[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 118 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10779-S10782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1577. A bill to assure timely, rational, and complete Federal 
Communications Commission resolution of all pending proceedings 
reexamining the current radio and television broadcast stations 
ownership rules; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                 broadcast ownership reform act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will make federal radio and television ownership rules Y2K compatible.
  When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 almost four 
years ago, we recognized that the forty-year-old rules restricting 
broadcast station ownership were badly outdated and in need of change. 
They reflected a mass media industry made up of radio stations, TV 
stations, and newspapers--and that's all. None of the dominant new 
multichannel media like cable TV, satellite TV, or the Internet figured 
in, because they didn't exist.
  But they exist now, and they have transformed the way Americans get 
their news, information, and entertainment. As more and more people 
turn to cable channels and the Internet as their preferred means of 
electronic

[[Page S10780]]

communications, the audience and revenues of the big TV networks have 
plummeted, and the number and circulation of daily newspapers have 
spiraled downward.
  The days when Huntley, Brinkley and Cronkite on the air, and the 
Times, the Post, and the Tribune at the breakfast table dominated our 
perspectives on the issues are forever gone. In their place are CNN, 
CNBC, MSNBC, and the innumerable web sites available on the Internet.
  Even more important, Americans today are no longer just passive 
recipients of the news and views doled out by a handful of powerful TV 
networks and daily newspapers. Today, thanks to the Internet, anyone on 
line can pose questions and exchange perspectives with anyone else on 
line.
  In other words, the days when network news and big-city newspaper 
editors were the dominant opinionmakers are long over. But the 
restrictive ownership rules that were a product of that time aren't 
over. Like so many federal regulations, they live on, despite the fact 
that they're as out-of-date as Alice Kramden's ice box.
  The proliferation of alternative sources of electronic news, 
information and entertainment hasn't just made the old ownership rules 
useless--it's actually made them harmful. Faced with daunting 
competition from these new media, broadcasters, and especially 
newspaper owners, must have the opportunity to realize the increased 
operating economy and efficiency that liberalized ownership rules make 
possible. If we do not allow this to happen, we place the future of 
these older media in even greater doubt in today's hypercompetitive 
market.

  Congress recognized all this when it directed the FCC to review all 
its broadcast ownership rules every two years. Although the Commission 
recently overhauled some of these rules, it left two others intact--the 
national network ownership limit and the ban on owning a daily 
newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market.
  That's not consistent with what Congress told the Commission to do, 
and it isn't fair. We told the Commission to reexamine all the rules 
precisely because all the rules, not just some of the rules, have been 
rendered counterproductive by the changes that have taken place in the 
electronic mass media marketplace. In fact, the rule that's arguably 
the most hopelessly anachronistic is the newspaper/broadcast cross-
ownership ban--yet the FCC shows no sign of budging on it.
  Mr. President, this bill corrects this situation. With respect to the 
national TV ownership limits, it follows the approach Congress used in 
the 1996 Telecommunications Act by raising the national audience reach 
limitation from 35 to 50 percent, and allows the FCC to raise it 
further if the public interest warrants it. It eliminates the 
newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban, but would allow the FCC to 
reimpose it if the Commission can do so by January 1, based on the 
extensive record that has been pending before them for over three 
years.
  Mr. President, there are lots of policy cobwebs that have kept these 
rules in place despite the permanent and unmistakable changes the 
electronic media market has undergone. Some of them spring from the 
notion that broadcasting, as a free rider on the public's multibillion-
dollar spectrum, can and should be subject to regulation over and above 
that of other media. Others are stubbornly ingrained notions of how 
powerful the TV networks and newspapers are. Still others--the least 
worthy--are scars left over from what particular newspapers have had to 
say on their editorial pages.
  Nobody is less sympathetic than I am to the fact that broadcasters, 
unlike other users of the public's spectrum, pay nothing for the 
privilege. But subjecting them to anachronistic, even 
counterproductive, rules isn't a substitute for lost spectrum revenues. 
And remembrances of things past, whether they be the long-gone days of 
network TV hegemony or old stories in the local newspaper, are no way 
to deal with the problems of the present.
  Uncle Miltie TV ownership rules don't work in a Chris rock media 
market. Let's face that fact, shed our outdated notions, and finish the 
job the FCC didn't
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1577

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Broadcast Ownership Reform 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The contemporary electronic mass media market provides 
     consumers with abundant alternative sources of news, 
     information and entertainment, including radio and television 
     broadcast stations, cable television systems, and the 
     Internet.
       (2) Due to the advent of digital technology, these 
     alternative sources of electronic news, information and 
     entertainment are converging as well as proliferating.
       (3) The simultaneous proliferation and convergence of 
     electronic mass media renders technology-specific regulation 
     obsolete.
       (4) The public interest demands that the Federal 
     Communications Commission reexamine its technology-specific 
     regulation of electronic mass media to assure that it retains 
     its relevance in the face of the proliferation and 
     convergence of electronic mass media.
       (5) Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
     recognized that there is a particular public interest need 
     for the Federal Communications Commission to periodically and 
     comprehensively reexamine its radio and television broadcast 
     ownership rules, which predate the proliferation and 
     convergence of alternative competing electronic sources of 
     news, information and entertainment.
       (6) Although the Commission has reexamined and revised its 
     broadcast duopoly and one-to-a-market ownership rules, it has 
     not completed long-pending reexaminations of its national 
     television station ownership restrictions or the newspaper-
     broadcast cross-ownership prohibition.
       (7) The Commission's failure to simultaneously resolve all 
     its pending broadcast cross-ownership rules fails to 
     recognize, as Congress did in enacting section 202(h), that 
     the proliferation and convergence of alternative electronic 
     media implicates the bases of the national television 
     ownership rules and the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership 
     rules no less than the bases of the local radio and 
     television station ownership rules.
       (8) The Commission's failure to simultaneously resolve all 
     its broadcast cross-ownership rules will affect all potential 
     buyers and sellers of radio and television stations in the 
     interim, because the current restrictions will prevent 
     networks and newspaper publishers from engaging in station 
     transactions to the extent they otherwise might.
       (9) The Commission's failure to simultaneously resolve its 
     pending proceedings on the national television ownership and 
     newspaper/broadcast crossownership restrictions is arbitrary 
     and capricious, because it treats similarly-situated 
     entities--those bound by ownership rules that predate the 
     advent of increased competition from alternative electronic 
     media--differently, without any consideration of, or reasoned 
     analysis for, this disparate treatment.
       (10) The increase in the national television audience reach 
     limitation to 35 percent mandated by section 202(c)(1)(B) of 
     the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was not established as the 
     maximum percentage compatible with the public interest. On 
     the contrary, section 202(h) of that Act expressly directs 
     the Commission to review biennially whether any of its 
     broadcast ownership rules, including those adopted pursuant 
     to section 202 of the Act, are necessary in the public 
     interest as a result of competition.
       (11) The 35-percent national television audience reach 
     limitation is unduly restrictive in light of competition.
       (12) The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership restriction in 
     unduly restrictive in light of competition.
       (13) The Commission's failure to resolve its pending 
     proceedings on the national television ownership and 
     newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership restrictions 
     simultaneously with its resolution of the proceedings on the 
     duopoly and one-to-a-market rules does not serve the public 
     interest.

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN NATIONAL TELEVISION AUDIENCE REACH 
                   LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall modify its rules for multiple ownership set forth in 
     section 73.3555(e) of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555(e) 
     by increasing the national audience reach limitation for 
     television stations to 50 percent.
       (b) Further Increase.--The Commission may modify those 
     rules to increase the limitation to a greater percentage than 
     the 50 percent required by subsection (a) if it determines 
     that the increase is in the public interest.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF NEWSPAPER/BROADCAST CROSS-OWNERSHIP 
                   RULE.

       (a) In General.--The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership 
     rule under section 73.3555(d) of the Federal Communication 
     Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555(d)) shall cease 
     to be in effect after December 31, 1999, unless it is 
     reinstated by the Commission under subsection (b) before 
     January 1, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:

[[Page S10781]]

  S. 1579. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise and 
improve the authorities of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating 
to the provision of counseling and treatment for sexual trauma 
experienced by veterans; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


                  VETERANS SEXUAL TRAUMA TREATMENT ACT

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans 
Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, legislation authorizing a program within 
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which will offer 
counseling and medical treatment to veterans who suffered from sexual 
abuse while serving in the armed forces.
  I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served or 
are currently serving their country in uniform. Countless men and 
women, and their families, have served this country with courage, honor 
and distinction. Today, as they have throughout this proud nation's 
history, they stand ready to answer the call to duty, and they deserve, 
at the very least, to serve free from the threat of sexual abuse and 
harassment. And yet, an estimated 35 percent of all female veterans 
report at least one incident of sexual harassment during their military 
service. That it why I am introducing this legislation today.
  The Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, which is similar to 
legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Representative Gutierrez, will enable former military personnel who 
were subjected to sexual harassment or abuse while in the military to 
receive proper medical and psychological care. The legislation does so 
by extending and improving the VA's abuse counseling initiatives.
  The bill makes permanent a program to require the VA to provide 
counseling to veterans to overcome psychological trauma resulting from 
a physical assault or battery of a sexual nature, or from sexual 
harassment, which occurred during active military service. Under 
current law the program authorizing such counseling expires in 2001.
  The bill authorizes the program to include appropriate treatment, and 
requires a VA mental health professional to determine when such 
counseling and treatment is necessary. Currently, the VA Secretary 
makes this determination.
  The bill also calls for the dissemination of information concerning 
the availability of counseling services to veterans, through public 
service and other announcements. It also calls for a report on joint 
DOD/VA efforts to ensure that military personnel are informed upon 
their separation from service about available sexual trauma counseling 
and treatment programs.
  Most importantly, the bill eases restrictions under the existing 
program. I find it very troubling, for example, that women with fewer 
than two years of service are not eligible for counseling, even if they 
separated from the military due specifically to incidents of harassment 
or abuse.
  According to the DOD, over 5 percent of female active duty personnel 
have been sexually assaulted while in the service. And a recent survey 
conducted for the Pentagon found that between 1988 and 1995, the 
percentage of active duty women who reported that they had received 
uninvited or unwanted sexual attention stood at 55 percent, while the 
percentage for men stands at 14 percent.
  The survey also reported that 78 percent of female respondents said 
they had experienced one or more specific types of unwanted behaviors 
from a range of specified inappropriate behaviors.
  Eighty eight percent of females said the harassment occurred on a 
base; 74 percent said the harassment occurred at work; 77 percent said 
it occurred during duty hours; 44 percent said that military coworkers 
of equal rank were the perpetrators; and 43 percent said the 
perpetrator was of a higher rank.
  These findings are very disturbing. The data illustrates just how 
widespread this problem is, and indicates the need for a program to 
treat victims upon separation from active duty service. I credit the 
DOD with working to reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment in the 
military. However, as long as there is harassment and abuse in the 
military, it is vital that victims have access to counseling while on 
active duty and after separation from the service as well.
  We expect active duty servicemen and women to make extraordinary 
sacrifices to safeguard the democracy we cherish. We should not expect 
them to accept abuse and harassment while they serve.
  The legislation I am introducing today is aimed specifically at 
ensuring that veterans have access to abuse counseling after they leave 
the military. It has the backing of the VFW, Vietnam Veterans of 
America, the American Legion, and AMVETS.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Baucus, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mr. Thomas, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Enzi, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1580. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to assist 
agricultural producers in managing risk, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                risk management for the 21st century act

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on behalf of 
myself, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and a bipartisan group of 17 of our 
colleagues--including a majority of the members of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, the ``Risk Management for the 21st Century 
Act.''
  This legislation represents a significant step in improving the risk 
management tools available to producers throughout the United States.
  In early March, Senator Kerrey and I joined to introduce S. 529, the 
``Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act.'' At the time, we stated 
that we did not necessarily believe it was ``the bill,'' but that we 
hoped it would serve as the starting point for a discussion that would 
lead to the introduction of a comprehensive piece of legislation to 
improve the risk management tools available to producers throughout the 
U.S. and which could be supported by a majority of our colleagues.
  I believe this is that bill. Going back to last fall and through this 
spring and summer, we have been involved in literally hundreds of hours 
of discussions with producers, commodity and farm organizations, 
insuranceproviders, insurance agents, and Members of the House and 
Senate regarding what needs to be done to improve the risk management 
tools available to our farmers and ranchers.
  The bill we introduce today is the product of these many discussions.
  This bill includes many of the provisions included in the original 
Roberts/Kerrey legislation, but it also includes many new provisions 
recommended during our discussions with Members and agricultural 
organizations. These include:
  An inverted subsidy structure.
  An equal level of subsidy for revenue insurance products.
  APH adjustments for producers suffering multiple years of crop 
losses.
  APH adjustments for new and beginning farmers, those farming new 
land, and those rotating crops.
  Instructions to undertake alternative rating methodologies for low 
risk producers and regions and crops with low participation percentages 
and to then implement this new rating system. This at the request of 
many of our southern colleagues.
  Changes in prevented planting and incentives to encourage producers 
to take additional risk management measures. Similar to car insurance, 
if you take drivers education classes you get an additional discount on 
your premium. Under our legislation, producers who take additional risk 
management steps will also receive a bonus discount on their premiums.
  Authority for several pilot programs, placing special emphasis on 
polices to explore coverage for livestock and to expand the quality and 
levels of coverage available to specialty crops.
  Mr. President, in addition to the many changes mentioned above, our 
legislation also provides for major changes in the Risk Management 
Agency (RMA) and the regulatory process governing the crop insurance 
program.

  We change the members of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's 
Board of Directors to include:
  Four Farmers from geographic regions to be determined by the 
Secretary.

[[Page S10782]]

  One member active in the crop insurance industry.
  One member with reinsurance expertise.
  The Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the 
Undersecretary for Rural Development, and the USDA Chief Economist.

  Make the FCIC the overseer of RMA.
  Create an Office of Private Sector Partnership to serve as a liaison 
between private sector companies and the FCIC Board of Directors.
  Allow companies to charge minimal fees to other companies selling 
their products, in order to allow the recovery of research and 
development costs.

  Mr. President, our legislation also focuses on several areas that I 
want to place special emphasis on because they are areas that I know 
are of interest to many of my colleagues and which some often think 
those of us in the Midwest and Plains States tend to ignore.
  The first deals with program compliance. We have heard complaints 
from some of our colleagues and specific commodity groups that fraud 
exists in several areas of the country. Let me make clear, Senator 
Kerrey and I oppose any attempts to defraud the crop insurance program.
  To prevent this fraud, the legislation calls for penalties of up to 
$10,000 for producers, agents, loss adjusters, and approved insurance 
providers that attempt to defraud the program. It also allows for USDA 
to remove producers from eligibility for all USDA programs if they have 
defrauded the program. Furthermore, agents, loss adjusters, and 
approved companies that do business in the program could be banned from 
participation for up to five years if they have committed fraud.
  Mr. President, these provisions are strong and they are clear--those 
who attempt to defraud the program and taxpayers will be punished.
  Mr. President, another concern that Senator Kerrey and I have heard 
repeatedly is the lack of emphasis and prioritization for specialty 
crops and development of new crop insurance and risk management tools 
for these crops. We have included many provisions in our legislation to 
address these concerns.
  These specialty crop provisions include:
  Changes in the Noninsured Assistance Program that we believe will 
make it easier to obtain assistance and funding through changes in 
which commodities can be covered and by allowing payments in some 
instances irregardless of an area trigger occurring.
  Several pilot projects geared specifically towards looking at the 
feasibility of Gross Revenue and Whole Farm Revenue polices that 
include coverage for specialty crops.
  Requiring the newly created Office of Private Sector Partnership to 
include staff with specialty crop expertise.
  Allow RMA to spend up to $20 million per year to create partnerships 
with Land Grant Universities, the Agricultural Research Service, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other qualified 
entities to develop and implement new specialty crop risk management 
options.
  Requires 50 percent of RMA's research and development funds to go to 
specialty crop products development. Additionally, 50 percent of these 
R&D funds must be contracted out to organizations and entities outside 
RMA.
  Reaffirms the authority of the Specialty Crops Coordinator in RMA. 
The bill also allows the Specialty Crops Coordinator to make 
competitive grants for research and development of new products in the 
specialty crops area.
  Contains provisions regarding sales closing dates and the issuance of 
new polices.
  Orders the Specialty Crops coordinator and the FCIC to study the 
feasibility of offering cost-of production, Adjusted Gross Income 
(AGI), quality-based policies, and an intermediate coverage level 
(higher than current CAT coverage) for specialty crops.
  Requires the Board to annually review and certify that speciality 
crops are adequately covered. If insufficient coverage is available for 
a commodity, the Board can require RMA to undertake R&D activities.
  Provides mechanisms whereby the Secretary must take steps to improve 
participation in the program when total participation for a crop in an 
individual state falls below 75 percent of the national participation 
average.
  Mr. President, these changes for specialty crops are significant and 
we believe they give important attention to a group of producers that 
has often felt neglected in U.S. agricultural policy. I hope that our 
colleagues will agree and that they will join us in supporting this 
legislation.

  Mr. President, let me also state that I realize some will argue that 
specific provisions should have been included in this legislation that 
currently are not. I understand these concerns, but as we developed 
this bill, we had to determine the priorities of each agricultural 
region and commodity groups. There is something from this bill that all 
of us would like to see included, including Senator Kerrey and myself, 
but as a whole it is I believe the best package available.
  I also realize that some in this body claim that crop insurance is 
not necessary and that we do not need to act on this legislation this 
year. I could not disagree more.
  Mr. President, every year our producers put the seed in the ground 
and believe that with a little faith and luck they will produce a crop. 
But, sometimes the creeks do rise and the multiple perils of drought, 
flood, fire, hail, blizzard, pests, and disease get the better or our 
producers. They must have the tools to manage these risks.
  The agricultural and lending communities have spoken loudly, and they 
all have continually expressed the need to improve the risk management 
tools available to producers throughout the U.S. It is time for us to 
move towards action on this issue. The House Agriculture Committee 
approved legislation prior to the August recess. It is time for the 
Senate Agriculture Committee to do the same. A majority of the 
Committee has said as much by supporting our legislation.
  Mr. President, we know there are many disagreements within members of 
the Senate in regards to specific agricultural policy. In fact, Senator 
Kerrey and I have disagreements of our own on the underlying Farm Bill. 
However, we all agree that our producers today cannot be successful 
without access to new, improved, and adequate risk management tools. 
This legislation accomplishes these needs, and I urge my colleagues to 
join us in working towards an improved crop insurance program and risk 
management tools.

                          ____________________