Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. PRESSLER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER. The farm bill is the most important legislation we have before us insofar as my State of South Dakota and insofar as our Nation is concerned. We forget that we are an agricultural Nation. Most of our exports in our Nation are agriculture. In fact, we pay our trade bills through agricultural exports. Many economists have predicted that in the next few years commodity prices will be at an all-time high because of the demand in Asia and elsewhere for our farm products. Therefore, I hope this farm bill will take into account the key role that agriculture plays. Mr. President, we seem to be split between two approaches here, temporarily: The freedom-to-farm approach and the traditional Department of Agriculture subsidy approach. It appears to me we will have to find a compromise between the two. In the long run, this Senator likes the concept of freedom to farm, possibly with a cap, because it may be that new crops will be developed. A farmer might well experiment with a totally new crop. Right now with our bureaucratic approach, the Department of Agriculture basically defines what crops are appropriate. However, I realize legislation is the art of the possible. It appears we will have to reach a compromise. I am very much anxious to be part of that compromise. I look forward to discussing this with my colleagues.

Mr. PRESSLER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it is with a sense of relief and pride that we bring to the Senate floor the conference report on the telecommunications bill. I wish to commend my colleague, Senator Hollings, for his outstanding leadership and bipartisan spirit throughout this debate. This long debate has brought us to the point today where we have a conference report that is very positive. It is procompetitive and deregulatory. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 will get everybody into everybody else's business. The purpose of this bill is to update the 1934 Communications Act. This is the first complete rewrite of the telecommunications law in our country. It is very much needed. I predict that this will be succeeded someday as we get into the wireless age by another act, maybe in 10 or 15 years. But this Telecommunications Act will provide us with a road map into the wireless age and into the next century. Mr. President, what has occurred in our country is that through court decisions and through the 1934 act we have developed an economic apartheid regarding telecommunications, that is, the regional Bell companies have the local telephone service, the long-distance companies have the long-distance service, the cable companies have their section, the broadcast companies have their section. This bill attempts to get everybody into everybody else's business and let in new entrants. For example, at President Clinton's recent White House conference on small business many small business people wrote and said, we want the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to pass because it will allow small business people to get into local telephone service, it will allow small business people to get into different segments of telecommunications. Mr. President, this conference report we bring here today is a vast bill. It covers everything from the rules of entry into local telephone service by other competitors--it deals with long distance, it deals with cable, it deals with broadcast, it deals with the public utilities getting into telecommunications, it deals with burglar alarm issues, it deals with the authority of State and local governments over their rights of way, and it deals with the rules of satellite communication. It will result in many things for consumers. For example, I believe it will accelerate an explosion of new devices, an explosion of new investment. What has happened in our country is that we have forced our regional Bell companies to invest overseas because we limit what they can manufacture. We have limited many of our companies in what they can do in our country. This legislation unleashes them, makes them competitive and is deregulatory in nature. It will do a great deal for consumers. For example, and specifically, it will lower prices on local telephone calls through competition. It will lower prices on long-distance calls through competition. It will lower cable TV rates through competition. It will provide an explosion of new devices, services and inventions.

Mr. PRESSLER. I do yield.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleagues and my colleague from Kentucky. So, Mr. President, this bill is an industrial restructuring. It will be like the Oklahoma land rush because many investors have not had a road map as to what to do. It will mean we will be more competitive internationally, and it will mean many of our companies can form alliances internationally. Some have said, well, will this just allow one or two companies to take everything over? No, it will not. I think it will prove to be the age of the small, nimble business. I believe that we will see small businesses emerging. We have seen AT&T break up into three companies. I think that is going to happen more and more. This bill does not affect our antitrust laws. The antitrust laws stay in place. But this bill will encourage small, nimble companies and entrepreneurs to enter the telecommunications area. It will also bring us to a point where many of our companies that have not been able to get into other areas can do so. For example, the public utilities will be able to get into telecommunications. What does this mean to the average consumer? I have already mentioned I think it will mean lower prices through competition. It also will mean many new devices for senior citizens who might be living alone and want to summon emergency help with some of the wireless technologies that will be available. They can stay in their own homes longer with the security of mind of being able to call for help by pushing a button. For the home, I believe we will see the computer and TV and telephone blended into one source of education, news, and entertainment. For the small town hospital, it will mean telemedicine, new devices and investment, where a large hospital can partner with a small hospital in research. For the small business located in a smaller town, it will mean that a small businessman there will be on an equal footing with a bigger businessman in an urban center in terms of access to research and the ability to partner. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have asked my staff to help find ways that when big universities get a research grant for cancer research, for example, that they use telecommunications to partner with a small university. That will make the research more accurate at lower cost. So there are a number of benefits to consumers, farmers, small business people, and universities. There are many new devices that will come online that we have not even heard of yet. This bill will be like the Oklahoma land rush in terms of investment, inventions and development. We have just begun imagining what the telecommunications revolution will be like. This will be the starting gun. We have kept our companies in bondage. Those companies will break free and there will be a whole group of new small entrepreneurs coming forth to participate in the telecommunications revolution. Another area that it will help our country is jobs. This is the biggest jobs bill ever to pass this Congress. It will result in a creation of thousands of jobs, good jobs, good-paying jobs across our country. We read about layoffs every day, but they are frequently in industries that have grown obsolete. This bill will allow an unleashing of new high-technology jobs in the information age. And it is very important. This bill is a jobs bill without spending any Federal money. It will go down in history as the largest jobs bill in American history. So, Mr. President, I shall, to save time, because I know some of my colleagues wish to speak--I want to pay tribute to both the Republicans and Democrats who have worked on this bipartisan bill, to my colleague, Senator Hollings, to my colleague, Senator Daschle, who is on the floor, and many others on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. This is a bipartisan bill. It has been all the way through the Senate. First of all, this bill has been simmering for many years. We have worked on it first in the Senate and then in the House. There were bipartisan staff meetings. We have brought the White House into the conference discussions. I spoke with President Clinton and Vice President Gore on a number of occasions throughout this process. I thank them for their participation. Mr. Simon of Vice President Gore's staff was a guest speaker at the conference staff's first meeting. We invited him so we could bring this together on a bipartisan basis. This bill is not one that could be partisan. I think it is one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation in the Congress. Mr. President, I shall have additional remarks as time goes on. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes; the understanding of the Senator is correct. The language in the bill designed to prevent further acquisitions by a Bell engaged in alarm monitoring services as of November 30, 1995, is intended to include a prohibition on the acquisition of the underlying customer accounts and assets by a Bell during the 5-year waiting period. This would not prohibit, as is stated in the bill, the so-called swap of accounts on a comparable basis, whereby a Bell which was engaged in alarm monitoring as of November 30, 1995, would be allowed to swap, or exchange, existing customer accounts for a similar number and value of customer accounts with a non-Bell alarm company. I thank the Senator for helping the committee to further clarify the meaning of the legislation in the area of alarm monitoring services.

Mr. PRESSLER. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER. I pay tribute to Senator Stevens of Alaska. He is the father of spectrum auctions. In my opinion, he is a real U.S. Senator. Everybody seems to be leaving the Senate, and they get a 21-gun salute when they leave. Some stay and do the hard work on difficult bills. Ted Stevens is such a man. He and Senator Hollings are examples of people who stay and do public service--honest, hard-working experts on this technical legislation. Some day I will be a professor in a university, I hope, out in western South Dakota. One of my lectures will be on real U.S. Senators--those who are not necessarily media stars, but who do the hard, honest work on the technical things, the real U.S. Senators. Certainly Ted Stevens is one of those, along with Senator Hollings. I believe both are in about their fifth term, and if they announced they were retiring, they would get a 21-gun salute. I thank Ted Stevens, the father of spectrum auctions and one of the originators of this legislation.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I should pay tribute to the staff on both sides who have worked so hard on this. On our side of the aisle there has been Paddy Link, Katie King, Donald McClellan and Earl Comstock. On the Democratic side, Kevin Curtin, John Windhausen, Kevin Joseph and Chris McClean. The committee's legislative counsel, Lloyd Ator. All this staff has done a magnificent job. Let me also mention the dilligent efforts of David Wilson, Mark Buse, Brett Scott, Jeanne Bumpus, Dave Hoppe, Kevin Pritchett, Margaret Cummisky, Tom Zoeller and Cheryl Bruner. I do not know if people know it, but the only days the staff got off were Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and barely Christmas Eve, in drafting this technical legislation and in all the negotiations. This piece of legislation was drafted entirely by Senators and staff. Many times there have been accusations that legislation was drafted by outsiders, but this technical piece of legislation was drafted line by line by Senators and staff. Many times we would have to call a Senator on the weekends and ask about a line or word change. I do not know if people realize how hard these staff people work. I just wanted to pay tribute to them because, to me this technical document is a remarkable achievement. They did it as public servants. One day I went in on a Sunday and bought them some pizza. I said, ``Someday a judge may look down upon you from his bench and say, `Obviously, counsel does not know what he or she is talking about.' And you can look up at the judge and say, `Oh, yes, I do. I wrote that.' '' That is not their motive. But these young people should be heralded. Again, I pay tribute to the staff on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, may I say to the Senator from Mississippi that this legislation would not have happened without him. He has been a valued member of the committee and a valuable friend. He has taken great personal risks. I have seen him in meetings really perform as a leader. I am very proud to have him as a friend. This legislation would not have happened without him. I pay tribute to Senator Lott of Mississippi who made this happen. I thank him very, very much.

Mr. PRESSLER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. PRESSLER. How much time is remaining?

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Washington. I thank him very much for his work on this bill. It would not have happened without him.

Mr. PRESSLER. I join in that praise of Senator Daschle and also Senator Dole. Mr. President, in closing this debate, let me say that we are passing a historic telecommunications bill that will have a sweeping impact. It is prospective, deregulatory, and it will affect every single American. It will have a great international impact. I know that our citizens will benefit greatly. There will be new devices and new technologies, and there will be lower prices. We are entering an era that is going to be like the Oklahoma land rush. There will be an explosion of new telecommunications opportunities for our citizens. I thank all the Senators. I have had the privilege of visiting with all 100 Senators about this legislation. I also pay tribute to Congressman Bliley, Congressman Fields, Congressman Markey, Congressman Dingell, and others, whom I have had a chance, as chairman of the joint House-Senate conference, to become acquainted with. I have come to appreciate the work of a House-Senate conference. I want to pay tribute to our House colleagues who worked so hard on this legislation. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to thank everyone. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. conference report on s. 652, the telecommunications reform bill

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, during this National Appreciation Week for Catholic Schools I would like to take a few moments to recognize the high quality and the hard work of the Catholic School System. Our thanks and praise should go to the Catholic Schools for their special efforts to put children first. In the midst of increased school drop-outs, illiteracy, teenage pregnancy, drug-abuse, youth violence and growing pressures on teenagers and children--Catholic Schools provide their students a safe and healthy environment for learning. These schools give pupils an advantage by helping them develop a solid moral foundation. In today's challenging society, mere words and good intentions are not enough. Catholic Schools' actions demonstrate their commitment to children. With a 99.98 percent graduation rate and 85 percent college matriculation rate, South Dakota Catholic Schools are proving that a solid combination of educational and spiritual guidance is the key to healthy living. In assisting pupils to build better lives, Catholic Schools reaffirm the value of life. Catholic Schools extend the lessons we try to teach children at home: respect and love of our fellow neighbors, respect of the individual, personal discipline, individual responsibility and concern for the larger community. Catholic schools reinforce these family values which are the key to strong communities. We want the best for our families, our communities, and South Dakota. We must work to put the best tools in the hands of the future--our children. The Catholic schools give students the tools to be responsible adults and concerned citizens. I want to thank all the individuals who have contributed to Catholic School Systems' continued success and growth--the teachers, administrators, and of course the parents, many being graduates of Catholic schools themselves. One special week each year is a modest way to pay special tribute and thanks to the Catholic Schools across our country for the service they provide to our communities and our future.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a critically important international aviation matter I have raised in this body on numerous occasions. I refer to the significant opportunity that has presented itself to fully liberalize our aviation relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. I am delighted to inform my colleagues that this morning the United States and Germany agreed on a framework for an open skies agreement. This is a major step in liberalizing aviation relations with one of our most important trading partners. A United States-Germany open skies agreement would produce significant new air service opportunities for all U.S. passenger carriers. Now that the mutually agreed upon structure for a liberalized air service agreement is in place, a round of formal talks has been scheduled for February 22 in Washington to finalize any remaining details. Mr. President, I would like to praise both the Department of Transportation and the State Department for the excellent work they are doing in pursuing this opportunity. Also, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize the outstanding leadership German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann has provided. I appreciate fully that Germany's membership in the European Union creates an added challenge in accomplishing our shared goal of securing an open skies agreement. For that reason, I commend Minister Wissmann for the great political courage he and the German Government have shown in pursuing this initiative. An open skies agreement with Germany is tremendously significant since it would benefit the U.S. economy, our airline industry and consumers. Let me briefly expand on each point. First, both immediately and from a long-term perspective, a United States-Germany open skies agreement would produce significant economic benefits for the United States. Due to the competitiveness of U.S. passenger and cargo carriers, they consistently generate for the United States significant net trade surpluses. I fully expect the same will continue to be true under a fully liberalized aviation regime with Germany. In fact, the performance of our cargo carriers under the liberalized air cargo agreement we signed with Germany in 1993 has been very impressive. Germany also would benefit greatly from such an agreement. To confirm this point, one need only look to the Netherlands which continues to reap enormous economic benefits from the open skies agreement we signed with the Dutch several years ago. Unquestionably, the economic benefits of open skies agreements are a two-way street. I believe a United States-Germany open skies agreement is an excellent long-term economic investment for both countries. Second, an open skies agreement with Germany would create tremendous new international air service opportunities for the U.S. airline industry. As I have previously explained to this body, such an agreement would generate both direct and indirect benefits for all U.S. passenger carriers. In terms of direct benefits, an open skies agreement with Germany would immediately produce new air service opportunities between the United States and Germany. Is there pent-up demand among U.S. passenger carriers to serve Germany? Absolutely. Recently, eight U.S. passenger carriers sought to offer 316 roundtrip flights between the United States and Germany each week during the 1996 summer season. Under the current bilateral aviation agreement, however, U.S. passenger carriers can only offer 276 weekly roundtrip flights to Germany. Under an open skies agreement, there would be no such limit and the number of roundtrip frequencies would be set by market demand, not governments. Equally important, German airports would provide well-situated gateway opportunities for our carriers to serve points throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the booming Asia-Pacific market. Is it realistic to think that German airports will provide key gateways to the rapidly expanding Asia-Pacific market? Absolutely. In fact, Japan Airlines recently announced it intends to initiate new service between Osaka and Frankfurt. Non-stop service is presently available from Frankfurt-Main Airport to cities throughout the Asia-Pacific market including Hong Kong, Seoul, Bangkok and Singapore. Moreover, non-stop service to the Asia-Pacific market also is currently available from Munich Airport. These examples illustrate my point well. With respect to indirect benefits, an open skies agreement with Germany would be an important catalyst for further liberalization of air service opportunities throughout Europe. Since it is such a critical fact, let me reiterate a point I have made in this body before. An open skies agreement with Germany --in combination with liberalized air service agreements we already secured with the Netherlands in 1992 and with nine other European countries last year-- would mean nearly half of all passengers traveling between the United States and Europe would be flying to or from European countries with open skies regimes. Under such a scenario, competition would be our best ally in opening the remaining restrictive air service markets in Europe. Will an open skies agreement with Germany, or any other country for that matter, benefit all U.S. passenger carriers equally? Of course not. A market-oriented framework only guarantees carriers the opportunity to compete. As should be the case, the market will determine which carriers will benefit most under an open skies agreement with Germany. Overall, however, I do predict with confidence that the U.S. aviation industry as a whole will benefit immensely from unrestricted opportunities to serve Germany. Third, undoubtedly consumers in the United States and Germany would be the biggest winners. Due to enhanced service options as well as the assurance of competitive air fares, consumers always benefit most under open skies agreements. In conclusion, I am very pleased that we are well on our way to an open skies agreement with Germany. Such an agreement would be in the best economic interest of the United States and it would create considerable new international air service opportunities for all U.S. passenger carriers. Of great importance to me, consumers would reap significant benefits as well. I hope an open skies agreement with Germany will soon be in hand. Let me add that I know some of my colleagues are frustrated that we have not made more progress liberalizing air service opportunities with several other major trading partners. I share this frustration but do not believe it results from a lack of effort on the part of our negotiators. In fact, our successful talks with the Germans illustrate a critical element which has been lacking in those other negotiations. I refer to the keen vision the Germans have shown in recognizing that the economic benefits of an open skies agreement with the United States are a two-way street. In this regard, I believe my colleagues who are frustrated about the continued reluctance of the British to permit U.S. carriers greater access to London Heathrow Airport should be very pleased by this development with Germany. As I said earlier, competition will be our best ally in expanding air service opportunities with European countries such as the United Kingdom that continue to restrict the access of U.S. carriers. An open skies agreement with Germany will add great force to this market dynamic.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I hope that we can enact farm legislation quickly. I just met with a group of farmers in my State. They expressed to me the need to work with their bankers to make their spring plans for planting. They expressed to me the need to have a farm bill passed for purposes of their planning, so that they could have certainty of their investment. There has been much debate in this Chamber over the years on farm policy. I know that there are currently several approaches that are floating around the Chamber. One is, more or less, some modification of the Freedom to Farm Act, as suggested by Congressman Roberts and others, there is another plan to have a new farm bill and another to continue the present farm bill for a year. I suspect that in this Senate with the need for cloture, it will be hard to get a cleancut decision on any one of those bills. I suspect that we will have to have a compromise of one of those approaches. Let me say that in talking to the farmers from my State--these particular farmers were grain farmers, corn and wheat farmers--they thought the Freedom to Farm Act would be most advantageous to them from what they had heard and from what they knew about it. They felt strongly that they might even like to try some new crops, crops that they do not presently grow now, or do some experimenting with new crops. Under the traditional farm programs where we have commodity programs for this crop and that crop, as defined in legislation, producers are locked in to growing corn or wheat or whatever. They expressed to me support for planting flexibility under the concept of freedom to farm. I am concerned about having a cap on who receives benefits. If we had freedom to farm, a cap on the income levels of farmers who might receive benefits or possibly the size of farm or something other test might be needed. There also has been a debate over the budgetary numbers, and we always have different budgetary numbers. Congressman Roberts argues that his plan would actually save the taxpayers money and lead us into the time when commodity prices might be much higher. The advantage to extending the current farm bill would be that we are in the midst of a planting season, that this is a program that our people have become accustomed to and that they can farm and prosper, to some extent. Underlying all of this is the fact that commodity prices have gone above what the target price trigger is; that is wheat and corn prices are above the level that they receive a subsidy. So farmers are paying back the so-called deficiency payments, and this has caused some hardship because people have used those deficiency payments in their operations. But there is provision for the Secretary of Agriculture to make adjustments where there is hardship. Mr. President, I know that tomorrow we will have a cloture vote--we may have more than one cloture vote--and then we will have some amendments. It might well be that we have an experimental 2-year freedom to farm with some continuation of the deficiency payments program. But above all, we should act, because on too many issues, for one reason or another, Washington has not produced either a budget or a farm bill or, indeed, a telecommunications bill, which I hope we will produce soon also. We have the people's work to do, and I hope we are here and doing it. But I urge that this Chamber come to a conclusion on the farm bill tomorrow or, hopefully, within a week. I will be here to assist in that process, as will my colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I would like to take a few minutes to recognize the achievements of Sinte Gleska University in Rosebud, SD. This week, the university celebrates its 25th anniversary. Sinte Gleska has a dual mission--to prepare South Dakota students for the 21st century and extend the Lakota traditions. Each of these missions is important to the future of our State. The university continually must push ahead to incorporate the latest technology into its curriculum, adapting to the changing needs of a diverse and global economy. At the same time, the university must preserve the Lakota heritage--the language and culture which are unique to our region of the country. It is not an easy task for any institution to simultaneously look forward and back, but Sinte Gleska has done an outstanding job in fulfilling its missions. Each year the university produces graduates who become educators, community workers, and tribal leaders. In fact, the success of native American students at tribal colleges is higher than at other universities. The university's success certainly can be attributed to its emphasis on values. Sinte Gleska's logo names four values which the university strives to instill in students--wisdom, bravery, fortitude, and generosity. The embracement of these values strengthens individual students and binds the community together. Last year, Congress passed legislation giving the Nation's 29 tribal colleges land grant status. This important change put tribal colleges on equal footing with other State universities. Additional efforts in Washington to advance tribal colleges are continuing. I am working with other Senators to secure an Executive Order equalizing the treatment of tribal colleges with other minority colleges and universities. Despite repeated efforts by Congress, the President has not yet signed such an order. I again call upon him to do so immediately. Sinte Gleska students face many new, exciting challenges in the years to come. I have no doubt that the university will help them meet those challenges successfully within the framework of the four values that serve as the foundation for a Sinte Gleska education.