Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, all Members should be aware that the Senate will resume consideration of the telecommunications bill at 1 o'clock on Monday. The chairman is here. He is ready to do business now. He will be ready to do business on Monday. Senator Pressler is available. Senators should, therefore, be aware that rollcall votes can be expected throughout Monday's session of the Senate, however, not before 5 p.m. on Monday. Let me indicate to my colleagues who will say, ``Well, we didn't have enough time for debate,'' we have time right now. It is 3:10. For 3, 4, 5 hours, the Senator from South Dakota is willing to stay on into the evening and will be here all day Monday. So I hope people do not come back at 5 and say, ``We didn't have time to debate.'' We have all day today and all day Monday starting at 1 o'clock. I just said if we cannot get an up-or-down vote on the pending amendment, then all the recourse the manager would have would be to make a motion to table sometime on Monday. I did not file cloture to shut off debate. It is a very important amendment. It is a very important bill. I am not trying to take time away from any Senators. You can see there is nobody here. So all those people who complain Monday about having time to debate, they could have been here today. Right?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. In fact, I should say, in all candor, we are working this weekend--my staff has been directed to work with others to see how much we really believe we can finish by the date of the normal August recess, which is scheduled to begin on Friday, August 4, and scheduled to conclude on September 5. Obviously, all Senators hope we can keep that entire period of time. It is my hope we can also do that. But I must say to my colleagues, we need to take a hard look at where we are. It is a question of how long we stay out in August or how long we stay here in November. So it will be one way or the other. We will try to give everybody start the August recess on the 4th or the 11th or the 18th or thereafter.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I just hope this is something on which the leadership, including the Senator from Kentucky, obviously the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott, myself, and Senator Daschle, will have some input. It seems to me we have to take some responsibility for changes in the lobbying procedures and also gift rules. I am prepared to do that. I know the Senator from Kentucky and I assume the Senators from South Dakota and Mississippi are, too, working with other Senators, because different people have different ideas on what reform is and what rule changes ought to be made. As far as I am concerned, they can go as far as they want. It does not make any difference to this Senator. But I think we can work out a reasonable approach to get it done and get it behind us either before or during the August recess, let us put it that way, because we are not certain when the August recess will begin.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, having gotten the consent agreement, let me indicate what it does. We have been trying for some time to come together on a lobbying reform bill and gift rule changes. We are not there yet, but there is, I think it is fair to say, honest negotiation going on on both sides. This is not a partisan matter. I do not know of anybody here who does not want lobbying reform, depending on how you define ``reform.'' And I do not know of anybody who does not believe we can improve the gift rules that apply to Members of Congress. We have been working with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, and others on that side of the aisle. As I understand, there will be a number of us on each side of the aisle working together in the next few weeks to see if we can come up with a separate package, but, if not, then we will proceed to S. 101. If we come up with a package and we agree on it, obviously, we have now consent to go to that. That is precisely what it is. I hope that we can do this. We will take it up no later than Friday, July 28, and if we have some agreement, or even without an agreement, it should not take more than 2 or 3 days of the Senate's time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. What is the pending business?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. There will be no more votes tonight. We will try to see what happens in the next couple of hours. It is a very important amendment, and it is central to the debate. I do not have any quarrel with the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota nor the Senator from South Carolina. I am not trying to crowd anyone. I want my other colleagues to know what they can expect. So I think it is safe to say, if it is all right with the Democratic leader, there will be no more votes tonight. We will take another look at it at 10 o'clock, 11, whatever, whoever is still here. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Maine is prepared to enter into a time agreement of 1 hour and 30 minutes equally divided, if that is all right with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DOLE. As I understand, the Senator from Maine, Mr. Cohen, is prepared to offer an amendment which will take approximately 1\1/2\ hours. I am not sure how much the people in opposition might want.

Mr. DOLE. I have given a copy of my amendment to Senator Kerrey because I know his concern with the bill. If we need to furnish any additional information, we will be happy to do so. But we do need to get an amendment here. Do we have a list of amendments?

Mr. DOLE. He is in doubt. There is the managers' amendment that still has not been adopted, and the amendment by this Senator, and then the amendment by Senator Daschle.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have talked with both managers of the bill to see what we could do to accommodate our colleagues who have commitments for the next couple of hours. But then you have colleagues who have commitments tomorrow morning. I am not certain we can accommodate everybody. But the key is to get an amendment laid down that will take a couple of hours. I think the Senator from South Carolina may be prepared to offer his amendment.

Mr. DOLE. May we make that request?

Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield? But we are prepared to debate it at some length tonight; is that correct?

Mr. DOLE. No second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. DOLE. Would there be a possibility of having a time agreement?

Mr. DOLE. Is there a time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. First, I thank and congratulate the chairman and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings. We have been promising week after week that this bill was coming to the floor. I do not believe it now that it is on the floor and pending. I have every expectation, with their management skills, that we can probably finish this bill by Friday noon. If that is the case, we probably would not have any votes on Monday--if that is an incentive for anybody. We might have debate on some other bill but no votes on Monday. So if we can consider those incentive programs as we go along, it will be helpful. But it is a very important piece of legislation. It is probably the most important bill we have considered all year, no doubt about it. It will create jobs, opportunity, all of the things we have talked about. I have listened to both managers' opening statements. Mr. President, some may consider S. 652 to be the end of a long, long, process. And no doubt about it, telecommunications deregulation legislation has been an idea debated around here for nearly a decade. In fact, I first introduced telecommunications deregulation legislation in 1986. But rather than seeing this bill as an end to the process, I see it as a beginning: A beginning of a new era of leadership for the telecommunications industry and for America. And one person who deserves a good deal of credit for making this new era a reality is Senator Pressler. As all Members know, this is a tough, complex, and often contentious issue. And Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings have done an outstanding job at bringing the competing interests together--or as close together as possible. Senator Hollings was the chairman and came very close last year to getting a bill. This year, under the chairmanship of Senator Pressler, we are on the floor with the bill. We have not passed it yet, but my understanding is that there is a lot of bipartisan support. It is not a partisan measure, a Democrat or Republican partisan fight. So we ought to be able to complete it quickly, because they have done an outstanding job of bringing the competing interests as close together as possible. Mr. President, leadership in telecommunications, whether it was inventing the telegraph or the microchip, has been an American tradition. And we will continue that tradition with passage of this bill. As I have said before, telecom reform will be the real jobs stimulus package of this decade. Building the necessary infrastructure will require thousands of private sector jobs. And that is just the beginning. Millions more will be created because information will become more accessible. Jobs that will make America more efficient, more productive, and ultimately more powerful. Looking back on Congress' track record, a casual observer would think that we have a grudge against the communications industry. Fortunately, this image is changing and Republicans are glad to see that traditional ``pro-regulators'' are finally coming around to our competitive way of thinking. We must develop a flexible policy that will accommodate the explosion of new technology. That policy, of course, is promoting competition. It is irresponsible to think we can do anything more. No one knows the benefits of free and open competition better than the computer and semi-conductor industries. Just take a look at a few of the players in the U.S. communications industry. Last year, the computer industry earned revenues close to $360 billion. Two things are amazing about that figure. First, it is twice the telephone industry's revenues. And second, revenues from the personal computer industry, which for all intents and purposes was non- existent in 1980, account for almost half of that figure. In other words, revenues in personal computers [[Page S7898]] have grown as much in 14 years as the entire telephone industry did in 100. It is not too difficult to figure out that the computer industry benefitted from fierce competition and minimal government regulation. Phone companies did not. Cable TV also exploded after it was de-regulated in 1984. At that time, its revenues were $7.8 billion and it employed 67,381 persons. Fast-forward to 1992. Revenues tripled and employment numbers jumped to 108,280. While these numbers are also good, I would suggest that the cable TV industry would have done much better if it had faced competition. More importantly, I would also suggest that there would not have been the abuses which prompted Congress to enact re-regulation in 1992. My point is simple: competition, not regulation, has the best record for creating new jobs, spurring new innovation, and creating new wealth. Mr. President, America is at the cross roads, and Congress must make a choice. A touch choice, as we all know. But I believe that if we ask the right question, we will get the right Answer. As I see it, we must ask ourselves, ``who will decide the communications industry's future.'' I say we allow the real technical experts to decide. And I am not talking about government bureaucrats. Instead, we should look to the experts in the field, the entrepreneurs, the engineers, and the innovators. It seems to me that they will do a far better job for our country if big government leaves them alone. I, for one, cannot allow government to become the biggest player in the telecommunications industry. Too much is at stake. It is nonsense to gamble away millions of new jobs. It is nonsense to gamble away America's ability to compete, and win, around the world. And it is nonsense to gamble away the spoils that the information age will bring. To get there, I have worked with the committee to develop a comprehensive deregulatory amendment that touches all sectors of the communications industry. It is my understanding that the managers are not quite ready to accept it now. I have a list describing each provision that I will insert in the Record at the end of my remarks, but for now, I will just highlight a few of the provisions. First, deregulate small cable TV systems. This has bipartisan support. Although views differ on deregulating the entire cable TV industry, most of us can agree that rural and small systems need rate relief in order to survive. This provision gets it done. Second, force the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate outdated regulations, and do so in a timely manner. Currently, there is no guarantee that the Commission will ever act on requests that it forbear on regulations. Under this amendment, the Commission must respond within 90-days--60 more can be added if the issue requires additional scrutiny. Most importantly, it must provide a written determination to justify its actions. Third, eliminate the number of TV stations that any one entity can own. Currently, the limit is capped at 12. This amendment removes that cap. I want to point out, however, that this amendment does not, I repeat, does not increase the percentage of national viewership beyond the 35 percent that is included in the chairman's mark. The amendment also eliminates the number of radio stations one can own, unless the Commission finds that issuing or transferring a license will harm competition. The measure also privatizes or eliminates a number of FCC functions. The Commission deserves credit for making these suggestions that comprise this provision. In other words they came from the FCC. I could go on at length, but I believe I have given my colleagues a flavor of what this amendment is about. I know the managers and members of their staffs are well acquainted with it. This amendment does represent the hard work of many Members, obviously Members on both sides of the aisle. Senator Burns has been working on this for a couple years, Senator Craig, Senator Packwood, Senator McCain on our side, just to name a few, and, of course, Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings. It does not matter how long we work on it, if we cannot get it accepted, it does not make any difference. We hope at the appropriate time that it can be accepted. I hope that we will continue on the procompetitive, deregulatory course that we have taken in a bipartisan way, and in only that way will we ensure that today is beginning a new renaissance for America. Mr. President, I ask that a summary of the deregulation package be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. While that debate is going on, it is my understanding that the Biden amendment is now pending, is that correct?

Mr. DOLE. I have a better idea. Why not the Senator from Utah give him 15 minutes of his 45.

Mr. DOLE. We want to finish this bill.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wanted to indicate we now have to dispose of the Biden amendment No. 1217. My understanding is that the Senator from Delaware is prepared to offer a second.

Mr. DOLE. We have one, and we have 30 minutes equally divided on this amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I make that request.