Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one note on commending our distinguished colleagues. The Senator from Maine, the Senator from West Virginia, and the Senator from Nebraska have joined together on this amendment and given leadership. It should be noted that when we started, easily 4 years ago, the then distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Al Gore, was the one who paraphrased the ``information superhighway.'' Part and parcel of his drive for the information superhighway was just this: education, hospitals, libraries, public entities and public interest groups that we had even expanded in the original treatment some 4 years ago in our Committee of Commerce. Vice President Al Gore has to be credited with this part of the information superhighway. We had at our hearings this year the Secretary of Education, Secretary Riley, come forward and testify on this particular score outlining the various uses and needs of this particular consideration by the public to go ahead and take entities that are on a nonprofit basis--public schools are not for profit, not-for-profit hospitals, libraries and otherwise--and give them consideration, which is just like the universal service fund, to get the communications facilities out into the rural or sparsely settled areas. So I commend Senator Snowe, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Kerrey, but I particularly wanted the record to show that the Vice President of the United States has been the leader on this information superhighway, and particularly the educational, health and library facilities to be afforded these particular services at a reduced rate. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We are trying to work those out. We will work those out if we can get another amendment up and relieve our colleagues here.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is a managers' amendment. We worked it out on both sides and we think this is a good use of time. We have been looking for the opportunity. We cleared it with those Senators. I yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side. I join the Senator from South Dakota. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield sufficient time to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as we know, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, on the Commerce Committee, has been the lead Senator on our side, and the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, on the majority side of the Commerce Committee with respect to the public entities. They did not realize this amendment was coming up and they are on their way to the floor. My friend from Arizona got some quick figures and questioned the figures I had given relative to the air fares. So let me once again state that the USAir fare from National to Charleston round trip is $628. United from Dulles round trip to Charleston is $628. There is a Continental flight at $608 round trip from National. With respect to USAir going down to Miami, we talked about flying 500 miles further and of course the 500 miles coming back, 1,000-mile difference. There is a USAir $658 round trip to National, and if you walk up to the counter, there is a special of $478 for the 10 seats available that the clerk at the counter can give at that reduced rate. Perhaps that is what was the case with respect to the quoted figure of going from Dulles to Charleston, D.C. to Charleston, the $249 fare round [[Page S7973]] trip--that was the 21-day advance, nonrefundable fare under USAir. In my investigation, though, it did prove salutary that I found out the Government fare to fly out from Washington to Charleston is $192, but the Government fare all the way out to Phoenix is $135. So we found out, in the airline industry, who the chairman is of the subcommittee on air travel. I am going to get my office to call and see if I cannot persuade the Senator from Arizona to get me a little bit better consideration on this Government rate. They go 1,000 miles further, I say to the senior Senator, the President pro tempore of the Senate, 1,000 miles further and they get it $47 cheaper than you and me.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right to the point, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has a good amendment. I should make a couple of comments, though, with reference to his references and those of my friend, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who has been very participatory, and a cosponsor of the legislative reform in communications reform. With respect to the general picture here on communications, the Senator from North Dakota is right. We do think this is balanced, that it cannot be balanced any more, that this bill did come down from on high and we are not going to accept any amendments. That is out of the whole cloth. I learned long ago I could not pass a communications bill by itself, that the Democrats could not pass a communications bill by itself and the Republicans could not pass a communications bill by itself. We really have to work this out in a bipartisan fashion. Senator Pressler has given us the necessary leadership and I am committed to working with him in a bipartisan fashion. That maybe I have created an atmosphere where there will be no amendments and we know it, the opposite is the case. We are begging Senators to come, as we begged the Senator from North Dakota to hasten on and present that amendment. A word should be said about the industry and the service that we have because comments have been made about all of these entities involved, and there are 30-some. People should understand. We have the long distance industry, the cable industry, the wireless cable, the regional Bell Operating Companies, the independent telephone companies, the rural telephone companies, newspaper industry, electronic publishing industry, the satellite industry, the disabled groups, the broadcast industry, electric utilities, computer industry, consumer groups, burglar alarm industry, telemessage industry, pay phone industry, directory publishing industry, software industry, manufacturers, retail manufacturers, direct broadcast satellite industry, cellular industry, PCS, States, public service committees, commissions, the cities, the Federal Communications Commission, the Clinton administration, the Department of Justice, the Secretary of Education--all the public entities. Communications is a very splendid thing. With respect to not wanting to open up all the markets, I had a good friend who took a poll with what you call a peer review group, testing thing, what do they call that thing when they get them all together?

Mr. HOLLINGS. A focus group. Thank you, Senator. They had a focus group in Maryland last week and 90 percent of them have never heard of the Contract With America. That is all I heard about since January. In fact, it started in November, I think. But they still had not heard of the contract. You can bet your boots the Senator from Nebraska is right; people are not storming the doors for a communications bill. In fact, with all of these entities calling on the Senators and having to make up their minds, yes or no, the Senators from the South say let that communications bill go, let us not call it up now, let us delay it, we did last year because there are so many tough decisions to be made. But on the information superhighway, Congress and Government are squatting right in the middle of the road and the technology is rushing past it. The information superhighway is there. We have been a hindrance, obstacle to it, and what we are trying in this balanced approach and bipartisan approach is to remove the obstacle of Government, with the view of the Senator from North Dakota that universal service continue. He is right on target. I have been very much concerned having experienced the airline deregulation. So we want to make certain that they can come in and render this service. In that light, our communications system has been the best in the world. Yes. The Bell Operating Companies, because these parties are so competitive--I have not necessarily been in love with either side because it is hard--they are really individually competitive. But after all, AT&T, long distance, has to file tariffs. They are controlled by the public, and operate in the interest of the public convenience and necessity. Every one of the Bell Companies have to respond, not just to the FCC but to the individual public service commissions. They operate on the basis of public convenience and necessity. They have a monopoly, yes, but their profits are controlled, and everything else. If there is anything operating as a large corporate entity in the interest of the public, it has been the Bell Operating Companies. They have been most responsive. We have as a result the finest communications system in the world. Let us maintain it. On universal service, let us extend it. Let us not be in any way doubtful about it because the lead-in word that goes into this particular requirement about another universal service carrier is ``shall.'' interstate services designates more than one common carrier as an essential telecommunications carrier, such carrier shall meet''-- ``shall'' meet. That is the law as we now propose it. But later on we say the State ``may'' check off these things that are highly important. The truth is they ``shall.'' And I hope we can accept the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota and show that we did not think the bill came down from on high. Let us hear from the chairman.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1261 (Purpose: To prevent excessive FCC regulatory activities)

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have to momentarily object, Mr. President.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to table.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me also join in the welcoming of Kelly Johnston as our new Secretary of the Senate. He has done outstanding work for the Senator from Oklahoma, and we are pleased at his appointment. I particularly wanted to emphasize the admiration that we have all had for the job done by Sheila Burke. I had the utmost confidence in the former Secretary, Joe Stewart. He had been around this body 40-some years. I will never forget, recently, as we talked, he was commenting on the outstanding job being done by Sheila Burke. He said she was the most efficient Secretary that we had ever had in there. I am sorry to see her not continue, but I understand that Kelly Johnston will be well able, after a short time, to perform equally well. So I both welcome Mr. Johnston and I lament the loss of Sheila Burke, but she will be continuing to work with us, I am sure. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. We have to read the amendment. Amendment No. 1258 (Purpose: To make minor, technical, and other changes in the reported bill)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Is that cleared with the distinguished Senator?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I urge adoption of the Stevens amendment, as amended by the Pressler amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 1256

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am going to lead on that one myself. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand momentarily my distinguished colleague from Nebraska wants to be heard on the amendment. I would be prepared, at the conclusion of his remarks, to urge adoption of the Pressler amendment to the Stevens amendment and thereupon urge adoption of the Stevens amendment itself. The Senator from Montana, who is a professional auctioneer, should understand that the daddy rabbit of auctioneering is the Senator from Alaska. He has already made $7 billion for us, and this amendment here is going to make up another $7 billion to get us by a budget point of order. But let me, in saying that, acknowledge the hard work and leadership that the Senator from Montana has given. Since his very initiation on the Commerce Committee itself, he has been a leader; he has been interested; he has been contributing; and he has been a tremendous help in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. First, adoption of the Pressler amendment. If there is no further debate, I urge the adoption of the Pressler amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 1257 as amended

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will yield. That is correct. In fact, about 2 hours ago we had it worked out, but there is some further interest on our side that we have yet to clear. The distinguished minority leader has another amendment that he wanted to present at the same time, and I think we can work that out. That is the idea, to temporarily lay it aside and move on.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as the communications bill, S. 652, comes up for consideration, my first urge is one of gratitude. I want to thank the majority leader and minority leader for their leadership in calling up this bill and, of course, I particularly want to thank the chairman of our committee who has been outstanding in working all day long in getting this bill to the floor. Senator Lott on the majority side and Senator Inouye, who was the chairman of our Communications Subcommittee, now the ranking member, have been working around the clock. Of course, particular thanks goes, again, for our staff members. I thank the chairman's staff--Paddy Link, Katie King, and Donald McLellan. On my staff particular gratitude must go to Kevin Curtin, John Windhausen, and Kevin Joseph for all their efforts. We do not extend such thanks casually. This effort started in the fall of 1993, and every Friday morning we would meet with the Bell companies, the regional Bell operating companies. Every Tuesday morning the staffs would meet again with the competing interests of long distance and all the other industry interests. We have continued those meetings right up to this afternoon. We have been working, meeting, reconciling, trying our dead-level best to bring a complicated measure up to the modern age of telecommunications. To this Senator, they have all done an outstanding job. So it is not a casual ``thanks,'' but it is one that is very genuine and sincere. We thank them all for their cooperation and understanding. As this bill is called up, it is good to note and emphasize that the Commerce Committee reported it by a vote of 17 to 2 on March 23. It is a product of months and months of consideration and discussion by the committee and by Senators all involved. In the last Congress, Senators Inouye, Danforth, and I sponsored S. 1822, which was approved at that time by the Commerce Committee by a vote 18 to 2. The committee held 31 hours of testimony, 11 days of hearings, and heard from 86-plus witnesses. In this Congress, the committee on S. 652 has held 3 days of hearings on telecommunications reform, heard from a number of witnesses representing a broad variety of interests. S. 652 achieves a very, very important objective. Most important of all the objectives was the requirement of universal telephone service that would be available and affordable and continued to be outstanding. We have the finest communications services in the world. This Senator went through the experience of airline deregulation. And truth is truth, and facts are facts. Do not come and tell me how airline deregulation is working. All of the airlines have just about gone broke. And I can tell you from paying just to go from Charleston to Washington and Washington to Charleston and back, it is just an inordinate 600 and some odd dollars. What has happened is 85 percent of America is subsidizing some 15 percent for the long haul. They talk about market forces, market forces. We had a good arrangement on the regulated airline service, and we have come full circle now with regulating foreign airlines and KLM taking over Northwest, British Air coming in on USAir, and all the rest being saved while we proudly stand up as politicians blowing hot and hard how wonderful airline deregulation is working. That is hooey. I wanted to make sure that we did not fall in and mess up in this particular one with the wonderful telecommunications service that we have had. This bill promotes competition in the telecommunications market and restores regulatory authority over the industry to the Federal Communications Commission. That administrative entity has also been outstanding in their rendering of decisions and moving forward as best they could with the technological developments. But the competition of the communications and regular telephonic service and long distance evolved into a heck of a monopoly that we could not deregulate. I was on the teams that worked all during the 1970's and the early 1980's. Finally, the Department of Justice had to bust it up. We found out that they were so strong politically and financially that they could cancel out any and everybody. Senator Dole on the majority side, this Senator on the minority side, all during the 1980's tried to get it back to the FCC, and we were blocked. This Senate passed the manufacturing bill to allow the Bell companies to get into manufacturing, passed by a vote of 74, bipartisan, and it was blocked over on the House side. So the difficulty has really been in trying to get it from Judge Greene back into the administrative body where the people's decisions and policies are made by the Congress, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, but blocked by the industry itself time and time again. Let me also mention Judge Greene who has done an outstanding job. I want to make note that it was just announced that Judge Greene will enter senior status this August. I just could not give him enough kudos in the way he has handled this, almost a one-man administrative responsibility for over 10 years now in his deliberate approach to the needs of the public by maintaining at the same time universal service. The basic thrust of this bill is clear. Competition is the best regulator of the marketplace. But until that competition exists, until the markets are opened, monopoly-provided services must not be able to exploit the monopoly power to the consumers' disadvantage. Competitors are ready and willing to enter the new markets as soon as they are opened. Competition is spurred by S. 652's provisions, specifying criteria for entry into the various markets. For example, on a broad scale, cable companies will provide telephone service; telephone companies will offer video services, as pointed out by our distinguished chairman; and telephone companies will, in addition, provide to the consumers the continued universal service; the consumers will be able to purchase local telephone service from several competitors; electric utility companies will offer telecommunications services; the regional Bell operating companies will engage in manufacturing activities. All of these participants will foster competition with each other and create jobs along the way. Of course, long distance will enter the local exchange, and as the local exchange is opened, the regional Bell operating companies will enter into long into the competitive market. We should not attempt to micro- manage the marketplace. Rather, we must set the rules in a way that neutralizes any party's inherent market power so that robust and fair competition can ensue. This is Congress' responsibility. So this bill transfers jurisdiction over the modified final judgment from the courts to the Federal Communications Commission. Judge Greene, as I mentioned, has been overseeing that modified final judgment in an outstanding fashion. He was doing yeoman's work in attempting to ensure that monopolies do not abuse that market power. Now it is time for the Congress to reassert its responsibilities in this area. Let me address some of the specific areas of importance. The need to protect advanced universal service is one fundamental concern of the committee in reporting S. 652. Universal service must be guaranteed, the world's best telephone system must continue to grow and develop, and we must ensure the widest availability of telephone service. Under this bill, all telecommunications carriers must contribute to their universal service fund. A Federal-State joint board will define universal service. This definition will evolve. It is a flexible requirement--a requirement, I should say rather, of flexibility so that the definition will evolve over time as technologies change so that consumers have access to the best possible services. Special provisions in the legislation address universal service in rural areas to guarantee that harm to universal service is avoided there. One of the most contentious issues in this whole discussion has been when the regional Bell operating companies should be allowed to enter the long distance market. Under section VII(C) of the modified final judgment consented to buy all the RBOC's and attested to in the hearings that we have had on this bill, as a group the test has been whether the RBOC's seeking entry into long distance could have a substantial possibility of impeding competition in that long distance market which it seeks to enter. Last year, S. 1822 contained a requirement that the Department of Justice utilize this test in considering any application for the regional Bell operating companies' entry into long distance. In addition, the FCC was to utilize a public interest test for considering any such application. This was an approach to which the regional Bell operating companies agreed during the last Congress. This year, earlier draft provisions, however, set a date certain for entry by the RBOC's into the long distance market. So after all the hearings and much discussion and negotiation, we determined that this self-defeating approach of a calendar ruling there would be no consideration of the competitive circumstances in the marketplace. So S. 652 specifies that the FCC may approve any application to provide long distance if it finds, one, that the RBOC has fully implemented the unbundling features specified in the competitive checklist in the new section 255 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934; two, the RBOC will provide long distance using a separate subsidiary; and, three, application is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Mr. President, when I mentioned that section 255 is a new section under the Communications Act, I should say of 1934. It is good to point out that we have used the original Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for the simple reason that over the 60 plus years we now have a complex body of law, special rulings, interpretations of legal expressions and requirements by the courts. We are now tasked with the job of trying to bring competition to a regulatory structure based on a monopoly and open up the marketplace. I remember in an earlier debate we had this year it was brought out that 60,000 lawyers are registered to practice before the District of Columbia bar, 59,000 of whom are probably members of the federal communications bar. That is why you will see every effort to change every little word and analyze every phrase. So we have really had a difficult task trying to break up the monopoly of the local telephone companies and to open the market so competition could ensue and yet it is the monopoly that has provided us with the universal service we all enjoy. We do not want to penalize or jeopardize in any sense the regional Bell operating companies that have been doing an outstanding job because there is no shortcut there. If you penalize them and put them into an uncompetitive position, then, of course, your rates are bound to go up. So S. 652 is a balanced bill. The public interest test is fundamental to my support for the legislation. In making this public interest evaluation, the FCC is instructed to consult with the Department of Justice which may furnish the Federal Communications Commission with advice on the application using whatever standard it finds appropriate, including antitrust analysis under the Clayton and Sherman Acts and also section VIII(C) under the Modified Final Judgment. Mr. President, this is great leap from the actual and demonstrable competition test originally proposed in S. 1822 from the last Congress. While I would prefer a more active Department of Justice role, and an explicit reference in the statute to the section VIII(C) test, I support the provisions of S. 652 because the FCC will have the benefit of the Department of Justice views prior to making any decision. The Department of Justice may well decide to base its decision on whether there is a substantial possibility that the regional Bell operating company will impede competition through use of its monopoly power or any other standard under the antitrust law. The report accompanying this bill makes it clear. I might emphasize at this particular point the leadership that already this year has been given by the antitrust division, by the Department of Justice and the outstanding director, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Anne Bingaman. She has obtained what we as politicians have been trying over 4 years to get together, and that is about a month ago on national TV there appeared the regional Bell operating company, Ameritech, the long distance company AT&T, the Department of Justice and the Consumer Federation of America, all four entities important to the entire process agreeing on the steps of unbundling, dialing parity, access, interconnection, all of these things all ironed out that in the technological world of communications we have debated back and forth over these many years. They have gotten together. They are going into Grand Rapids and Chicago, and, of course, the RBOC is getting into long distance. And so while we politicians on the floor of the Senate will be debating in the next few days, no doubt it should be mentioned that the Department of Justice, under the leadership of Ms. Anne Bingaman, has already gotten the parties together. I am convinced that their consent decree now before Judge Greene will be affirmed. S. 652 requires that an RBOC must provide long distance using a subsidiary separate from itself to avoid any cross-subsidization between local and long-distance rates. These and other safeguards in the bill should prevent against RBOC abuses in the long-distance market. The committee-approved bill also includes some deregulation rates for cable television. The Democratic proposal at the beginning of the year did not suggest any such deregulation because from 1986 to 1992 cable rates had risen three times faster than the rate of inflation, so that the Congress back in 1992 overwhelmingly imposed rate regulation and new service standards on the cable operators. We passed the 1992 Cable Act largely in response to the complaints from consumers that rates had soared beyond reason and service was poor. The bill actually became law with the bipartisan vote to override President Bush's veto. Now, since the 1992 act was adopted, the cable industry has experienced significant growth. Subscribership is up, stock values in cable companies have risen dramatically, and debt financing by the cable industry rose in 1994 by almost $4 billion over the 1993 levels. But the Consumer Federation of America estimates that $3 billion has been saved for American consumers through the rate regulation that has been put into [[Page S7896]] place. Yet some in the industry maintain that cable regulation produces uncertainty in financial markets and that cable operators will need to be able to respond to new competitors through additional revenues. S. 652, therefore, changes the standard of regulation for the upper tiers of cable programming. It makes no changes in the regulation of the basic tier. Under the bill, a rate for the upper tier cannot be found to be unreasonable unless it substantially exceeds the national average rate for comparable cable programming. This standard will allow cable operators greater regulatory flexibility for the upper tiers. The bill retains the FCC's authority to regulate excessive rates charged to the upper tiers. In addition, the bill changes the definition of effective competition in the 1992 act to allow cable rates to be deregulated as soon as the telephone company begins to offer competing cable services in the franchise area. Once consumers have a choice among entities offering cable service, the need for regulation no longer exists. S. 652 increases the ability of any entity including television networks to own more broadcast stations. Today, the FCC rules allow an entity to own broadcast stations that reach no more than 25 percent of the Nation's population. This limit was imposed out of concern that broadcast stations would be owned by a few individuals, and that concentration would not be beneficial to our local communities or yield the benefits that result from the expression of diverse points of view. S. 652 would increase that level to 35 percent. Any modification in the national ownership cap is important because of localism concerns. Local television stations provide vitally important services in our communities. Because local programming informs our citizens about natural disasters, brings news of local events, and provides other community-building benefits, we cannot afford to undermine this valuable local resource. Earlier drafts of the legislation would have eliminated many of the FCC regulatory limits on the broadcast industry. By contrast, S. 1822, as approved by the Commerce Committee last year, required the FCC to conduct a proceeding to review the desirability of changing these rules. I think the bill with 35 percent permeation is an acceptable compromise between those positions. In addition, the bill repeals a prohibition on cable broadcast crossownership. S. 652 makes no change in the other broadcast ownership rules such as the duopoly rule or the one-in-the-marketplace rule. Rather, the FCC is instructed to review these rules every 2 years, and they can change it upon review. This comprehensive bill strikes a balance between competition and regulation. New markets will be open, competitors will begin to offer services, consumers will be better served by having choices among providers and services. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I myself would have gone further in several areas covered by the legislation, but I have seen that any one sector of the telecommunications industry can stop this bill and checkmate the others, as I have stated before. Telecommunications reform is too important to let this opportunity go by. Finally, Mr. President, it should be emphasized that here is one industry that suffered from deregulation. You cannot approach this problem in S. 652 as we bring it into the technological age without thinking back to 1912 when David Sarnoff was a clerk in Wanamaker's store and the sinking of the Titanic was occurring. They raced him up to the roof of Wanamaker's. He set up his wireless, made radio contact with the sinking ship and contacted rescue vessels, directing not only some of the rescue effort but the names of survivors, working almost 72 hours around the clock. Everyone then got a wireless. There was not any regulation. And by 1924, when Herbert Hoover was the Secretary of Commerce, all of those wireless operators came rushing to the Secretary of Commerce and said, ``For heaven's sake, we have nothing but jamming.'' The radio broadcasters, who have a tremendous interest in this S. 652, went begging to be regulated. So they were in the act of 1927 and brought into that age then with the 1934 act. So those who are now talking about getting rid of the Government and, incidentally, by the way, we can save money by getting rid of the FCC, ought to stop, look and listen. They have to have a sense of history. We can get rid of total deregulation, jamming each other and all that sort of thing, but, after all, the public airways belong to the public, on the one hand, and they need a modicum of administration, on the other hand, for this finest, finest of communications systems in the entire world. Let us not talk about the FCC costing money. They are the entity this year that already by auction has brought in $7 billion to the Federal Government. If you can find any other bureau, commission, administration, department of Government or otherwise that has reaped 7 billion bucks, I would like to find it. We have the money to administer all of these things and bring it into a deregulatory, competitive position, but it has to be done in an orderly fashion, and everyone connected and working on this understands that. So let us not start talking about getting rid of the FCC and act like you are doing something sensible. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, first let me thank, as our chairman has very dutifully done, the distinguished presiding officer, the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott, for the 2 years that we worked on S. 1822. The Senator has been an outstanding leader on S. 652 and his staff Chip Pickering has done exceptional bipartisan work. We never would have gotten this far, this balance that has been emphasized, had it not been for Senator Lott's leadership. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from New Jersey for his attitude and approach to this. What happens, I have two lists in my hands. The list of possible amendments in my left hand are those amendments that are not agreed to, that we could not get consent on from the colleagues and the staffs on all sides. Objections have been heard. We had a list of those things that we thought were peripheral matters like ``Replace subsidiary with affiliate where it appears,'' number 2, ``The FCC may modify the modified final judgment with decrees once they are transferred to the FCC,'' and on down the list. These are things that both sides have agreed to. Unfortunately, other distinguished Members of the Senate, and particularly on our committee of Commerce, have objected to the provision dealing with Bellcore. As I understand it, as the distinguished Senator from New Jersey points out--they are very competitive. Heavens knows, they produced the technology. If you had to measure in percentage of communications, I would say 90 percent of it has been produced in the Senator from New Jersey's home State there at Bellcore. So I am disposed to help in any way I can the Senator from New Jersey. It is not within my power to do so because I have, like I say, in my left hand those amendments that are not agreed to. And the Bellcore amendment would have to be on that particular list. They are not agreed to. There are at least three Senators on the committee who have so notified us. And if any Senator notified me right now on any of the other items in the managers' amendment I would object for them if they could not even be here. That would be my duty as a manager of the bill, because every Senator has to be respected. I have the highest respect for the Senator from New Jersey. I will do everything possible I can to help him with his amendment.