S7880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 1995

Harold R. Tyler, Jr., former U.S. District

Judge, New York; former Deputy Attorney

General of the United States.

Cyrus Vance, former U.S. Secretry of

State.

James Vollers, former Judge, Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals.

Andrew Young, former Ambassador to the

United Nations, former Mayor, Atlanta,

Georgia.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

H. Scott Wallace, 1625 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20006.

Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous

consent to speak as in morning business briefly for the purpose of introducing a bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

(The remarks of Mr. GRASSLEY pertaining to the introduction of S. 888

are located in today’s RECORD under

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and

Joint Resolutions.’’)

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S VETO OF

THE RESCISSIONS BILL

fMr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I

commend President Clinton for his

veto of the rescissions bill this afternoon. Once again, the President has

made clear his strong commitment to

education and to the students and

working families of the Nation.

By vetoing this bill, the President

has said ‘‘no’’ to the elimination of violence and drug prevention programs for

20 million students in 90 percent of our

schools.

He has said ‘‘no’’ to the elimination

of school reform grants to 2,000 schools

in 47 States.

He has said ‘‘no’’ to the drastic cuts

in reading and math assistance for

135,000 pupils.

He has said ‘‘no’’ to the elimination

of community service support for 15,000

young men and women ready, willing,

and able to serve their communities

and earn money for their education.

He has said ‘‘no’’ to the elimination

of opportunities for thousands of young

high school students to participate in

school-to-work programs.

He has said ‘‘no’’ to ending the promising start we have made on putting

modern technology in schools.

He has said ‘‘no’’ to deep cuts like

this to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

The battle has now been squarely

joined against drastic anti-education

Republican budget proposals that

would mean the largest education cuts

in the Nation’s history.

These Republican budgets are indefensible—they would cut 33 percent of

the Federal investment in education by

the year 2002, and slash over $30 billion

in Federal aid to college students.

Every student, every parent, every

American understands that education

is the indispensable foundation of a

better life for themselves and their

children. Deep Republican cuts in education are a betrayal of the hopes and

dreams of families for their children.

They undermine the Nation’s future

strength. Our schools, colleges, and

students deserve a helping Federal

hand—not the back of Republican

hands.

This veto is right, and I am confident

it will be sustained by the Congress.

ADMINISTRATION POLICY ON

fBOSNIA

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it is indeed ironic that the Clinton administration—whose policy on Bosnia needs

to be checked hourly—is on the attack

against those in Congress like myself

who have consistently argued for a policy that candidate Clinton advocated.

Maybe administration officials are

tired of attacking each other in the

press and have decided to take their

frustration out on the Congress.

The administration’s arguments

against withdrawing the U.N. protection forces and lifting the arms embargo are neither based on fact nor on

American experience.

First we have a statement from the

Secretary of Defense today that withdrawing U.N. forces would lead to a humanitarian disaster. I do not know if

the Pentagon has been keeping up with

the news over the last few months, but

the situation in Bosnia is and has been

a humanitarian disaster for the last

couple of years, despite the presence of

22,000 U.N. troops. The U.N. mission in

Bosnia has failed. Bandages like the

quick reaction force will not change

that fact.

Secretary Perry also told the Armed

Services Committee today that the

casualty rate in Bosnia dramatically

dropped, which he attributed to the

presence of U.N. forces. As the recent

hostage taking has painfully demonstrated, the U.N. forces cannot even

protect themselves let alone the

Bosnians. And I say this understanding

the bravery of each of the individuals

who are there. They are in a very, very

difficult situation. They cannot protect

themselves. They are placed there by

their governments.

Furthermore, the heaviest Bosnian

casualties were in areas where U.N.

forces were either not deployed or deployed too late—in northern and eastern Bosnia.

So it seems to me that the real reason casualties dropped is because the

Bosnians, over time, have acquired

more weapons and have been able to

better defend themselves. That is why

the casualty rate has gone down.

The second argument made by the

administration is that the lifting of the

arms embargo would Americanize the

war and make the United States responsible for events in Bosnia.

Let us not fool ourselves—America is

responsible now. We already have a responsibility. America is responsible because it has not been a leader, rather it

has meekly followed the Europeans’

failed approach.

As for the accusation that lifting the

arms embargo would ‘‘Americanize’’

the conflict, it seems to me that the

United States has plenty of experience

from Central America to Afghanistan

in providing military assistance without being drawn into a quagmire with

American troops on the ground. The

real recipe for getting bogged down is

to send United States ground troops

into Bosnia without a mission, which is

why the resolution I intend to submit

would authorize, with strict conditions, the use of United States ground

forces for the clearly stated purpose of

withdrawing U.N. protection forces

from Bosnia—not for peacekeeping, not

for reconfiguration, not for strengthening, or any other proposed deployments

supported by the Clinton administration.

Furthermore, Bosnian officials have

repeated time and time again that they

do not want United States ground

troops. Just a couple days ago, in response to news that a European quick

reaction force would be created,

Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic

said ‘‘Please untie our hands, arm the

Bosnians. We do not want your boys to

die for us’’—British boys, French boys,

or American boys.

Finally, when those of us who advocate lifting the arms embargo—and I

am talking about Republicans and

Democrats; this has never been a partisan issue on this floor, it has been

supported by many Democrats and a

great number of Republicans—point

out that other countries would also

participate in arming the Bosnians, we

are told this would allow Iran to arm

the Bosnians. The fact is the arms embargo has guaranteed that Iran is a key

supplier of arms to Bosnia and administration officials have actually used

that fact to argue that there is no need

to lift the arms embargo.

What other choices do the Bosnians

have? They are going to find weapons

where they can find weapons.

From statements made by State Department officials to the press, one

gets the impression that Iran is the

Clinton administration’s preferred provider of weapons to the Bosnians. If the

administration has a problem with Iran

arming Bosnia, it should be prepared to

do something about it.

We can do something about it. It

would not take very long.

If the arms embargo is lifted, America would not be the only country to

provide assistance. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,

and Pakistan would offer financial and

military assistance. In addition, former

Warsaw Pact countries would be free to

sell their vast arsenal of Soviet-style

weapons that have been designated for

export pursuant to the Conventional

Forces in Europe Treaty. Since the

Bosnians presently use Soviet-style

equipment, acquiring former Soviet

bloc equipment would minimize the

amount of training they would require.

Furthermore, any training, whether by

United States military advisers or

other country military advisers, could
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7881

be conducted outside of Bosnia—in Croatia or Slovenia, for example.

Madam President, administration officials should quit fighting amongst

themselves and begin real consultations with the Congress, consultations

based on the facts and not on wild accusations or unrealistic scenarios. It is

time to take sides—with the victims of

this aggression. It is also high time for

America to exercise leadership and end

its participation in this international

failure.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will

VETO OF RESCISSIONS BILL

fjust say that on the rescissions veto by

the President today, it is highly regrettable President Clinton chose a bill

cutting spending for the first veto. The

$16.4 billion rescissions bill would have

provided for $9 billion—$9 billion, a lot

of money in real savings—an important

downpayment in getting our country’s

financial house in order.

The President made a serious mistake in judgment in vetoing this measure. It would have provided funding to

the Federal Emergency Management

Agency for disaster relief, to Oklahoma

for reconstruction, and debt relief for

Jordan to support the peace process,

money for California.

Speaker GINGRICH and I have previously said we met the administration

more than halfway. The President

asked for Jordan debt relief, we met his

request. The President asked for FEMA

funds for disaster relief in 40 States,

and we met his request. The President

threatened to veto if striker replacement language was included in the bill,

we took it out. We left AIDS funding,

breast cancer screening, childhood immunization, Head Start, and other programs untouched, and still we came up

with $9 billion in net real savings.

We, in the Congress, held up our end

of the bargain, but President Clinton

missed a valuable opportunity—a golden opportunity—to join us cutting

spending.

Now, with three-quarters of the fiscal

year almost gone, we are losing the opportunity to enact real savings this

year. In the face of the budget deficit

that mortgages our children’s future,

we in the Congress will proceed to pass

a budget that puts us on the path to

balance by the year 2002. We owe it to

our children, and we owe it to our

grandchildren.

For the sake of generations to come,

it is time for the President to stop

being an obstacle in the road and join

us in our responsibility to secure our

Nation’s economic future.

THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION

fACT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed

to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 45, S. 652, the telecommunications bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENNETT). The bill will be stated by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 652) to provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private

sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and

services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition,

and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the immediate consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise

to begin Senate floor consideration of

S. 652—the comprehensive communications bill which the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation overwhelmingly approved late

last month on a vote of 17 to 2—The

Telecommunications Competition and

Deregulation Act of 1995.

The future of America’s economy and

society is inextricably linked to the

universe of telecomunications and

computer technology. Telecommunications and computer technology is a

potent force for progress and freedom,

more powerful than Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press five centuries

ago, or Bell’s telephone and Marconi’s

radio in the last century.

This force has helped us reach today’s historic turning point in America.

The telecommunications and computer technology of 21st-Century

America will be hair-thin strands of

glass and fiber below; the magical

crackling of stratospheric spectrum

above; and the orbit of satellites 23,000

miles beyond. With personal computers

interconnected, telephones untethered,

televisions and radios reinvented, and

other devices yet to be invented bringing digitized information to life, the

telecommunications and computer

technology unleashed by S. 652 will forever change our economy and society.

At stake is our ability to compete

and win in an international information marketplace estimated to be over

$3 trillion by the close of the decade.

The information industry already constitutes one-seventh of our economy,

and is growing.

As chairman of the Committee on

Commerce, Science and Transportation, the core of my agenda is to promote creativity in telecommunications

and computer technology by rolling

back the cost and reach of government.

Costly big-government laws designed

for another era restrain telecommunications and computer technology from

realizing its full potential. My top priority this year is to modernize and liberalize communications law through

passage of the bill before us today, S.

652: Telecommunications Competition

and Deregulation Act of 1995.

A. THE ADVENT OF TELECOMMUNICATONS

REGULATIONS

Most telecommunications policy and

regulation in America is based upon

the New Deal era Communications Act

of 1934. The 1934 Act incorporated the

premise that telephone services were a

natural monopoly, whereby only a single firm could provide better services

at a lower cost than a number of competing suppliers. Tight government

control over spectrum based services

was justified on a scarcity theory. Neither theory for big government regulation holds true today, if it ever did.

The 1934 Act was intended to ensure

that AT&T and other monopoly telephone companies did not abuse their

monopoly power. However, regulatory

protection from competition also ensured that AT&T would remain a government-sanctioned monopoly. In exchange for this government-sanctioned

monopoly, AT&T was to provide universal service. AT&T retained its government-sanctioned monopoly until

antitrust enforcement broke up the

Bell System and transferred the monopoly over local services to the Bell

Operating Companies.

The Communications Act has become

the cornerstone of communications law

in the United States. The 1934 Act established the Federal Communications

Commission, and granted it regulatory

power over communications by wire,

radio, telephone, and cable within the

United States. The Act also charged

the Federal Communications Commission with the responsibility of maintaining, for all the people of the United

States, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide

and worldwide wire and radio communications service with adequate facilities and reasonable charges.

Prior to 1934, communications regulation had come under the jurisdiction

of three separate Federal agencies.

Radio stations were licensed and regulated by the Federal Radio Commission; the Interstate Commerce Commission had jurisdiction over telephone, telegraph, and wireless common

carriers; and the Postmaster General

had certain jurisdiction over the companies that provided these services. As

the number of communications providers in the United States grew, Congress

determined that a commission with

unified jurisdiction would serve the

American people more effectively.

The 1934 Communications Act combined the powers that the Interstate

Commerce Commission and the Federal

Radio Commission then exercised over

communications under a single, independent Federal agency.

The Communications Act of 1934 was

based, in part, on the Interstate Commerce Act of 1888. For example, the requirement for approval of construction

or extension of lines for railroads was

taken directly from the ICC Act. Prior

to 1934, wire communications were regulated by the same set of laws that regulated the railroads. Radio communications were regulated under the 1927

Federal Radio Act. In 1934, the Federal

Communications Commission was created to oversee both the wireline communications and radio communications.