Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I rise in opposition to the Simon amendment. The Senator is right; we do not thank people enough. I wish to thank the Senator from Illinois for bringing up this issue. I think it important that the American people take a look and see exactly what is happening in the broadcast business. Radio ownership decisions should be made by owners and operators and investors and not by the Federal Government. That is why we need to eliminate all remaining caps on national and local radio ownership. Let us take into consideration some things happening in the broadcast industry. Even if I own two radio stations in the same market, would I program them the same? Would I want the diversity to capitalize on an advertising market so that I can expand that advertising base? Because that is what pulls the wagon in the broadcast business--advertising dollars. Would I program it the same? I seriously doubt it. And there are some right now, even though they own an FM station and an AM station and operate it out of the same building, use the same engineer, sometimes the same on-the-air personalities, their programming is different. That is what is happening in the broadcast business today. Now, that is the real world. Nationally, there are more than 11,000 radio stations providing service to every city, town, and rural community in the United States. Presently, no one can control more than 40 stations. That is 20 AM stations and 20 FM stations. Clearly, the radio market is so incredibly vast and diverse that there is no possibility that any one entity could gain control of enough stations to be able to exert any market power over either advertisers or programmers. At the local level, while the FCC several years ago modified its duopoly rules to permit a limited combination of stations in the same service in the same market, there are still stringent limits on the ability of radio operators to grow in their markets. Further, the FCC rules permit only very restricted or no combinations in smaller markets. These restrictions handcuff broadcasters and prevent them from providing the best possible service to listeners in all of our States. And, unfortunately, the Simon amendment, whether intended or not, only addresses the national limitations and does nothing to alleviate excessive local market controls. Increased multiple ownership opportunities will allow radio operators to obtain efficiencies from being able to purchase programming and equipment on a group basis and from combining operations such as sales and engineering which is going on today. We do not hear any cry in just the local market of anything being really wrong in the broadcast business. Radio stations have to face increasing competition from other radio stations and from other advertising and programming sources, such as cable television operators. Nowadays many cable operators have begun to provide music and related services that compete locally with radio stations, and soon satellite services will have the capabilities of providing 60 channels of digital audio service that will be available in communities across the Nation, of which there is no wall to receive their signal. Also in the near future, radio stations will begin facing the need for new capital investment when the FCC authorizes terrestrial digital audio broadcasting. Without an opportunity to grow and to attract capital, our Nation's radio industry will face an increasingly difficult task in responding to these multiplying competitive pressures. And they are competition. But we also wonder why should we in some way or other hamper a local broadcast station from supporting the local community. News, weather, sports, all the community services that we enjoy in our smaller communities, we have to be able to attract advertising dollars, yet we will be subject to the competition of direct broadcast and also the cable operators. But competition is what makes it good. I am not worried about that. We can compete. Just do not limit our ownership decisions to buy or sell based on a Government- imposed cap on what we can own. I received a letter from Benny Bee, President of Bee Broadcasting up at Whitefish, MT. Benny writes, and I quote: I can't express how important it is that the markets be opened up and the ownership caps be taken off. Broadcasters like myself need to be able to compete. . . . I urge you to defeat the Simon amendment and help move broadcasters forward as we go into the Twenty First century. Larry Roberts, who operates stations in my home State of Montana, has written me stating: [Radio deregulation] would provide us with the freedom to excel and succeed. It will not only allow us to compete more effectively, it will also increase the value of our radio stations. And in the 1980's we had an explosion, Mr. President, of licenses granted to stations when really there was no market analysis done that the market could even handle another radio station. There are many more examples that I could leave you with. One final one from Ray Lockhart of KOGA, an AM and FM station in Ogallala, NE, not my constituents but I know Ray very well. My wife comes from that part of the country. And he writes: Soon, one DBS operator will be able to deliver 50 to 60 radio channels into every market in the country with none of the rules that I labor under. The Baby Bells will be able to do the same thing at even less cost. Help broadcasters by not protecting us. Cut us loose from ownership . . . regulation so we can take advantage of our abilities to compete. And I think that is the argument here, the ability to compete. Do not shut the doors of opportunity. So we need to look at the true picture of the challenge that the industry faces. For the longest time we have viewed radio as competing only with itself, as if it exists in a vacuum. And basically I know something about that because my main competition basically in the advertising business was from the print media. You have to deal with that--and there is competition there--in order to stay economically viable. Radio goes head-on with other forms of mass media for the audience and for those advertising dollars that fuel its well-being. We need to start acknowledging this important distinction and give radio the tools it needs to compete with all other information providers. That is why I urge you to vote against the Simon amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letters from the broadcasters that I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I really like this debate. But I would like to draw your attention to one thing. He says there is no competition. What is 2,000 subscribers a day being added to the DBS that provides the same channels, the same service--CNN, ESPN, all of those we enjoy now, and the USA, Lifetime, the History Channel, all of those--off direct broadcast satellite? What is that other than competition? If the rates get competitive, whether you are on a fixed income or not a fixed income, it makes no difference. And it is going to make both services better when they compete equally. There are no restrictions on DBS. Nobody is setting their rates. If one remembers, since way back in 1990 when we were talking about this, there was a great groundswell that went across the country, what about cable rates? Did you take into consideration--when you used to buy maybe three Salt Lake stations and two Billings stations and a PBS station for $5 or $6 a month and then all at once we pay $21 now for 45, I think, something like that--our cost per channel? One does not have to take it. Nobody is standing there with a gun to your head saying, You have to sign up for cable. They go by more houses than they service. It is another part of the market. We are trying to sell a service. At the same time we said, Do not reregulate the cables; allow effective competition. DBS was part of that; C-band; satellite dishes, they were a part of that. I think also in the same time--and the chairman and ranking member remember this--I offered the amendment on a telco bill to allow them in the cable business to provide effective competition, to add an entity that already has a wire into the house. They would have to change their technology a little bit, and that is what we are really doing is providing the new technologies that will travel on this great thing called fiber optics, or fiber and coaxial interphased for broadband, two-way, interact telecommunications. That is where we are going. That is why we need Mickey Mouse to pave the way for other things that we have in store, and that is distance learning and telemedicine and these types of things. [[Page S8430]] So what, is C-band competition? Sure it is. Is telco competition? Yes, they are. Is DBA competition? Yes, they are. Even the store down the street that sells videos to rent is competition to the same service the cable operators are trying to provide over that wire into the house. I said this before: The glass highway, the information highway, may be already in place and it has been done by this marvelous growth industry called cable television. The competition is there, and I urge the colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. President, the solution to the cable problem is competition, not continued regulation. In fact, after the 1984 Cable Act, deregulation of the cable industry resulted in substantial benefits. The cable industry has made substantial investments in programming, plant and equipment, investments that have directly benefited consumers, in particular my constituents in Montana. If all we heed and hear are the problems of cable, then I am afraid that we will have lost an opportunity, a chance to look into the future and to shape it; for we do shape the future of this Nation when we shape its telecommunications infrastructure. It is an infrastructure that is critical to the whole Nation--from the Lincoln Center in New York City, to Lincoln, NE, to Lincoln County, MT. So in the continuing debate over what to do about the so-called cable problem, there are two alternatives. Solution one is competition. And solution two is regulation. It has been my experience that regulation can actually harm consumers by slowing innovation and stifling new services. On the other hand, nothing is more pro-consumer than competition, most especially competition where there is a level playing field. And on no playing field can the benefits of competition be seen more clearly than on the field of communications. History teaches us that you cannot regulate technological advancements. Regulation does a very poor job of guaranteeing a market choice for consumers. Most ironically, under a price regulatory regime, prices are unlikely to fall when they are effectively propped up by regulation. On the other hand, we have all seen many instances where competitive market forces spur competitors to innovate in order to reduce costs and improve efficiency. And as costs come down, new technologies and new services can be extended to unserved areas. Those are the types of truly competitive market forces that I want to introduce, and the people of Montana need, to ensure that our State is fully served. Again, I am not merely talking about video entertainment, I am talking about the communications revolution, and I want my constituents to benefit from that revolution and not be left behind by it. Moreover, I want our Nation to lead that revolution much as we have led the revolutions for democracy around the world. Thus, I do not want the guarantee of participation in the electronic information age for the people of Montana to rest solely on heavy-handed regulation. I want Montanans to be able to rely on good old American know-how as stimulated by good old American competition. I believe this competition is already arising through such technologies as DBS, wireless cable, the home satellite dish market, and even those technologies yet to be discovered. And I believe that with this legislation we have provided perhaps the best opportunity for competition in the video market by permitting the telephone companies to compete for cable services. And we have done so by promoting telco entry with safeguards and restrictions. This legislation, drafted by this Congress, promotes the greatest public good by unleashing competition and technology to meet the Nation's needs. It will be this competition that will help ensure that a modern telecommunications infrastructure and innovative services are available to all Americans--and, most importantly, all Montanans--at reasonable prices. When telephone companies are able to compete with cable companies, as this legislation allows, a competitive cable market would: First, put downward pressure on cable service rates; Second, lead to greater diversity of television programming and program choices; Third, accelerate the introduction of new services; and Fourth, increase consumer access to high quality service. I have been involved in this debate since I first arrived in the Senate. I believe that we are finally on the verge of passing a historic piece of legislation. I think that the Lieberman amendment is a significant step backward in our efforts. Competition is the answer, not re-regulation. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I urge that this amendment be defeated. For the first time, only 40 percent of the radio stations operating in the United States today are really making a profit. So some kind of consolidation is needed to keep them viable. It is like I said. If I own two newspapers in the same market, would I format those newspapers just exactly alike? Even with first amendment rights, would I slant them the right way? Or whatever. I think what I would do is be diverse with them, to broaden the base of the advertising market in that particular locale. That is also true whenever you start trying to attract national dollars on national advertising campaigns. And it is how good your reps are when they start representing your station. So I appreciate the amendment because I think the American people have a right to know just what is happening in the broadcast industry. I understand where the Senator is coming from, but he also has to look at what is happening in the real world as far as radio broadcasting is concerned. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would just want to make a few remarks with regard to the Lieberman amendment which the Senator spoke on just a little while ago. I want to set the record straight, because with this amendment we are going down the old road of reregulation. In fact, more regulation than was placed on the cable industry a couple of years ago. We saw the figures of the stock and the worth of these companies, and even though I want to pass along these figures, make no mistake, regulation is not too much of a friend to those entrepreneurial people who have built probably one of the greatest cable systems in the world. What we have done is regulated an industry, basically, that is not a necessity in the home. In other words, the homeowner, or whomever, has the freedom of not taking the service. There is still over-the-air free broadcast television that can be received almost everywhere in the United States. There may be some specific spots that do not receive free over-the-air television. Also, in my State, looking at the rates where I can remember when we only got the two local stations, and I think three stations from Salt Lake City, and maybe a public television station when cable first came to Billings, MT. That service cost about $5.50, I think, to $6, something like that. Today we receive between 40 or 45 channels for $21. When you figure the cost per channel, cable rates have not gone up any. And that was done at a time when there was no regulation in the cable industry. The explanation for the explosion in the jobs that were provided, the opportunity in programming, new ideas, new channels, exciting Discovery--all of those channels came to be under an era when there was no regulation. Since we passed the 1994 reregulation of cable, cable revenues have remained flat. In other words, around $23 billion in 1993; $23 billion in 1994. If you look at the cash flows on the reports of the major companies, companies like TCI--their cash flow, $60 billion; Time Warner Cable, $46 billion; Comcast, $30 billion; and Cox at $27.2 billion--those are flat from 1993 to 1994 and 1995. Stock values have dropped about 10.1 percent between September 1993 and April 1995, while the S&P and NASDAQ indexes have risen 12.2 percent and 14 percent respectively. According to A.C. Nielsen, subscriber growth rates have declined from 3.14 percent in 1993 to 2.85 percent in 1994. It is very dangerous, when we start down this road of reregulating. Right now competition in the entertainment business and in the television business has never been better. And I ask my friend from Connecticut, why would anybody, even a telco, want to go into the cable business with a regulated environment where they could not recover their costs of investment? This is anticompetitive legislation, if I have ever seen it. In other words, it is, I would imagine, to those who are regulated, those who are already in the business--they would stay there. They are warm and comfortable in that cocoon. But whoever wants to go into the business--the investment and ability to recover under a regulatory environment is very, very difficult. So, if we want to promote competition, and that is the very heart and soul of this legislation, you create competition, you also create new technologies and new tools and force those technologies into the areas that need them so; and that technology gives them the tools for distance learning, telemedicine, and a host of services that we just would not see in States as remote as my home State of Montana. So, the argument just does not hold water. Additional regulation or additional rules in order to lift regulatory control is counterproductive, and that is what this amendment would be. I am sure we will have a lot of time tomorrow to make our statements on this. It all depends on what the agreement is. But this is a damaging amendment. It slows the growth in one of the most dynamic industries, the industry that has the potential for the most growth and the potential to really push new services out into America. Do you know what? They always talk about the glass highway, the information highway. If one wants to think a little bit, maybe the information highway is already there and it could have been built in an era where there was no regulation and it could be called cable. Think about that. Whenever we provide a competitive environment for both the telcos and personal communications, and also in telecommunications, and then in cable communications, we set the environment for a lot of competition, I imagine the big winner will be the consumers of this country and the services they receive and the price those services will be. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. While the Senator from Alaska is on the floor, I want to express my appreciation for his work on this, as a supporter of universal service, which is the core of our telecommunications industry, and he has worked this out to the good, I think, of the industry. He has been a tireless worker in this. I appreciate his efforts, along with many who serve with him on the committee. We appreciate that very much.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I have 2 minutes remaining. In order to accommodate my friend from North Dakota, I would yield back the remainder of my time so that will put his request to modify in correct parliamentary procedure. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr. BURNS. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BURNS. When you start talking about, I guess, broadcast companies, I find it unlikely, coming out of that business, that any one company would come to buy all the broadcast stations, especially in television, in a specific market. Now, we have limited it nationally to 25 percent by law under the cable rereg bill, 25 percent of the market to a specific company, but we did not say that you were limited to a certain amount of cable systems. In other words, you just do not own so many cable systems if that adds up to 25 percent. What we are saying here is that you are limited not only as to the number of stations you can own but also a limit on the number of listeners or people who might be in that specific market nationally. So I just think it is bad policy right now. We do not limit any other media on the amount of ownership nationally across this country. The local station, if it is owned locally, does a much better job in competing against an absentee owner. And that question came up in the hearings. I said even though I might do business in Georgia--and there was a Georgia businessman who owned a station in my State of Montana-- it is still tough to do business against a local owner of a local station whenever the investment is there and the money is spent there. So again I would say that even the marketplace itself limits ownership in television and, of course, I am objecting to any kind of an ownership restriction on radio stations altogether. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Then I reserve the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That is fine.

Mr. BURNS. I ask the Senator from New Mexico, did he want to speak in opposition to this?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I shall not take 5 minutes. I would say the way the trend has been in radio and television station ownership in the last 5 or 10 years, this actually, I think, would stymie any development of further stations in the market. I rather doubt that any one owner wants to own both radio stations or three television stations in the market of Billings, MT. I do not think they want to own all of them. We are not talking about just network stations; we are talking about independent stations. We are talking about stations that are not affiliated with any kind of a network on the limits of ownership that you can have in a specific market but across the Nation. So, I am going to yield my time back. I am opposed to this amendment just for the simple reason of its effect on the sale of a station. When one retires or wants to sell a station, then you are going to have to go over and maybe you have a willing buyer that will give so much money for it and then that is closed out because he already owns too many stations? Maybe nobody else wants to get into the broadcast business. This also limits your ability to market a station, if you are lucky enough to own one. This does not pertain just to television stations. This also pertains to radio stations, radio stations as well as television stations. So I would oppose this amendment and I ask my colleagues to oppose it also. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill, and I also thank the chairman of the full Commerce Committee, who has really done a marvelous job, along with the ranking member and former chairman, Senator Hollings. We are not newcomers to this issue. I do not doubt for a minute the dedication that the Senator from Nebraska has in modernizing telecommunications, because we have been on panels together and we have been to different places together, and understand in his State, where distance learning and telemedicine is becoming very, very important, and also the new technology and the policy it is going to take to force that new technology into the rural areas. That is where our first love lies. I think the same could be said about South Carolina and the same could be said about South Dakota. But S. 652 already gives the Justice Department a role. It is spelled out clearly. It says, before making any determination: The Commission shall consult the Attorney General regarding the application. In consulting with the Commission, the Attorney General may apply any appropriate standard. That is the language that is in this bill. Do we start talking about those who have the expertise in regulating or do we talk about an organization that has the expertise in litigating? What is the primary purpose of the Department of Justice? I would say if the administration in their view thinks that some Federal law has been broken, they advise the Department of Justice to look into it. The same with the Congress. That is what the Department of Justice does. They are not in the process of rulemaking. I think that is left to the FCC and, of course, those of us who want to take the responsibility of setting policy where it should be set, here in this body, and not shirk our responsibilities or our duties in order to set that policy. The Senator from Nebraska says that there should be a larger role. That is what he is advocating. All we have to do is look back at the modified final judgment. How is it being administered today? It is being administered by the court, by Judge Greene, who has done an admirable job? Nobody can criticize Judge Greene. But the U.S. district court retains jurisdiction over those companies that were party to the MFJ. The court then asked the Justice Department, the Antitrust Division, to assume postdecree duties--``post,'' after it is all over, it is asked to do those duties. The antitrust division provides Judge Harold Greene of the district court with the recommendations regarding waivers and other matters regarding the administration of MFJ. Before we can do anything to deal with new technology, to force those new technologies and those tools out to the American people, yes, there have to be rules of entry. But we do not have to add layer upon layer of bureaucracy. If there is one thing that is being talked about around this town right now, it is the budget and spending. What do we spend our money for? It is my determination, after being here about 6 years, that if there is one thing that absolutely costs the taxpayers more money and the waste of money in Government, it is not that they are not doing a good job. It is called redundancy. Everybody wants to do the same thing. Everybody wants their finger in the same pie. Just look at the Department of the Interior. It is probably the greatest example. Every Department has a wildlife biologist. Wildlife biologists, by the way, are kind of like attorneys. If you get three of them together, you are not going to get an agreement. Everybody has a different approach. So basically what my position and my opinion is is that this is just another layer, another hoop to jump through before we finally deregulate. We want to be regulatory in nature and not more regulation or redundancy. Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be defeated. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I say to the Senator that was a year ago, and I would have voted to get it out of committee. Once we look at who will pay for it and who will pick it up, somewhere in this mix we have lost the consumer. That is where it is going to come. It will come in the form of higher rates for everybody. I say if we do not do that, then the deployment of the technology will be slower to happen. That is where I am coming from.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. I guess when I first came to the Senate and I took a look at my State-- long distances, sparsely populated--nobody has made more speeches on education, telemedicine, and all of those good things that can happen through wide-band, broadband telecommunications. Once we start down the road of preferential treatment, there is no end to it, and that technology will not be deployed at any price. That is the reason that we are doing this piece of legislation, to give some people incentive to deploy new technologies. If there is a way that we can serve education and telemedicine in rural areas, it will be done. It is being done in my State. For [[Page S7989]] the first time, we have school boards that are setting aside money now for equipment and software and, yes, charges in order to accommodate it, to give some people incentive to deploy it. What this does as a result is create a whole new class of preferential telecommunications service entitlements for a diversity of groups. I have no disagreement with my colleague with regard to the contribution which advanced telecommunications can make to society, especially in rural America. My home State of Montana is one of those rural areas in the country. I have worked very hard to make sure that we have this new technology. But we have to find ways to be entrepreneurial and allow some competition into it to make it work. You know what? It works in an area where telephone companies and those companies that work outside of the regulatory environment--country telephones, REA's, people who have an interest in community that makes it available to their schools because they know what the investment is in that school and what it is worth to that community. They can do that because they do not have to go to a PUC and explain why they are doing it for a school or why they are doing it for a rural hospital. The RBOC's are inside that regulatory, and what we are trying to do is relieve ourselves of them so they can do some special things. This new technology is not going to go out there, and we are not going to tell Government to force it out there. It is not going to make it friendlier or cheaper for preferential users. When the heavy hand of Government reaches out to mandate that business prevent preferential rates to certain groups, business is not going to be the one who pays. You know who will pay for it? Consumers pay for it. That is what we have lost here a little bit --that the paying public of every telephone will pay for this preferential treatment. You can almost call that double taxation, because they are also paying school taxes and also probably to some of the hospitals for some of the work they are doing there. We just tend to forget. Make no mistake about it, businesses will pass along such costs to consumers through higher rates--the same consumers that will be looking for lower costs and more services once this legislation passes. So philosophically, section 310 takes a mandated approach that moves exactly in the opposite direction from the entire legislation, and it is an approach that is really tough to support. It defies logic on preferential treatment. You just cannot simply ignore the future impact this will have on the consumers in Montana, and they will come at a higher cost--a higher cost--if this legislation passes with this section intact. Whenever there are a lot of people who want to get into that universal service and they want to use it for themselves, keeping in mind that the integrity of universal service is in question now because of preferential treatment, the Senator from Nebraska is 90 percent right. He understands what it did for Nebraska. I understand what it is doing in Montana. But it takes dollars in order to get that technology out there. If the Federal Government wants to step up to the plate and get some money out there, that is fine and dandy. I would support some of that for infrastructure inside the schools. But we are going in exactly the wrong direction. It is a great thought. It has probably broad support because you always find more people who want something for nothing than you do people who want nothing for something. And that is just exactly the wrong direction. The marketplace is already moving in the right direction. It does not need this legislation in some areas to provide more service and more technology. But that progress could be stymied through mandates from this Government and--probably the Wall Street Journal was right this morning--placing more mandates. Every time we have a mandate, somebody pays. And it will be the consumers of this country who will pay for it, because this does not get out there for nothing. I think it is a wrong approach. I say to my colleagues, if they are serious about building a national health and education infrastructure through telecommunications, this is the wrong direction to go, because with competition in the marketplace we will find somebody that will provide the services a little bit cheaper maybe than the next guy to do business in an area where there is a high volume of business as there is in education and health care provision in rural areas. I ask my colleagues to support the McCain amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. To reply to the Senator from Nebraska, had it been part of this bill out of committee--that is the only place I voted for, was out of committee. I would probably have voted for it again to get it out of the committee to get it to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate in order to move this legislation along.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Idaho does not have the floor at this time----

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. I will not be long, but I want to agree with my friend from Idaho in one respect. Public interest is kind of like art or beauty: It is in the eye of the beholder. When we talk about putting up different barriers, we are really saying that it is going to be a select few who will decide who gets in the business and who does not, where I think most of us believe that the marketplace should dictate that, because from that comes perfection, and from that comes a very competitive medicine: Lower rates for everybody who wants to use that service. There are those who serve in this body and those who will serve without this body that can take a public service interest before the FCC and completely delay the advancement of any kind of technology or any kind of deployment of any kind of services in the telecommunications industry by just a delaying tactic that would prevent any kind of progress to be made in that area. Whenever we start talking about this industry, what are we referring to? The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] was saying there is no public clamor for change in this area, but there is a clamor to allow new technologies to be introduced, to do more things with the tools that we have now. That is what it is all about. We talk about great distances, and we talk about remote areas and new services that will be provided to our rural areas and our remote areas. We are trying to dictate technology such as digital, digital compression, and all of those kinds of new technologies, trying to deploy it under an act that was written some 60 years ago and that has served this industry very well, by the way. But we are talking about the nineties-and-beyond technology. In other words, we are trying to do something in the nineties with a horse-and-buggy kind of regulatory environment that does not serve either one very well. Unnecessary delay will hinder job creation because it will prevent openings of communications markets to competition simultaneously. One has to have incentives in order to progress in this industry or in any other industry. If there is no competition at home, there is no competition internationally because this is where we hone our skills. This amendment only helps to clarify and define the public interest. It is like I said, there are many definitions of public interest. That is why I support this amendment. It will do things not only in this industry but other industries and send a strong signal that we are a strong country within and without in the competitive marketplace, especially in new technologies and the deployment of those new technologies. This bill already removes all legal barriers, as well as mandates the Bell companies fully comply with the requirements concerning interconnection, unbundling, resale, portability, and dialing parity. In other words, we have already gone through this business of interoperability of competition on the same lines. And that, too, has to be confronted in this bill. So I rise in support of this amendment and just believe that it has to be done in order to make this bill in final passage truly a procompetitive and proconsumer piece of legislation. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I do not wish to speak on this amendment. Might I ask a point of order? Could it be set aside, and I proceed with my opening statement because no time was given for opening statements? Mr. President, I will continue on as if speaking on this amendment. This is sort of a special day to me because the former chairman of the full committee, Senator Inouye, and I, when I first came here 6 years ago, had quite a time as we started I think to react to some of the things happening in the industry. We thought probably we were ahead of the curve in setting some kind of policy that would reflect the future. We thought we were ahead of the curve. Now we are behind the curve because technology as it is being developed in this area is far outpacing the regulatory environment in which it finds itself. I can remember that day when we started to make amendments and the former chairman was very gracious that day. There were some people around, and I was just a freshman Senator offering some ideas that I thought were important in the telecommunications industry, understanding that there have been three inventions which have happened in my lifetime that have changed this world forever. It has changed it so that we cannot go back and do things the old way anymore. Those three inventions were the transistor, the silicon chip and the jet engine. Think what they have done to our life and our world. We can be anywhere else in the world, from Washington, DC, in 12 hours. We can talk and receive and interact both in video and in voice with anybody anywhere else in the world in 5 seconds. Sadly, we can destroy any other society on this Earth within 20 minutes. That is what these three inventions have done. They have tightened down our world where comparatively speaking it has been the size of this building in which we stand down to the size of a basketball. Now we are in a global society, a global economy, and we just cannot go back. We will amend the Communications Act of 1934. That is some 60 years ago before any of these inventions were made. So basically what we are doing is we are driving digital, compressed digital, vehicles now within a law that regulates a horse-and-buggy type of situation. So we are here and starting out this great debate on changing an issue that will affect each and every one of us. Make no mistake about it. This is a very, very important piece of legislation. I want to give kudos to our chairman and ranking member and their staffs because they have spent many hours in developing this bill with strong bipartisan support. This bill was not drafted to satisfy business plans of major communications providers. It was drafted to benefit communications users, and communications users are solidly behind this bill for a number of reasons. Number one, they think it will bring down rates. So do I. They know it will bring advanced services. So do I. Perhaps more importantly, they know it will bring them more choices in telecommunications. I recently saw a survey that illustrates why one important group-- small American business owners--want and need communications reform. In Montana, over 98 percent of all businesses are classified as small businesses. The survey of 4,600 small business owners, which was sponsored by the National Federation of Independent Business, found that almost two-thirds of the small business owners surveyed want to be able to get long-distance telephone service from their local telephone company; and, 54 percent want to be able to choose local service from their long-distance company. A full 86 percent of these small business owners want one-stop shopping for telecommunications services. Two-thirds of them want to be able to choose one provider that can give them both local and long- distance telephone service presented in either way. Of course, lower rates are very important to business owners. We all look for a way to do things more economically, to make our business more profitable, to open more economic opportunities and job opportunities for those folks who live in our local neighborhoods. But breaking down outdated barriers to competition that are preventing some local telephone companies from providing long-distance service and long-distance companies from providing local service will also bring something else that small businesses want--that is called convenience. Small businesses do not have the time nor the resources to juggle separate vendors with separate marketing arrangements and separate billing for long-distance and local services, cable TV teleconferencing and, yes, even internet. They want to be able to choose one reliable and affordable company that can bring them all of these services; and when they have the telecommunications problem they want to be able to get on the phone and call one company that is qualified to handle every aspect of their communications needs and their networks. At first, deregulation will create competition by allowing companies to cross over and compete in new business areas. If we do this right, however, very soon the gray lines that now separate telecommunications businesses will be gone. There will be seamless networks of vertically integrated communications providers competing head to head, tooth and nail to win the consumers' communications dollar. Those dollars are very big dollars. As a result, small businesses will be able to choose one company that can provide all their communications services--or they will be able to continue buying their telecommunications services piecemeal from multiple providers if they so choose. Either way, their decision will be based on who has the most affordable and most advanced services. A full 92 percent of the small businesses owners questioned in this small business survey said that the telephone is central to their business. I do not doubt this. I know plenty of small businesses throughout my home state of Montana that rely heavily on the telephone to keep their business--mom and pop catalog shops that sell Montana buckskin jackets to the rest of the country or small cattle ranches that [[Page S7904]] use cable TV and telecommunications to get future prices and negotiate with the slaughterhouses. And I do not know many small businesses today that function well without a personal computer and a fax machine. How many people looked at a fax machine 10 years ago and said, ``Who in the world would ever want to use one of those things?'' I will bet you cannot walk into an office and many homes that do not have a fax machine today. Technology is truly a thrilling thing as it propels us towards the next century. This bill will give small business that one-stop shopping that they want. So we have a chance to bury outdated restrictions that were created for another era more than 60 years ago, restrictions that draw arbitrary lines between telecommunications providers that just do not make sense anymore. A lot of these anticompetitive, bureaucratic rules are only good to preserve market share for established providers. But protecting markets and maintaining the status quo is not going to help bring lower rates and advanced services to small businesses and consumers in Montana or anywhere else. I fought very hard to ensure that small business participated in the information age. Whether it is small newspapers, small cable operators we have in Montana, or the small business of radio, these businesses are the backbone of communications in Montana. I have sought to include nondiscrimination safeguards for small newspapers so that small information providers, especially in rural areas, will be able to purchase certain elements of a common carrier service offering on the smallest per unit basis that is technically feasible. In addition, small cable operators, when freed from regulatory restraints in past legislation, will provide perhaps our best opportunity for telecommunications services in many of our Nation's rural areas. They all the time talk about the information highway, that glass highway. Everybody says: When are you going to build it? I am not real sure that it is not already there. It is already there. All we have to do is take off some restrictions so that it can be used. And there is a ramp on it and there is a ramp off of it. That is what we have to make sure of in this legislation. Finally, I had deep concerns that one of the Nation's most important telecommunications small business industries, radio--I am familiar with radio--was being passed over in the effort to deregulate information providers. Radio ownership decisions need to be made by operators and investors, not the Federal Government. That is why we need to eliminate the remaining caps on national and local radio ownership. Nationally, there are more than 11,000 radio stations providing service to every city, town, and rural community in the United States. Presently, no one can control more than 40 stations, 20 AM and 20 FM stations. Clearly, the radio market is so incredibly vast and diverse that there will be no possibility that any one entity could control enough stations to be able to exert any market power over either advertisers or radio programmers. At the local level, while the Federal Communications Commission several years ago modified its duopoly rules to permit limited combinations of stations in the same service, in the same market, there are still stringent limits on the ability of radio operators to grow in their markets. Further, FCC rules permit only very restricted or no combinations in smaller markets. These restrictions handcuff broadcasters and prevent them from providing the best possible service to listeners in all of our States. So, Mr. President, this will be landmark legislation. It is legislation that we worked on ever since the first day we stepped into the Senate, because I happen to believe it is key to distance learning; it is the key to telemedicine; it is key to the future of those States that are remote and must be in contact with the rest of the world. I appreciate the work of my good friend, the Senator from Alaska, and how he fights very hard because no one has cities and towns and villages that are more remote from the rest of the world than he has. And he understands that. Nobody understands that in this body more than he does. Now, we have some vastness in Montana but it does not compare in any way with the State of Alaska. So as we move this debate forward, I hope that we will keep an open mind and really keep our eye on the ball because we have within our grasp the ability now to turn loose a giant in our economic world and provide services to people who have never had those services before. Mr. President, I thank you and I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator for those kind words. And if I can possibly get the job of auctioneering the spectrum, I probably would vacate this chair which I am standing in front of.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the leader time has been reserved this morning, and there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes each. At the hour of 11 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 735, the antiterrorism bill. The majority leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes prior to 5 p.m. today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, ``Justice delayed is justice denied,'' so writes Montana State Senator Ethel Harding of Polson. On January 21, 1974, Senator Harding's daughter, Lana, was brutally murdered. It was not until just 2 weeks ago, over 21 years later, that justice was finally carried out and Lana's murderer was executed by the State of Montana. This tragedy has haunted Senator Harding and her family for far too many years. The unfortunate thing is that the Harding family is not alone. And so it is encouraging to see the Senate act upon true habeas corpus reform as part of the overall Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995. I cannot agree with some of my colleagues who would suggest that habeas corpus reform should not be a part of this legislation. No one, including the families of the 167 innocent people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, should have to wait as long as the Harding family to see that justice is carried out. Habeas corpus reform is long overdue in my opinion and the quicker we can bring about change in this area of the law the better. I appreciate the efforts of Montana's attorney general, Joe Mazurek, who along with 11 other attorneys general from around the country wrote to the President in support of habeas corpus reform. This is not a partisan issue and should not get bogged down in partisan politics. In addition, I am encouraged that Senators Dole and Hatch have taken great pains to ensure that this legislation reaffirms our longstanding commitment to constitutional protections, and that any provision of the act which is held unconstitutional, will be severed from the act and will not affect the remaining provisions. I am also pleased to see that we have not weakened the prohibition on the use of the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic police purposes and that we have not expanded the authority of roving wiretaps by removing the requirement of intent. In the wake of this great national tragedy, it is critical that we unite behind our law enforcement personnel. From the local, to the State, to the Federal authorities, law enforcement and public service personnel should be commended for the fine work they have done thus far. At the same time, it is important that we do not overreact out of fear or heightened emotions. In Montana, we continue to have situations in which individuals feel threatened by an imposing, uncaring, and overwhelming Federal Government and bureaucracy. As a result, some individuals have been driven to illegal acts such as a variety of Federal and felony charges, including gun violations, threatening and impersonating public officials, and tax evasion. Such actions cannot be condoned for we are a civilized nation of laws. The Montana law enforcement community has responded cautiously but appropriately to these situations. They have taken a nonconfrontational approach, responding swiftly and firmly to any activities that have resulted in a violation of the law. And they have done so without jeopardizing human lives. If we can help our local law enforcement community detect and prevent future violations of the law by providing our law enforcement community with the resources to effectively carry out their responsibilities, we should do so. This legislation is a reasoned, balanced approach in that regard.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the introduction of the livestock grazing bill offered by Senator Domenici, myself, and others. This is a bill that will allow us to set the stage for the future grazing and land use access of the livestock industry. This is extremely important in the West, and in particular my State of Montana. This is a bill that will provide security and stability to the livestock producers--those people who live, and work 365 days a year, on or near the public lands. For years there has been debate on the purpose and scope of the intent of the language that a grazing bill would offer. Many people have attempted to make this a single issue bill. This attempt may be the case, to those who, do nothing more than depend upon the farmer and rancher for the food and fiber they enjoy in their daily lives. But to the rancher, or anybody or any group this is the first step to creating some sense of stability for them on public lands. For the rancher, this is the first step they have seen, that will provide them with the security they need to operate their grazing permits with the sense of purpose and a future. The purpose of this bill is to provide a future for those hard-working men and women that provide the best and least expensive food supply to this Nation and the world. Too many times the ability of these people to use the public lands has been threatened by forces who neither care about the vitality and well-being of the communities. People who have no idea of what the issue is. This is an issue of allowing producers and permit holders to use the land. For it is in this use that the land is made healthy, that our country thrives, and the public is provided an opportunity to put back something into the land. In the recent past in my State of Montana this land use has been threatened by special interests. Interest groups with no understanding of what grazing and the livestock industry are all about. In a little known area, called the Bitterroot Forest, history was made by the stand that the permit holders made in defending their rights to use and graze public lands. However, this action cost the Federal Government thousands of dollars and strained the relations between the land use groups and the Government. All this action was brought on, due to the requirements of the land managers to complete certain environmental requirements. Requirements set forth under the provisions in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This case was developed as a result of the failure of the Federal Government of complete NEPA compliance on permit holders allotments. As a result, it threatened the ability of this particular group of ranchers to work, to graze cattle, and provide for their families. The permit holders, in this example and many more like it, were held hostage to the whims and of the special interest groups and the Federal courts. Held hostage by the very laws that were designed to protect them and their way of living. I find it ironic that those permit holders suffered financial loss and mental anguish. They were the only ones who did. All other interests including the Forest Service personnel who were charged to do the required work, did not lose a pay check. Under the language in this bill we have provided for the security of the permit holders, and the health and future of the land. In this bill we continue to use the land management plans as a way to protect the land, and at the same time give the permit holders an opportunity to have access to the land for their use. Mr. President, this bill is the first step to developing working arrangements between the Government and the people on the land. It is an opportunity to have all parties working together to set the standards for what is best for the land and the people of this country.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, as an original cosponsor of the legislation to split the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and create a new 12th Circuit. This legislation is long overdue in my opinion. It is my hope that we can act to create a new 12th circuit court this Congress. The ninth circuit court is by far the largest of all the circuit courts, both in terms of the number of judges and caseload. In fact, the Judicial Conference of the United States stated in 1971 that ``to increase the number of judges in a circuit beyond 15 would create an unworkable situation.'' The ninth circuit court currently has 28 judges. That is nearly twice the maximum workable number in the opinion of the Judicial Conference, 12 more than the next largest circuit court and 16 more than the average circuit court. In terms of caseload, the 9th circuit had 7,597 appeals pending at the end of fiscal year 1993. In 1988 when I was first elected to the U.S. Senate, there were 6,342 appeals pending. That is an increase of nearly 20 percent in just 5 years. No other circuit court carries a heavier caseload. In fact, no other circuit even comes close. Each year, the ninth circuit has approximately twice as many appeals pending as the next largest circuit. It only makes sense that a Federal appeals court with a caseload that heavy should be split up. The prospect for relief is not promising, either. In fact, the Committee on Long Range Planning for the Judicial Conference of the United States has projected that by the year 2000, over 15,000 petitions and appeals will be filed annually. and by the year 2020, over 60,000 will be filed annually. What does all this mean in terms of our judicial process? It means that a case is pending in the ninth circuit for an average of 14\1/2\ months. That means some cases may be there 29 months while others whiz through in 7 or 8 months. The costs to those in Montana or Washington who are victims of this backlog continues to accrue. Not only are they continuing to pay their legal counsel during that time, but in the case of suits against economic activities such as timbering, mining, and water developments, employment is jeopardized, seriously threatening local economic stability. It is also disturbing to me to see convicted murderers bringing lawsuits against the State claiming cruel and unusual punishment because they've been sitting on death row for a number of years. What is cruel and usual punishment is that families of victims have to wait such a long time to see justice finally carried out. One such Montana family is State Senator Ethel Harding of Polson. Senator Harding's daughter, Lana, was brutally murdered by Duncan McKenzie over 20 years ago. It was not until 2 weeks ago that McKenzie was finally put to death and the Harding family could finally put this horrendous chapter of their lives behind them. McKenzie's appeals ended up at the 9th Circuit 3 times over this 20 year period. Certainly part of the delay of justice may be attributed to the heavy caseload of the circuit and the inefficient system that the burdensome caseload has created. [[Page S7506]] Senator Harding has written a very moving letter to me and I would ask that it be submitted into the record in its entirety immediately following my remarks. ``Justice delayed is justice denied,'' writes Senator Harding, and I could not agree more. As a result of her own ordeal, Senator Harding has been a strong advocate of splitting the Ninth Circuit. During the 1995 Montana State Legislature, she introduced Senate Joint Resolution No. 10, calling upon Congress to divide the Ninth Circuit court. The resolution passed overwhelmingly and is an accurate reflection on the wishes of Montanans. Perhaps the most compelling argument for splitting the Ninth Circuit is precedent. The division of the 8th Circuit creating the 10th Circuit took place in 1929. In addition, the Fifth Circuit was also divided in 1981, creating the 11th Circuit. In fact, a commission which studied the revision of the Federal appellate court system recommended in 1973 that both the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit courts be split. Those involved with the Fifth Circuit had the sense to make the division. Unfortunately, the division of the Ninth Circuit has been held up to be political maneuvering. So now we have to be here arguing for something that should have been done 14 years ago. Granted, the division of the Ninth Circuit is more complicated since one State, California, generates a majority of the cases in that circuit. However, I think it is in the best interest of California, Montana, and the other States under the court's jurisdiction to make the split. The caseload for the Ninth Circuit will remain high no matter what, due to the population dynamics in a State like California. Thus, the split will bring much needed caseload relief to the Ninth Circuit while providing overall relief to States like my own Montana. I just do not think it is fair, or in the best interest of the judicial process, that Montana businesses and individual citizens suffer because California continues to experience an economic and population boom. I find myself arguing this case everyday--the case of middle America battling to hold its own against the population centers on both coasts. There is a bias in the legislative branch, the executive branch, and now in the judicial branch. I am here to see that States like Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska get a fair shake. I think that splitting the Ninth Circuit is a good place to start and I intend to see that it happens. Until it does, it is my intention to prevent any future nominations to the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals from going through the Senate for it makes no sense to continue to perpetuate a system that is not working. I hope that my colleagues from all nine States currently under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit court will join us in our efforts to quickly pass this legislation so that we can put justice back into our judicial system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will respond to the amendment offered by the Senator from California and just point out some things about that amendment that I think are flawed. The Senator's amendment would create another point of order against how a tax cut should be constructed, and I think that is very important with this body because we already have enough points of order on the rest of this bill. Rather than a point of order against tax cuts, I think we should have a point of order against raising taxes, if you want to do it on both sides. Let us be very careful. Whenever we start talking about this budget and what it does, all at once we start offering the amendments and it starts to come unraveled. When it was first put together in the Budget Committee, everybody just about knew where we had to go and what we had to do. Some would increase taxes, as has been proposed by some, really, on both sides of the aisle. I am firmly opposed to that. Right now, most folks in America have a marginal tax rate over 45 percent--almost one-half of their yearly salary. So what is there left to tax? It makes no sense to bankrupt American citizens in the name of keeping the American Federal Government solvent. So I think when you look at the overall budget, we have to come up with the word responsible. And that is what I would like to emphasize through this recap of not how I look at the amendment but the entire package of the bill. We have slowed the rate of spending. Back in 1990, I offered a bill that was a 4 percent solution--I called it--to allow in the budget process the Federal Government expenditures to only grow 4 percent based on the previous year's expenditures and do away with baseline budgeting. Unfortunately, that did not pass. But with the assumptions that we made then, by 1995 and 1996, we would have balanced the Federal budget. But I have to say there are hints of my ideas that I had back in 1990 in this bill. Everyone would agree, maybe, that the Government has gotten too big to operate efficiently. This bill freezes pay for Senators, Representatives, Federal judges, and political appointees for a period of 7 years. As far as I am concerned, I can accept that. I am not real sure if my wife can. But nonetheless I think she will. It cuts Senate staff by 15 percent and Senate support staff by 12.5 percent. And we have cut a little already. It reduces the spending of the Executive Office of the President by around 25 percent. Those cuts save us almost $7 billion. I take the budget another step further. I would consolidate the Surgeon General's office with the Assistant Secretary of Health. The office of the Surgeon General was originally created to function as a spokesperson for public health and has been used as a political football. I advocate putting an end to that political grandstanding by eliminating this unnecessary position and consolidating its duties with those of the office of the Assistant Secretary of Health. That is the way it used to be. During the Carter administration, Dr. Julius Richmond served as both the Surgeon General and the Assistant Secretary of Health. I see no reason why the American taxpayer should have to pay for staffing both offices. When we look at what it does--a while ago we talked about the NIH, National Institutes of Health. I voted to restore some of those funds because I believe that this Government should be especially in the line of health. But the chairman's budget also calls for the transformation of NASA's management structure, contracting procedures, and the reduction of Government involvement in scientific research, infrastructure and equipment. I have to say that I voted against the Snowe amendment a while ago for the simple reason that it called for another billion-dollar reduction in NASA, when they have already shown their good faith, without any cajoling from this Congress to come to the bar, and cut $5 billion over 5 years. And there are some within the NASA organization that say now we have to start looking at safety when we start thinking about our space programs. So we are glad to see that baseline budgeting is out. The chairman's budget proposed the elimination of spending on the National Biological Service. I have long said that is not needed. We have enough biologists in the Forest Service, in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and BLM to do what they want to do and what Interior wants to do. They have to do it within the confines of that. Why another layer of bureaucracy? I generally support that. As I explained last week, I have concerns with the provision that cuts the Agricultural Research Service. I find it ironic that we are cutting back on R&D in the very area that is very important to us in the production of food and fiber for this country. To reduce the ARS at this time is appealing in the short run, but it would have a devastating long-term negative impact on farming and ranching in the United States and, consequently, on the Federal Treasury. I believe our first priority should be a commitment to the production of food and fiber. I find that many folks are surprised when you tell them that for the first time in the history of this country, wheat yields have actually leveled off in some areas and were declining because of our research work in developing new strains of wheat that are disease resistant. So I am opposed to a reduction in ARS funding. Furthermore, agriculture has taken its fair share of cuts; if you look at the last 8 years, about a 45 percent cut. So with that, it is a good package. When we start picking away at it, it starts to come unraveled. I want to congratulate my friends from New Mexico and Nebraska. They have worked very hard together on this. And it should be presented and they should be given the guidelines for the rest of us to complete our work. I yield the floor.