Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Before the Senator yields the floor, will he yield for a question?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. A specific issue that should be addressed in some manner is the highly mobile urban-rural population of Alaska Natives. We see many families coming to Anchorage on a periodic or seasonal basis, sharing common quarters in the city but considering themselves rural residents. Likewise, commercial fishermen will split the year between two or more residences within the state, and do some subsistence fishing at a traditional fish camp for some part of the year near the village of their birth. The proper enumeration of Alaska Natives would benefit from an effort to reconcile these migration patterns with the fixed residency standards used in a number of federal programs and formulas.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague and ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. The State of Alaska can do its part. For example, the State could set up an Alaska advisory committee on the Census. This committee could include representatives of rural area, urban areas, Alaska Natives, the military, and municipal and state government. But I hope Census officials understand that certain agency decisions already being pursued need to be reviewed right now before an advisory committee can be organized. For example, sub-regional hubs like Dillingham are subject only to an update, not a full enumeration under the 2000 Census. Also, reportedly, there are no focus groups for the many and varied Alaska Native voices to be heard; and it is my understanding that groups classified by the federal government as minorities have been provided this opportunity in other states. I urge the Census to develop a public education campaign that will communicate to rural and urban residents the importance of being counted.

Mr. STEVENS. A necessary first step to addressing these issues, is for senior-staff oversight of the Alaska Native Census in Washington, DC. I also urge the staffing and funding of an Alaska office of the Census.

Mr. STEVENS. The situation is complicated by the diverse ad varied social and political institutions set up in localities and at the regional level. Alaska Natives by traditional or necessity have chosen to organize in various ways to address different circumstances. Often federal agencies chose among these groups and are satisfied that they have covered their bases with Alaska Natives. I urge the Census to take a hard look at the expertise and advice of all Native entities, including Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations which by virtue of their day-to-day business responsibilities and duties to shareholders also have a vigorous pool of human resources to assist in public education and input.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I've often noted on this floor that the awesome size of Alaska makes for unique problems in rendering federal services. The 2000 Census count is no exception. The sheer physical separation of neighboring communities makes communication and coordination of planning difficult. The population is dispersed and also remote from the hub cities where resources are often concentrated. Competing forces and policies demand both centralization and decentralization of services.

Mr. STEVENS. I would like to start by referencing a letter received from the Alaska Governor, Tony Knowles, which relates certain Government Accounting Office findings on the 1990 census. Governor Knowles reports that the Alaska Native population was undercounted by 11,000, resulting in an annual loss of federal funding of $162 million over ten years.

Mr. STEVENS. I understand my colleague from New Hampshire, the Manager of this bill, Senator Gregg is interested in making comments on the conduct of the 2000 Census as it regards Alaska Natives.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Fish Oil Heat Act of 1999. This act would provide a tax credit for fishing operations who choose to burn waste fish oil rather than diesel fuel. Fishing operations would earn a tax credit for each Btu of heat produced by this alternative fuel source. This measure is similar to others that are before the Senate in that it encourages businesses to use alternative energy sources at hand rather than relying solely on fossil fuels. This bill would amend section 45 of the Tax Code to include fish oil as a qualified energy producing resource. Fishing operations, whether on shore or at sea are able to use fish oil to keep their working areas warm and to process the fish they harvest. My legislation would expand the current Tax Code to provide an incentive to use alternative energy sources by including heat generated by waste fish oil under section 45. As it stands now, the Tax Code allows tax credits for electricity produced by wind or through a closed loop biomass system. Fishing operations are often isolated from energy grids and they do not rely on the organic biomass systems for energy, so they cannot take advantage of the electricity producing tax credit. Several Senators have introduced bills to expand the current Tax Code to allow for new energy producing tax credits from alternative resources. However, the tax credits are limited to a single form of energy--electricity. My bill would take into account a different form of energy--heat. This provision would give the same amount of tax credit for a single Btu of heat produced as the current Tax Code allows for a kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This will create equity within the tax system and across industry lines. Fishing operations in my State are often isolated and rely on the resources they have at hand. Unlike many of the industries in the contiguous United States, fishing operations in Alaska can't connect to area wide power grids. They rely on fossil fuels to run generators for heat and electricity. The fuel must be transported to the operation, often by barge or small boat. This bill would encourage these isolated fishing operations to collect and use the waste fish oil that they generate to keep their business warm. This would cut down on the amount of fossil fuel being transported to these distant locations, thus reducing the chances of fuel spills. Additionally, by encouraging the fishing operations to burn the waste oil they generate, we can reduce the amount of fish oil going to waste.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to equate the tax treatment of persons occupying what would otherwise be empty seats on private aircraft with the treatment of airline employees flying on a space available basis on regularly scheduled flights. Right now, use of these empty seats is deemed taxable personal income to the employee. I refer to it as the ``empty-seat tax.'' Filling these empty seats--the way airlines do--can be likened to personnel taking offsets on freight flights, and empty seat passengers on auto, trucks, taxis or limousines that are being driven for business. Under current law, airline employees and retirees and their parents and children can fly tax-free on scheduled commercial flights for nonbusiness reasons. Military personnel and their families can hop military flights for nonbusiness reasons without the imposition of tax. Current and former employees of airborne freight or cargo haulers, together with their parents and children, can fly tax-free for nonbusiness reasons on seats that would have otherwise been empty. In addition, no tax is imposed on passengers accompanying employees traveling on business via auto or other nonaircraft transportation. For example, a trucker can take his wife on a haul without facing the imposition of a tax for the seat that she occupies. Yet tax is frequently imposed on employees or ``deemed'' employees flying for nonbusiness reasons when they occupy what would otherwise be unused seats on business flights of noncommercial aircraft. Employers who own or lease these aircraft are compelled by IRS regulations to consider 13 separate factors or steps in determining the incidence and amount of tax to be imposed on their employees. My proposal seeks to deal with this inequity by treating all passengers the same way. Under this provision, the employer would have to demonstrate to the IRS on audit that the flight would have been made in the ordinary course of the employer's business whether or not the person was on the flight. The employer would also have to show that the presence of the person did not cause the employer to incur additional costs for the flight. Personal use of a plane, such as when an executive files with his or her family or guests to a vacation home, would remain fully taxable, just as under current law. In 1984, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that it was ``unacceptable'' to continue ``conditions'' under which ``taxpayers in identical or comparable situations have been treated differently'' because of the ``inequities, confusion and administrative difficulties for business, employees and the internal revenue service resulting from this situation.'' The Joint Committee on Taxation was right then, and the comment continues to be accurate 15 years later. This is not just about creating equity for all passengers. It also goes to our ultimate goal of simplifying the Tax Code for all Americans. Upon passage of this provision, a separate category of taxpayer will be eliminated and employees and employers will be able to better assess the tax implications of travel on aircraft. This is an especially important issue to large States with smaller populations because air travel comprises such a large part of our transportation systems. Instead of getting on a plane to travel across country, many people from rural areas get on a plane to travel within the State. This is also a health care issue. Many people in rural States like mine must take an empty seat on a company-owned airplane because they get sick and need medical treatment that can only be found in larger cities. In the contiguous States, someone can call an ambulance to take a car or bus to a larger metropolitan area to receive medical treatment. There are no buses from Barrow to Fairbanks or Cold Bay to Anchorage. The current Tax Code overlooks this fact of life and my provision will take this into account. We must begin to treat all passengers fairly, regardless of how they get to their final destination.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to equate the tax treatment of persons occupying what would otherwise be empty seats on private aircraft with the treatment of airline employees flying on a space available basis on regularly scheduled flights. Right now, use of these empty seats is deemed taxable personal income to the employee. I refer to it as the ``empty-seat tax.'' Filling these empty seats--the way airlines do--can be likened to personnel taking offsets on freight flights, and empty seat passengers on auto, trucks, taxis or limousines that are being driven for business. Under current law, airline employees and retirees and their parents and children can fly tax-free on scheduled commercial flights for nonbusiness reasons. Military personnel and their families can hop military flights for nonbusiness reasons without the imposition of tax. Current and former employees of airborne freight or cargo haulers, together with their parents and children, can fly tax-free for nonbusiness reasons on seats that would have otherwise been empty. In addition, no tax is imposed on passengers accompanying employees traveling on business via auto or other nonaircraft transportation. For example, a trucker can take his wife on a haul without facing the imposition of a tax for the seat that she occupies. Yet tax is frequently imposed on employees or ``deemed'' employees flying for nonbusiness reasons when they occupy what would otherwise be unused seats on business flights of noncommercial aircraft. Employers who own or lease these aircraft are compelled by IRS regulations to consider 13 separate factors or steps in determining the incidence and amount of tax to be imposed on their employees. My proposal seeks to deal with this inequity by treating all passengers the same way. Under this provision, the employer would have to demonstrate to the IRS on audit that the flight would have been made in the ordinary course of the employer's business whether or not the person was on the flight. The employer would also have to show that the presence of the person did not cause the employer to incur additional costs for the flight. Personal use of a plane, such as when an executive files with his or her family or guests to a vacation home, would remain fully taxable, just as under current law. In 1984, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that it was ``unacceptable'' to continue ``conditions'' under which ``taxpayers in identical or comparable situations have been treated differently'' because of the ``inequities, confusion and administrative difficulties for business, employees and the internal revenue service resulting from this situation.'' The Joint Committee on Taxation was right then, and the comment continues to be accurate 15 years later. This is not just about creating equity for all passengers. It also goes to our ultimate goal of simplifying the Tax Code for all Americans. Upon passage of this provision, a separate category of taxpayer will be eliminated and employees and employers will be able to better assess the tax implications of travel on aircraft. This is an especially important issue to large States with smaller populations because air travel comprises such a large part of our transportation systems. Instead of getting on a plane to travel across country, many people from rural areas get on a plane to travel within the State. This is also a health care issue. Many people in rural States like mine must take an empty seat on a company-owned airplane because they get sick and need medical treatment that can only be found in larger cities. In the contiguous States, someone can call an ambulance to take a car or bus to a larger metropolitan area to receive medical treatment. There are no buses from Barrow to Fairbanks or Cold Bay to Anchorage. The current Tax Code overlooks this fact of life and my provision will take this into account. We must begin to treat all passengers fairly, regardless of how they get to their final destination.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Fish Oil Heat Act of 1999. This act would provide a tax credit for fishing operations who choose to burn waste fish oil rather than diesel fuel. Fishing operations would earn a tax credit for each Btu of heat produced by this alternative fuel source. This measure is similar to others that are before the Senate in that it encourages businesses to use alternative energy sources at hand rather than relying solely on fossil fuels. This bill would amend section 45 of the Tax Code to include fish oil as a qualified energy producing resource. Fishing operations, whether on shore or at sea are able to use fish oil to keep their working areas warm and to process the fish they harvest. My legislation would expand the current Tax Code to provide an incentive to use alternative energy sources by including heat generated by waste fish oil under section 45. As it stands now, the Tax Code allows tax credits for electricity produced by wind or through a closed loop biomass system. Fishing operations are often isolated from energy grids and they do not rely on the organic biomass systems for energy, so they cannot take advantage of the electricity producing tax credit. Several Senators have introduced bills to expand the current Tax Code to allow for new energy producing tax credits from alternative resources. However, the tax credits are limited to a single form of energy--electricity. My bill would take into account a different form of energy--heat. This provision would give the same amount of tax credit for a single Btu of heat produced as the current Tax Code allows for a kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This will create equity within the tax system and across industry lines. Fishing operations in my State are often isolated and rely on the resources they have at hand. Unlike many of the industries in the contiguous United States, fishing operations in Alaska can't connect to area wide power grids. They rely on fossil fuels to run generators for heat and electricity. The fuel must be transported to the operation, often by barge or small boat. This bill would encourage these isolated fishing operations to collect and use the waste fish oil that they generate to keep their business warm. This would cut down on the amount of fossil fuel being transported to these distant locations, thus reducing the chances of fuel spills. Additionally, by encouraging the fishing operations to burn the waste oil they generate, we can reduce the amount of fish oil going to waste.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Natural Disaster Protection and Insurance Act of 1999. This bill will provide the Nation with a way of dealing with major national disasters. As many of my colleagues are aware I have maintained an interest in this area for some time. Over the last decade we have witnessed natural disasters and the devastating effect that they can have on our property, economy and quality of life. Damages from Hurricane Andrew resulted in the insolvency of insurance companies and a lack of confidence within the industry to deal with similar catastrophes in the future. Major hurricane risk is increasing. Some scientists predict that the next decade will bring more favorable conditions for a major hurricane hitting the U.S. than existed in the period leading up the Hurricane Andrew. Over half of the population of the United States resides within the coastal zone (approximately 300 km centered at the coastline). Infrastructure and population along our coast is growing rapidly and so our vulnerability to hurricanes is increasing dramatically. My Home State of Alaska has had at least nine major earthquakes of 7.4 magnitude or more on the Richter scale. Alaska's 1964 Good Friday Earthquake was one of the world's most powerful, registering, a magnitude of 9.2 on the Richter scale. The Alaska quake of 1964 destroyed the economic basis of entire communities. Whole fishing fleets, harbors, and canneries were lost. The shaking caused tidal waves. Petroleum storage tanks ruptured and the contents caught fire. Burning oil ran into the bay and was carried to the waterfront by large waves. These waves of fire destroyed docks, piers, and small-boat harbors. Total property damage was $311 million in 1964 dollars. Experts predict that a quake this size in the lower 48 would kill thousands and cost up to $200 billion. According to Michael J. Armstrong, associate director, mitigation directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency: Earthquakes represent the largest single potential for casualties and damage from a natural hazard facing this country. They represent a national threat, as all but seven States in the U.S. are at some level of risk. In our most recent earthquake disaster, Northridge, (CA), a moderate earthquake centered on the fringe of a major metropolitan area caused an estimated $40 billion in damage. A large magnitude earthquake located under one of several urban regions in the United States could cause thousands of casualties and losses approaching $200 billion. Accordingly, reducing earthquake losses is a matter of national concern--recent findings show a significantly increased potential for damaging earthquake in southern California, and in northern California on the Hayward Fault. Studies also show higher potential earthquakes for the Pacific Northwest and Coastal South Carolina. This is in addition to areas of earthquake risk that have already been identified, such as the New Madrid Fault Zone in the Central U.S. and Wasatch Front in Utah. Before 1989, the United States had never experienced a disaster costing more than $1 billion in insured losses. Since then, we have had nine disasters that have cost more than $1 billion. Today, Senators Inouye, Lott, Bob Graham, Feinstein, Akaka, and I introduce this bill to reduce the cost to the Federal Government of earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. First, the bill will reduce Federal costs by expanding the use and availability of private insurance. Second, the bill will provide incentives to improve State disaster strategic planning. And, third, the bill will create a national, privately funded catastrophic insurance pool to shoulder the risk of very large disasters. Mr. President, the more private insurance individuals buy, the less disaster relief Federal taxpayers must pay. For instance, if this bill had been in place before Hurricane Andrew and California's Northridge Earthquake, I am advised that it could have reduced Federal costs by at least $5 billion. I ask my colleagues to join me and the cosponsors in supporting this bill. Because major natural catastrophes are increasingly common and costly for U.S. citizens, we must be willing to make a commitment now to prepare for these future events in advance.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on the occasion of his 80th birthday this coming 4th of July, I would like to join my Alaskan colleague in the other body in extending warm birthday wishes to Captain Curtis J. Zane, United States Navy Retired. ``Casey'' Zane, as he is affectionately known, is one of that generation of American heroes who rose to defend our nation and our freedom during the darkest days of WWII. He saw action over a wide area of the South Pacific during 1942, 1943 and 1944 including service with the fabled ``Black Cat'' PBY squadron 101. To this day he remembers dear friends who died in that conflict. In mid 1944 through the war's end Casey instructed young pilots in B-24s at Hutchinson Kansas. The balance of his 27 year career in Naval Aviation spanned the early years of the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the transition to the Nuclear Navy. During that time Casey Zane served in the Guam, Tinian and Saipan areas of the post war Pacific. Later he was aboard ships of the fleet including the carrier USS Leyte and then took Command of anti-submarine warfare squadron VP 18. He served at the Command Post CinCLantFleet and as Commanding Officer U.S. Naval Communications Stations, Londonderry Northern Ireland and Thurso Scotland. He did his last tour at the Pentagon in Navy's Bureau of Personnel and retired as a Captain in November 1968. Among the several types of special schooling and training he received, Casey is a graduate of the Army's Command & General Staff College and the Naval War College. He holds the American Defense Service Medal; American Campaign Medal; Air Medal; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal (3 Stars); World War II Victory Medal; National Defense Service Medal (1 Star). After the Navy, Casey and his wife Dorothy started their second careers becoming successful real estate brokers and agents in the Northern Virginia area. Despite his tender age of 80, Casey continues to be an active and productive member of our society. He is a model for those who believe in being ``forever young,'' both in spirit and enthusiasm for living. I wish to extend a hearty ``many happy returns'' to a great American Veteran, Captain Curtis J. ``Casey'' Zane on his upcoming 80th birthday, July 4, 1999. Mr. President, as this Century closes it is indeed fitting that the advent of a National World War II Memorial is close at hand. As our numbers fade slowly and inexorably from our midst, perhaps the best birthday present we can give WWII Veterans like Casey Zane is the knowledge that our nation will never forget their sacrifice.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. We have had to make a lot of tough decisions in this bill while trying to ensure that we meet the needs of many critical programs. I know that Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy and the subcommittee have worked shared to be fair, and they have had to make tough choices.

Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I share the Senators' concerns for the need for sustained and adequate funding.

Mr. STEVENS. I believe that is the case but the House has not yet made a final decision on appropriation levels for the State Department's counter narcotics programs.

Mr. STEVENS. That is the case.

Mr. STEVENS. It does not preclude it, and I will work to ensure that we try to get more funding.

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. I will work on trying to see a higher level of funding. But let me point out that there is a difference between the House and Senate allocation levels and that we will have a lot of reconciling to do.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senators Lott, Hollings, and Dorgan, a bill to ensure that the Federal Government stands behind its pledge to foster true competition in the provision of local telecommunications services. While competition in the local telecommunications sector is growing, new entrants using terrestrial fixed wireless or satellite services lack of the significant advantages of incumbent local exchange carriers when it comes to gaining access to many buildings. This is particularly true when it comes to access to rooftops and to the internal risers and conduits linking the rooftop to the basement, where the access point to the internal phone wiring is usually located. In some instances these wireless local carriers are welcomed by building owners and landlords with open arms; however, more often than not they meet resistance, are rejected, or just plain ignored. I believe the Federal Government should do more to ensure a level playing field for these new entrants to compete on. Our bill is designed to spur competition and to hopefully save taxpayer dollars. We focus in this legislation only upon buildings owned by the Federal Government or where the Federal Government is a lessee. The inspiration of this bill comes from States which have moved to encourage access by competitors. Connecticut and Texas have both enacted measures to promote nondiscriminatory access by telecommunications carriers to rooftops, risers, conduits, utility spaces, and points of entry and demarcation in order to promote the competitive provision of telecommunications and information services. This bill takes a similar approach to that enacted by the States, and requires that nondiscriminatory access be provided to all telecommunications carriers seeking to provide service to federally- owned buildings and buildings in which Federal agencies are tenants. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce, the NTIA, which is the Agency that coordinates telecommunications policy for Federal agencies, is tasked with implementing this requirement. Building owners can easily meet the requirements of this bill. They can either certify that they are already bound to provide nondiscriminatory access under State law or they can commit in writing that they will provide such access as a matter of contract. This bill does not mandate that every building must use the services of these new competitors. What it does say is that the Federal Government should lead by example. This bill does not mandate a takings. Owners and operators can charge a nondiscriminatory fee for the rooftop and conduit space these technologies use to provide local service--which I am encouraged to say is quite small. Owners and operators may impose reasonable requirements to protect the safety of the tenants and the condition of the property. Any damage caused as a result of installing these services will be borne by the telecommunications carrier. The carriers must pay for the entire cost of installing, operating, maintaining, and removing any facilities they provide. The bill will not adversely impact the ability of Federal agencies to obtain office space. Federal agency heads may waive the requirements of this bill if enforcement of the bill would result in the agency being unable to obtain suitable space in a geographic area. The President may also waive the nondiscriminatory access provisions for any building if they are determined to be contrary to the interests of national security. I look forward to working with NTIA, the General Services Administration, and private building owners who have a leasing relationship with the Federal Government to carry out the purpose of this bill. My goal is to ensure that the Federal Government sets a good example. I hope it will become the standard in the private sector. Businesses should demand that building owners provide every opportunity for competitive choice in telecommunications providers. Access to Federal buildings or a building that is housing Federal workers should be encouraged. This bill is a further step in implementing the promise of the Telecommunications Act which Congress enacted. It will help ensure that telecommunications providers can compete fairly on the basis of the cost and quality of the services provided. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senators Lott, Hollings, and Dorgan, a bill to ensure that the Federal Government stands behind its pledge to foster true competition in the provision of local telecommunications services. While competition in the local telecommunications sector is growing, new entrants using terrestrial fixed wireless or satellite services lack of the significant advantages of incumbent local exchange carriers when it comes to gaining access to many buildings. This is particularly true when it comes to access to rooftops and to the internal risers and conduits linking the rooftop to the basement, where the access point to the internal phone wiring is usually located. In some instances these wireless local carriers are welcomed by building owners and landlords with open arms; however, more often than not they meet resistance, are rejected, or just plain ignored. I believe the Federal Government should do more to ensure a level playing field for these new entrants to compete on. Our bill is designed to spur competition and to hopefully save taxpayer dollars. We focus in this legislation only upon buildings owned by the Federal Government or where the Federal Government is a lessee. The inspiration of this bill comes from States which have moved to encourage access by competitors. Connecticut and Texas have both enacted measures to promote nondiscriminatory access by telecommunications carriers to rooftops, risers, conduits, utility spaces, and points of entry and demarcation in order to promote the competitive provision of telecommunications and information services. This bill takes a similar approach to that enacted by the States, and requires that nondiscriminatory access be provided to all telecommunications carriers seeking to provide service to federally- owned buildings and buildings in which Federal agencies are tenants. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce, the NTIA, which is the Agency that coordinates telecommunications policy for Federal agencies, is tasked with implementing this requirement. Building owners can easily meet the requirements of this bill. They can either certify that they are already bound to provide nondiscriminatory access under State law or they can commit in writing that they will provide such access as a matter of contract. This bill does not mandate that every building must use the services of these new competitors. What it does say is that the Federal Government should lead by example. This bill does not mandate a takings. Owners and operators can charge a nondiscriminatory fee for the rooftop and conduit space these technologies use to provide local service--which I am encouraged to say is quite small. Owners and operators may impose reasonable requirements to protect the safety of the tenants and the condition of the property. Any damage caused as a result of installing these services will be borne by the telecommunications carrier. The carriers must pay for the entire cost of installing, operating, maintaining, and removing any facilities they provide. The bill will not adversely impact the ability of Federal agencies to obtain office space. Federal agency heads may waive the requirements of this bill if enforcement of the bill would result in the agency being unable to obtain suitable space in a geographic area. The President may also waive the nondiscriminatory access provisions for any building if they are determined to be contrary to the interests of national security. I look forward to working with NTIA, the General Services Administration, and private building owners who have a leasing relationship with the Federal Government to carry out the purpose of this bill. My goal is to ensure that the Federal Government sets a good example. I hope it will become the standard in the private sector. Businesses should demand that building owners provide every opportunity for competitive choice in telecommunications providers. Access to Federal buildings or a building that is housing Federal workers should be encouraged. This bill is a further step in implementing the promise of the Telecommunications Act which Congress enacted. It will help ensure that telecommunications providers can compete fairly on the basis of the cost and quality of the services provided. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

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