Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was pleased to be able to file this conference report on S. 4, which is called the Line-Item Veto Act. If enacted, I believe it will be the most significant delegation of authority by the Congress to the President since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. What the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Oregon has said is true. It is a major, major, change in the policy of the Congress toward the executive branch. It is a temporary delegation of authority under this bill. This delegation is necessary and appropriate to help reduce the current Federal budget deficit, a deficit that I believe threatens to destroy the future well-being of our great Nation. It is not without a lot of soul searching that I made the change in position that I have made on this bill. Mr. President, 43 Governors around the country have some form of line-item veto authority, including my own Governor in Alaska. As Governor of California, Ronald Reagan used the line-item veto authority to effectively reduce wasteful spending. I have opposed this bill in the past because it did not cover the largest culprits of wasteful spending: entitlements and tax breaks for special interests. Together, they account for hundreds of billions of dollars each year. I opposed this bill because I did not think that we were committed to a balanced budget concept. This bill goes together with the balanced budget amendment and the significant steps that the Congress took in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings procedures. In my judgment, this bill will enable the President to assist in carrying out the original intention of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. At my request, the bill has been expanded and broadened to cover not only appropriations for specific projects but tax breaks and entitlements as well. Today, Congress has the power to cut programs the President proposes that we believe are unnecessary, but unless the President vetoes an entire appropriations bill, he is powerless to single out a specific project he opposes. Likewise, unless he vetoes an entire tax bill, he cannot eliminate an unnecessary tax break designed to benefit only a narrow, special interest. This bill gives the President those powers temporarily. In his annual State of the Union Address nearly 15 years ago, President Reagan came before us and asked us for the same power that Governors have, the power the Governor of Alaska has, and that he enjoyed as the Governor of California. Today, we are giving a President what President Reagan requested, but it is enhanced, Mr. President. It is more than President Reagan requested. It has been a long time coming, and I am pleased and hope that we will fulfill his dream. I want everyone to understand it is much, much, greater than what President Reagan asked for. I have supported this conference report because it includes the core concept that I insisted on when the Senate considered S. 4 a year ago. That was that the line-item authority would apply to all three areas of Federal spending. Until then, as I said before, the proposals for a line-item veto hit only appropriations and left those large culprits, entitlements and target tax breaks, untouched. The conference report gives to the President the specific authority to cancel dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, items of new direct spending, and limited tax benefits in any law that is enacted after the effective date. This means the President will be able to line out specific items in all three areas of Federal spending, whether it be appropriations, entitlements, or limited tax breaks. The cancellation would be effective immediately and the money that is not spent goes to deficit reduction. It is part of the budget process, in my opinion. Money that is saved because of the exercise of the veto in this bill cannot be spent for any other purpose by the President or by Congress. Now, much has been said in the press about the need for the line-item veto to control wasteful spending through the appropriations process. We have heard from the former chair of the Appropriations Committee and the current chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I still have hopes and dreams that I may be chair of the Appropriations Committee. Many people wonder why I have changed my mind at this time. I think that some Members here seem to miss the fact that the discretionary appropriations account only for 35 percent--not even 35 percent, but approximately 35 percent--of Federal spending. The remainder of Federal spending is mandatory, in the form of entitlements, tax breaks, interest on the national debt, items we cannot control. There is no figure available for the amount of revenue that is lost to the Government through these targeted tax breaks, what the conference report now calls limited tax benefits. If the Balanced Budget Act that Congress sent to the President had not been vetoed, by fiscal year 2002 discretionary appropriations would account only for 26 percent of Federal spending, a decrease of 9 percent even without the line-item veto. Let me repeat that: Congress agreed to a bill that the President vetoed that would have reduced the moneys covered by the appropriations process within a 7-year-period by 9 percent. The Congress already vetoed the prospect of an increase to the extent of 9 percent, Mr. President. By contrast, entitlements under the balanced budget bill that we passed and the President vetoed would have grown from 55 percent to 60 percent of Federal spending. The increase would continue. That was an increase of 5 percent in 7 years, with interest on the national debt accounting for the balance of Federal expenditures. To put it another way, Mr. President, in 1980 the Defense Department accounted for 23 percent of Federal spending while the Social Security Administration accounted for 19 percent, and the Department of Health and Human Services 10 percent of total Federal spending. Seventeen years later, the Department of Defense will get 17 percent; Social Security, 25 percent; Health and Human Services, 22 percent. In other words, the Department of Defense continues to go down while Social Security and Health and Human Services continues to go up. Defense spending is all discretionary. It would be subject to the line-item veto under the original concept. The other two agencies that handle primarily entitlement programs would have been immune under the original line item veto concept. This conference report allows the President to cancel new direct spending, which means any provision contained in nonappropriations laws which increase Federal spending above the current baseline. By allowing the President to cancel increases in existing entitlement programs, or the creation of new ones, the conference report provides the opportunity to control the explosive growth in mandatory spending. I basically support this bill because it now will give us a tool to require the President to help us control the growth in nondiscretionary spending. Now, I think that ought to be very clear. In the area of taxes, the conference report does not go as far as I would have liked. But it was the best that we could get the conferees to agree to. Under our agreement, the President could cancel any limited tax benefit in a law under one of two conditions: First, if the law contains a list of specific provisions, identified by the Joint Committee on Taxation as meeting the definition of a limited tax benefit in the conference report before the Senate now, then the President may cancel any provision so identified. Second, if the law does not contain such a list prepared by the Joint Tax Committee, then the President may cancel any provision that meets the definition, in his opinion, of the limited tax benefit contained in this conference report. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, there is no ready list of revenue that has been lost to the Federal Government through targeted tax benefits. However, I believe it continues to run into hundreds of billions of dollars. In the analytical perspectives that accompanied the President's 1997 budget, there is a table on pages 86 and 87 that I call to the Senate's attention. This lists the revenue that will be lost from major tax breaks of the past. The largest is $70 billion in fiscal year 1997 for the exclusion of employer contributions to medical insurance. Over fiscal years 1997 to 2001, that exemption will cost the Government $423 billion. Let me repeat that in case anyone did not get that. In the period of time between 1997 and 2001, in the exemption that is already in one of the tax bills that exempts employer contributions to medical insurance, we will lose revenues of $423 billion. That is 75 percent of the entire discretionary budget that we are working on now in the Appropriations Committee. The smallest tax break listed in the President's addendum is a special alternative tax on small property and casualty insurance companies. That provision will cost the Government, according to the President's statement, $25 million between 1997 and 2001. It is impossible to tell from the table whether any of the provisions listed would in fact meet the definition of limited tax benefits under the conference report. I urge the Senate to remember that. It may well be that, although we are starting toward an attempt to give the President the right to eliminate limited tax breaks, we may have so defined limited tax breaks that they will never be touchable by the veto pen. But I think it illustrates my point that appropriations are not now, nor will they be in the future, totally responsible for the current Federal budget deficit. They are a part of it. They are a part of it, but the major part of it is the entitlement spending and the special tax breaks that account for so much of the problem. In the case of appropriations, the President may cancel any dollar amount identified in an appropriations bill itself, or in the accompanying statement of managers or committee reports. In addition, if an authorizing law has the effect of requiring the expenditure of funds provided in appropriations law for a particular program or project, the President may also cancel the dollar amount specified in the authorization law. I am not sure how many Senators realize that. But this is a very, very broad power we are delegating to the President of the United States. The delegation is carefully structured in order to precisely define the President's authority. In order to increase the President's discretion to cancel dollar amounts, the conferees agreed to allow the President to use the statement of managers or the governing committee report to identify those dollar amounts. However, in order to prevent disagreements between the President and Congress over the dollar amount that can be canceled, the conferees specifically limited the President's authority to the entire dollar amount specified by Congress in the particular document he references-- either the law itself or an accompanying report. In addition, the President is required to cancel the entire dollar amount and may not cancel part of that dollar amount. This limitation was included in order to ensure that the line item veto authority is not used to change policies adopted by the Congress that deals with appropriations or increases in tax benefits or entitlements. The line item authority cannot, for example, be used to reduce the amount appropriated for B-2 bombers so that the number of the bombers has changed. He must delete the entire amount to effect a change in policy. Likewise, the conferees made clear that the cancellation authority does not apply to any condition, limitation, or restriction on the expenditure of funds or activities involving expenditure of funds. This means, for example, that the President cannot cancel a prohibition on the expenditure of funds to implement a particular law or regulation. The statement of managers before the Senate contains a number of specific examples to illustrate the conferees' intent with respect to those items the President may cancel in appropriations bills, and I want to incorporate those in my remarks at the conclusion. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am honored by those comments. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield such time as I need. It will not be very long. I do want to say at the beginning that I am of the generation of the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Oregon, and have taken the positions they have stated in the past. I am here today to explain why I support this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, part II. This hearing will take place on Friday, March 22, 1996 in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Daniel S. Gelber of the Subcommittee staff at 224-9157. special committee on aging

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. President, I, too, have to leave the floor. I thank my colleagues for permitting me to make this statement. (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 1629 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Privilege of the Floor

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today, on behalf of 23 of my colleagues, as well as Governors, attorneys general, State legislators, and mayors across the Nation, I rise to introduce the 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996. The 10th amendment was a promise to the States and to the American people that the Federal Government would be limited, and that the people of the States could, for the most part, govern themselves as they saw fit. Unfortunately, in the last half century, that promise has been broken. The American people have asked us to start honoring that promise again: to return power to State and local governments which are close to and more sensitive to the needs of the people. The 104th Congress and in particular, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, started to shift power out of Washington by returning it to our States and to the American people. Today we continue that process. The 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will return power to the States and to the people by placing safeguards in the legislative process, by restricting the power of Federal agencies and by instructing the Federal courts to enforce the 10th amendment. The act enforces the 10th amendment in five ways: First, the act includes a specific congressional finding that the 10th amendment means what it says: The Federal Government has no powers not delegated by the Constitution, and the States may exercise all powers not withheld by the Constitution; Second, the act states that Federal laws may not interfere with State or local powers unless Congress declares its intent to do so and Congress cites its specific constitutional authority; Third, the act gives Members of the House and Senate the ability to raise a point of order challenging a bill that lacks such a declaration or that cites insufficient constitutional authority. Such a point of order would require a three-fifths majority to be defeated; Fourth, the act requires that Federal agency rules and regulations not interfere with State or local powers without constitutional authority cited by Congress. Agencies must allow States notice and an opportunity to be heard in the rulemaking process; Fifth, the act directs courts to strictly construe Federal laws and regulations that interfere with State powers, with a presumption in favor of State authority and against Federal preemption. Before the bill was even introduced, I received letters of support from many Governors and attorneys general--men and women from across the Nation and from both parties who support our efforts to return power to the States and to the people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters from Governors Allen, Bush, Engler, Leavitt, Merrill, Racicot, Cayetano, and Thompson, and from Attorneys General Bronster, Condon, and Norton be included in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as the Supreme Court has stated, just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. The 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will prevent overstepping by all three branches of the Federal Government, and will focus attention on what State and local officials have been advocating for so long: the need to return power to the States and to the people. Exhibit 1

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today, on behalf of 23 of my colleagues, as well as Governors, attorneys general, State legislators, and mayors across the Nation, I rise to introduce the 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996. The 10th amendment was a promise to the States and to the American people that the Federal Government would be limited, and that the people of the States could, for the most part, govern themselves as they saw fit. Unfortunately, in the last half century, that promise has been broken. The American people have asked us to start honoring that promise again: to return power to State and local governments which are close to and more sensitive to the needs of the people. The 104th Congress and in particular, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, started to shift power out of Washington by returning it to our States and to the American people. Today we continue that process. The 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will return power to the States and to the people by placing safeguards in the legislative process, by restricting the power of Federal agencies and by instructing the Federal courts to enforce the 10th amendment. The act enforces the 10th amendment in five ways: First, the act includes a specific congressional finding that the 10th amendment means what it says: The Federal Government has no powers not delegated by the Constitution, and the States may exercise all powers not withheld by the Constitution; Second, the act states that Federal laws may not interfere with State or local powers unless Congress declares its intent to do so and Congress cites its specific constitutional authority; Third, the act gives Members of the House and Senate the ability to raise a point of order challenging a bill that lacks such a declaration or that cites insufficient constitutional authority. Such a point of order would require a three-fifths majority to be defeated; Fourth, the act requires that Federal agency rules and regulations not interfere with State or local powers without constitutional authority cited by Congress. Agencies must allow States notice and an opportunity to be heard in the rulemaking process; Fifth, the act directs courts to strictly construe Federal laws and regulations that interfere with State powers, with a presumption in favor of State authority and against Federal preemption. Before the bill was even introduced, I received letters of support from many Governors and attorneys general--men and women from across the Nation and from both parties who support our efforts to return power to the States and to the people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters from Governors Allen, Bush, Engler, Leavitt, Merrill, Racicot, Cayetano, and Thompson, and from Attorneys General Bronster, Condon, and Norton be included in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as the Supreme Court has stated, just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. The 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will prevent overstepping by all three branches of the Federal Government, and will focus attention on what State and local officials have been advocating for so long: the need to return power to the States and to the people. Exhibit 1

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Colorado raises important issues regarding the NTF and I can assure him I will work in the conference committee to address this issue. I also take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Colorado for his diligent efforts as the newest member of the Appropriations Committee. international education

Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I strongly support the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Small business is overloaded with unreasonable regulatory requirements and paperwork. We are long overdue in doing something about it. This legislation will help small business in several major ways. First, it provides judicial review of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that agencies will consider the impact of regulations on small businesses, small towns, and nonprofit organizations. The Reg-Flex Act has been on the books for 16 years, but agencies have ignored it because it could not be enforced in court. We are putting an end to that. Second, this legislation helps small business to participate in the federal regulatory process. Third, it provides an opportunity for small businesses to redress arbitrary Government enforcement actions. In addition, Senator Nickles is adding a provision that would allow Congress to review new rules under expedited procedures. This can provide redress for both big and small business, governments, and non- profit organizations. If a rule is unreasonable, Congress will have an opportunity to veto it. Mr. President, small business is critical to the well-being of the country and my home State of Alaska. Over 99 percent of Alaska's businesses are small businesses. They are the largest employers of minorities, women, and youth in Alaska. Alaska boasts a higher percentage of women-owned businesses than any State. Small business creates new jobs, is a crucial source of entrepreneurial innovation, and makes the American dream a reality for countless Americans. Federal bureaucrats must be more sensitive to the devastating impact that overregulation can have on small business. About 65 percent of Alaska's small businesses employ one to four employees. Many could drown unless we stem the rising tide of federal rules and redtape. I congratulate Senator Bond and my other colleagues who have promoted this important legislation. small business review panels

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding the Global Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, part II. This hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 27, 1996, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Daniel S. Gelber of the subcommittee staff at 224-9157.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federal Agency Anti-Lobbying Act, a bill to prevent Federal agencies from using taxpayer funds to lobby Congress or encourage others to do so. Too many times under the administration, Federal officials have used their position in an attempt to foster public support or opposition to pending legislation. Spending taxpayer funds on politically motivated lobbying activities isn't just wasteful, it's wrong. Taxpayers, who come from all walks of life and all ends of the political spectrum, should not be forced to finance lobbying activities on behalf of causes they might oppose, or know nothing about. Especially in this age of fiscal austerity, no one should ever use Federal money to lobby the Federal Government. This bill goes after the most blatant examples--where Federal agencies are producing and spreading propaganda--and encouraging others to lobby on their behalf. The abuses addressed by this bill are already illegal, but the existing law, which employs criminal sanctions, has never been enforced. It has been subject to many different interpretations by the Justice Department, but never one that included enforcement. This bill includes civil sanctions, providing for easier enforcement, and helps clear up any ambiguities. Under this bill, the President, the Vice President, and Senate- confirmed Federal officials are allowed to speak out on the administration's position--but they cannot place pressure on non- governmental organizations. Executive branch officials are allowed to communicate with Congress directly about upcoming bills. But the bill does not allow the administration to continue what has become in essence a grassroots lobbying operation at taxpayer expense. The bill will bring a halt to the outrageous practice of Government agencies providing talking points, briefing books, pamphlets, and other activities undertaken to foster the support or opposition to pending legislation. When the Founding Fathers designed our Government, they adhered strictly to the doctrine of separation of powers. This bill is an attempt to return our Government to their ideal. The executive branch should concern itself with implementing the laws passed by Congress, not with trying to influence the outcome of legislation for their own--or others' special interests. The legislative process is the purview of the legislative branch. We welcome the administration's input, but not their lobbying activities. This bill will protect the taxpayers by ending these practices.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federal Agency Anti-Lobbying Act, a bill to prevent Federal agencies from using taxpayer funds to lobby Congress or encourage others to do so. Too many times under the administration, Federal officials have used their position in an attempt to foster public support or opposition to pending legislation. Spending taxpayer funds on politically motivated lobbying activities isn't just wasteful, it's wrong. Taxpayers, who come from all walks of life and all ends of the political spectrum, should not be forced to finance lobbying activities on behalf of causes they might oppose, or know nothing about. Especially in this age of fiscal austerity, no one should ever use Federal money to lobby the Federal Government. This bill goes after the most blatant examples--where Federal agencies are producing and spreading propaganda--and encouraging others to lobby on their behalf. The abuses addressed by this bill are already illegal, but the existing law, which employs criminal sanctions, has never been enforced. It has been subject to many different interpretations by the Justice Department, but never one that included enforcement. This bill includes civil sanctions, providing for easier enforcement, and helps clear up any ambiguities. Under this bill, the President, the Vice President, and Senate- confirmed Federal officials are allowed to speak out on the administration's position--but they cannot place pressure on non- governmental organizations. Executive branch officials are allowed to communicate with Congress directly about upcoming bills. But the bill does not allow the administration to continue what has become in essence a grassroots lobbying operation at taxpayer expense. The bill will bring a halt to the outrageous practice of Government agencies providing talking points, briefing books, pamphlets, and other activities undertaken to foster the support or opposition to pending legislation. When the Founding Fathers designed our Government, they adhered strictly to the doctrine of separation of powers. This bill is an attempt to return our Government to their ideal. The executive branch should concern itself with implementing the laws passed by Congress, not with trying to influence the outcome of legislation for their own--or others' special interests. The legislative process is the purview of the legislative branch. We welcome the administration's input, but not their lobbying activities. This bill will protect the taxpayers by ending these practices.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service, of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing on March 18, 1996, on ``USPS Reform--Conversations With Customers.'' The hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Pat Raymond, staff director, at 224-2254.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalypso. The Kalypso (vessel number 566349) is a 36-foot recreational vessel owned by Ronald Kent of Anchorage, AK. It was built in Largo, FL, in 1974. The vessel was apparently at one time owned by a non-U.S. citizen, and it is therefore ineligible for documentation under the Jones Act. Mr. Kent intends to use the vessel for charter fishing and sightseeing in Prince William Sound, AK. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalypso. The Kalypso (vessel number 566349) is a 36-foot recreational vessel owned by Ronald Kent of Anchorage, AK. It was built in Largo, FL, in 1974. The vessel was apparently at one time owned by a non-U.S. citizen, and it is therefore ineligible for documentation under the Jones Act. Mr. Kent intends to use the vessel for charter fishing and sightseeing in Prince William Sound, AK. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding the Asset Forfeiture Program--an investigation of the Bicycle Club Casino. This hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 27, 1996, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Harold Damelin of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think this is among one of the most significant days I have been here on the floor of the Senate. The 1934 Communications Act has served this Nation well. It brought us from a country with a fledgling communications system to the age of telecommunications. And now with the advent of digital communications becoming universal, this bill is absolutely necessary to assure the expansion of these industries that depend upon telecommunications. This is not a total deregulation bill. It is not time yet for a total deregulation bill. We are dealing with a bill that lessens regulation. But it is not a re-regulation bill. It begins to bring into our present system the total power of competition, with the approval of the National Government. I think one needs only to look at the definitions to see the scope of this bill as compared to the 1934 act. Look at it: Dialing parity, exchange access, information service, interLATA services, local exchange carriers, network elements, number portability, rural telephone companies, telecommunications, telecommunications carrier. If you look at the scope of the definitions alone, it signifies the changes in our system that are driven by telecommunications. I am particularly pleased to be here with the two leaders of our committee, who have worked so hard--Senator Pressler, as chairman and Senator Hollings, the ranking member and former chairman. We have worked many years now to bring us to this day, where we could literally say that we are ready now to take the telecommunications industry of the United States into the 21st century. In doing so, we have been careful to recognize that there are places in the country that have not been totally served by the existing telephone and information communications system. This bill has extensive universal service concepts. It has specific provisions regarding telecommunications services for health care providers, education providers, education and secondary schools. It is a bill, the scope of which I think every American is going to have, at some time, reason to understand. I am going to present here, soon, a unanimous-consent request to assure that there will be sufficient copies printed so that we can immediately send a copy of this conference report to those people in our individual States that must have this law available as soon as it is signed. I believe you could literally say, without being thought of as improper at all, that this is going to be the telecommunications ``bible.'' This is a bill that sets new parameters. It sets new requirements. It changes the authority of the Federal Communications Commission. It deals with the scope of the authority of the State commissioners, as well as with the regulation of utilities. In some places, it preempts State and local authorities, which is something I am very, very slow to do, but in this instance, I agree that it is necessary. The real reason, I think, for the application of this now relates back to the suggestion I made to the Congress many years ago that we ought to stop having lotteries for the excess capacity on the broadcast spectrum. In days gone by, Mr. President, for $20, you would file an application without having any interest at all in the broadcast system or the telecommunications system, and if there was a spectrum available, there would be a lottery. If you were lucky, you then got the spectrum license, and immediately the world beat a path to your door to get the certificate that you had just won in a lottery. We thought, and I thought, that we ought to auction that available spectrum, which is, after all, something that belongs to the public. I felt it had a substantial chance to bring in revenue. Mr. President, the first estimate we got from the Congressional Budget Office, if memory serves me, was that it would bring in about $250 million if we auctioned these licenses rather than having lotteries. I remember a conversation very well with the Chairman of the FCC, Reed Hunt, where he told me they had taken in $12 billion last year from the auction of spectrum licenses. We now are in the budget process of planning additional amounts to come in from spectrum. As we do so--and there has been discussions here on the floor--we have to keep in mind the equities of the situation and the fact that the telecommunications system is not all going to transition to digital concepts immediately. It is going to take time, and it is going to take the formation of a substantial amount of capital to be able to utilize the powers and privileges that are available to the American business and American public under this bill. I hope everyone realizes it is not going to happen overnight. There may be some substantial challenges in court to some of these provisions. We are not unanimous here, and certainly the industry is not unanimous in terms of every provision in the bill. But I view this bill as an interim measure, Mr. President. I hope that our successors in the Senate, within 10 or 15 years, will move forward and take us into an era where there is even greater impact of competition and of the marketplace, and a reduced need for any Government involvement in this system. I described once to a friend of mine that I believe the current system is a series of playing fields, but they are on different levels. It is like they are on different levels of a very tall building. We have been talking, in the past, about trying to level the playing field. But you could not do it because some were on one floor and some on another, and now we have tried to find a way to literally level the playing field and set down the rules for competition. I do believe that we have succeeded. Even though I still have some reservation as to portions of this bill, as I know others do. We have succeeded. There was a reluctance on the part of many people to present this bill to the Congress. I am glad it has come because I think its time has come. We have spent, those of us on the Commerce Committee now, I think, the last 4 years working on a version of this bill. This means, now, that we have the chance to send to the President an advanced telecommunications and information bill that is generally accepted. There is a general consensus that this is timely and that the provisions are right. Those who have reservations, I hope they will be careful, because I think to force this country back to relying once again on the 1934 Act would be wrong. The Members of the House who worked on this bill, particularly Chairman Bliley, I think deserve substantial credit. And we ought to have credit here for the staff. I hope my staff assistant joins me soon, but Earl Comstock, who has worked with the Commerce Committee as one of the draftsmen on this bill, joins the ranks of a few members of the staff who literally deserve credit for what they have done to bring us together by getting the language that meets our needs and eliminates the controversy among us over particular provisions. I am very pleased to be able to present this bill and be part of the group that presents this bill to the Senate. I have signed the conference report. Not all of us did. I do think it is imperative we act, and I congratulate the leader for being willing to bring this bill forward under these circumstances today. Let me once again thank Senator Pressler for his leadership on our side, for the hard work that he has done. As he pointed out to others, he has been on call and so have the rest of us, literally daily and through the weekends and on holidays as our staff people labor to carry out the instructions that we had given them and to reflect the decisions we made accurately in the text of this bill. I have followed drafting of legislative bills now for a substantial portion of my life, Mr. President. I think this is the finest drafted bill I have been able to participate in. I congratulate the staff members who worked so hard and so long. Let me say to my good friend, the former chairman of the committee, Senator Hollings, I know how hard he worked in the last session, and Senator Pressler and I joined and worked hard with him, trying to get the bill during the period that he was chairman. This is a bipartisan bill. I think, by passing this bill, we may send a signal to the Congress. It is time we stop the fighting among us and start getting down to passing the laws that the Nation needs to provide the new job opportunities for the next century. As Chairman Pressler has said, this is the largest jobs bill that has ever been before the Senate. This has more to do with developing new technologies, implementing new technologies, and stimulating the growth of new business than any bill I have ever been involved with. I am delighted to be able to be here. As a matter of fact--again, I will yield in a moment, but I want to reserve a portion of the time to be able to ask later for agreement to the unanimous consent agreements being framed that will make available immediately an additional 5,000 copies of this as a Senate document so we can distribute this as soon as it is available. I come from a State, Mr. President, one-fifth the size of the United States. It is rural in nature. We have a small population. We have people in our State who are just now getting telephone service as known to the rest of the country for the whole century, almost. Now, what we have assured here, as this program goes forward, is that universal service will be available to rural areas. It will be the state-of-the- art telecommunications system. It will mean that the small schools in rural America will have access to modern technology, and can participate through telecommunications. It means that telemedicine will now come to my State. My State, when I first came here, had no assistance whatever for people in small villages. They had to find their way to Indian hospitals in regional areas. We created a system of clinics. Those clinics are, by and large, operated by young women from the villages who have a high school education and some technical training now. This bill means telecommunications will bring telemedicine in. They will be able to have a direct exposure of patients to doctors miles and miles away. They will be able to get assistance in dealing with mothers who have complications in pregnancies. This bill, above all the things I have dealt with--in particular universal service, eligible telecommunications carriers, and rate integration, opens the whole horizon of telecommunications to the people of this country, and it does so on a fair basis. It has been criticized by some, but the universal service provisions that I mentioned when I first started my comments here, I think are the most important to me. They mean that rural America will come into the 21st century with everyone else as far as telecommunications is concerned. I could not be more happy that the bill is here. I could not be more proud of those who have worked on it and to be able to be part of the group that presents it to the Senate. I urge its early approval.