Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I do not want very much. I rise more in being inquisitive here rather than being in opposition to the amendment. I understand what my friend from Nebraska says about competition. You come in the front door with a piece of equipment and you offer it for a certain price and if that is a little too high, there is always somebody else who will knock on the door and sell you something different. Not many people go out in rural areas and drive 5 miles from customer to customer. They like to stay in town where you have houses and lots and there are 15 customers on one block rather than two customers in 15 miles. My rural cable people are very concerned about this particular amendment, and I will tell you why. One, they are not sure what this will do to the small cable operator who would have maybe 250 or 500 customers, maybe 1,000, in a rural area. Will they be able to accommodate? Can they get the accommodation? Will they be able to carry things that will not be unscrambled through the boxes? Of course, our friend who promotes this amendment says everything is protected; there are temporary rules. Temporary rules that go into permanent rules? How soon will that be done? I have a lot of concern for the little people, particularly in rural areas. There must be something special from all these technology groups. They must make the boxes and they want to manufacture them and sell them. I do not blame them. I hate for me to be the vehicle to help them sell their products. I think they ought to be competitive, and if they have a better product, they can sell to the cable companies, if that is what is in it. But I am going to be concerned about my rural area and, somehow, I think if we could have a short study period here, perhaps we could eliminate their fears. Because, if the small rural cable operator cannot make it and then he has a financial problem and he is being pressured by the larger cable companies to buy him out, we find there will be less and less competition in the cable community than there is now out there. And the struggling small cable operator, I think, is not concerned; they are frightened. They are not concerned; they are frightened. When you talk to them about having to borrow money to enlarge to try to keep up with the new technology and with the new rules, all of that, it becomes almost unbearable weight; to hire lawyers, to do all these things, and the expense is just almost unbearable weight. I hope that Senators will look at this and have a study. I do not want a long study. I just want somebody to look at it and to convince the small cable operators that this is a good thing for them, that they will not be hurt, that they will be able to have--not many small communities have Radio Shacks. They may have a Wal-Mart about 15 or 20 miles away they can drive to, but they are not going to have a Radio Shack or Electric Avenue or all of these things right close by. So, Mr. President, I am expressing some frustration as it relates to what we do to the small operator, the small entrepreneur. Let us put his life into it. And he is still struggling to be in competition with the major that is knocking on his door every day saying, ``You cannot make it fellow. Let us take it over.'' I would want the Senator from Maine, if he could--he is a smart individual and is a good word merchant--if there might be some way that we could have a short period of study that would maybe just apply to small cable operators and not major ones. I hear they are going to have a credit card. Just stick it in the box, punch it, and you get your program. Not many out in the rural areas are going to have a box you can put a credit card in, punch it, pull it out, and you will get certain programs. It will be very difficult for them to do. I am here trying to protect the small operator in my rural constituency, and I hope I will not have to oppose this amendment. I hope we can have some sort of a study as it relates to really finding out whether all of these things are possible, all of these things are doable, this competition is going to be out there, and that everything is going to be great. If you can convince my small operators or me, I would be more than willing to be an advocate of this amendment. But I was always brought up believing when in doubt, do not. I am in doubt about what this does to my small cable operators. Mr. President, I hope that we will give serious consideration to a study. I do not want a long one, but at least a period of time to be sure that my small cable operators will not be damaged in their operation and that their financial future will not be jeopardized because of this. To go back to Abraham Lincoln, who said, ``When progress is made somebody gets hurt.'' That is when Abraham Lincoln was defending the railroads against the barge and ferry operators when trying to build a bridge across the Missouri River. The railroad won and it hurt the ferry operators and the barge operators. So Mr. Lincoln said, ``When progress is made somebody gets hurt.'' I am trying to prevent the hurt here. I have not been convinced that this will not hurt my small operators. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator for giving the time.

Mr. FORD. Who controls the time in opposition?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, could the Senator refrain for just a moment? It is all right, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is necessarily absent. [[Page S7850]]

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Payor], are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, first, let me state my support for the amendment being offered concerning aviation security requirements to the substitute to S. 735, the terrorism prevention bill, offered by Senator Hatch. I know that Senator Hatch has worked hard to include an aviation safety issue in the bill, and I appreciate the chance to express my support for those efforts. On December 21, 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. This terrorist act triggered a time consuming, all-out effort to find the people responsible. It also triggered legislation enacted in 1990, to improve security for international and domestic air travelers. Unfortunately, during negotiations over one particular provision, we were unable to agree with the Department of Transportation on ensuring that all international passengers traveling to and from the United States would have the same types of protection. As a result, section 105 of the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 604, required the Administrator to develop a system of protection for U.S. carriers and a similar system for foreign carriers. In using the word ``similar,'' Congress did not intend that there would be enormous disparities in security programs between U.S. and foreign airlines serving the United States. The security protection sought was intended to be as close to the same for all passengers, regardless of who actually provided the service. However, the administration, at the time, insisted that section 105 use the word ``similar'' to give the FAA some discretion to address possible differences between foreign carrier requirements and U.S. carrier requirements. Unfortunately, the regulations issued by the Department and FAA to implement section 105 were not stringent enough. As a result, what we have seen is a wide disparity in how foreign carriers screen passengers and how U.S. carriers screen passengers. Let me give my colleagues an example to show the differences. Let us say that Mr. and Mrs. Jones from Lexington, KY want to go to Germany for a vacation. They decide to take two different carriers. Mr. Jones takes a United States carrier, and Mrs. Jones takes a German carrier. Both leave from Cincinnati. Mr. Jones has to get to the airport at least 2 hours in advance to go through all of the U.S. air carrier security requirements, including security interviews, searches of baggage, x-rays of baggage, and additional security questions at the gate. On average, these types of procedures can take any where from 90 to 120 minutes. Mrs. Jones, however, does not have to go through most if not all of those procedures. Her process time takes on average 20 to 30 minutes. Certainly both Mr. and Mrs. Jones want the highest level of protection reasonably necessary, but why should the procedures be different? They should not, and Senator Hatch is attempting to correct this imbalance. Over the last several years, we have seen numerous terrorist incidents against foreign airlines, while the number against U.S. airlines has dropped. It seems the procedures may be working for our airlines. We now should extend those same types of protection to other airlines that transport U.S. citizens to and from our country. The goal of the legislation was to protect all of our citizens and all of those people traveling to and from our country. The amendment restates and restores that goal. Senator Hatch has addressed the imbalance by requiring the same types of security screens for U.S. airlines and for foreign airlines serving the United States. I support the change and appreciate his willingness to address the issue in a nonaviation bill. Vote on Amendments Nos. 1208 and 1233, En Bloc

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], and the Senator from Washington [Mr. Murray] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. Bradley] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] would each vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Bryan], the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are absent because of attending funeral.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] has asked me to inform his colleagues that he is necessarily absent today in order to attend the funeral of former Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, who represented the State of Wisconsin for 22 years. The funeral is taking place today in the Gesu Chapel at Marquette University where Secretary Aspin taught before his election to Congress. Some 20 current and former Members of the House and Senate are expected to attend the services along with Vice President Gore.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is necessarily absent.