Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the proposal which I am privileged to cosponsor with the distinguished majority leader and many others of both parties, which would finally lift the arms embargo and do some justice in the former Yugoslavia, by replacing a policy of inaction or half actions that has failed to stem the conflict, has failed to stop aggression, and has failed to protect the victims of that aggression, whose pain we see each night on our television sets. Madam President, this is a genuinely bipartisan or nonpartisan effort, as it should be, as American foreign policy has traditionally been at its best--above party consideration. Senator Dole and I began this effort in 1992 when the incumbent in the White House happened to be a Republican, President Bush. We have continued in 1993, 1994, and 1995, with President Clinton in the White House. Sadly, each time that we have raised this question of lifting the arms embargo and using allied air power selectively, we have been met with different excuses. A defense, not even really so much a defense of the existing policy, but criticisms, complications, unintended results, that might occur if the arms embargo was lifted. In that, I think, and I will get to that in a moment or two, we have failed not only to see what was happening on the ground, but to listen to the victims of the aggression. The Bosnians have said repeatedly, over and over again, ``We don't want American soldiers on Bosnian soil. We don't need American soldiers on Bosnian soil. We have troops on Bosnian soil, they are Bosnians--in excess of 100,000. They are motivated, understandably, to fight to defend their country, their communities, their families, themselves. Just give us the weapons with which to defend ourselves.'' Madam President, we rise again, a bipartisan group. Several tries at lifting the arms embargo having failed, this time we act with some sense of hope that we will be able to achieve, perhaps [[Page S 10271]] later today, a strong bipartisan statement that it is time to change our policy. Give the Bosnians the weapons they deserve. Stop denying them their inherent right to defend themselves, a right we have as individuals, the right Bosnians have as a nation, under international law, under the charter of the United Nations. This is a bipartisan call. Let me read the names of some of the others who are cosponsoring S. 21: Senator Helms, Senator Thurmond, Senator Biden, Senator D'Amato, Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, Senator Warner, Senator Hatch, Senator Kyl, Senator Moynihan, Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, the distinguished occupant of the chair, Senator Hutchison, Senator Mack, Senator Coverdell, Senator Packwood, Senator Murkowski, Senator Specter. And I am pleased now, Madam President, to ask unanimous consent that Senator Craig of Idaho be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1801, a substitute to S. 21.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chair. Mr. President, first I would like to request unanimous consent that Frederic S. Baron, a Pearson Fellow in my office, be permitted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 21?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished majority leader, the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], and many others in both parties in introducing this substitute, S. 21. I do want to indicate at the outset, though, this has been a frustrating path that we have walked together. It has been an honor to walk it with Senator Dole and to say that this is a path we have walked together in the interest of a strong policy in Bosnia and a fair policy, which is to say one that will arm the Bosnians who have been deprived of their right of self-defense by international action, in which we have participated. This effort, together with Senator Dole and others, has been done, as he said a few moments ago, on a totally bipartisan, which is to say, nonpartisan, basis, which is the way in which American foreign policy has been at its finest hours. I specifically point out that Senator Dole and I began this effort during the previous Republican administration of President Bush, expressing our frustration and opposition to the failure of leadership and the continued imposition of the arms embargo. Mr. President, we have been here before. By my calculation, we have been here at least seven times before. Each time, excuses are given why this is the wrong time to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government. Explanations are given about what the consequences might be, let alone why the whole idea of lifting the embargo is wrong. We have continued to believe that the heart of any equitable policy in the former Yugoslavia is to allow both sides to be able to defend themselves. History divided the former Yugoslavia in such a way that only one side, namely, Serbia and its clients, its agents in Croatia and in Bosnia, were left with the warmaking capacity of the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia was left with nothing. This denial of this fundamental right of self-defense, which each of us can feel in a personal sense, certainly, as we watch the horrors, the atrocities that have gone on once again in Bosnia in the last couple of weeks and see families divided--mothers separated from children, husbands from wives, see women taken off without explanation with God knows what being done to them, men being herded away, young men, men of military age being herded away. These are the human horrific results of this policy. People have argued against the idea of raising the arms embargo each time we have brought it to this floor, arguing more against it than for an alternative policy. Today we come back, as Senator Dole has said, not saying that this is the perfect policy, not saying that any policy in a complicated situation is perfect or guaranteed to succeed, but saying with clarity that the current policy has been a terrible failure, has brought suffering and pain and death to the people of Bosnia. But more than that, it has victimized, along with the people of Bosnia, the world's best hopes for order and morality--the United States, NATO, and the United Nations, each suffering significant, deep damage to our credibility, to our status, to our legitimacy in the world. When the voices and institutions and nations of strength and authority fail to act or act with ambivalence in a way that sends a message of weakness and outlaws continue to be aggressors, then the results are obvious, and you do not have to be a Ph.D. in diplomacy to understand this. If outlaws are marauding in a city in our country and forces of law do not stop them, they will keep marauding until they reach each one of us. And that, in essence, I fear, is what has happened over the last 3 years of inaction by the world communities in Bosnia. Mr. President, I have a point of view which I feel very strongly about what Bosnia was before this conflict and what has brought us to this point. I have spoken of it before on this floor, and I will just speak to it briefly today. There are those who like to dismiss or diminish the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and, in some sense, thereby to wash our hands of any responsibility, remove us from any involvement on the basis of this allegation: ``These people have been fighting for centuries.'' There is a hint here that these people are somehow slightly less than human. ``They continue to fight; why should we get involved?'' There are two realities. One is that civilizations, cultural and religious, have met in the Balkans. That is the history over the centuries, and there have been conflicts. But the reality is that, in Bosnia particularly, a strong and healthy multiethnic culture and nationality developed. Somebody said to me, in Sarajevo before this terrible war, it was thought to be offensive for one person to ask another in Sarajevo what their ethnic origin was: Are you a Moslem? Are you a Serb? Are you a Croat? No, they were [[Page S 10236]] Bosnians. This was a great, flourishing multiethnic culture. Second, there is a clear course that I see as I look at the history of this region over the last 6 or 7 years, and that is of an intentional, concerted effort through aggression by Serbians operating out of Belgrade under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic to create a greater Serbia. Since 1988, beginning with the takeover of the political machinery in Montenegro and Vojvodina, the illegal suppression of the legal Government of Kosova, which has a large Albanian majority, suppressed, continuing to be victims of harassment and abuse and worse. That occurred in 1989. Then the mobilization of nationalist feelings in Serbian public polls; The slow-moving constitutional coup against the Federal Presidency; The Serbian economic blockade against Croatia and Slovenia in late 1990; The theft by Serbia that year of billions of dinars from the Federal budget, destroying the Federal economic reform program; And then the incitement and arming by Serbia out of Belgrade of Serb minorities in Croatia and Bosnia during 1990 and 1991. That is how we got to where we are. This is no accident. This is no continuation of centuries and centuries of constant fighting. This is a decision made in Belgrade by a leader and a group around him to incite nationalism, to destroy the multicultural, multiethnic society in Bosnia and to take advantage of the instability that existed after the cold war to create a greater Serbia. What about the embargo that we are debating? Where did that come from? Mr. President, this is not, as some may think, an act of international law. It is an act of policy created and adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations. The resolution introduced creating an arms embargo, No. 713, was considered by the Security Council at Belgrade's request. Why? Well, I believe it is obvious. Because the forces in Belgrade knew that they had the monopoly and the warmaking capacity, the arms factories, and the weapons that had already been constructed of the former Yugoslavia. Applying an arms embargo put their enemies, the targets of their aggression, at a profound disadvantage. So at Belgrade's request, in September 1991, the United Nations Security Council adopted this arms embargo, later to be carried out by the member nations, including our own--in this case, by an Executive order issued by President Bush. The world satisfied itself that this was a means to limit the conflict in the former Yugoslavia by stopping the flow of arms. What innocence. What naivete. In April 1992, Bosnia was recognized as a new state, independent and separate from Yugoslavia. And on May 22, 1992, it was admitted as a member state to the United Nations. Yet, still the embargo that had been applied on the former Yugoslavia, despite the glaring conflict between this application and Bosnia's right of self defense under international law, was applied to Bosnia. That is how we got on the road to where we are now. In 1992, international television crews gained access to what I could only describe as concentration camps that were being operated by the Serbs, where they were herding Moslems into the camps. We witnessed the emaciated bodies, and we saw evidence of this incredible phrase-- ``ethnic cleansing.'' There were 200,000 killed in this war. A couple of million refugees. The world rolls up in horror at the sight of these figures in the concentration camps and the stories of systematic rape-- rape as an instrument of war. Serbs were coming into towns not only clearing them out of the Moslems, but grabbing women and raping them, and taking men off to the camps, or slaughtering them on sight. The world cried out for a response. The Western nations were not prepared to really stand up to the aggression. So what did we do? We sent in the United Nations--which was not good, ultimately, for the people of Bosnia, not good for the United Nations--presumably to perform a humanitarian role. But little by little, that mission crept, to enforce the denied flight zone, enforce and protect the safe havens, sending these brave soldiers wearing the blue helmets of the United Nations in to keep a peace that never was, and putting them into combat positions without the weapons with which to defend themselves. I heard the other day--and I have not had a chance to check this, but I believe it--that more soldiers wearing U.N. uniforms have been killed in Bosnia than in the gulf war. They are heroes. We sent them effectively on a mission impossible. Several times, confronting the failure of this policy, the increasing way in which the U.N. troops began to be not only an excuse for Western inaction in the face of Serbian aggression, but began to be a cover for Serbian aggression within Bosnia. Every time we would come here in the early years in this effort to lift the embargo, people would say: You cannot do it. If we lift the embargo, the Serbs will seize the U.N. personnel as hostages. Well, we have not lifted the embargo, and the Serbs have seized U.N. personnel as hostages, and the killing of the Moslems in Bosnia continues. Mr. President, when we came to the floor January 27, 1994, we passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling on the President to terminate the arms embargo. That measure passed 87 to 9. It was only a sense of the Senate. But the Senate spoke. The world sat idly by, the arms embargo was not lifted, and the people of Bosnia continued to be--using that dreadfully sanitized term--ethnically cleansed, which is to say ripped from their homes, raped, and murdered. In May 1994, the Senate again considered, and this time passed, two measures. One was a measure that I cosponsored with Senator Dole, requiring the United States to unilaterally terminate the arms embargo upon the request of the Bosnian Government. That passed 50 to 49. On that day--I suppose in a way that only the Senate of the United States could do--we also passed an amendment offered by Senator Nunn and the previous majority leader, Senator Mitchell, requiring the President to solicit a multilateral lift of the embargo and to consult with Congress if that did not occur. Again, the Senate spoke. The world sat idly by, the arms embargo was not lifted, and the people of Bosnia were ethnically cleansed, ripped from their homes, raped, and murdered. Again, in July and August 1994, the Senate addressed the issue of lifting the arms embargo, voted and passed measures calling for its termination. This time the votes rose. The last of these votes was 58 to 42, passing an amendment offered by Senator Dole and myself to the defense appropriations bill, which called for the lifting of the embargo no later than November 15, 1994. On each of those occasions, the Senate spoke. The world sat idly by, the arms embargo was not lifted, and the people of Bosnia were ethnically cleansed, ripped from their homes, raped, and murdered. Here we are. It is July 1995. One of the other arguments that was made to us in these many debates I have just described is that if we lifted the arms embargo, the Serbs would seize the safe havens, particularly in the east of Bosnia. Well, we have not lifted the arms embargo and, as we know, the Serbs have seized the safe havens--at a dreadful human cost for the Bosnians. Srebrenica has fallen. Zepa is under siege now. Failure of our policy could not be clearer. It is time, finally, to act. Again, as in 1992 when the concentration camps were discovered, the world is aroused by these painful sights of human suffering from Bosnia. This is the moment for us, finally, to act--to act against aggression, against immorality, to give the people of this country--the victims--the weapons with which to defend themselves. Mr. President, the Bosnians have been the greatest victims of the current policy that the West has followed for the last 3\1/2\ years, a policy of irresoluteness, at best, a policy of weakness, at worst. But the Bosnians are not the only victims. We have suffered, as well. When aggression is met by ambivalence, and aggression is met by no response--which has been the case throughout the war in Bosnia-- ultimately, we are all going to suffer. We saw it happen just a short while ago directly to America, when Captain O'Grady's F-16 was shot down. [[Page S 10237]] I have gone over this event in some detail with the folks at the Pentagon just to make clear that I understood exactly what happened. Here is what I have learned. We know that the Serbs in Bosnia were able to pick up the F-16 flying over Bosnia on an integrated radar air defense system that has installations in Bosnia, controlled by the Bosnian Serbs, but goes back to Belgrade and Serbia, as well. But what is most infuriating about this is that it is clear to those who are in a position to know that when the Serbian air defense system sighted Captain O'Grady's F-16, they knew it was an American F-16. This may not be known to those who are not involved, and Members of the Chamber, and those who may be watching this debate, but this is a sophisticated air defense system which can look at this plane and determine that it is an American F-16. And not just that. It was able to determine--the Serbs on the ground-- that this F-16 was not flying an aggressive flight mission. It was not out to drop weapons, bombs, on Serbian targets, as has happened all too infrequently in this conflict. But that this plane was on a nonaggressive patrol mission, part of Operation Deny Flight, to keep Serb planes on the ground, not in the air. Seeing it was an American plane, knowing it was on a nonaggressive mission, the Bosnian Serbs intentionally shot it down. It is only by the grace of God and by the depth of his own extraordinary courage that Captain O'Grady is alive today. Understand the outrageous arrogance, the disrespect for law, the disrespect for the greatest power in the world, the United States, that they showed. These Bosnian Serbs shot down our plane. What have they paid for that aggression? Nothing. What does that invite? It invites them to attack and overrun a safe haven. Meanwhile Bosnian Army weapons are being held in a U.N. compound. U.N. Dutch soldiers--courageous, effectively unarmed--light arms is all they had. Then the Serbs followed with atrocities against the civilian population. So we have suffered. We have suffered in the United States. We will continue to suffer, as will the rule of law and the rule of morality, if we stand by and allow this aggression of the Serbs to go unresponded to. Mr. President, that is what this S. 21 proposal is all about. In 1992, President Clinton supported a policy of lifting the arms embargo and striking from the air. In 1993, Secretary Christopher, in the spring of that year, May I believe, went to Europe to advocate this policy. Apparently, our allies and Britain and France argued against it. That was the end of it. I honestly believe if we implemented that policy at that point and employed NATO air power, which we could have done against the Serbs with minimal risk to NATO and American personnel, this war would have been over and there would have been a reasonable peace that both sides could have accepted. That is history. It has not happened. But now, though the hour is late in Bosnia and the situation ever more difficult and complicated, there is no opportunity to get the warring parties to the peace table, unless the Serbs pay some price for their aggression. It seems to me that our last hope here, our last best hope, is to lift the arms embargo, give the Bosnians the weapons with which to defend themselves, their families, their country, and use NATO air power to strike at Serbian targets. I would not rule anything out. Let the Serbs worry about where and when we will strike. In Bosnia against Serbian targets or in Serbia, which continues to arm, equip, and actually send Serbian regular soldiers into Bosnia alongside the Bosnian Serbs. There is strong evidence that in the fall of Srebrenica there were special forces from the Serbian Army, the so-called Serbian Army fighting side by side with the Bosnian Serbs. This is our last best hope, not just for the people of Bosnia who paid a terrible price, but for the rule of law and order in Europe and throughout the world. It is the last best hope for NATO to show that in a situation that is complicated and yet where aggression is clear, it will act outside the context of the Soviet-American cold war conflict; that there is still meaning to NATO in this great alliance. It is the last best hope for the United Nations to restore some measure of credibility to itself as an instrument of hope to victims of aggression and oppression throughout the world. Mr. President, there will be an extended debate tomorrow, I am sure, on this amendment. I hope and pray that what we will have is the resounding bipartisan majority, the overwhelming majority that Senator Dole referred to earlier. Of itself, this is an event that occurs here on the floor of the Senate, far removed from the suffering on the ground in Bosnia, unable effectively to immediately, even it is passed overwhelmingly, bring assistance to the Bosnians, but it will bring them hope. More than that, I hope that it will combine with what is happening on the ground, which is to say the failure of the U.N. mission, to either lead to a more aggressive use of air power by NATO, as Secretary Perry has spoken of, hopefully, encouragingly to me, in the last 3 or 4 days. If not, then the withdrawal of the U.N. forces, the arming of the Bosnians, and the continued use of NATO air power. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his patience. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the bill before the Senate, S. 343, and the vote that will [[Page S 10131]] occur at 6 o'clock p.m., a little more than half an hour from now, asking that we invoke cloture on this bill. Mr. President, the last week has seen an intensive debate and a very thorough debate on not just the bill but on the values and ideals and processes that underlie our whole regulatory process. While I feel from my perspective that we have made some progress, at least by my standards, have improved the bill, I intend to vote against cloture because I still believe that this bill, as amended, so fundamentally alters the regulatory process and increases the obstacles and hurdles within that process, that it does damage to the laws--the public health, consumer protection, environmental protection laws--that underlay those regulations. Mr. President, this has been, I think, a very important debate in which, in general terms, all Members here in the Chamber have expressed our support of two basic goals. One is to acknowledge that the regulatory process in many ways has grown top heavy. Senator Hatch has given the list of the bottom 10 regulations which often seem silly and off the mark. Senators Glenn and Kerry and others have occasionally set the record straight on some of those bottom 10. The underlying point of Senator Hatch's list, I think, is agreed to by everyone here, which is that in some sense our regulatory process has become too complicated. It takes too long to render decisions. It often costs more than it should cost. I think we also have another set of values that we share. This is where we part company. Some think the reforms of the regulatory process get in the way of the protective goals of the underlying environmental protection, consumer protection, public health and safety laws that generate those regulations. Remember, the regulations do not arise out of nowhere. They arise, for the most part, out of laws that we adopt. We adopt those laws because we are responding to problems. We are, in the best exercise of governmental authority, making judgments about certain threats to the well-being of people in this country that they cannot protect themselves from. In some measure, in our increasingly complicated world--much more complicated than when this country was founded--we have extended what we lawyers like to call the police power of the State to encompass not just the traditional prohibitions of criminal acts and punishment for commission of those acts, but to protect people from being assaulted, for instance, by toxic chemicals in the air or in the water, substances that, if you listen to the public health experts--and they are credible ones--can do as much damage to people as criminals can. So we have adopted this law to protect people, whether it was against food poisoning or protecting children from iron toxicity, whether it is to ensure that mammography done in this country is safe and reliable, whether it is to protect us against the now legendary cryptosporidium, a microscopic parasite found in drinking water. This is why we adopt regulations. I hope this debate has reminded us of those underlying purposes. It seems to me S. 343, as amended, continues to present serious obstacles to the realization of those protective goals. I must say that, as I go around the State of Connecticut, I find that one of the aspects of our Government that people I speak to most support, even though they are upset about much else that we do here, is the work we do to protect the environment, to conserve the great natural resources that the good Lord has given this country and, in fact, this world, to protect them from threats that they cannot see in the water they drink, in the food they eat. They want us to continue to do this. And I am convinced that in the layers of hurdles--in the petition process set up within S. 343, as amended, in the decisional criteria, these four very high hurdles that regulations, protective regulations will have to jump over in order to stay valid, in the judicial review process, and so much else that is in this bill--that though the bill has been improved, it still needs to be improved more, or we will inadvertently, I believe--I hope unintentionally--have made it much more difficult for Government to protect people from threats to their health and safety and well-being that they cannot protect themselves from. The best way to describe and explain all this is with concrete examples, and let me give a few. The Clean Air Act requires that the standards for air quality be set at a level to provide protection of public health with an adequate margin of safety. I would guess, if we asked constituents in our district whether they want us, when it comes to protecting public health, their health, from pollution in the air-- whether they want us to do that with an adequate margin of safety, they would say yes. Sure, people are cost conscious. Obviously, they are cost conscious. But when it comes to their health, their parents' health, their children's health, I think they would want us to err on the side of that health, not on the side of the cost to the source of the pollution. Acting on guidance from Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency has set the standards for air quality, public health, at levels which err on the side of caution, at levels which do protect not just average people but also sensitive subgroups of the public such as the elderly, who are less able, because their bodies are older, to withstand pollution in the air; persons who have more respiratory problems; or children; or such as subgroups in the population who already are ill for one reason or another--they may have asthma, they may have heart disease. They are particularly vulnerable to dirty, polluted, toxic air. Although the statute on its face, the Clean Air Act, does not prohibit consideration of costs, EPA, for 25 years, has implemented the statute based on health protection and health protection alone. And the courts have upheld EPA's approach. For example, one of the pollutants that EPA regulates is sulfur dioxide, which comes from coal-burning utilities and smelters primarily. EPA long ago determined that its standard for sulfur dioxide emissions in the air should be set, not just to protect the average group of healthy Americans, but to protect asthmatics as well. There has been a 40 percent increase in asthma in our country in the last decade. That is a topic for another discussion as to why that has happened. My internists at home in New Haven said to me that he sees what he is calling an epidemic of asthma, particularly among kids. The standard EPA sets is at a level to protect asthmatics. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA periodically review this standard. And, under the bill before us, S. 343, as amended, industry--that is source of pollution who feel they are adversely affected by this sulfur dioxide standard--can petition to have the standard reviewed under the new decisional criteria, those four high hurdles that I have talked about. I respectfully suggest that the likely result, under this series of decisional criteria, would be that despite the long history I have talked about and the court decisions, EPA could no longer set the standard for sulfur dioxide at the level to protect as much public health and as many people in our country, including those with asthma and respiratory problems, as they do now. Instead, it would be required to look at the benefits from avoiding medical treatment for asthmatics and weigh those against the compliance costs imposed on the sources of the pollution, the smelters and other facilities. Inevitably, this will mean that the standard will not be set at a level that will protect the asthmatics who are protected now. And that is a lot of people. That is millions of people. It is our kids. It is our spouses. It is our parents. For the first time, the degree to which EPA is permitted to set these standards for air quality based on health protection would be compromised. And even if EPA could avoid this strict cost-benefit weighing part of the test that I have just described, one of the other sections of the decisional criteria is the least-cost section, which says that you have to do what you are supposed to do at the least cost possible, would require a weighing of costs which, again, would compromise the health-based standard but, more to the point, compromise the health of a lot of people in this country. [[Page S 10132]] Finally, because I see other colleagues on the floor, let me give a specific example of why the second decisional criteria, the least-cost alternative, could significantly reduce protection of public health and the environment. In 1991 EPA conducted a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of options for the rule it was issuing that dealt with lead in drinking water--lead in drinking water. When you open the tap and drink the water, what about the lead in it? Several options had been suggested ranging from simply telling people to run their water before drinking it, which reduces the problem in some but not all cases, and depends on assuring that, for instance, children and others will run the water for a couple of minutes before drinking. Mr. President, I do not know about your kids--they are younger than mine--but I do not think mine will run a tap for a few minutes before drinking. Other alternatives for dealing with lead in water, drinking water, would require universal use of a corrosion-inhibiting chemical and the replacement of all lead-contaminated pipes or setting an ``at-the-tap'' standard for lead. So there were three or four alternatives available to EPA for dealing with this problem, the real public health problem of lead in drinking water. EPA conducted a detailed cost-benefit analysis for three alternative rules, all of which had benefits greater than costs. EPA chose the middle-of-the-road option, requiring some but not all water utilities, water companies, to use a corrosion-inhibiting chemical and requiring replacement of the worst lead pipes, but over a 22-year schedule to phase it in. It is very likely that under S. 343, if it is adopted as amended, the least-cost alternative would have been to issue a much more limited chemical treatment rule. Under the alternative selected by EPA, the benefits have been enormous. For a little more expenditure, we have received and obtained much greater health benefits, assuring, according to public health experts, that thousands of children would not have elevated blood lead levels and others with vulnerability to lead because of heart conditions would be saved, quite literally, from heart attacks. That EPA middle of the road rule had far, far greater benefits than the least-cost alternative that would be driven by S. 343, as amended, in terms of public health--and that means children have higher blood lead levels, they lower IQ's. It is pretty hard to calculate the cost of that, but in my opinion it is incalculable. EPA would simply not have been able to adopt the sensible midcourse alternative it selected if we adopted the bill as amended. That would not have made good common sense and obviously it would not have made good public health. Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor. I will yield the floor. But to say again what I said, at the beginning, we have made some progress on this bill. But there is a way to go before we accomplish both real regulatory reform and cut down the red tape, which all of us want to do, and the Glenn-Chafee bill does very sensibly. But what we have not done yet is assure that the public health, environmental protection, and consumer protection, which generated the adoption of the laws that gave birth to these regulations, are going to continue to be adequately protected. And until that is so, I will vote as I will in a short while against cloture on this bill. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague from Louisiana. Obviously, I have respect for him, his judgment, his word, and his good faith. I accept the challenge to work with him to clarify the intention of the bill overall with regard to emergency health and safety problems. I know that the Senator from Ohio has a statement he wishes to make. I am going to spend a few minutes more and then I will yield the floor. I do want to say in overall terms, to put in a different context these two goals that we have, that there is no question that part of what motivates the bill before us is the broadly held feeling in America that Government has become too big and too intrusive. But reflecting only what I hear from my constituents in Connecticut, which is that, I also hear from them that there are certain things that they very much want Government to continue to do for them because they know they cannot do it alone and it cannot be privatized. I remember somebody once said--it is not my thought--the law exists in society in relationship to the natural goodness and perfection of the species; in other words, in Heaven, if you will, there is no law because everyone does the right thing; in Hell, it is all law because no one does the right thing; and we on Earth are somewhere in between. The law expresses our aspirations, our values, our desire for a just society. Do we overdo it sometimes? Sure, we do. I have to tell you, when I am home in Connecticut, I do not find anybody saying to me there is too much environmental protection. I do not find anybody saying to me there is too much consumer protection, there is too much food safety protection, too much protection of toys. Yes, I find some business people saying to me that some of the ways in which these goals you put into legislation are being enforced by some of the inspectors, the bureaucrats are ridiculous. The average business person I talk to says, ``Look, I'm not just a business person, I'm a citizen, I'm a father, I'm a husband, I'm a grandfather. I have as much interest in clean air and clean water and safe drinking water and safe food and safe toys as anybody else.'' I am saying as we go forward, let us remember both sides. I have two more general points. No. 1 is, I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I have spent a lot of time on that committee. Let me say briefly that I find there is an extraordinary broad base of support in my State, and I believe throughout this country, for environmental protection. In fact, environmental protection is, as the writer Gregg Easterbrook pointed out in articles and a book recently, probably the single greatest success story of American Government in the postwar period. It is an interesting thing to talk about. Again, it is not to say everything has been done to protect the environment rationally and sensibly. Twenty- five years ago, the Connecticut River was described by somebody as the prettiest sewer in America. Today, the river is fishable and swimmable. That has happened all around America with rivers, lakes, and streams. The same is true of the air, that was heading rapidly in the direction of not just smog that is hard to see through, but really affecting people's health. I am hesitant, after the discussion we had today about numbers here, but there are fairly credible scientists and doctors who say still in our country tens of thousands of people die prematurely--which is to say what it says, they would have lived somewhat longer were it not for forms of air pollution. This is particularly true of vulnerable populations. There is an epidemic of asthma in our country. It has gone up 40 percent in the last 10 years, particularly among children. I have a child who has asthma. More and more of these kids are vulnerable to pollutants in the air. We have done a pretty good job of cutting the number of those pollutants, but still we have a greater amount of work to be done. I am saying, as we try to make the regulatory process more rational, more reasonable, let us not pull away from the underlying goals. Finally, one of the things that has happened in the environmental area is a general acceptance of the environmental ethic, as I said a moment ago, and, I think, a growing partnership between the business community and individuals and the environmental community. I am fearful that if cooler heads do not prevail in this particular debate, and debates are going on about other laws, that that partnership is going to be broken. It will have a bad effect overall. It is going to lead, first, to the kind of conflict that does not produce results, does not clean up the environment, but, second, I am afraid from the point of view of business, one of whose understandable goals is to seek consistency of regulation, of law, there is going to be inconsistency, we are going to swing from extreme to extreme, and that is not good. Finally, if we do not get together and be reasonable with one another and adopt a good regulatory reform bill, it is going to face a Presidential veto. Then nothing is going to be accomplished. We would have spent a lot of time, filled the air with a lot of rhetoric, but ultimately, we are going to be left with a regulatory system that all of us find inadequate. So I hope as we go forward that we will keep those thoughts in mind. I believe that the bill before us still, because of the petition process in it, which is an invitation to delay, because of some of the standards that are set, inadvertently puts at risk some of the accomplishments of the last two or three decades. I personally prefer S. 291. I prefer it in part because I worked on it in the Governmental Affairs Committee under the leadership of the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Ohio. It came out of our committee 15 to 0, a bipartisan vote. It is tough regulatory reform. It requires a determination of whether the benefits justify the costs. It requires regular review by the agencies of the regulations. It goes on to create sunshine in the process and to put some common sense into the regulatory process without jeopardizing the underlying laws. So I prefer it to the alternative we have before us, but I hope we can bridge the ground and, most of all, get something done to change the status quo without jeopardizing the purposes that have engendered the status quo. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for their patience, and I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the majority leader has offered this amendment this morning, not just because it clarifies that the language of the bill was not intended to hold up this rule on bacteria in meat, which the Centers for Disease Control tells us is a serious health problem, but because the amendment reminds us why we have regulation. The amendment reminds us that regulation does not simply emanate out of a vacuum in which some bureaucrat falls to impose irrational rules. Regulation comes from laws that we adopt in Congress, that are signed by the President, that recognize some public problem that we as the elected representatives of the people have concluded the people themselves cannot protect themselves from; they cannot handle that problem on their own. There are a lot of problems like that in our increasingly complicated, sophisticated, globalized world. It is not like the old days where you basically grew what you ate. We are eating a lot of stuff that comes from halfway around the world. We are breathing air that contains pollutants that come from thousands of miles away. We are affected, when we go out on a sunny day in the summer, by rays that are coming through the hole in the ozone layer that has been created by chemicals that are being sent up there from all around the globe, and so on and so forth. So we have created a series of protections as part of what I would consider the police power of the State, which is why people form governments in the first place, which is to protect them, to create security for them from harms from which they cannot protect themselves. The inspection of meat, to protect people--and people have died from bacteria in meat--is part of that apparatus. So it is after Congress recognizes a problem, creates a law, and the President signs it, that then, because the law cannot cover every contingency, the administrators come along and they adopt regulations to carry out the rule, to apply it to specific cases. And this, frankly, is where we have gotten into some of the problems that have generated the bill before us and the substitute that many of us on the Governmental Affairs Committee supported, S. 291, now adopted almost completely in the Glenn-Chafee bill. You would have a hard time, Mr. President--at least I have not found in this Chamber of 100 Senators representing every State in this Union--one Member who will say that he or she is not for regulatory reform. We all have been home and talked to our constituents, small business people, large business people, individuals who can cite for us an example where there is just too much regulation, but even more regulation without common sense. My friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, has been providing what I might call the daytime version of David Letterman's nighttime list of the 10 best. We have Senator Hatch in the morning, and we have heard these stories and they are real, and it is why we are all for regulatory reform. But the reason why some of us are concerned about the content of the bill before us and why we seriously want to go through this process and see hopefully if we cannot work together in the end to get to a position where all of us, or at least most of us, can support the bill is our fear that inadvertently in responding to some of the excesses and foolishness of regulation and bureaucracy, we may impede the accomplishment, the purpose of the underlying public health and safety laws that I believe the public wants.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, to respond through the Chair to the Senator from Louisiana, first, I thank him for his kind words and, second, it seems to me on the face of it the intention is certainly to cover those health and safety threats. The question is whether it is effectively done or comprehensively done, and I would like to work with the Senator. Let me just say that the other day we received the paper flying all over about the Food and Drug Administration comments of the overall bill, and they say as part of their comments: The exemption for likely health or safety threats will not permit the agency to take expeditious action to avert harm. First, the finding of good cause would be imposed in addition to the statutory violation finding that the agency currently is required to make before taking any action, unless the intent is to override the statutory finding. This requirement is burdensome and inappropriate. Second-- And this is something that I have been concerned about-- neither ``significant harm'' nor ``likely'' is defined. As a result, it is unclear how many situations would fall under this standard. Is the threat of one spontaneous abortion-- The example they use-- or one death a significant harm? Under what circumstances would the threat be deemed likely? Would the adulterated product need to be in domestic commerce before the threat was likely? The requirement that the harm render the completion of a detailed risk-benefit analysis impractical adds a further level of complexity to what should be a straightforward, expedited determination. I am not embracing all of these questions as my own, but I think they are reasonable, and I would like to work with the Senator to make sure that we do put to rest any of the concerns that are raised in here about public health and safety, although I must say that I have an underlying concern about some of the other sections as they affect the regulatory process even in cases where they are not health and safety. But let me finally, bottom line, respond. I understand that the intention here is to cover all of the concerns, the specific cases, of the bacteria and the rest, and I would like to review the language in the majority leader's amendment and work with the Senator from Louisiana to make sure that we do just that. It seems to me, as I said a few moments ago, I think we all share two common goals. The Senator from Ohio has outlined these as his test for whether he will support a regulatory [[Page S 9661]] reform bill. And to paraphrase and state them simply, we are all for regulatory reform. We agree there are excesses. There is foolishness. But in achieving regulatory reform let us make sure that inadvertently we do not block the accomplishment of the purpose of the legislation that is underneath the regulations.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted and proud to join Senator Hatch in this bipartisan introduction of the Capital Formation Act of 1995. As a Democrat, I have often borrowed Paul Tsongas' line that you can't be pro-jobs and anti-business, because the jobs we want for people are going to come from business. The bill we are introducing today is pro-jobs and pro-business. It gives people at all income levels a reason to put their money in places where that money will help businesses start and grow and that means more jobs for Americans and more economic prosperity for our country. We are introducing this bill at a time when the American economy may be on the verge of recession. There are those who say we are already in a recession. One of the most effective things Congress can do to give our economy a boost is to cut the capital gains tax rate. We also have a shortage of savings and investment in this country. Our personal savings rate is now about one-third of Japan's rate and about one-half of Germany's rate. We are ill prepared to deal with the effects of recession, and we are ill prepared for the economic battles of the global marketplace. Unlike most other industrialized nations, we stifle savings and investment by over-taxing it. Nations like Japan and Germany value capital gains. Germany exempts long-term capital gains from taxes for individuals and Japan taxes these gains at either 1 percent of the sales price or 20 percent of the net gain. They reward investment. Not only have we done too little to encourage investment, too often it is actively discouraged. To attack capital gains tax relief as a bonanza for the wealthy is quite simply missing the point. The benefits of this capital gains tax cut will not flow just to people of wealth. Anyone who has stock, who has money invested in a mutual fund, who has investment property, who has a stock option plan at work has a stake in capital gains tax relief. That represents millions and millions of middle class American families. We have information on 310 major firms that offer their employees stock options and stock purchase plans--companies like GTE, Pfizer and Stanley Works, to name a few of the companies in my State. Each of those workers and their spouses and children stand to gain from what we propose today. And these firms are just the tip of the iceberg. And we're talking about direct beneficiaries--not even counting the many middle and lower income people who will get and keep jobs thanks to the investments spurred by the capital gains tax cut. Of course, people who are wealthy can benefit from this proposed capital gains cut, but that is the point. They will benefit if they invest more of their money in ways that help our economy and create jobs. That benefits everyone. Government doesn't make people rich. But Government can and should encourage people who have money to use that money in a way that helps the economy as a whole. That is what this is about. We are simply talking about letting people who are willing to risk their money keep a little bit more of it if they invest that money in our economy. People who oppose cutting the capital gains tax are treating profit as if it were to be avoided. I believe that we should recognize profit as being an advantage of the free market, and we want to encourage it, reward it, help it spread its benefits throughout the [[Page S 8954]] economy to more and more of our people. Opponents also frame this debate in a winners-and-losers context that is totally inappropriate to what is at stake here. Because a rising tide of economic growth raises all ships, there need be no losers when capital gains taxes are cut by our bill. Finally, let me point out that this capital gains tax is broad but it also has a targeted element. It aims at directing investment in a way that maximizes the benefit for our economy. It promotes investment in small businesses--the firms that are driving job creation in our economy. It encourages people to leave their investments in small businesses, start-up businesses for a longer period of time, giving entrepreneurs the kind of predictable cash flow they need to make their businesses succeed. The targeted feature of our capital gains tax cut will be very helpful to the kinds of small businesses we need for our future--the high technology businesses that will be the source of many new jobs in the next century, and that will be the source of our success in global markets. These businesses are high risk. They require a lot of capital investment early on. The payoff is down the road. And the benefits for America are, potentially, enormous. Not just jobs and profits for Americans. But exciting new technological innovations. New ways to educate our children. New medicines and medical devices. New services, and new opportunities for recreation. All these positive changes need the kind of investment our Capital Formation Act will encourage. In closing, let me say that I see this bill as the first leg of a tripod of tax relief for the American people. The second leg is the President's tax credit for children and tax deduction for higher education costs, which I support. The third leg will be a research and development tax credit that is being developed now and I hope will be introduced in the near future. With these tax proposals, we can help more Americans raise their kids today, educate them tomorrow, and provide them with good job opportunities in thriving American businesses in the future.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for up to 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I noted a short while ago that three or four of my colleagues were addressing themselves to the most recent events in the former Yugoslavia. I myself wanted to take this occasion to do the same, because the events there, which have been heartbreaking, tragic, frustrating, and infuriating in various degrees for the last 3 years, seem to only get more so. I rise today, as I have on numerous occasions over the past years to talk about the tragedy which continues to unfold in Bosnia. There seems to be no end to the suffering of innocent people in that war-torn land. No end to the senseless murder of women and children in once-beautiful cities like Sarajevo. I saw a news clip this weekend; in the midst of the firing on the city that went on, the flowers come up--remembrances of times that were better there. Even today, as people have to go to rivers running through the town to try to get some water with which to wash themselves, perhaps to boil it for drinking water or for cooking. No end to the outrageous, illegal, and fundamentally immoral conduct of international outlaws who are operating under the banner of the Bosnian Serbs from their headquarters in Pale. No end to the humiliation of the United Nations and to the brave soldiers wearing the blue hats of UNPROFOR who are beleaguered in every spot where they have been stationed in Bosnia. No end to the chaos, confusion, and indecisiveness of the international community which has allowed this situation to deteriorate to its current, tragic, pathetic low point. Regrettably, U.S. policy has been part of this sad story. Mr. President, the headlines of today's New York Times highlight the depths to which the policies of the West have fallen--``Captives Free, U.N. Gives Up Effort to Shield Sarajevo.'' So what has happened here? International outlaws--the Serbs--seize U.N. soldiers--peacekeepers, supposedly, wearing the blue helmets, noncombatants--seize them as hostages. And what is their reward? Their reward is that the United Nations ceases to enforce a U.N. resolution which compelled U.N. forces to protect Sarajevo and other safe areas in Bosnia. In other words, internationally, at least in Bosnia, crime does pay. The most outrageous, inhumane crime. And of course, the seizing of the U.N. personnel was not the worst of it. Capt. [[Page S 8608]] Scott O'Grady has become quite justifiably and, thank God, a national hero for his courage, for his steadfastness, his extraordinary resourcefulness, for the skill of the American marines who came to his aid, for the effectiveness of American technology that, combined with his bravery, created the circumstance in which he could be liberated, could be saved. But, Mr. President, let us not forget what happened. Captain O'Grady, was on a patrolling mission, not a hostile mission. He was on a mission to enforce a U.N. resolution that there be a no fly zone over Bosnia, that fixed-wing aircraft not fly. And he was shot down in a hostile act by Serbian missiles. And even after those days of eating grass and bugs to keep himself alive, covering himself face-down in the dirt so that the Serbian soldiers walking by would not find him, finally he gets the message out, and those two CH-53E Super Stallions come in with the Marines to rescue this American hero, and what happens? They are fired on by the Serbs-- really an act of war. The domestic equivalent to this would be, what would happen if criminals in a city in our country seized police who were walking or riding on a routine mission, and then when other police came to take them out, fired on those other police. What would our reaction be? We would go in with all we had to get them out; we would feel that we had an obligation in the interest of law to punish them. What happens here? Nothing. The Serbs got away with it. So this is the headline, ``Captives Free, U.N. Gives Up Effort to Shield Sarajevo.'' The captives obviously are the U.N. peacekeepers who were held as hostages for these past weeks. While their return marks the end of one more crisis in Bosnia, it also demonstrates all too clearly why the U.N. forces should no longer be on the ground in Bosnia. There is no peace for these supposed peacekeepers to keep. Barely equipped for self-defense and left in positions where they are continuously vulnerable to Serb humiliation and manipulation, these men do not lack for individual courage, but their hands have been tied by Orwellian U.N. policies where appeasement of the Bosnian Serbs is seen as a virtue and self-defense by the United Nations is seen as a vice. And so the last of these so-called peacekeepers have been returned from their illegal and immoral imprisonment. But at what price? Apparently in exchange for the release of these hostages, the United Nations has now withdrawn from all of the heavy weapons-collection sites around Sarajevo and withdrawn into the city. And now, they too can become targets once again of the wanton Serb artillery, rocket, mortar, and sniper fire that lands on Sarajevo. It is precisely this Serb use of civilians, hospitals, apartment buildings, schools, and playgrounds for target practice which yesterday cost another 7 people their lives and wounded 10 others, I gather, seeking water, at the very time the U.N. hostages were being released. Many of these people were elderly Sarajevans standing in line for water--water that has become ever scarcer as the Serb stranglehold on Sarajevo continues unabated. And what is the understanding that is worked out between the United Nations and the Serb positions from which the artillery came? Only that they allow the water to be turned on again. And so the ultimatum which the United Nations issued early last year to protect the people of Sarajevo has now gone the way of all of the United Nations' efforts in Bosnia--it has been trampled under the heel of the Serbian indifference, the Serbian flouting, the Serbian disregard--I cannot find a noun strong enough for what I feel--of the rule of law and the conduct of civilized States at the end of the 20th century. This follows aggression. This follows genocidal acts against people singled out only because of religion, in this case Moslem. Two hundred thousand dead, two million refugees taken from their homes, increasingly under the cover of a U.N. mission that was supposed to bring peace, but has not brought any of it and has, unfortunately, increased the suffering. The top U.N. official in Bosnia, Yasushi Akashi, has now declared that UNPROFOR will adhere strictly to peacekeeping principles; thus, the use of force will, apparently, no longer be considered by the United Nations. In fact, Mr. Akashi indicated last week, 10 days ago, that the United Nations would only act when they had Serb permission to do so. Mr. Akashi, I say to you that it is time to wake up and look around at the ashes of what once was a multiethnic society in Bosnia--there is no peace to keep. Why is UNPROFOR remaining in Bosnia to perform a mission which by definition cannot be performed there? It is as if these courageous, but ill-fated soldiers wearing the U.N. uniform had been thrown in by the nations that control the United Nations as a kind of stop-gap measure to answer the question, ``What are you doing to stop the aggression and slaughter and genocide in Bosnia?'' And so the peacekeepers have been thrown in, where there is no peace, without the capacity to defend themselves, bringing humiliation on the United Nations and on the rule of law and civility in international relations. It is time for the U.N. leadership and the heads of the countries with forces in the UNPROFOR to acknowledge that in spite of everything else that has gone on, it is time for UNPROFOR to get out. The UNPROFOR mission should be terminated de jure as well as de facto, because de facto, it is over, it does not stand for anything, it is not helping anyone, as the events of the past week coming right down to yesterday, show. With the withdrawal of UNPROFOR, the international community will again have the opportunity to act to lift the immoral arms embargo of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an embargo that has left one side with heavy weapons, the other side ill prepared to defend families and country. If other countries will not go along with what is perhaps the last, best hope not only for the people of Bosnia but for the rule of law, for the standards of international opposition to aggression and genocide, then the United States, I hope, will lift it unilaterally, without delay. But, of course, if the United Nations is out, the traditional excuse, rationalization of our allies in NATO for not supporting a lifting of the embargo, which is that it might lead to the seizing of hostages, will be eliminated. Hostages have been taken. With the United Nations out, there will be no more hostages to take. To deny the legitimate Government of Bosnia the right to defend its sovereignty and the lives of its people is simply wrong. Mr. President, last week Prime Minister Silajdzic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was in Washington. Many of us had the chance to hear him, to meet with him. I must say, I have seen him several times here in Washington. I have never seen him so grim. I have never seen him so frustrated. I have never seen him so deeply concerned, depressed about the suffering which his people continue to endure without hope of that assistance that they continue to feel and pray for is just around the corner, particularly from the United States of America, the last, best hope for people who suffer as the Bosnians have. I have also never seen Prime Minister Silajdzic so determined that Bosnia will continue to fight for its rights as a sovereign state. Because no one else will come to their aid. If they are not for themselves, literally, who else will be? And if not now, when? The Prime Minister made clear once again that he does not want American soldiers on Bosnian soil. He wants to have the ability--the weaponry-- for the brave Bosnians to fight their own fight. What they seek is the right to obtain those weapons which will enable them to defend themselves against those who have committed aggression and genocide against them. Time has been running out for the people of Bosnia for too long now. The United Nations has not been willing or able to stop the bloodshed. It is time for the United Nations to step aside. What is left is for the people of Bosnia to fight their own fight with our assistance: at least with us untying their hands, which we have tied behind their backs by the continued imposition of this embargo, which originated at a time when the State of Bosnia did not exist, as an attempt to avoid the expansion of war by keeping arms out of the area. But it is the Serbs in Belgrade who control most of the war-fighting industrial capacity that was Yugoslavia's. It is the Bosnians who are left to fight tanks with light arms. [[Page S 8609]] Mr. President, the grotesque advantages that have been given to the aggressor here, as we continue to declare a kind of neutrality which amounts to immorality, defies all standards of decency and international law. The time is at hand for us finally to answer the call for help which has been coming, but has been unanswered, from Bosnia for too long. I hope that my colleagues in both parties in this chamber will be able to play a leadership role in supporting, encouraging, as rapidly as possible, the withdrawal of the U.N. forces from Bosnia, the lifting of the arms embargo, and the selective use of Allied air power to protect not just the sovereignty of a nation, Bosnia, that has been invaded by a neighbor, but to protect the rule of law, in Europe and throughout the world. In that, we here continue to have a vital national interest. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, America rejoiced last week when the news broke of Air Force Capt. Scott O'Grady's rescue from Serb- controlled territory of Bosnia after being missing for 6 days. We were relieved know that he was safe and sound and we were eager to receive a sliver of good news from a region where day after day for 3 years we have been besieged by reports of the murder of innocents, genocide, and international hooliganism on a scale unseen since the dark days of World War II. Our elation could not help but grow when this young F-16 pilot stepped before the microphones for the first time after his rescue. His words filled us with pride and reminded us of what makes the men and women of our Armed Forces so special and what is special about America. After 6 days of eating grass, drinking rain water, and hiding from armed Serbs who were trying to kill him, this young man's first words were of his thanks to God, his parents, his comrades-in-arms, and his country. As remarkable as his own actions were in the face of considerable hardship and danger, Scott O'Grady told the world that he was not the hero in this situation--in his view it was the brave men and women who risked their lives for him by conducting a continuous search effort and, when at last he was located, flying into enemy territory to snatch him away and bring him home. Though he spoke for less than 2 minutes in that first appearance before a cheering crowd at Aviano Air Base and, thanks to instant communications, the entire world, his words should give us all pause and cause us to consider the values he reflects: trust in God, love of family, unwavering confidence in his country, and faith in the abilities of his colleagues in each of the military services. Throughout the past week of interviews and ceremonies at the White House and Pentagon, Captain O'Grady has continued to talk about his faith in God, country, family, and coworker. Are these values unique to Scott O'Grady or to members of the Armed Forces? Clearly, living, working, and, when called upon, fighting and dying together are unique aspects of life in the Armed Forces which build the camaraderie and faith in your fellow workers that are so evident in the military. These values are critically important when one's work requires you to put your life in the hands of others. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am involved in decisions on defense budgets and policies which remind me every day of the important responsibilities we have for the men and women of our Armed Forces. We must work to ensure that they are properly trained, equipped, and motivated--as Captain O'Grady and the members of the rescue forces clearly were--if they are going to be able to continue their vital work of ensuring our national security. Too often in recent times, the dedicated men and women of our military have been tarred with a brush of scandal because of the proper acts of just a few. These acts are cause for concern and should be taken seriously as the Senate always has. But at the end of the day, I believe that what we see in Captain O'Grady and those brave servicemen and women who rescued him is the best representation of what our Armed Forces are and what they stand for. But the values we have seen reflected in the words and deeds of Scott O'Grady are, in fact, the values which Americans have prized throughout our history. They are what has made America great. They are the values which most of us learned from our parents in homes across America. Scott's mother and father should be proud of the way they taught these values to their son. The daily barrage of headlines of violence in the homes and streets of America, stories of broken homes, and indications of racial and religious bigotry could lead one to conclude that there is a cancer growing on America's spirit. I do not believe it and I doubt that most Americans believe it. Americans are as they have always been--people of faith, courage, patriotism, and hard work. Perhaps it is time to remind ourselves of what is good about us and to allow our values to come to the surface again where they can help pull us above our fears and insecurities. America owes young Scott O'Grady a debt of gratitude--for the professional manner in which he performed his duties as an officer in the U.S. Air Force and for the reminder that he has given us of what it takes to survive in these troubled times. America should rejoice with his return--and reflect upon what it says about us as a nation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I rise to speak against the motion to table. I ask my colleagues to listen for these 60 seconds. I usually do not make predictions on the floor of the Senate. But based on my experience in cable consumer protection for more than a decade, I will predict to my colleagues that, if this bill passes unamended, most American cable consumers will see significant rate increases in the next couple of years. These rate increases are not necessary. In 1984, Congress removed regulation from cable consumers. It was a disaster. Rates skyrocketed. In 1992, on a bipartisan basis, we came back and put in reasonable consumer protections, and they have worked brilliantly. Rates are down 11 percent, and the cable companies are thriving, with the highest profit margins in the telecommunications industry, and with a great ability to continue to raise capital. There is no reason to remove the protections that cable consumers have in this bill. My amendment simply restores a standard of the marketplace saying that no cable company will be regulated unless it charges more than the average in markets where there is effective competition. This amendment is not perfect, but it is all that stands between our constituents and significant cable rate increases every month for the next several years. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly. My friend from Montana says 2,000 additional subscribers to direct broadcast satellites go on every day. That is compared to over 60 million cable customers. We are getting there, but we do not really have effective competition in most places in America. When we do, the FCC will pull this consumer protection off and then the consumers will be protected by competition. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, my friend from Oregon has spoken against my amendment which would maintain some kind of consumer protection in the pricing of cable, based on the wonderful service and the extraordinary range of programming that cable provides. Since I got into this fight when I was attorney general in Connecticut in 1984 when cable prices were deregulated and most consumers in America were left facing a monopoly with no competition, I have said I was very supportive of cable. I think cable is an extraordinary service to the American people. It has been delivered well, and I like the expansion of the program. What I do not like is allowing that expansion to occur without giving consumers some protection, because they have only one choice to make, and what is significant to me is that the programming has continued to expand even since the regulation, the consumer protection that went on in 1992. So there is no reason to believe that, if we sustain some protection for consumers until they face competition, that will stop. The second point is this. There just is not adequate competition at this time to existing cable. If there were, then the FCC would have pulled off regulation for cable in more than 50 markets where they say there is now effective competition out of more than 10,000 in the country. The fact is, the direct broadcast satellites which were thought to be the next wave of great competition for cable are only used by less than 1 percent of the cable consumers in America. Telephone companies may get into this. They probably will. But the question is, When? Until that time, most cable consumers in America will have no alternative except the local cable company, and if this bill passes without the amendment Senator Leahy and I have offered, the consumer will not only not have a choice of another system to offer multichannel services, cable as we know it, but will have no benefit of consumer protection. History tells us where there is no competitive market, where there is a monopoly supplier and no regulation, the consumer is in real danger of being taken advantage of. So in my humble opinion, respectfully, I think this amendment is all that stands between millions of cable consumers and what I would take to be a definite increase in their rates over the coming years until there really is effective competition to hold the rates down. Again, I love cable. My family watches; selectively, of course. But I do not, any more than any other consumer, including a lot of the elderly out there, people on fixed incomes, I do not want only one choice and no consumer protection. This system has worked. It saved consumers money. The industry has continued to thrive. They continue to be able to raise capital. There is simply no reason to remove these consumer protections. I will say respectfully again, to me what has happened here is that, in the Trojan horse of this great telecommunications bill, there has been inserted inside a repealer of cable consumer protection without cause and at great cost to American consumers. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment so none of us will have to explain to our consumers back home why rates have risen, as they surely will in the years ahead if this amendment is not agreed to. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I may respond very briefly to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment aims to maintain protection for the millions of cable consumers around America who, for the last 2 years, faced with cable systems that they enjoy, that they need, that they want to purchase, but faced with only one choice of a cable system in all but 50 of the more than 10,000 cable markets in America, are about to lose their consumer protection if the bill, as drafted and before the Senate, S. 652, passes. I just think that would be a shame. In a way, an outrage, because of the way in which the cable consumer protections that were enacted in 1992, and were in effect for less than 2 years, have benefited consumers, and not hurt the cable industry. Think about it, Mr. President. We are talking here about monopolies that exist in more than 10,000 markets in America. Only 50 have effective competition according to the FCC, and yet we will remove a consumer protection regulation that exists in the current system that has dropped rates cumulatively 11 percent, that has seen continued good health in the cable industry. What is the rationale for this? The rationale seems to be in this overall reform of telecommunications, surprisingly, this termination of these consumer protection regulations that have just existed for a couple of years and worked so well. Apparently, the argument by the cable industry has been they need to have rates deregulated. They need to take the cap off. They need to be free of any rule of reason, without competition, without regulation, because they need to go to the capital markets to raise capital so they can be ready to compete with the telephone companies direct broadcast satellites that are coming in. Mr. President, the facts I showed last night show that not only have the cable companies continued to make money, with an operating margin industrywide of 20 percent--the highest of any element of the telecommunications industry--but their capital expenditures have continued to go up. In 1993, almost $3 billion; in 1994, $3.7 billion. Plenty of opportunity under regulation to raise money. Perhaps as significant, take a look at what the market says. This is a bill that is procompetitive. It is market-oriented. Let me show the chart that talks about the cable index stocks. We believe in markets. That is what this bill is all about. The blue line is an index of cable industry stocks. Look what happened in 1993 after regulation goes on: It shoots up, comes down, stays high, much higher than the S&P Standard 500 stock index. This is a measure of the market. Investors say the regulation that we put on was reasonable. It did not make them feel that these stocks were a bad investment. In fact, they continue to raise over the average stocks in the market. I ask here, with this amendment, why are we doing this? On the face of it, respectfully, I would say it looks like the cable industry has used this overall reform of telecommunications to basically jump on or jump in to hide in a kind of Trojan horse of telecommunications reform, and put inside that horse an opportunity to raise rates. I will say the system created in this bill is complicated. The bottom line is simple: Rates to most cable consumers in America are going to rise; by one estimate, $5 a month for a service that a lot of people consider to be a necessary, basic source of information, recreation, entertainment, even shopping, now, in their lives. If the amendment I propose passes, I am convinced that rates will remain stable, the cable industry will continue to be competitive, and the rates will remain regulated only until there is competition. Part of what is happening here is the hope being raised of immediate competition in the cable business. In 1984 when Congress last deregulated cable, and the consumers paid deeply out of their pockets for the ensuing years, until 1992 when we put regulation back on, the hope was raised that direct broadcast satellites were going to provide enormous competition for cable television. Today, 11 years after 1984 when that argument was made, less than 1 percent of cable consumers, multichannel service consumers, get their television from direct broadcast satellites. Telephone companies are authorized by the legislation before us to come into the cable business. I hope they do and I hope they do rapidly. When they are providing competition, the regulation will go off. But I am not so sure any of us can say that is going to happen next year or 3 years from now or 5 years from now or, in some cases, 10 years from now. What this bill, without the amendment I am proposing, will do in that interim, it will simply take off the protection for consumers. Incidentally, it substitutes, in place of that protection, a very ornate, complicated standard that there is no regulation unless the cable system charges substantially higher than the per channel average nationally on June 1, 1995. That is very complicated and actually shows you do not need regulation to have regulation. You can have all the problems of regulation through legislation. My alternative here is simple and market oriented. It says a cable company will be subject to regulation if it charges substantially more than the national average in markets that are competitive. So my standard is not what the average is on June 1, 1995, or, as the bill suggests, what it will be 2 years from now after cable rates are raised. Then we are going to have substantially higher charges than the average 2 years later. My basis is what the market says where there is competition. As competition spreads throughout America, that standard will change and the consumers will benefit. I want to respond to just a few comments that were made against the amendment last night as I wait for some of my colleagues who want to speak on this to come to the floor. There was some reference to the special status of smaller cable companies. I want to stress that no small cable company will be affected under my amendment. We are exempting any cable company that has less than 35,000 customers or any multiservice operator--that is, any company that owns more than one cable system--that has less than 400,000 customers. I am not interested in regulating these small, mom and pop cable operators. They are already economically responsible and I believe accountable to their communities, and therefore they are exempt from regulation. Last night my friend and colleague from South Dakota suggested that cable revenues have remained flat for the first time in 1994. In fact, the cable [[Page S8423]] act resulted in over $800 million in decreases in equipment charges and over $400 million in decreases for consumers in service charges. The fact that revenues--even taking this view that they remained flat indicates that the cable industry is thriving and is a highly profitable industry, even under regulation. Again, there is a 20-percent operating margin, the highest in the telecommunications business in 1993, and the stock market indicates continued consumer confidence in the business. All of that under regulation. The distinguished chairman of the committee mentioned that public debt offerings dropped under regulation. Respectfully, I claim the opposite. Debt financing for the cable industry climbed from $6.9 billion in 1993 to $10.8 billion in 1994, an almost $4 billion increase, continuing a pattern of steady growth in debt financing since 1991, uninterrupted by the very reasonable regulation that we put on in 1992 on a bipartisan basis. As for investments and access to capital, the major cable companies are consolidating and buying up other monopolies right and left and they are spending a lot of money doing so. For example, in February 1995, Time Warner offered $2.7 billion for Cablevision Industries systems. In January 1995, Time Warner offered $2.24 billion for Houston Industries cable systems. In January 1995, Intermedia Partners, TCI, and others offered $2.3 billion for Viacom's cable system. And the list goes on. I am not saying this is wrong. I am happy about it. What I am pointing out here is that the cable industry, under the very reasonable consumer protection regulations that we have had on for the last 2 years, has been a healthy industry with lots of capital to invest. There is no reason to believe that will not continue to be the case under the amendment that I put forth. Let us remember, the great fear here of the cable industry is competition from the telephone companies--and they are regulated. Often cited are the companies that are selling out these systems, these cable systems. But I want to say those who are selling are doing so at a very healthy profit. One other argument that arises again is that competition is just around the corner. As I have indicated, I hope so. I hope competition is around the corner. I hope we can get the regulation out of here. But right now, to receive a direct broadcast satellite system, a consumer has to invest about $700 to buy the equipment and then pay a monthly charge at least as large as the current cable bills. At the moment, again, less than 0.5 percent of subscribers are choosing this DBS satellite. As my friend and colleague from South Dakota points out, at the current rate of subscription, in 5 years there will be 5 million subscribers to DBS. Mr. President, 5 million subscribers is only 8 percent of the current subscribers to cable. And 8 percent, in my opinion, is not effective competition in any market, certainly not under the bill, not under the law as it stands now. As for the telephone companies, they are only doing experiments in some markets. It will take time before they are active competitors. If any competitor surprises us and gets to the market more rapidly, hallelujah, that is great news. All the regulation I am advocating will go away once competition hits the market. That is what this amendment is about. Let us let competition work for the consumer and for the industry. Mr. President, I understood Senator Leahy was going to come to the floor to speak to the amendment. Not seeing him on the floor, I reserve whatever time I have remaining and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Last night I called up amendment No. 1298. I would like to proceed for the half-hour allocated under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.