Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time, since I know we are virtually out of time at this point. I will allocate whatever leader time may be required to make my statement. Mr. President, several facts need to be emphasized before we take this vote. First, Dr. Foster may be one of the most qualified nominations ever to be made for Surgeon General of the United States. No one denies the fact that he has had an extraordinarily distinguished career--as a dedicated public servant, as an accomplished educator, as an exemplary community leader. Dr. Foster has touched and positively influenced more people's lives than most can hope to in a lifetime. More than 10,000 children who owe their lives and health to Dr. Foster can attest to that. Second, the fact is we need a Surgeon General now. We need a leader in health, just as we need a leader in economics, in law, or in foreign policy. Some would argue we need a Surgeon General even more than in these other areas. Many of the most serious health problems plaguing our country are those money and health insurance cannot solve. They are problems of public health: smoking, teenage pregnancy, breast cancer, AIDS, and violence. Every 59 seconds, a baby is born to a teen mother. Every 30 seconds, a child in our Nation smokes for the first time. Every day, 2,000 Americans die of heart disease. This year, 46,000 women will die of breast cancer. These figures are all the more tragic because, in large measure, they are preventable. But how do we prevent these problems without leadership? The answer is, we cannot. The two most powerful tools of prevention are public education and moral suasion, both functions of leadership. No one is better suited than the Surgeon General to use each of these tools. The third fact, and it is a fact, is that a majority of Senators recognize both [[Page S 8743]] the need for a Surgeon General and the qualifications of Dr. Foster. Democrats and Republicans supported Dr. Foster's nomination in committee. Democrats and Republicans support his nomination now. It is clear that a majority of this body supports this nomination today. They know how badly we need a Surgeon General. They know how important it is, how important these issues of public health are. They know how eminently qualified Dr. Foster is. They know what a skilled Surgeon General he will be. But they also know there is a catch. The catch is there is a minority of Senators who, for the most unfortunate reasons, want to deny Dr. Foster even the opportunity for a vote. They know that Dr. Foster may be the first victim of Republican Presidential politics; that this vote may be hostage to a narrow constituency in the Republican Party who hold a different philosophical view than Dr. Foster. That is really what this is all about. It is about whether or not the far right has enough influence to stop a qualified public servant from serving his country. It is about whether some who seek the Republican Presidential nomination can make this the first vote of the Republican primaries. Mr. President, this matter is too important to be trivialized by politics. This nomination, more than virtually any other, will affect the lives of millions of children and other Americans who need the leadership that Dr. Foster can give. It is a matter of fairness, not only to Dr. Foster, but to all those who now wait--who wait for solutions to breast cancer, who wait for help for teenage pregnancy, who wait for strategies in coping more ably with violence, with AIDS, with heart disease. In the cause of fairness, in the cause of doing what is right, let us stand united as Democrats and Republicans in giving this man and our country what he and it deserves--a vote for cloture and a vote for the confirmation of the next Surgeon General for the United States. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Pressler and Congressman Johnson, I am introducing legislation making technical amendments to the Impact Act law to clarify the eligibility requirements for aid to federally impacted school districts. Federal Impact Aid is essential to the education and development of thousands of children across the United States. Some of the provisions of Public Law 103-382, last year's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, were not clearly known or fully understood until the implementation of the law was underway. Now that implementation is underway, one area of the law that demands clarification is that governing payments to section 8002 schools (formerly section 2). Section 8002 provides a payment in lieu of taxes to those school districts which have lost at least 10 percent of the assessed value of their taxable land due to Federal acquisition. It provides partial compensation for the presence of Federal property within a school district's borders. Prior to Public Law 103-382, Congress included specific statutory protection to school districts that consolidated with districts that included Federal property. However, this provision was not included in Public Law 103-382; therefore, formerly eligible districts are not deemed ineligible. The new law jeopardizes the eligibility of consolidated school districts that are eligible based on former district status. Previously, section 2 authorized reimbursements to a school district in which the Federal Government had acquired, since 1938, at least 10 percent of the taxable assessed value of the district. In many cases, especially in South Dakota, schools have found it necessary to consolidate, and the old law provided a safeguard for those schools. This safeguard provision in section 2 enabled districts to be eligible for funds if one or more of the consolidating districts was a former district with a 10 percent Federal impact. However, under Public Law 103-382, to be eligible for section 8002 payments, the current district itself must be affected by 10 percent or more, not counting any former school districts. The elimination of the safeguard language will have a devastating effect on section 8002 schools in South Dakota. Under the new law, 18 of the 21 school districts in South Dakota that currently receive section 2 funds would be ineligible. Although the dollar amounts received may seem small, the funds are critical to enable these districts to provide basic educational needs. The legislation we are introducing today would reinstate the former safeguard for section 8002 schools. It is important to note that our bill would not allow newly consolidated school districts to claim eligibility. This bill also brings the hold harmless provisions for section 8002 districts, at 85 percent, in line with those governing other sections of the law; makes a technical correction regarding ``civilian b'' students; clarifies that supplemental payments from other Federal agencies used for capital outlays should not be counted against the district's overall supplemental payments; authorizes the adjustment of prior year financial data to accommodate current year need; and allows certain districts to apply for section 8003 funds if excess funds are remaining. I hope these technical amendments can be adopted expeditiously.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of Senators from the three States affected by it: the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], and myself. This amendment repairs a breakdown in Federal highway laws that prevents the free flow of trade between our three Midwestern States, allowing South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa to update border city agreements that were first reached in the early 1970's. These agreements allow certain trucks from South Dakota and Nebraska to travel on a 3- to 5-mile stretch of interstate highway to enter Sioux City, IA. Due to restrictions on weight and truck configurations in current Federal law, Iowa is no longer allowed to honor existing agreements or to enter into new, updated ones. These Federal policies impede the flow of interstate commerce between our States. The governments of each of our three States support the approach taken in this amendment to free up the open market for trade with each other. Yet, the U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated that it does not have the authority under the law to waive Federal restrictions, even though it may be appropriate to do so. [[Page S 8658]] Our amendment does not require any State to change its current policies. Rather, it waives Federal restrictions that prevent these States from entering into agreements they consider to be in their mutual best interest. Businesses in all three States have paid the price since the border city agreements were disrupted by Federal regulation. One example is the movement of livestock into Sioux City, IA, stockyards from Nebraska and South Dakota. Vehicles that exceed Iowa's legal weight limit of 80,000 pounds must either light-load their vehicles or truck their livestock to terminals farther away. This increases the costs for ranchers and hurts the Sioux City stockyards. In addition, longer combination vehicles that are permitted to operate in South Dakota but not in Iowa cannot cross State lines for the short trip to the Sioux City stockyards. They are instead forced to uncouple and leave part of their load at the South Dakota border, only to later return and make another trip to complete delivery to Sioux City. The Daschle-Harkin-Kerrey amendment would permit our States to update their border city agreements. It places a simple waiver in statute so that trucks can once again travel unimpeded from the Siouxland tristate area into Sioux City, IA. This problem stems from Federal regulations that require most States to prohibit divisible loads with a gross weight limit in excess of 80,000 pounds on interstate highways. States that authorized heavier loads in effect in 1956 were grandfathered, or allowed to keep those rights. While Iowa did not allow heavier loads in 1956, South Dakota and Nebraska did. This was not a problem, however, because border city agreements were reached in the area that allowed for heavier trucks from South Dakota and Nebraska to drive into Sioux City. The ISTEA of 1991 added a similar restriction on longer combination vehicles that contained a grandfather clause that did not take into account these border city agreements. The Federal Government should not disrupt the free flow of trade between these States. The State legislatures in both South Dakota and Iowa approved resolutions calling on Congress to correct this problem. These agreements are supported by the departments of transportation in all three States. The U.S. Department of Transportation does not oppose restoring these agreements--it simply claims to lack the authority to do so. Mr. President, our amendment addresses a classic example of Federal overregulation of business. It corrects the kind of problem that makes people fed up with the Federal Government, and we should correct it today. Truly, the Federal Government was established in 1789 to promote commerce among the States, not to impede it. This amendment is needed to provide a commonsense solution to a real problem, and to restore public confidence in our ability to reduce overregulation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I wonder if I might just indulge the distinguished majority leader on a couple of questions. Assuming that cloture is invoked, obviously there is a 30-hour time agreement. But is it the intention of the majority leader not to limit time on the actual confirmation vote itself?

Mr. DASCHLE. No, something shorter than 30 hours.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank again the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished majority leader for his cooperation in the effort over the last several days to reach this point. Obviously, we are quite hopeful that we can invoke cloture on the first vote and go to a vote on the confirmation shortly thereafter. This represents an effort on both sides to allow a vote, at least first on cloture, and second, hopefully, on the motion to confirm Dr. Foster. I know the distinguished majority leader has expressed his interest in working with us to reach this point, and I appreciate the cooperation that he has demonstrated. We will have 3 hours of debate tomorrow, and then, if we fail to invoke cloture tomorrow, 2 hours of debate on Thursday. Many of us have been seeking an opportunity to have a vote, and we are just hopeful, now that we have reached this agreement, that, indeed, we can find the requisite number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that cloture is invoked and that Dr. Foster be allowed a vote on confirmation. As I understand it, no nomination for the Bush administration was ever defeated on a cloture motion, and I hope the same opportunity could be accorded the nominees of this President. In accordance with the agreement, I ask unanimous consent to send two cloture motions to the desk, as in executive session.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield. Let me just speak very briefly, because I know there are other Members that need to conduct business. I share the sentiment expressed by the distinguished majority leader about the bill just passed. It may not be everything we all want, but it represents a real achievement. I commend the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and certainly the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for all of the effort he has put forth in the last seven days to accomplish what we have now. A number of people had a lot to do with bringing us to this point. It represents a balance between providing new opportunities and communications to provide the flexibility and the freedom to go out and do what we must to build the information superhighway. But it also represents a desire on the part of many to protect consumers as we conduct that construction. So I hope very much that we can move this legislation through the remaining parts of the legislative process here and accommodate all Senators as we attempt to pass this very significant piece of legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, telecommunications reform legislation was a focus of the last Congress. Unfortunately, election-year politics prevented then-Chairman Hollings from bringing the bill to the floor for a vote. This year, with changes and modifications that are inevitable given the political change in the make-up of the Congress, a new telecommunications was brought to the Senate floor. This is complex and potentially far-reaching legislation. It will affect an economic sector that constitutes 20 percent of our economy and whose services reach virtually every American. I want to commend the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, whose patience and efforts have done a great deal to bring this measure to its present state. Senator Hollings' work in the last Congress, and in this, has been focused on developing a bill that will enhance true competition in the telecommunications field without shortchanging American consumers. From the beginning, our nation has understood the significance of communications and transportation. It is not an accident that the words of the Constitution require the Congress ``To establish Post Offices and post Roads.'' The Founders could not have known that one day the roads would be fiber networks and the post offices would be e-mail. Yet that is where we have arrived. When Congress first confronted the need to legislate for an entirely new technology, it produced the Communications Act of 1934. The regulated monopoly that was legislated into existence by that law was the best outcome then possible. And the old Bell system gave Americans the cheapest, most efficient universal telephone service in the world. In fact, consumer resistance to the breakup of the Bell phone system was widespread in the early 1980's. Americans feared that the courts were breaking up something that worked well and might replace it with something that didn't. We know today that those fears were unfounded. Competition in phone service has been a boon to American consumers. Long-distance rates are the lowest in the world. Equipment is cheaper and better-made. Competition has spurred innovation and improved customer service. At the same time, it's important to remember and learn from our experience. The concept of universal service was at the heart of the old 1934 Communications Act. It is a New Deal era concept that is as valid today as it has proven to be over the decades. When the reach of a technology is limited by cost, innovation and progress remain slow. But as soon as a technology is within reach of a broader sector of the population, an explosion of invention, development and innovation takes place. We have seen that happen in computers, in personal communications services, in wireless cable transmissions and countless other applications. Twenty years ago, calculators were sophisticated and relatively costly devices. Today they're offered as advertising promotions. While legislation focuses on competition and deregulation, the bill before us also contains essential rural safeguards. It would create a Federal-State joint board to oversee the continuing issue of rural service and to monitor and help evolve a definition of Universal Service that makes sense for the present day and for the kinds of services that will be coming on-line. It does not demand unrealistic competition in towns of 50 households. Our own history teaches us that it is good economics for the private sector as well as the public sector to make universal service a reality for all Americans, no matter how small their community. I believe this is still the case, and I believe it is particularly important to preserve the viability of rural communities in this respect. The legislation before us recognizes the need to redefine universal service in terms of developing technology and products. The joint Federal-State board created by the bill is essential to making certain this function is fulfilled. The bill before us also recognizes the important role that must be played by State Public Utilities Commissions. PUCs are the best entities to judge whether a given market within their State can or cannot support competition. That's not a judgment we should make from Washington. Nor is it something we can or should leave to the unbridled, unsupervised judgment of the private sector. Those who have taken the risks and made the investments to extend cable or phone service to smaller rural communities should not now be placed at risk of being overwhelmed by larger, better-financed companies. As Congressman Ed Markey has said, that's not competition, it's ``communications cannibalism.'' State PUC's will be able to judge where communities can sustain competition and [[Page S8479]] where they cannot. We should preserve the viability of the Universal Service Fund, for that reason as well. The purpose of the bill before us is to create the competitive, free market environment that will most efficiently bring the Information Superhighway into existence for all Americans. I don't believe anyone disagrees with that key to achieving that goal is competition. The Senate's task is to ensure that the competitive elements in the bill do the job. The best outcome is one that brings on line the new products and services that Americans want at a cost they're willing and able to pay. Not only will consumers benefit, but the process of creating new services and products will be a substantial engine of job creation. The present economic recovery has been a period of exceptionally strong job creation. Under the Clinton administration, 6 million new jobs have been created, more in he first 2\1/4\ years of this administration than in the preceding 8 years of the Reagan-Bush administration. Democrats believe the key to longlasting economic growth and expansion is the creation of more jobs and higher income for working families. When Americans are working and earning good wages, our economy prospers and we can invest for the future well being of our children. The passage of the bill before us will help continue this pattern of job creation as our information-based economy creates significant employment opportunities. That will mean more families can send their kids to college, buy a home, and save for their own future. That is the best economic program and the best social program any nation can have. This technology also means new opportunities for innovative economic development. I am in the process of working with a tribal college now on ways to market native American and agricultural products through the Internet. The technology that is helping do this is breaking down the geographic and technical barriers that have retarded our movement to a more information-based economy. There is little doubt that our urban areas can and will sustain an enormous expansion of telecommunications services in the years ahead. We must make certain that our rural areas are not left behind as services expand and new products come on line. In the long run, universal service at high standards nationwide is in the best interests of the entire country. In addition, we must not neglect the role of the public sector in the new telecommunications world. Schools, public libraries, state universities, all should have the ability to share in and disperse the benefits of the telecommunications revolution. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe offered an amendment in committee to make certain that the public sector's ability to connect with the Internet and other information services is enhanced. That's important, not only to prevent stratification into information-rich and information-poor populations and regions, but to assure that all our children have the tools with which to enter the 21st century work force. While the bill before us is far from perfect, it has been significantly improved over the course of the past 6 days. Senator Hollings and I introduced an amendment that strengthens the bad actor test in the cable provisions. It also places reasonable limitations on the ability of cable and telephone companies to eliminate each other as potential competitors through buyouts and mergers, except in rural areas where competition may not be viable. Finally, our amendment, which was adopted, allows small telephone companies to jointly market local exchange service with long distance service providers that carry less than 5 percent of our nation's long distance business. This will allow consumers to realize the benefits of competition in the local telephone exchange, while preserving the competitive balance between the Bell companies and major long distance carriers. I believe the provisions in our amendment strike a better balance between consumer protections and market deregulation. These safeguards are designed to protect consumers by expanding services and keeping them affordable. This bill is a reasonable and balanced one, and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his remarks, and would also like to commend his role in bringing telecommunications reform to the floor. His leadership and patience throughout this three-year exercise that has spanned two Congresses is well known and widely appreciated. Mr. President, the public record indicates that if companies are allowed to introduce GSM in its present form, serious consequences could face individuals wearing hearing aids. I would urge the FCC to investigate the safety, interference and economic issues raised by this technology. I also would urge the appropriate congressional committees to consider scheduling hearings on this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be glad to yield to the honorable ranking member of the Commerce Committee.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this debate on S. 652 has clearly demonstrated the potential of emerging telecommunications technologies. It is truly exciting to contemplate what this legislation could mean for American society. A particularly intriguing new development in the telecommunications field is the creation of Personal Communications Services (PCS). These devices will revolutionize the way Americans talk, work and play. While this new technology opens new vistas for personal communications services, its emergence also highlights the potential downside of entering untested areas. Specifically, concerns have been raised about the potential side-effects of some new PCS technology on other devices such as hearing aids. Recently, the government completed an auction that netted $7 billion for the right to provide advanced digital portable telephone service. It is my understanding that some of the companies that obtained these PCS licenses have considered utilizing a technology known as GSM-- Global System for Mobile Communications. I am informed that people who wear hearing aids cannot operate GSM PCS devices, and some even report physical discomfort and pain if they are near other people using GSM technology. It should not be our intent to cause problems for the hearing impaired in promoting the Personal Communications Services market. It is my view that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should carefully consider the impact new technologies have on existing ones, especially as they relate to public safety and potential signal interference problems. An FCC review is in keeping with the intent of S. 652, which includes criteria for accessibility and usability by people with disabilities for all providers and manufacturers of telecommunications services and equipment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Pressler, in introducing legislation to authorize the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is seeking authorization for the construction of a rural water system to provide clean water to southeastern South Dakota, northwest Iowa, and southwest Minnesota. The need for this project is clear. In Sioux Falls, and in the rural counties that rely on Sioux Falls as a center of economic growth, we are now face-to-face with water shortages. Population growth is outstripping existing supplies of clean water. Despite heroic efforts by the city of Sioux Falls to conserve water, supplies are not keeping up with demand. Sioux Falls has imposed water restrictions every year since 1987. Water rights for the Big Sioux aquifer, which supplies water to Sioux Falls, have been committed. Therefore, Sioux Falls has been forced to explore other long-term options. Similar problems exist in the nearby rural counties in southeastern South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota, areas where water use restrictions are not uncommon. Unless the water supply problem is resolved, it could affect the long-term growth and development of the city. Not only are there shortages of water, but much of the water that currently supplies the area is contaminated with high levels of iron, manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids. In many cases, drinking water is at or above EPA limits, leading to concern over public health in those areas. There is a solution; the people of this region can tap the enormous resources of the Missouri River to provide long-term public health and economic development benefits. But they cannot do this alone. It will require a partnership between local, State, and Federal governments. With the Missouri River carrying billions of gallons of water by this area each year, I am reminded of the ironic line ``water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.'' With the construction of the Lewis and Clark system to convey Missouri River water to the people of this region, that irony will cease. Impacts of this project on the flow of the Missouri River will be negligible. Nearly all the water would be returned to the Missouri River via the James, Vermillion, Big Sioux, Little Sioux, Rock, and Floyd Rivers. In conclusion, there is a strong need for this project throughout the three-State area. The water supply shortages, the poor water quality, and the need to allow this region to grow economically, all demand that a solution be found that allows the people of this region access to clean, safe drinking water. The Lewis and Clark project is a sensible and timely answer to those needs. I encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this project in hopes that Congress will authorize its construction in the near future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his remarks, and would also like to commend his role in bringing telecommunications reform to the floor. His leadership and patience throughout this 3-year exercise that has spanned two Congresses is well known and widely appreciated. Mr. President, the public record indicates that if companies are allowed to introduce GSM in its presemt form, serious consequences could face individuals wearing hearing aids. I would urge the FCC to investigate the safety, interference and economic issues raised by this technology. I also would urge the appropriate congressional committees to consider scheduling hearings on this issue. amendments no. 1256 and 1257

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this debate on S. 652 has clearly demonstrated the potential of emerging telecommunications technologies. It is truly exciting to contemplate what this legislation could mean for American society. A particularly intriguing new development in the telecommunications field is the creation of personal communications service [PCS]. These devices will revolutionize the way Americans talk, work, and play. While this new technology opens new vistas for personal communications services, its emergence also highlights the potential downside of entering untested areas. Specifically, concerns some new PCS technology on other devices such as hearing aids. Recently, the Government completed an auction that netted $7 billion for the right to provide advanced digital portable telephone service. It is my understanding that some of the companies that obtained these PCS licenses have considered utilizing a technology known as GSM-- global system for mobile communications. I am informed that people who wear hearing aids cannot operate GSM PCS devices, and some even report physical discomfort and pain if they are near other people using GSM technology. It should not be our intent to cause problems for the hearing impaired in promoting the personal communications services market. It is my view that the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] should carefully consider the impact new technologies have on existing ones, especially as they relate to public safety and potential signal interference problems. An FFC review is in keeping with the intent of S. 652, which includes criteria for accessibility and usability by people with disabilities for all providers and manufacturers of telecommunications services and equipment.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be glad to yield to the honorable ranking member of the Commerce Committee.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments to underscore the comments many of my colleagues made earlier today in support of the upcoming Race for the Cure, which will be held this Saturday in Washington. This weekend's race marks the 6th year that Washingtonians have participated in this important event. it is a time when policymakers, civil servants, media representatives, and other put their ideological differences aside and show their solidarity in support of the effort to find a cure for breast cancer. In the past, the Race for the Cure has helped raise critical funding for medical research and for mammograms. Much of this money remains in the local area to support research institutions and provide mammograms for women who could not otherwise afford them. The Race for the Cure has also done an exceptional job of raising the public's awareness about breast cancer, and of alerting women to the importance of early detection measures. As in the past, many of Saturday's race participants will be breast cancer survivors. Many more will be the spouses, children, siblings, and friends of both breast cancer survivors and, I am sad to say, the many women who have not survived their battle with this disease. It is for all these individuals that we race. And it is for them that we continue our efforts to support research and public awareness in the hope that one day all women who face this disease will be survivors. Although we have made significant strides in combating breast cancer, we are far from the finish line. Medical research into the causes, cure, and prevention of breast cancer is critical to this effort. Public awareness and prevention efforts are also critical components of our battle against breast cancer. Today doctors strongly recommend monthly self-examinations to check for the early warning signs of breast cancer. Sometimes these early warning signs are not early enough, however, and that is why it is so important for women at risk of breast cancer to have mammograms. I am hopeful that one day we will be able to detect all breast cancers at an early stage. I am even more hopeful, however, that we will someday have a cure for this disease. Over 70 percent of all women who have breast cancer do not exhibit any of the known risk factors. This year 182,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 46,000 women will die from this terrible disease. Whether the answer to this disease is around the corner, or it takes years to discover, we cannot give up the fight. We must find a cure. Sometimes the most effective movements are born of tragedy, and the Race for the Cure is one of those movements. this race is a tribute to all women who have not survived their battle with breast cancer. It is in their memory that we continue our efforts to increase support for medical research and raise public awareness about this issue. This race is also a tribute to all those women who are surviving their battle with breast cancer. It is in their honor that we stand with them, walk with them, and run with them. It is in humble respect that we race with them--to find a cure for breast cancer.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for yielding. This does represent a very good-faith effort on both sides to try to accommodate all Senators who have remaining amendments, and I think that as a result of this agreement, there is a likelihood that we can finish our work in the morning and begin voting sometime in the early afternoon. I appreciate all Senators' cooperation and hope that we can agree that as a result of this, we will finish our work tomorrow sometime. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Senator Simon.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Hollings and I have crafted a package of provisions designed to strike a better balance between consumer protections and market deregulation. These safeguards are designed to protect consumers by expanding services and keeping them affordable. This is accomplished in four ways. First, it improves the cable rate regulation provisions in the bill without compromising the important deregulatory changes that will spur competition and provide consumers with more choices. Specifically, the amendment improves the cable rate regulation provision of the committee bill by strengthening the bad actor test. Rates for the upper tiers of cable service will be found unreasonable only if they significantly exceed the national average rate for comparable cable service for systems other than small cable systems determined on a per channel basis as of June 1, 1995, and adjusted every 2 years. Additionally, the amendment will deregulate a cable company only after a telephone company begins to provide video programming service comparable to the video service provided by the cable company. Second, this amendment places reasonable limitations on the ability of cable and telephone companies to eliminate each other as potential competitors through buyouts and mergers, except in rural areas where competition may not be viable. This is an important distinction to make. While the overall goal of this legislation is to increase competition, the universal service section and other pieces recognize the fact that competition will not work everywhere. This is especially true in rural areas like South Dakota. The third important safeguard will allow small telephone companies to jointly market local exchange service with long distance service providers that carry less than 5 percent of the Nation's long distance business. This will allow consumers to realize the benefits of competition in the local telephone exchange, while preserving the competitive balance between the RBOC's and major long distance carriers. The amendment also will sunset the prohibition on joint marketing after 3 years. Finally, a provision that was originally sponsored by Senator Kerrey from Nebraska to promote network interoperability is a part of this package. Ensuring interoperability is an important part of building a seamless, national information infrastructure that will support education, business, and hospitals. This provision will not expand or limit the FCC's current authority over standards setting. Mr. President, nothing in this agreement precludes existing local telephone marketing agreements from continuing. This amendment recognizes the need to help small broadcasters continue to diversify their broadcasts. These steps are important not only to the successful passage of this legislation, but also the financial security of American consumers. It recognizes that companies need relief from burdensome Federal regulations, but also provides a mechanism that will protect consumers from unreasonable and unjustified rate hikes. Passage of S. 652 will require give and take on both sides. These measures are reasonable and prudent, and they ought to be adopted.

Mr. DASCHLE. For the information of all Senators, this is the combination of the legislation that the majority leader and I have been working on. He has a managers' amendment. I have been working with Senator Hollings over the course of the last several days. Instead of having two separate amendments, we have simply combined them. I think everyone is aware of the text of Senator Hollings' and my amendment. We would be happy to share it with anybody. That is all we are doing, combining them into one vote, and limiting the time to about half an hour.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield, the managers as well as the two leaders have been working on this package for the better part of 3 or 4 days, and we have had a large number of consultations with Members on both sides of the aisle, in an effort to better accommodate concerns of Senators to address this managers' package as well as to address a number of schedules that are becoming increasingly jeopardized as a result of our delay. We had hoped, after all of this consultation, to lay the amendment down and have a vote, but also ensure that everyone's rights are protected to amend the managers' package as they can amend the bill, just as we do with any other piece of legislation, so every Member is protected. And if there are provisions in this managers' amendment which would be part of the bill that they would not find in their interest, they are protected and would be encouraged to offer amendments to address those particular aspects. But I must say a tremendous amount of effort has been put into accommodating everybody and to accomplish the point where we are now at legislatively. So I would hope that we could accommodate schedules as well as to accommodate those who have participated in this series of negotiations to get us to this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the majority leader for his resolution and I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is much to celebrate on a day like this, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia has just articulated so eloquently, to celebrate the fact that there are young men and women willing to commit their lives for the security interests of this country, whatever they may be. Young Scott O'Grady understood that when he took on the responsibilities of flying an F-16. He understood that when he climbed into his fighter plane on that day a week ago, completely aware of the enemy fire that he could be subjected to as he flew over those dangerous areas. He understood that as he ejected from his crippled plane, and he understood that during the dangerous period of time that he evaded those who were seeking to capture him, all the time wondering whether or not he would found. There are men and women like him in the military in every branch of service who are willing to commit themselves, willing to commit their lives to the mission that is put before them in the interest of patriotism, in the interest of the defense and strength of this country. So today we celebrate that heroism, that willingness to put patriotism ahead of self-interest. And certainly we have seen a clear demonstration of that in the heroic actions of Capt. Scott O'Grady. Patriotism and the life of a hero is something we can celebrate with great pride today as we consider the fact that Scott O'Grady is safely back with us. Second, I think we can be very appreciative of the tremendous job done by the Marine rescue crew who saw fit to take extraordinarily hazardous risks to retrieve Captain O'Grady and to do all that they could to see that he was brought back safely. As somebody who has had the opportunity on occasion to talk to rescue crews and to realize what danger they put themselves through to accomplish extraordinarily difficult missions, I can certainly appreciate the magnificent efforts of these brave marines. So it is with immense pride and gratitude that I salute Captain O'Grady and the brave men who carried out his breathtaking rescue. We all share in the joy of their safe return. They, too, ought to be recognized and certainly deserve the tremendous accolades they have been given for what [[Page S8080]] has been an extremely dangerous rescue mission. So we thank them, as well. Times like this bring out the best in many people. Yesterday, we had the opportunity to talk to the Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina and he, too, is rising to the occasion under what are extraordinarily precarious conditions. We, as Americans, watch with great interest and empathy as he tries in as many ways as possible to achieve a meaningful effort at resisting the extraordinary dangers that his people face day after day. So whether it is the Prime Minister, a pilot, or a rescue mission, there is a lot to celebrate today. This resolution gives us an opportunity to say with some clarity how much we appreciate the patriotism, the determination, the extraordinary willingness to subject oneself to danger, as we have seen just in the last 6 days. So, again, I rise in support of the resolution. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I certainly urge its approval. I yield the floor.