Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. That is the way I calculate it.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. The time has expired.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I am sure it was part A, not part B. The Senator went over it with a broad brush.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank my friend.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask that my friend allow the ranking Member to have equal time for what the chairman has had, say 5 minutes, and add that to that.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, in supporting the conference report to S. 652, the telecommunications reform bill. As a conferee on this historic piece of legislation, I firmly believe that this bill is a balanced approach to the overhaul of our telecommunications laws and regulations and towards a de-regulated and competitive telecommunications industry. In the last several months, the Congress has been highly criticized for the partisan nature of our debates. And it is true that a significant number of legislative initiatives are caught in intense partisan differences. But at the same time, there have been a number of developments where both sides of the aisle have come together, where both sides have been able to reach an accommodation of differing views and opinions. I believe that this conference report is just one example of how this Congress can work in a bi-partisan manner to produce solid legislation. That is not to say that it is easy. This conference has been working throughout the fall and early winter to produce this conference report. Our negotiations were long and difficult ones. But, Mr. President, I am by nature a compromiser. I guess that is because I am from Kentucky. And Kentucky produced many fine legislators and statesmen, including the great compromiser, Henry Clay. And Henry Clay once said that compromise is ``a mutual sacrifice.'' Well, let me tell you Mr. President, that we conferees have made many sacrifices in order to reach a bi-partisan conference report. When the House passed its version of telecommunications reform last August, I was asked what the significance of that event meant. I stated then that I was fairly confident that we could produce a final bill-- but that it was not going to be easy. There were significant differences between the Senate and House bills. In particular, I know I and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle were concerned about the scope of the deregulation contained in the House bill. But something significant happened in this conference. We sat down and we listened to each other. Throughout numerous discussions and informal meetings of conferees, we were able to state our concerns and have those concerns understood and appreciated. And more importantly, we were able to have those concerns addressed in a satisfactory manner. I do not think that any one side prevailed over the other. This conference was one of significant negotiations and compromises. But the result is that today we have a bi-partisan bill. I believe that this conference report is a fair, logical, and balanced approach towards reforming our Nation's telecommunications law and policies. There is no question that we need to pass a reform bill. Not since the passage of the 1934 Communications Act has the Congress taken a step towards a major overhaul of that law. The 1934 Act has served its purpose in guiding our telecommunications policy for the last 60 years. But we are at a crossroads in terms of policy and technology. Our telecommunications industry has been in a state of complex transformation that began in 1984 with the divestiture of AT&T. Since that time, the seven regional telephone companies have actively sought permission to enter into other areas of business. And as the regional Bell companies have sought to expand, other companies and industries have sought to enter into the local telephone market. Clearly, these changes cannot be made through court rulings and petitions to the Federal Communications Commission. The slow and haphazard de-regulation that has been on-going since 1984 has frustrated the ability for real and effective competition. In turn, I think that has also frustrated the ability for the telecommunications industry to develop and improve technology. In fact, Mr. President, I would argue that an initial and almost immediate effect of this legislation will be rapid advances in telecommunications technology. Our telecommunications industry is on the cutting edge of technology. Research and development and existing technologies are inhibited by rules created several years ago, if not several decades ago. The reforms contained in this conference report will help ensure America remains competitive. Throughout my experience in this legislation, I always hear people talking about the so-called ``information superhighway''. If we want to make that ``information superhighway'' a reality for all Americans, then I think we need to spur competition which will encourage investments. Mr. President, competition and investments can only mean one thing-- jobs. This conference report is not just a regulatory reform bill. It is a job creation bill as well. Today, the telecommunications industry is 15 percent of the GDP. And it is also a sector with high-growth potential which will create high-skill and high-paying jobs. In fact, in a recent study conducted by the Wharton School of Business, the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Association (``The WEFA Group'') found that full competition in telecommunications has the potential to create 3.4 million jobs by the year 2005. And the potential to cause a $298 billion increase in the gross domestic product within 10 years. In Kentucky, it is estimated that over 32,000 new jobs will be created during this same period. Telecommunications reform in Kentucky could mean the distribution of 1,000 new jobs in the mining industry; 2,900 jobs in the construction industry; 7,300 new jobs in manufacturing; 1,200 new jobs in the transportation and utilities sector; 11,200 new jobs in the wholesale and retail trade sector; 1,300 new jobs to the financial services industry; and, 7,500 new jobs to other services in general. Mr. President, this telecommunications reform bill is also a pro- consumer bill because it will create more competition, and in turn, lower prices. It is estimated that telecommunications reform will lower rates by 22 percent, saving consumers nearly $550 billion over the next 10 years. Lower long distance rates alone will yield $333 billion in consumer savings. With lower local telephone rates, consumers can expect to save another $32 billion. Lower cellular rates could generate another $107 billion and lower cable television rates will yield another $78 billion in consumer savings. But this bill is not simply about jobs and money. This bill also contains important provisions which will enhance access to advanced services in our public schools. I am pleased that this conference report retains the provisions of the Senate bill known as the Snowe- Rockefeller Amendment. Because of this provision in the legislation, our classrooms are going to be able to link with other institutions and other programs to enhance education. This is most important for a state like Kentucky with a large rural population. Students and teachers in rural areas will gain access to sources of information and libraries in other locations across Kentucky and the Nation. The reforms contained in this bill will hasten the pace by which schools in rural areas will receive comparable access to the Internet, just like those schools in more urban areas. Access to advanced services can lead to improvements and efficiencies in the administration of education. In fact, this is already occurring in Kentucky. Our State government has contracted for the establishment of the Kentucky Information Highway. Schools and school district offices are linked together on the network and advanced services are made available at preferential rates. Mr. President, as I have mentioned, this conference report includes important changes to our telecommunications laws which enable the development of new technologies. I am pleased to say that the conference report includes a provision which will limit the role of the Federal Communications Commission in setting standards that may affect the computer and home automation technologies. Section 301(f) of the bill provides that the FCC may only set minimal standards for cable equipment compatibility, to maximize marketplace competition for all features and protocols unrelated to descrambling of cable programming, and to ensure that the FCC's cable compatibility regulations do not affect computer network services, home automation, or other types of telecommunications equipment. In short, this section keeps the government out of setting high technological standards and prevents the FCC from setting standards for the computer and communications services of the future. I believe that this section is a small but important aspect of this historic bill: to embrace the future by allowing new technologies to flourish with minimal government interference. Just as this bill will help open markets by eliminating the barriers to long-distance and equipment manufacturing competition, Section 301(f) ensures that our vital computer and high-tech markets remain open and competitive by ensuring that the FCC's technical standards are kept to a minimum. Since almost all standards in the communications and computer industries are voluntary, private standards, this section of the bill maintains that this practice shall continue. This is very important as we see the accelerating pace of the convergence of the computer and the communications industries. Section 301(f) modifies the FCC's authority in order to reign in the Commission's ongoing rulemaking on cable equipment compatibility. This is a problem that arises out of the 1992 Cable Act, which directed the FCC to assure compatibilitybetween televisions, VCR's and cable systems. But, I believe that the FCC has gone beyond the directions contained in that 1992 law. This section of the conference report prevents the FCC from standardizing any feature or protocols that are not necessary for descrambling, by preventing the selection of an other home automation protocol as part of the FCC's cable compatibility regulations. It further prevents the FCC from affecting products in the computer or home automation industry in any way. Simply put, Section 301(f) leaves these standards to be set, as they should be, by competition in the marketplace. I understand that some have questioned whether the term ``affect'' is too broad. Indeed it is a broad term in order to effectively implement the principle that the FCC regulations should not interfere in competitive markets. Because there is no reason to affect computers or home automation products, and because even inadvertent or relatively small effects on emerging and rapidly changing markets can easily displace technological innovation, this section 301(f) is weighted toward protecting competition and open markets. The accompanying Statement of Managers states that any material influence on unrelated markets is prohibited. Because it is impossible for agencies or courts to judge whether the impact of technical standards in emerging markets would be harmful or substantial, Section 301(f) draws a bright line to avoid any regulatory impact whatsoever. I think this is an important policy. The risk associated with wide regulatory powers over technological issues in a time when we are seeing rapid technical change is that premature or overbroad FCC standards may interfere in the market-driven process of standardization or impede technological innovation itself. It is interesting to note that the industry itself has been able to solve compatibility problems, and create workable standards in the VCR, personal computer, compact discs and other products without any government involvement. I believe that the inclusion of Section 301(f) continues that tradition and will permit the industry to set the standards, not the FCC. That is in keeping with the nature of this legislation as a whole. Mr. President, in addition to reforms of the local and long distance telephone companies, this conference report includes a number of overdue revisions to the laws regulating the broadcasters. I believe that these changes are necessary to respond to the changing competitive nature of the broadcast industry, in the same manner as the changes this conference report foresees for the telephone industry. One of the changes in this legislation includes directions to the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a rule-making on the so-called duopoly rule. The duopoly rule was last revised by the FCC in 1964. And it prevents the ownership of more than one television station in a local market. This regulation served a useful purpose by ensuring there would be competition and a diversity of media voices in a television market. However, in the last 32 years, the local media have gained so many new competitors that I have begun to question whether the duopoly rule still promotes good policy. That is why I endorse the provisions of the conference report which direct the FCC to conduct a rule-making to determine whether to retain, modify, or eliminate this rule. Today, consumers have access to many more broadcast stations than a generation ago, let alone, a decade ago. More significantly, consumers today have access to a host of non-broadcast station video providers, all of which offer dozens or even hundreds of channels. Competition to broadcasters is coming from the cable industry, wireless cable systems, satellite systems, and video dialtone networks. With such competition, I believe that we may have reached the point where the viability of free over-the-air programming, provided by single-channel broadcasters, may be threatened by the new multi-channel competitors. Too many local broadcasters, particularly in smaller markets, are already losing money. This is a concern to me, and should be a concern to other Members, because I believe that local television broadcasters are just as important as local radio stations and local newspapers. Together, these local broadcasters help to develop a sense of community through the coverage of local events. It is my hope that the FCC will examine this matter thoroughly and revise the duopoly rule appropriately. In addition to the duopoly rule, I am also pleased to see that this conference report grandfathers local marketing agreements, or LMA's. Many local broadcasters have stayed competitive by entering into these LMA's with one another. These innovative joint ventures allow separately owned stations to function cooperatively, achieving economies of scale through combined sales and advertising efforts, and shared technical facilities. These local marketing agreements have served their communities in a number of ways: some have increased coverage of local news; others have increased coverage of local sports, particularly college sports; and, many LMA's have provided outlets for innovative local programming and children's programming. Together, a review of the duopoly rule and the grandfathering of LMA's, these provisions will help ensure that consumers always have access to free local television programming. Mr. President, it is clear that the reform of our communications laws is long overdue. This conference report is a comprehensive and balanced approach to rewrite our National telecommunications policy for the 21st Century and beyond. After years of debate, negotiations and compromise, we have finally reached the point where we can make the promises of the advanced telecommunications into realities. I applaud the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member for their determination and persistence in bringing together a comprehensive and bi-partisan bill to the floor. We would not be here today without their combined leadership. We would not have bi-partisan support on the conference. As a result, it has earned the support of many on both sides of the aisle and the support of the President. S. 652 deserves to become law and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting final passage. clarification of local station ownership provisions

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. The Senator is absolutely correct. And I might say to him, the President of the American Farm Bureau at that time wrote us a letter saying they were opposed to it also. And I think that is a matter of record. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] put it into the Record. I think he and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] had a colloquy on the floor and talked about bouncing like the ping-pong ball--the American Farm Bureau's position. I think that confused all of us who were trying to support our farm community. One thing I found out a long time ago, whatever the American Farm Bureau says I do not follow anymore because my farm bureau at home is autonomous and they do not support anything of the American Farm Bureau until their board approves it or they approve it at their convention. So regardless of what the American Farm Bureau might say, I wait until my Kentucky Farm Bureau endorses that. But just the idea of representing all of the American Farm Bureau, the head of that organization writing letters on both sides, bouncing back and forth, no wonder we are confused when last year they were opposed to it. That helped it not come out of the committee, I am sure, over there. And then they were for it. And then they want us to be for something they were against at their instructions. So I think the time for debate and consideration of this bill is more important than I have ever seen it since I have been here. There are radical, radical changes in this bill that in the years to come--and not too many short years--if the freedom to farm bill is passed, the American people will be up in arms when you decouple. If you do not understand what decoupling is, that is separating the payments, or the income from the commodity from the deficiency payments or the payments to the farmer so the farmer will continue to get the payments every year for 7 years up to $120,000 a year if you are in four different categories, which you can be and you can still raise your crop and still get big prices. I think when you are doing that--and the farmers have always said they were against a welfare program, just absolutely, teetotally against a welfare program, and they are absolutely, teetotally for a balanced budget amendment, and to do something like that for them and for them to come up here and say this is something we want, I am not sure the leadership is speaking the grassroots attitude of the farmers, particularly of my State. Now, you can come up here and say we want the money, we want you to pay us, but then decouple that to take away the safety net, take away the price stability of the marketplace, it is just something that is too radical to do immediately. Phased in, maybe. Phased out, maybe. But we need to think through this one. And I think 2 years from now, if we are paying farmers big prices and letting them get big prices for their product, somewhere the American taxpayer who is sending them the money when they are making big money, or making good profit on their crops, says that will not last very long. I think we ought to realize that and do it now and do it right rather than have to come back and be fussed at a year or two from now for doing something that the American taxpayers will not accept.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand the frustration. I am a little frustrated, too. I would like to get a farm bill out. But let me make an observation or two. I do not know, in my 21 years, that we have ever failed to renew a farm bill within the year that it expired. Now we are in the year after the 1990 farm bill expired. This bill should have been completed last September. We also hear that the President vetoed a farm bill. Well, that farm bill that the President vetoed in reconciliation was a bill that they could not pass out of the Agriculture Committee in the House. So they take that bill and stick it in reconciliation. That was not passed out of the Agriculture Committee. Now, in the Senate, we have not passed an agriculture bill out of the Senate Agriculture Committee that I know of. So here we are arguing over an agriculture bill that really has never gone through the process. And we are October, November, December, January, and February later. We finally bring it to the floor without knowing exactly what is in it and want cloture on it so we cannot debate it and so we cannot amend it. The Senator from Vermont, when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee in 1990, set a record. He completed the agriculture bill in 7 days of debate on the floor--7 days of debate on the floor. Now we want to bring it up 1 day, vote cloture on it, and get it out. No wonder some people are digging their heels in. What might be good for Kentucky may not be good for Utah. But it is a regional bill that we have to bring together and satisfy generally the farmers in those areas. If I were farming, I would be frustrated, too. We have been begging for a farm bill; begging for a farm bill. And all of a sudden we get it on Thursday, want to complete it on Thursday, and go out for 3 weeks. I say to my friends that they can blame whoever they want to, but this bill is 5 months late, at least 5 months late.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I will yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend, the Senator is absolutely correct. When you say just pick out one little piece--and the farm bill is a major piece to the farmers--that was in the overall reconciliation bill that contained the massive funding of Government. There were many things in there that even those--it was not bipartisan. We had some on the other side who objected to what was in the reconciliation bill, so voted here, and the President exercised his right and vetoed the legislation. So when you just single out the farm bill, there was much, much more in that bill than just the farm bill.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question, or a statement, without my losing the right to the floor.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the farm bill has become a focal point now for legislation in Washington and not too soon. I think it is the first time in 40 or 50 years we have failed to enact a farm bill in the year that the farm program expired. So we are a year late, and this is what my distinguished friend from South Dakota is saying. I worry about the Freedom to Farm Act because that is a check that goes to the farmer, and, basically, some farmers are referring to it as welfare. You can lock your door, go to Florida, and still get your check and not raise any grain, not raise any crop. Therefore, your local fertilizer dealer, local equipment dealer, local feed and seed people no longer will be selling. So, therefore, it worries a lot of folks that the so-called payment, regardless of whether you have a high price or a low price, will be received. That does not seem quite fair to me, where under the present program you stabilize the market. If you go under, the prices are lower than the set price, then you get some help. If it goes above that, then you make a profit and you do not need the money. So somehow or another, it has stabilized, in my mind, the market. What is so frustrating now to the farmers is it appears that it is this or nothing. In the beginning, the Freedom to Farm Act was opposed by the American Farm Bureau late last November. We have copies of the letter where they oppose the freedom to farm act. Now, as we fail to enact a farm bill and we get closer to the time where southern States are beginning to plant, or within the next few weeks, they are very concerned. The farmers in my State who are preparing for the spring are very concerned about their financial situation. I think we have to be very careful that we do not allow the last- minute gasp here to remove the safety net for the farmers in the future, because under the Freedom to Farm Act, the farm program in 7 years is gone, or sooner than that when the general public finds that if you do not farm, you get a check every year, and it could be up to as high as $120,000 a year. The general public is not going to like that. You can cut all the deals you want to for milk and nutrition and all those sort of things and pass the Freedom to Farm Act, or at least send it to conference. I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to be sure that the future of farming stays around. In my State, the average farm is 157 acres. So farming is a very narrow operation as to the products, as to the income and for stability in our farm program. Mr. President, I have real concerns. The Senator from South Dakota talks about flexibility. You have a quota, you have an allotment, whatever it might be, as to acres. We propose that you have flexibility, that you do not lose--say you have 100 acres and you want to take 30 acres to try something else. If something else does not work, then you can revert back to your 100 acres. So it gives flexibility. You can give to farmers a good, well-thought-out, debated farm bill to give them a future and a safety net that I think will be more in keeping with our, or at least, what my idea is of a farm bill for agriculture's future. So, Mr. President, I hope that when tomorrow comes and we try to push a farm bill through quickly--and maybe a telecommunications bill, whatever it might be here--that we do not rush through without giving as much thought to the future of farming in this great country as we should. I think you will find some offers tomorrow, ways that can be, I feel, a good future for agriculture, rather than saying, ``Here is a check every year for the next 7 years, and at the end of that time, you are out on your own.'' My small farmer will not be able to accommodate that. I think we ought to pass a farm bill that gives hope to the farmer and encouragement to young farmers to stay on the farm and not move so quickly on the basis of being under the gun. We have delayed in this Congress, more than any time during my 21 years, right up to the hilt. It is the first time I have not been able to see a farm bill until this late--yesterday afternoon--which we are going to be called upon to vote on tomorrow. Just highlights of the farm bill were in the Record, but I would like an opportunity to read the fine print. I was brought up that ``the devil is in the fine print.'' I want to read the fine print and see what this bill and piece of legislation says. Mr. President, I hope that eventually we have a farm bill that we all can be proud of, which the farming community can rally around, and that we do not leave any particular field--if that is a good word for farming--out hanging by itself, not protected and cared for as we would like it to be for the future. So I am very concerned about the farm bill. I am concerned that we will just get rid of it or push it so we can go out and have Presidential politics in the next few weeks. I think that happens to be very important to several of our colleagues. But I do not believe that the farm States are interested in us doing something hastily, which would not bring them a future as it relates to the community. Farm products and prices are good. So, as I understand it, we have saved about $5 billion that was set aside for the farmers if the prices were projected, as CBO said they were going to be, downward. Instead of that, CBO was wrong on this one. The prices have gone up. There is about $5 billion not expended that was based on the projection of CBO about this time last year. So it just proves that CBO is not right all the time and that we have the ability to make the farm bill substantial and stabilize the market through some of the procedures we have held onto in the past. Secondly, we can give flexibility to the farmer to try new products, without losing their total allotment or set-aside. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to be very careful in their deliberation of the farm bill tomorrow. If it takes another day, so be it. We have waited now a year. We are about a year late in passing the farm bill. Usually, we have a 5-year farm bill. At least, in 1985 and 1990 we did. Most of the farmers were able to operate under that because we gave them some long-term stability. My colleague from South Dakota indicated there might be just an extension with a few changes in the present farm bill in order to give us more time to be sure that our farm bill for the future is correct. That may be something we want to give serious consideration to--a year or two extension of the present farm bill, with some modification as it relates to the deficiency payments. I understand the dilemma. You have a deficiency payment, you are not entitled to it, and you are supposed to pay it back. Now the farmers have used it and do not want to pay it back or cannot pay it back. I understand that. But there was an understanding in the beginning. So my point here--and it may not be very cogent--is that I hope my colleagues will be very careful before they rush pell-mell into trying to get a farm bill out of here tomorrow so we can go home tomorrow night. We ought to stay here and develop a good farm bill that would be in the interest of the future of the farmers. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hol- lings] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 212, the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.