[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11305-S11313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF WILLIAM E. KENNARD, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now go into executive session and proceed to the nomination 
of William E. Kennard of California, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of William E. 
Kennard, of California, to be a member of the Federal Communications 
Commission.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of 
William Kennard as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
  Throughout the confirmation process, I have taken a particular 
interest in universal service. The ruling earlier this year by the FCC 
to structure a universal service fund from a 25-percent Federal 
contribution and a 75-percent State contribution has caused me a lot of 
concern, along with many of my colleagues from rural States.
  I do not believe that this ruling is consistent with the intent of 
Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Such a rule could have 
severe impacts on Montana and other rural States that are asked to make 
this contribution.
  In the process of determining the attitudes of the nominees, I have 
heard statements about a reliance on the historical split between 
States and the Federal Government in the structure of this fund. 
However, in the case of Montana, which has not even had a universal 
service fund until it was enacted this year by the State legislature, 
we are on new territory, and history may be different from present 
circumstances.

[[Page S11306]]

  In rural States like Montana,the universal service fund is absolutely 
critical to the provision of basic telephone service. It should further 
be noted that maintaining the universal availability of telephone 
service at reasonable and affordable prices is not just a vague goal 
but an explicit statutory mandate.
  I ask how well has the FCC done in fulfilling this mandate? To answer 
this question, it is helpful to look at the record of the hearings 
which the Commerce Committee held in September 1993, on the nomination 
of Reed Hundt to be FCC Chairman.
  In response to a question which I posed on universal service, Mr. 
Hundt said--

       Universal service is, and should be, one of the paramount 
     goals of the Government and specifically the FCC.

  Mr. Hundt also characterized the appropriate role of the FCC in 
response to another question. He said the FCC's mandate was,

       [T]o implement the will of Congress, as expressed in 
     legislation, [and that] to that end, the Commission's 
     policymaking activities should take into account incentives 
     and disincentives for private investment in the network, and 
     the creation and offering of service.

  Mr. President, after reviewing the activities of the FCC during the 
past 4 years, it is clear that Reed Hundt has been unable to fully 
carry out the promises which he made to this committee and to the 
Senate during his confirmation. I should also note that Mr. Kennard 
served as general counsel to the FCC during this time and bears 
substantial responsibility for its record.
  It should be clear from the record that by focusing on the expansion 
of the definition of universal service to include broad-ranging social 
programs, the FCC's progress toward maintaining universal service has 
been delayed. While such goals as providing internet access to schools 
and libraries may be laudable, they were never meant to be part of 
universal service as it has traditionally been known. Indeed, a huge 
additional burden has been placed on rural States such as mine, in 
Montana, in meeting these newfound definitions. The FCC has addressed 
those goals in a fashion which many believe is detrimental to 
maintaining universal telephone service--which is so important to me 
and other Members of rural States.
  As I have noted before, there are some 55 million Americans who live 
outside metropolitan areas today--which is about the same as the total 
population of Great Britain, Italy, or France. The largest single 
element of the U.S. population today is Americans aged 50 or older--a 
group that represents almost 40 percent of the total population. 
Ensuring that these people have access to affordable, quality telephone 
service is especially important to all of us.
  Coming from Montana, I have an appreciation for the unique character 
and the difficulties of rural life. In a State with 148,000 square 
miles and only about 850,000 people, we do not always have the luxury 
of face-to-face communication that people have in highly populated 
areas, nor do we have the ability to shoulder the disproportionate 
burden that would be placed on us by taking on 75 percent of the cost 
of universal service. It is the people of States like mine for whom 
universal service is intended, and I do not want to see it dismantled.
  In view of all of these facts, I must oppose Mr. Kennard's 
nomination.
  Mr. President, what we are faced with in Montana in this particular 
area is pointed up by an article that was in the Bozeman Daily 
Chronicle by Oliver Staley. I ask unanimous consent that article be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Some Small School Districts Find Good Internet Access too Expensive

                           (By Oliver Staley)

       Harrison, MT.--The Internet may be the wave of the future, 
     but in the Harrison School District, it's a wave Net surfers 
     can't ride very far.
       The tiny, 129-student school district has just one computer 
     linked to the Internet. They have access for only 100 hours a 
     month.
       Superintendent John McGee wants to increase the students' 
     access to the Net, and envisions four terminals providing 200 
     hours of access a month.
       But if the school is linked to the Internet through its 
     current Three Rivers Telephone Cooperative's service, it 
     would cost the district $3,360 a year.
       ``We couldn't justify spending that,'' McGee said.
       Paying $3,360 is bad enough. Making Harrison's situation 
     even more frustrating is that 20 miles to the north, Three 
     Forks School District pays $540 a year to connect its three 
     terminals to the Internet.
       The Manhattan School District pays $229 a year, and the 
     Bozeman School District, which has hundreds of computers 
     hooked up in 11 schools, pays just $2,500 a year.
       Those differences are a result of the Intricate world of 
     telecommunications, which makes it harder and more expensive 
     for small communities to connect to the Net.
       Ultimately, McGee said, the cost is paid by the students 
     and faculty who are denied access to a technology that is 
     reshaping the world.
       ``They're completely missing out on the big picture of 
     what's going on out there,'' he said. ``They're missing out 
     on all sorts of levels.''
       The high cost of supplying Harrison with Internet service 
     stems from basic supply-and-demand economics, aggravated by 
     Montana's vast distances.
       For the nonprofit Three Rivers Telephone Cooperative to 
     provide Harrison with Internet service, the cooperative must 
     use US West's telephone lines.
       Whenever a subscriber in Harrison or Ennis dials up the 
     Internet, their signal travels along Three Rivers' fiber 
     optic cables to Twin Bridges. From there, it joins the US 
     West system running from Dillion to Butte, and continues to 
     Great Falls. At Great Falls, the signal rejoins the Three 
     Rivers network and travels to the cooperative's headquarters 
     in Fairfield.
       Using US West's lines costs Three Rivers about $1,600 a 
     month, said Three Rivers General Manager Art Isley, with the 
     fee based on the distance the signal travels. That cost 
     simply gets passed on, he said.
       ``It's costing us an arm and a leg to get that (Internet 
     service) out,'' he said. ``I don't get any breaks.''
       Communities that are served by US West such as Three Forks, 
     Manhattan and Bozeman don't have to pay the cost of leasing 
     the space on the system, Isley said.
       And because Harrison is so small, other Internet providers 
     lack the incentive to compete with Three Rivers.
       ``If you have competition, the market is going to drive 
     prices down,'' McGee said.
       Larger communities have other telecommunications advantages 
     as well. Bozeman's schools are linked to the Internet through 
     Montana State University, which has its own access to the 
     Net. While the university system's Internet structure is 
     expected to change in the next few years resulting in 
     additional costs for Bozeman's schools the low cost of 
     service has allowed Bozeman's schools to bring the Internet 
     to thousands of students.
       ``We're getting an incredible deal right now,'' said 
     Christine Day, the district's technology services 
     coordinator.
       Some small schools, however, have found ways to avoid 
     paying huge fees for Internet service.
       The Whitehall School District receives its Internet service 
     free of charge from the Helena-based Internections. In 
     return, the school district houses Internections' equipment, 
     which allows it to provide local Internet service to the rest 
     of Whitehall.
       ``It's great for both of us,'' said Whitehall 
     Superintendent Paul Stemick. ``Otherwise, they would have to 
     pay to rent space in town.''
       And after Whitehall's schools are rewired, a project that 
     was to be completed Saturday, every classroom will be linked 
     to the Internet. Stemick hopes to have 60 computers on-line 
     by Christmas.
       The Ennis School District is using a different approach.
       The district pays $2,000 a year for Vision Net, an 
     interactive television system that links Ennis to 48 other 
     Montana schools and universities. The program is designed to 
     expand learning opportunities for both and adults and 
     students, and because of Vision Net's broad bandwidth, it can 
     also carry the Internet.
       Currently, the Ennis district has 13 computers linked to 
     the Internet for its approximately 415 students, business 
     manager Sandra Lane said. That will be expanded, Lane said, 
     when the district's Vision Net studio is up and running early 
     next year and a higher-capacity link is established.
       Many Montana schools also plan on taking advantage of the 
     ``E-rate,'' a $2.25 billion federal subsidy for rural schools 
     created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
       Under the E-rate officially known as the Federal 
     Communications Commissions' Universal Service Order schools 
     and libraries can receive a discount on their Internet 
     service, file servers and wiring.
       The discount is pegged to the percentage of students in a 
     school eligible for free or reduced price lunches, and it can 
     range from 25 percent to 90 percent off the cost of providing 
     students with the Internet.
       The funds come from a tax on all telecommunications 
     providers, from AT&T to local pager companies.
       In order to apply, schools must develop a comprehensive 
     technology plan, in order to demonstrate that the funds will 
     be used in a productive manner.
       While some schools see the E-rate as a huge benefit Big 
     Timber is planning on a 60 percent discount, while Ennis is 
     looking at

[[Page S11307]]

     50 percent other schools are left out in the cold.
       The Ophir School in Big Sky, for example, doesn't have 
     enough low-income children to qualify, said school Principal 
     Pat Ingraham. On the other hand, Ophir doesn't have the 
     $20,000 to expand its Internet capabilities beyond the one 
     computer that is currently linked, Ingraham said.
       ``There seems to be a hitch every time we go for funding,'' 
     she said. ``It seems it's not there for you, Big Sky.''
       Isley at Three Rivers has no doubt that the E-rate will 
     improve the situation for schools like Harrison, but fears 
     other schools will take advantage of the program.
       ``My personal opinion is that this is going to be the 
     biggest boondoggle that's ever going to hit this country,'' 
     he said. ``There's a pot of money $2.25 billion big. There's 
     going to be a lot of shysters coming out of the woodwork.''
       Whether it's ripe for exploitation or not, the E-rate was 
     created to help erase the discrepancies between a school like 
     Harrison and schools in California's Silicon Valley. Like 
     many Montana educators, its drafters felt that without access 
     to computers, today's students cannot survive in tomorrow's 
     world.
       ``If we don't give children the skills to learn technology, 
     they're not going to have skills for the work market,'' 
     Bozeman's Day said. ``They're going to be more and more in 
     need of those skills in the next five, 10 years.''

  Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana expresses a good 
number of concerns about the universal service funding issue. I, too, 
am concerned about the issue of universal service. The discussion this 
morning is on the nomination of Mr. Kennard to be Chairman of the FCC. 
If Mr. Kennard is confirmed, and I expect he will be, by the vote of 
the Senate today, that means four of the five Federal Communication 
Commissioners will be new Commissioners. Four of the five will be new, 
taking office at a time when we face some of the most critical 
decisions we have ever faced at the FCC.
  The Senator from Montana made the point that the universal service 
fund is critical. It certainly is critical to the area that I come 
from. I come from a town of 300 people, from a county the size of the 
State of Rhode Island, that has 3,000 people in the entire county. Now, 
why is the universal fund issue critical? Because if you don't provide 
universal fund support for telephone service in the high-cost areas, it 
will mean many areas of this country will not have good telephone 
service, because a whole lot of folks won't be able to afford it.
  The FCC estimated that in my hometown it would cost $200 a month to 
build and maintain a new network to provide telephone service--$200 a 
month--but of course in a very large city that might be $10 a month. So 
what we have done in this country historically is to have universal 
service support for the high-cost areas so that they have comparable 
telephone service at affordable rates. That is what the whole premise 
of universal service has been about.
  Now, the reason I worry so much is the Federal Communications 
Commission has been heading in the wrong direction, headed toward a 
goal of having much higher telephone costs in rural areas of the 
country.
  I will support Mr. Kennard's nomination today, but I want everyone to 
be clear that if this new board, if the new Commission cannot properly 
define universal service fund support, cannot read the law as we wrote 
it--and I helped write it--that said comparable service at an 
affordable price--and that is not unusual English--if they can't 
understand that and can't read it correctly and can't define universal 
service support sufficient so we don't have substantial telephone rate 
increases across this country, then we ought to abolish the FCC. We 
don't need the FCC and all of its staff. We don't need them if they 
can't make the right decision.
  I will vote for this nomination, but I also want people to understand 
these critical decisions must be made appropriately to provide proper 
universal service support that comports with the requirements of the 
law--comparable service at an affordable price--yes, even in the 
smallest towns in the most rural counties of this country, because that 
is what the Congress directed the universal service fund support to be 
in the years ahead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for his involvement as a very active member of the Commerce 
Committee and his participation now in this and a variety of other 
issues. The Senator from North Dakota and I occasionally disagree, but 
those disagreements are not disagreeable, and he is one of the most 
well-informed members of the committee. I note the presence of Senator 
Hollings, the distinguished ranking member on the floor, who I know has 
a statement to make, as well.
  First, Mr. President, I recommend that the Senate vote to confirm the 
nomination of William E. Kennard as a member of the Federal 
Communications Commission where he will serve as the Commission's new 
Chairman. The fact that the full Senate is debating and casting 
individual votes on Mr. Kennard's confirmation underscores the 
importance to the American people of the decisions the Senate is making 
about the FCC.
  For the first time since it was established in 1934, the Senate is 
filling four vacancies on this five-member Commission. Last night the 
Senate confirmed the nominations of three of these new members: Michael 
K. Powell, an antitrust lawyer; Harold Furchgott-Roth, an economist; 
and Gloria Tristani, a state commissioner. The combination of 
expertises they bring to the FCC will make an invaluable contribution 
to the quality of its decisions.

  If confirmed, Mr. Kennard, the FCC's current general counsel, would 
add the expertise of a seasoned communications lawyer. In addition, Mr. 
Kennard would be the FCC's first African-American Chairman, and for the 
first time in its history a majority of the Commission's members would 
be of African-American or Hispanic descent. This reflects both the 
inclusiveness we aspire to as a society, and the freshness we hope a 
reconstituted FCC will pursue in its regulatory approach.
  But this is not just an historic moment for the FCC; it is also a 
vitally important moment for consumers. The FCC's five Commissioners 
control the regulatory destiny of industries that account for fully 
one-sixth of our gross national product. For the consumer, this means 
that the Commission's decisions will affect the price of a local or a 
long-distance telephone call, how much we pay each month for cable 
service, how many choices we will have in paging and cellphone service, 
and even what we see on TV and hear on radio.
  These would be daunting enough responsibilities for the new 
Commissioners in and of themselves. But last year the Congress expanded 
the FCC's duties exponentially by enacting the 1996 Telecommunications 
Act. The act aims to introduce a heretofore-unattainable level of 
competition and deregulation into the provision of all kinds of voice, 
video, and data services.
  It would be nice to say that all this is working well. But the truth, 
Mr. President, is that it isn't. The lower rates, better service, and 
increased competition called for by the Act have translated, at least 
in the short run, into higher rates, increased concentration among big 
industry players, and reams of new regulations. In addition, recent 
court cases have all but gutted the FCC's plans for making local 
telephone service competitive.
  In my view, the act has been an abject failure in attaining any 
benefits whatsoever for the average consumer, and it's difficult to see 
any improvement in the offing. That is absolutely unacceptable. And 
that, Mr. President, is why we are casting individual votes on Mr. 
Kennard's nomination this morning. As the FCC's general counsel, he is 
unavoidably linked with FCC's failed and flawed implementation of the 
act to date. We are therefore anxious that Mr. Kennard understand the 
dissatisfaction with what is occurring and that he be responsive and 
flexible in addressing our concerns. The FCC is, after all, an agency 
created by the Congress. Its primary responsibility is to implement and 
enforce the will of Congress, pursuant to authority delegated to it by 
Congress. Some of our members are very concerned that Mr. Kennard may 
be so tied to the FCC's current policies that he will be not fully 
responsive to congressional concerns about them.
  These concerns have led to sequential questions by myself, Senator 
Burns,

[[Page S11308]]

Senator Stevens, Senator Brownback, Senator Helms, and others about Mr. 
Kennard's ability and willingness to reexamine and change policies of 
the FCC that we believe misinterpret the law and harm consumers. These 
concerns are only heightened by the very public way in which the 
administration has sought to involve itself in the deliberations of 
this supposedly independent regulatory agency.
  Obviously, I do not agree with Mr. Kennard on many issues. For 
example, he believes that the FCC can and should tell broadcasters what 
kinds of programming they must present. I vehemently disagree. He 
believes that the FCC's current policies on telephone competition are 
working. I vehemently disagree. I am also troubled by the fact that, 
when asked, he was unable to specify any particular issue with which he 
might have disagreed with the FCC's current chairman--despite the fact 
that the FCC had disposed of thousands and thousands of issues during 
his tenure as its general counsel. That did not bode will for the 
independence of his approach to governing the FCC.
  Mr. President, I am going to vote in favor of his confirmation, and I 
will tell you why. Mr. Kennard has an unblemished reputation for 
intelligence and integrity, and I find him to be an individual with 
whom I believe we can work in an atmosphere of mutual candor and 
respect.
  In the final analysis, Mr. President, I believe it is neither 
reasonable nor necessary that all members of the Senate endorse the 
current policies of the FCC or Mr. Kennard's personal policy 
predilections. It is much more important that the Senate understand how 
difficult the issues are that Mr. Kennard is going to be called upon to 
decide, and that we undertake to work closely and collaboratively with 
him in resolving them. I give you my promise, as chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, to exercise the committee's oversight 
responsibility exactingly and continuously, and I know the members of 
the committee are as committed to this task as I am.
  On this basis, Mr. President, I am pleased to support the 
confirmation of William E. Kennard as Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield such time as is necessary to the 
distinguished Senator from California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the 
committee and I also thank the chairman of the committee.
  I was very pleased to hear the chairman's statement that it is his 
belief that Mr. Kennard possesses an ``unblemished reputation'' for 
candor and integrity. I appreciate his comments and believe they have 
been well stated.
  As California's Senator, I am particularly pleased to rise in support 
of the President's nomination.
  Bill Kennard has very strong California roots. He was born in Los 
Angeles. He graduated with honors from my alma mater, Stanford 
University. He then attended Yale Law School.
  Bill Kennard's family also has strong California roots. His father, 
Robert Kennard, now deceased, was a very well-regarded architect in the 
Los Angeles area. He formed the largest continuously operating African-
American architectural practice in the western United States and also 
served as the founding member of the National Organization of Minority 
Architects.
  His mother, I want this body to know, is also a distinguished person. 
She grew up in the great Central Valley of California. She received a 
master's degree in bilingual education and has worked in the field of 
bilingual education in Los Angeles.
  The President's nomination is, in fact, a historic one. Following his 
confirmation, he will be the first African-American to serve as FCC 
Commissioner in the history of the United States. He is well prepared 
for the challenges ahead of him. He has a broad telecommunications 
background in both the public and the private sector and an impressive 
range of experiences that, I believe, will serve him well and serve the 
Nation well.
  Since 1993, as the chairman mentioned, Bill Kennard has served as FCC 
general counsel. He has represented the Commission before the courts 
and served as its principal legal advisor. In that capacity, he has 
defended the commission well.
  Bill Kennard was a partner in the Washington law firm of Verner, 
Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand, specializing in communications 
law. He has served as assistant general counsel of the National 
Association of Broadcasters.
  I also know that he has been involved in the needs of his community 
here in Washington and has served on the board of a nonprofit homeless 
shelter.
  With this committee's leadership, the Congress was able to pass the 
most comprehensive communications legislation since passage of the 1934 
Communications Act, upgrading our telecommunications law to address 
modern telecommunications needs.
  The 1996 act sought to develop a regulatory framework that provides 
the benefit of competition for consumers, spurs the development of new 
products and reduces costs, while it also removes unnecessary 
regulatory barriers.
  Congress has set the stage for a new telecommunications era, and we 
need to ensure that that law is implemented properly and that it works 
fairly for consumers. I think that, as FCC general counsel, Bill 
Kennard has the experience to help see these reforms through.
  I happen to believe he will be an independent and a strong voice, yet 
responsive to the concerns that the distinguished chairman has pointed 
out. I am pleased to add a California voice and to support this 
distinguished nominee.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of the bill.
  Mr. President, we have been working with Senator McCain and Senator 
Hollings and their staffs and, of course, William Kennard. I met with 
him for some time in my office. Mr. Kennard is the nominee to be 
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, as you know. Now, 
all of us--and I think it is fair to include Mr. Kennard--want to 
rectify an awkward and unjustifiable situation that has developed in 
the Federal Communications Commission process of awarding broadcast 
licenses. Specifically, in this case, a well-known and highly respected 
and popular broadcasting executive in Asheville, NC, was curiously 
disqualified in his application for an FM frequency in the Asheville 
area. There was a lot of resentment in the public about that.
  What happened, Mr. President, was that this gentleman, Zeb Lee, of 
Asheville, and 12 other groups, had applied for the FM frequency when 
it became available in 1987. The Commission's comparative hearing 
process, in effect at that time, was used to determine which group 
would be the most qualified for the frequency.
  Zeb Lee had run station WSKY-AM in Asheville for 46 years, during 
which time he did the play-by-play for about 4,000 high school football 
games, and by sponsoring such public interest things as an Elvis 
Presley concert in 1955, which I would not have listened to, but most 
people did want to hear it. But he made so many innovations in 
broadcasting that he became just a household word, in terms of his 
name. He is enormously popular to this day.
  Well, Mr. President, in 1989, a 20-day hearing was held during which 
an FCC administrative law judge disqualified most of the other 
applicants because the judge ruled that they either lacked experience, 
didn't have transmitter facilities ready to go, or were basing their 
application purely on provisions favoring minorities--women and others. 
The judge found for the Lees, ruling in their favor on May 4, 1990. The 
judge found that the Lees were the most qualified, citing their 
stewardship of the AM station and Mr. Lee's commitment of involvement 
in the day-to-day management of the station. The FCC then favored 
active involvement by owners in the day-to-day operations

[[Page S11309]]

of a radio station, as opposed to passive investors who would not be 
active managers. I think that is the way to go, as a former 
broadcaster.
  In any case, Mr. President, in addition to the first ruling in favor 
of Zeb Lee and his people, on April 8, 1991, the FCC Review Board 
affirmed the administrative law judge's ruling. And then on February 
28, 1992, the FCC released its first decision favoring the Lees and a 
second decision also favoring the Zeb Lee application was released, I 
believe, on November 23, 1992.
  So on June 14, 1993, the FCC released a third ruling favoring the 
Lees.
  Well, Mr. President, you might say, ``Why is Helms going to speak 
today talking about this nominee and this situation in Asheville, 
NC.?''
  The FCC granted a construction permit to the Lees on April 30, 1993, 
following which they began the construction process. So it went through 
a series of regulatory twist and turns in which the Lees complied with 
every order and requirement issued by the FCC and the administrative 
law judge, who stipulated that Mr. Lee must dispose of his AM station 
as a condition for acquiring that FM license--which Mr. Lee did. 
Amazingly, on June 18 of this year, the FCC which had reversed itself 
on June 2, forced the Lees off the air.
  Zeb Lee has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to examine the manner in 
which the FCC handled his application, which led to his being taken off 
the air. The court will shortly issue a decision in the near future.
  Mr. President since April 30, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 
Bechtel case of December 17, 1993, struck down the ``comparative 
process'' that had been used to determine allocations of radio and 
television frequencies. The court directed the FCC to come up with new 
comparative standards. The Lees and about 25 to 30 other people were 
affected by this decision.
  But their cases have been frozen ever since. Additionally, a 
provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which went into effect 
July 1, required that all radio and television frequencies be subject 
to auction. This provision concerned me because Zeb Lee's case and 
another 25 to 30 cases were in the pipeline and could be subject to 
auction which nobody anticipated.
  I find no fault with the provision in the balanced budget 
legislation, but it crept in the back door on Mr. Lee and the others.
  So, to get to the meat of the coconut, Mr. President, I submitted 
questions to Mr. Kennard through Senator Burns' Commerce Communications 
Subcommittee about all of this. I ask unanimous consent that the 
nominee's responses be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Senators should note that Mr. Kennard clearly feels the FCC can 
conduct hearings on this small group and class of applicants using new 
comparative criteria.
  In any event, Mr. President, I then consulted and wrote to the able 
chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 
Mr. McCain, seeking assurance that Senator McCain now agrees that the 
provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 do not prohibit the FCC 
from using the comparative process in these 25 or 30 cases.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of my letter and Senator McCain's 
response be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have been given assurances satisfactory to me by Mr. 
Kennard that he will, within statute and regulation, work in good faith 
with me and others to resolve the problems the Bechtel decision caused.
  I was very impressed when Mr. Kennard came to my office and met with 
me about 3 weeks ago. I appreciate his voluntary assurance that he will 
work with us on the Zeb Lee case. Therefore, Mr. President, I support 
the nomination, and I am going to ask for the yeas and nays. I hope 
that he will be confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

                               Exhibit 1

Responses of William E. Kennard to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by 
         Senator Conrad Burns on behalf of Senator Jesse Helms

       1. As you know, the recent budget legislation included a 
     provision that appear[s] to require the FCC to apply auction 
     procedures to pending applications for radio stations. These 
     provisions were reportedly aimed at resolving the 
     applications that have been in limbo since the Bechtel case 
     struck down a part of the FCC's rules governing comparative 
     license application proceedings. Please clearly state your 
     views in response to the following questions:
       a. In your opinion, is the FCC now required to apply these 
     auction provisions to all pending application cases, or does 
     the FCC have discretionary authority not to handle pending 
     cases through this auction approach?
       In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress required the 
     FCC to use auctions to resolve all future comparative 
     broadcast proceedings involving commercial stations. For 
     pending applications, the statute states that the Commission 
     ``shall have the authority'' to use auctions. The Conference 
     Report states that this provision ``requires'' the Commission 
     to use auctions for pending cases. The Commission will be 
     determining in a rulemaking proceeding implementing the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997 how it should proceed with these 
     pending cases. The statutory language suggests that the 
     Commission has discretion to use comparative proceedings for 
     pending cases.
       b. While most of the pending comparative cases had not gone 
     through a hearing before an administrative law judge, and had 
     at least an initial decision issued, a relatively small 
     number of these cases had in fact been decided under the old 
     rules by an ALJ and in some cases decisions made by the full 
     Commission, although these decisions may have been on appeal. 
     In those cases, the parties often had spent many years and 
     hundreds of thousands of dollars to advance their 
     applications under the old rules. Do you believe that it 
     would be more equitable not to apply auction procedures to 
     the cases which were far along in the process, where the 
     applicants had played in good faith under the old rules, and 
     to instead have those cases decided using any existing 
     hearing record pursuant to such special rules as the 
     Commission might adopt for deciding them?
       I do believe that the Bechtel decision has caused 
     unfairness to many applicants who have had further processing 
     of their applications delayed and, as a result of that court 
     decision, will necessarily have their applications processed 
     under new procedures. I am quite sympathetic to their 
     predicament. That is why the Commission argued to the court 
     in Bechtel that the court's decision should only apply to new 
     cases. Unfortunately the Commission was not successful and 
     the court rejected this argument. As noted above, the issue 
     of what those procedures will be, that is, whether some or 
     all pending applications should be auctioned or decided 
     pursuant to some new, yet-bo-be developed criteria, will be a 
     subject of the Commission's rulemaking proceeding 
     implementing the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Commission 
     certainly may consider as part of that rulemaking proceeding 
     any arguments that particular classes of pending applicants 
     should be treated differently.
       c. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the Bechtel case ordered 
     the Commission to issue new comparative rules. Although the 
     Commission never formally adopted such new rules, its staff, 
     including your office, prepared draft rules to respond to the 
     Court's order. Please summarize how those draft rules would 
     have dealt with pending cases, and comment on whether those 
     drafts might be suitable and readily adaptable for use in 
     resolving at least those pending cases that had reached the 
     point where an initial decision had been issued based on a 
     hearing record.
       The FCC staff presented a draft order to the Commission 
     earlier this year. In that draft, the staff recommended that 
     pending hearing cases be resolved by a lottery pursuant to 
     section 309(i) of the Communications Act. The Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997 eliminated the Commission's authority to use 
     lotteries for these cases, so the staff proposal is no longer 
     an option.

                               Exhibit 2


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Washington, DC.
       Dear John: My folks have conducted numerous discussions 
     with your good people about the FCC treatment of Zeb Lee, a 
     long-time Asheville broadcaster, in response to Lee's attempt 
     to secure an FM radio station. (Zeb and approximately 25 to 
     30 other applicants were left stranded in the regulatory 
     process by the Bechtel court decision.)
       Additionally, I understand these 25 to 30 applicants are 
     not affected by the provision requiring the auctioning of all 
     radio and television licenses that was included in the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which went into effect July 1 of 
     this year.
       The FCC contends that it interprets this provision as 
     giving the Commission the authority to decide whether these 
     25 to 30 applicants be judged on the basis of the comparative 
     hearing process. John, I do hope that you agree that this is 
     a proper interpretation.

[[Page S11310]]

       Furthermore, in the future if the courts question this 
     interpretation for these applicants, I do hope that you will 
     reaffirm this interpretation and move related legislation 
     swiftly through the Senate.
       Many thanks, John.
           Sincerely,
     Jesse.
                                  ____

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                        Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

                                 Washington, DC. October 23, 1997.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Jesse: I am aware of your concern over whether Section 
     3002(a) of the Balanced Budget Act would permit the Federal 
     Communications Commission to use comparative hearings where 
     mutually-exclusive applications have been filed for initial 
     licensees or construction permits for commercial radio and 
     television stations. As a principal proponent of this part of 
     the legislation, I am happy to have this opportunity to 
     respond to your question.
       Section 3002(a) specifically states that, with respect to 
     competing applications filed before July 1, 1997, the 
     Commission ``shall have the authority to conduct'' auctions. 
     Therefore, the Commission's authority to conduct auctions in 
     these situations is clearly and explicitly permissive, not 
     mandatory. Moreover, the statute contains no provision 
     affecting the Commission's existing authority to hold 
     comparative hearings, although it does explicitly repeal the 
     Commission's authority to conduct lotteries. Read together 
     under long-established principles of statutory 
     interpretation, there can be no doubt that these provisions: 
     (1) permit, but do not require, the use of auctions to select 
     initial licensees for commercial radio and television 
     stations; and (2) that the Commission is (a) permitted, but 
     not required, to use comparative hearings to select such 
     licensees or permittees in cases where it determines that 
     auctions should not be used, but (b) is not permitted to use 
     lotteries to select licensees or permittees for any service.
       As to the impact of legislative history (conference 
     reports, floor statements, and other such collateral 
     material), it is a basic tenet of statutory interpretation 
     that where, as here, the letter of the law is unambiguous on 
     its face, legislative history cannot be read to override it. 
     Therefore, any such statements that appear inconsistent with 
     the clear terms of the statute cannot be interpreted to 
     contradict it or to call it into question.
       Finally, in the unlikely event that any future court 
     opinion misconstrues the statute, I will do whatever is 
     necessary to secure the passage of legislation that will 
     restate the terms of the statute as reflected in this letter.
       I sincerely trust this will answer your questions fully. I 
     would be pleased to provide you with anything further you 
     might wish on this issue at any time you feel it would be 
     helpful.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if it is in order and agreeable to the 
manager of this nomination, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I thank the manager.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. For the information of the Senator 
from Arizona, he has about 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his 
cooperation on what is a very important issue with one of his 
constituents, and one of great importance to him. I am grateful for his 
cooperation and that of his staff in resolving it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination 
of William Kennard to serve as Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  There is perhaps no industry that has undergone more rapid or greater 
change than the telecommunications industry. In terms of technology, 
ownership, and opportunities, the communications industry has literally 
undergone a revolution. These changes will create opportunities for 
consumers, existing companies, and new entrants. In the coming years, 
the FCC will face enormous challenges as it attempts to cope with these 
changes and finishes implementing the provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  No one is more prepared for that challenge than Bill Kennard. He has 
demonstrated exceptional leadership and mastery of the issues during 
his 4 years as general counsel of the FCC, and his many years as a 
telecommunications lawyer. When I think of Mr. Kennard, I think of 
something that Jean-Claude Paye, former Secretary General of the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said of the 
changing times in which we live. He said that societies concerned about 
their economies ought to look to their fraying social fabric, as 
economic growth is the weave of national character. The waft of it, he 
said, are the people who embrace and master social change.
  Bill Kennard is one of those individuals. He will bring to the helm 
of the FCC not only an understanding of the industry and the economics, 
but the social and societal implications of the issues that he will 
address as Chairman of the FCC.
  Mr. President, I expect great things from Bill Kennard and I look 
forward to working closely with him as he steers the telecommunications 
industry into the 21st century. I commend the President for choosing 
such a qualified and competent individual for this duty, and I hope 
that every one of my colleagues will support his nomination.
  I thank the managers of this nomination, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
nomination of William E. Kennard to the Federal Communications 
Commission [FCC]. The telecommunications industry has seen incredible 
technological advances made over the last two decades. As a result, the 
responsibilities and scope of the FCC have increased dramatically. 
Today, it is more important than ever for FCC Commissioners to be able 
to respond and adapt to these changes in a timely manner.
  Recently, the FCC issued a regulation that will have a profound 
impact on the trucking industry nationwide. While ordinarily one would 
not think of an FCC action having an adverse impact on trucking 
companies, such is not the case in this situation. On October 9, the 
FCC issued a regulation implementing a provision of last year's 
Telecommunications Act, which directed the FCC to provide for adequate 
compensation of pay phone operators. The new FCC regulation ordered 
long-distance companies to pay payphone owners 28.4 cents per call for 
each call to a toll-free number unless the payphone owner and the long-
distance company have a contract specifying a different rate. The 
charge applies to both customer toll-free numbers and to company access 
numbers, including those on prepaid calling cards. The charge became 
effective immediately.
  Long-distance carriers, in turn, are passing this charge along to 
their customers. The carriers are not limited to a set charge and as a 
result the amount being charged varies depending on the carrier.
  Pay phones are the life line between the Nation's 3.2 million truck 
drivers and their home offices. A driver will call in numerous times 
during the day and in most cases will talk no longer than 2 minutes. 
Nevertheless, under this new rule, the trucking company will be charged 
each time a driver calls in.
  Arkansas has been fortunate to have a significant trucking industry 
based in our State. Some of the largest trucking companies in the 
Nation are headquartered there. This new regulation will have a 
devastating effect on their business costs. For instance, in the case 
of J.B. Hunt Trucking, it is estimated that this new regulation will 
increase the company's phone bill by approximately $200,000 a month. 
This will equate to $2.1 million annually.
  Smaller trucking firms have also contacted me and said their phone 
bills are projected to double under this new rule. A small business is 
completely unable to absorb an increase of this magnitude.
  When it comes to using payphones, the trucking industry is virtually 
a captive consumer. There is no real alternative and no option to avoid 
paying what is, in effect, a very expensive tax.
  Mr. President, we need to explore alternatives to provide some relief 
to this industry. I will be contacting the FCC Commissioners to work 
with them on this problem and I would encourage my colleagues to do the 
same.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who requests time?

[[Page S11311]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. President, I am privileged to support the confirmation of Bill 
Kennard's nomination to be Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission. You will find no one more qualified than William Kennard.
  Mr. President, today, the Senate will consider the nomination of 
William Kennard for Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 
[FCC].
  Mr. Kennard has spent his career in the communications field--as a 
first amendment attorney with the National Association of Broadcasters; 
as a communications lawyer in private practice; and the last 3 years as 
general counsel of the FCC. Mr. Kennard brings a tremendous amount of 
experience to the job at a critical time in the communications 
industry. A great deal of work remains to be done to fully implement 
the 1996 act. He is eminently qualified for the task at hand.
  The overarching goals of the 1996 act are to preserve Universal 
Service, and to provide a transition from monopoly to open competition. 
Mr. Kennard understands that neither of these objectives will happen on 
their own accord. It will be the responsibility of Mr. Kennard, the 
three new commissioners confirmed last night, along with Commissioner 
Ness, to fulfill these objectives by balancing the competing interests 
of industry with the public interest.
  For the past 20 months, the FCC has been doing its best to implement 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The rules adopted by the FCC have 
generated a great deal of controversy and subsequent litigation. Most 
of those issues are either pending in the courts or before the FCC on 
reconsideration. So it goes without saying that Mr. Kennard will have a 
very important, and sometimes difficult, job ahead of him.
  First, and foremost, the new Commission must understand that the 
Universal Service System we have today is a mechanism designed to 
maintain low-cost affordable phone service in rural and high-cost 
areas. These areas of the country would not have had telephone service, 
much less any economic development, were it not for the Federal support 
and Government mandate of Universal Service. The Commission should be 
vigilant to maintain Universal Service and its attendant benefits.
  The second issue is the promotion of competition across the various 
industries. Much of the deregulation of the act was premised on the 
commitments made by industry to compete with each other. Now some 
segments of the industry are having second thoughts about competition. 
The grand plans pledged to the Congress over 2 years ago no longer seem 
so grand. Competition does not come with a money-back guarantee. The 
Congress did not guarantee any incumbent continued marketshare. Nor did 
the Congress guarantee that competitors would gain marketshare. What 
the Congress attempted to guarantee was the right to compete under 
certain conditons. It will be the FCC's job to enforce those conditions 
to bring the benefits of competition to consumers. More importantly, 
though, its job will be to protect consumers where competition and the 
marketplace fail.
  As the FCC decides each of these issues, the most important aspect of 
its responsibility is to safeguard the public interest. The FCC's job 
is to protect consumers by promoting competition and removing barriers 
to entry or, in the alternative, enforcing regulation where competition 
does not exist.
  Mr. President, you will find the frustration of those addressing this 
particular subject comes about from a failure of implementation by the 
private industry itself. We worked for 4 years on the 
Telecommunications Act that passed last year. It is noted that we had 
95 votes. A strong bipartisan support was worked out to the 
satisfaction of all the entities. Now we find some of those entities 
coming in and petitioning and enjoining and appealing to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. There are some 73 local carriers that now have enjoined 
their local commissions.
  You will find one particular RBOC that has petitioned the Court on 
the constitutionality of what we enacted after they sent a wonderful 
letter in support of what we enacted.
  What you are seeing on behalf of the industry overall is a freezing 
of the board by the majority. And there has been very little movement 
of cable into telephone, telephone into cable and RBOC into long 
distance. They have not met the so-called checklist, and have held up 
on it. That is what is really in force.
  So some of these mergers could well break it loose in the 
telecommunications wall--again, the wall of competition.
  Mr. Kennard, I am convinced, understands what is going on. He would 
have to at the Commission level as the general counsel. I hope under 
the law and the requirements of public interest and in balancing all of 
the interests of the various carriers with that public interest in mind 
that we can move forward.
  So I appreciate the situation and would be delighted to yield to 
others.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I understand the Senator from South 
Carolina yielded to the Senator from California.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be glad to yield that time. Go right ahead.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to add my voice to support the nomination 
of William Kennard to be the Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission, and I am proud to say that he is a native of my home State 
of California. I join with Senator Feinstein today in this moment of 
pride.
  Bill Kennard's experience and knowledge of communications issues will 
be extremely important in helping the FCC deal with the many, many 
difficult challenges it faces. He has been their general counsel since 
1993 serving as the principal legal adviser of the agency during an 
extraordinary period in the history of communications.
  The last 4 years have seen dramatic changes in communications 
technology, communications markets, and communications policy. We know 
one important thing is for certain. There will be more historic changes 
almost every month and every week in this area.
  In a series of historic decisions, the FCC has rewritten the rules 
governing every lane of the information superhighway--local, long 
distance, international telecommunications, satellite, spectrum, 
broadcast television, and multichannel TV.
  Bill Kennard has a bird's-eye view of these important changes, 
providing excellent advice and counsel to the FCC Chairman and 
Commissioners.
  Prior to joining the FCC, Bill Kennard practiced communications law 
for several years where he specialized in broadcast, cable TV, and 
cellular matters. He knows where the communications world has been. And 
he has a strong vision for the future of the communications world.
  I urge the Senate to give unanimous approval to this very important 
nomination.
  I yield my time to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  I think the distinguished Senator from New Jersey has his own time. I 
would be delighted to yield whatever time is necessary.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank very much the Senator from South Carolina for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to join in recommending to the 
Senate William Kennard to be Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission.
  By his record as general counsel, Mr. Kennard's tenure as Chairman of 
the Commission promises to be both able and insightful at a time of 
extraordinary technological change in the United States.
  Yesterday, at my request, this nomination was held until today so I 
would have an opportunity to meet with Mr.

[[Page S11312]]

Kennard. What may be the best proof is former Speaker O'Neill's maxim 
that ``all politics is local.'' At a time when the Commission is 
dealing with great national and, indeed, global issues, in this moment 
of extraordinary change in the industry, I needed an opportunity to 
address with Mr. Kennard a continuing problem with the Commission in my 
own State of New Jersey.
  For 15 years my predecessor, Senator Bradley, brought to this body 
the continuing problem that the 8 million people of the State of New 
Jersey are largely without internal communication because of the 
dominance of Philadelphia and the city of New York in television and 
radio. Indeed, New Jersey alone, through most of this century, has been 
without a commercial television station until Senator Bradley led the 
effort to bring one of those licenses to the State of New Jersey. The 
State still, in its commercial, political and cultural development, is 
not properly served. That problem has now repeated itself with New 
Jersey's largest county, home to nearly a million people in Bergen 
County, NJ, which may be without FM radio service. I know in the great 
plethora of issues this does not seem like a significant question 
unless you live in the State of New Jersey.
  Bergen County, NJ, is host to more Fortune 500 corporations than all 
but a few counties in America. It is one of the highest income counties 
in the entire United States of America and, indeed, has more people 
than six States in the United States of America. But from everything 
from its internal political debate to news about emergencies within the 
county to the simple matter of school closings due to weather, people 
are unable to get basic information. Those licenses rest in the city of 
New York. Indeed, most of them should. But one, at least one of them, 
as, indeed, with one television station, should be in this area of 
suburban New Jersey.
  I spoke at length yesterday with Mr. Kennard. I am convinced that he 
is as sensitive to the problem that the Commissioners responded to for 
Senator Bradley on previous occasions and that under Mr. Kennard's 
leadership the Commission will respond as well in sensitivity to both 
the ongoing television problem but also this new dilemma of how to 
ensure a continued FM radio presence. Therefore, I was very pleased 
last night to have participated in asking that the nomination come to 
the floor today and am very pleased today to rise in support of Mr. 
Kennard's nomination.
  For years, the 840,000 residents of Bergen County have relied on 
local FM radio in order to receive valuable traffic, weather and news 
information, as well as popular music entertainment. Indeed, on 
multiple occasions, this service has served as a crucial link between 
the residents of Bergen County and critical emergency information. In 
1996, when a water main break left over a half-million residents 
without water for nearly 3 days, a local FM station was the only source 
of live coverage from the scene of the break and the only source of 
continuous, round-the-clock reports throughout the emergency. Again 
during the recent explosion of the Napp Chemical plant in Lodi, NJ, a 
local FM station was the primary source of onsite news and information 
about the risks of possible toxic fumes which originated from the 
plant. Also, for years local FM service has provided extensive school 
closing reports during snowstorms, and notified the public of road 
conditions and other weather-related emergency information.
  However, the survival of FM service in Bergen County has recently 
been threatened by another Washington regulatory bureaucracy out of 
touch with the people it is supposed to serve: The Federal 
Communications Commission [FCC]. Mr. President, I am here today to 
ensure that the FCC does not succeed in ending FM service for Bergen 
County. This is a matter of principle, and it is the right thing to do 
for the residents of my State. Until the advent of local FM service, 
the residents of Bergen County had to rely upon radio stations in New 
York City to provide them with their news and information. 
Unfortunately, radio stations in New York City focus on the news and 
needs of the residents of that city, and oftentimes ignore those living 
in the New Jersey suburbs.
  Bergen County has more than 70 municipalities and school districts, 
six State legislative districts, two congressional districts, 231 
square miles, and a population larger than the States of Alaska, 
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and the District 
of Columbia. It is a county of tremendous size and importance, and it 
deserves an FM news and information source of its own.
  Yesterday, I met with William Kennard, the President's nominee to be 
Chairman of the FCC, and I am confident that the commissioners of the 
agency will work with my office to preserve FM service for Bergen 
County. If the FCC is to continue in its mission to ensure broadcast 
capability for the public interest, then the commissioners must end 
this instance of broadcast discrimination against the people of Bergen 
County, NJ.
  I yield my time to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand there is some time left to 
discuss the nominee?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in voicing my 
strong support for the nomination of William Kennard to serve as 
Chairman and member of the Federal Communications Commission.
  With the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal 
Communications Commission faces the daunting challenge of being a 
regulatory agency that will promote a deregulated telecommunications 
industry. The FCC requires a leader who will be able to charter the 
agency and the industry through these unchartered waters.
  Mr. Kennard brings a keen understanding of the telecommunications 
industry and superb academic credentials to the agency. His years of 
experience as the FCC's general counsel have provided him with the 
experience and insight to hit the ground running. I am confident that 
he has the leadership qualities to effectively lead the multi-member 
agency and to forge the consensus needed for the FCC to accomplish the 
goals of the 1996 act. He will being keen intellect, good judgment, and 
common sense to the office of Chairman and to the agency as a whole.
  I believe that Mr. Kennard is an outstanding nominee. I am convinced, 
through my personal experiences of meeting him as well as from 
discussions from around the entire telecommunications industry, that he 
will serve with distinction. I strongly support his nomination and 
encourage my colleagues to do the same. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Kennard in the future and offer him my congratulations on his 
confirmation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of William E. Kennard, of California, to be a member of the Federal 
Communications Commission. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 284 Ex.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland

[[Page S11313]]


     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Burns
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 1332 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate and 
what is the pending question?

                          ____________________