulation, USDA delineation of wetlands on agricultural land, and authorization of State permitting programs, and administrative appeals program and a mitigation banking program. Public information is required to be published about wetlands and their regulation at the Federal and local levels. The bill's policies attempt to strike a very simple and sound premise in regulatory policy, that is, balance, reason and, most importantly, fairness shall prevail. These policies attempt to balance respect for the environment with respect for property owners, in whose possession lies an estimated 75 percent of our wetlands in the lower 48 states. In all that we do with regard to wetlands policy, we must always be mindful and respectful of the fact that most [[Page S7500]] of our wetlands in the lower 48 States are privately owned. Thank you, Mr. President, for this time to announce my support for and sponsorship of the Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. I hope the Senate can begin hearings on the legislation and hear solid testimony so that a final bill can be crafted.