[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 95 (Monday, June 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8186-S8187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         KID'S APPRECIATION DAY

 Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the 
importance of establishing a Kid's Appreciation Day to pay tribute to 
the children of this Nation. The question that is on the lips of 
children is ``If there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, why isn't 
there a Kid's Day?'' This is met with the standard response ``Because 
every day is Kid's Day.'' Well, Mr. President, nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  The children today deal with problems that were unfathomable when we 
were growing up. When I was young, one of my biggest worries was making 
it home to dinner on time. In many places today, kids worry more about 
dodging bullets, drug dealers, and whether they will live to see 
adulthood. Some children rarely see their parents who must hold two 
jobs in order to put food on the table.
  There is nothing as valuable on this Earth than our children. We are 
handing these children the impossible task of dealing with problems 
that we have failed to solve. I know that having a Kid's Day won't 
solve these problems. But it would show our chidren that we appreciate 
them. I know the children of Arkansas want to be appreciated. A fine 
young lady named Vivian Rose has taken it upon herself to lead the 
children of my State toward this goal. She has presented this idea to 
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker who gives it his full support. I praise both of 
them for their efforts and commend them on their leadership in Kid's 
Appreciation Day.
  Children are our most valuable asset and deserve to be valued on a 
special day. A Kid's Day would not only show our appreciation and 
gratitude but would instill in them a sense of comfort that they would 
hold dear. It would make children feel important and wanted instead of 
neglected. This holiday would give kids a chance to spend time with 
their parents. Time that they don't normally have. There could be free 
admission for museums and amusement parks. Local parks and swimming 
pools could be open to the public. It would be a day for parents to let 
their kids know that they care about them and this would help our 
children overcome the obstacles that they face to become the future 
leaders of tomorrow.
  Mr. President, nations around the globe have Kid's Days. In fact, I'm 
told that the Kiwanis Club also sponsors a Kid's Day. They have 
parades, games, races, and give awards to celebrate children. I 
strongly recommend that we follow the lead of the Kiwanis Club, 
Governor Tucker, and Vivian Rose by making Kid's Day a reality 
nationwide. Children that feel wanted and appreciated are a strong 
defense against the violence these kids encounter in their 
neighborhoods. It is our responsibility as adults and role models to 
guide them toward the correct path of purpose. This holiday would place 
a smile on the faces of our kids and would put comfort in our hearts 
knowing that they are facing the world with added strength and 
resilience. Mr. President, Kid's Appreciation Day is a noble cause and 
I urge you to join me and my State in its support.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do have some closing unanimous-consent 
requests, but I would withhold if the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska has some comments he would like to make.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. President, I rise but will withhold most of my comments. The 
Senator from South Dakota and I will have an opportunity to go round 
and round again on the DOJ rule amendment tomorrow.
  I would point out for those few who are still remaining and listening 
to this, that this amendment illustrates why colleagues should be 
paying attention to this piece of legislation.
  I, myself, support this particular section, this preemption by the 
Federal Government. But it is a significant preemption. Any time we see 
language that says, ``We hereby preempt State and local laws'' around 
here, you only get 90 votes against it.
  Lately, the mood is shifting, and I think quite correctly so. The 
Supreme Court is shifting right along with it to an argument that cedes 
more and more power to the State government, whether it is welfare 
reform, health care, or whatever it is.
  We are block granting after block granting after block granting more 
authority back to the State law. As I said, the Supreme Court is 
increasingly challenging our authority to intervene at all at the local 
level, the State level. Intervening with State laws at all gets to be a 
difficult business.
  This piece of legislation preempts not just State laws but preempts 
local laws, I think quite repeatedly so. If we want a competitive 
environment, these airwaves, these cables, these lines, do not stop at 
a border.
  It is, it seems to me, an interstate commerce issue. Nonetheless, it 
will [[Page S8187]] feel very much local when we are dealing with local 
cable or local telephone. The citizens are not likely to think of it as 
an interstate issue as much as we are, who are trying to create some 
uniformity.
  I think the Senator from South Dakota is quite right. This does get 
to the heart of the bill. It is an effort to preempt and create 
uniformity in the country and create certainty in the country so 
investment can be made and all the things that need to occur, if we are 
going to see this legislation produce the desired effect and benefits, 
for example, reduced prices for consumers, for cable.
  My belief is that in short order, people are going to be buying 
video, dial tone, text, in a package form, but if they get a reduced 
price for that and they get improvement in quality and service, we have 
to take this action and come in and preempt the way the States can 
regulate.
  This legislation, by this section here, not only removes the barrier, 
but it sets up the title 3 section which moves to pricing flexibility, 
not just allowing States, but requiring the States to end a rate-based 
rate of return system of regulation.
  In this legislation, we are accelerating the number of States that 
have adopted alternative regulatory regimes. We are saying that we will 
not wait for State legislatures to take action or public service 
commissions to take action.
  We will preempt their authority and say we they will end rate-based 
pricing and go to a price cap system and try to give these companies 
that are selling telecommunications service more flexibility. I think 
that has merit, frankly.
  This idea of preemption, I think, is a very important idea as part of 
this legislation, but I believe that it illustrates why colleagues need 
to be alert to the reaction that this will produce after this 
legislation is enacted. With the filing of cloture, that the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi just did, this bill is coming to 
a vote relatively soon.
  Unless I have this thing figured out wrong, it is likely there will 
be a majority of Senators voting for it. I hope my colleagues 
understand this is not likely to be the last situation but the first 
situation of many, many, where we need to understand where it is we are 
going in order to be able to answer a citizen that will say, ``Wait a 
minute. This is big change.'' Yes, it is, American citizen. This 
legislation represents significant change in the way that we regulate 
and the way the Federal Government establishes its presence at the 
local level and at the State level.
  I see ways to interpret the amendment that the Senators from 
California and Idaho have presented, striking this particular language. 
Part of this language does appear to be a bit vague to me, as well. No 
matter how we do it, if they want to strike the section, we are still 
left with significant preemption in the overall title.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the legislation now before the Senate 
attempts to bring the 1934 Communications Act up to date with our 
Nation's current telecommunications needs. Telecommunications reform 
has been the subject of a great deal of debate in previous years and it 
is widely acknowledged that reform is necessary. However, as with any 
measure addressing such a broad segment of our national economy, there 
are many differing opinions regarding how best to proceed.
  The telecommunications industry has expanded rapidly in recent years 
due to significant advances in technology and increasing consumer 
demands. A large portion of the evolution in this industry can be 
attributed to increased competition. Daily, millions of Americans at 
work, in school, and at home rely on telecommunications networks for 
communication, information, and entertainment. There is an enormous 
interest in the final outcome of this debate because enactment of a 
revised telecommunications law will affect virtually every American.
  The underlying goal of telecommunications reform must be to do what 
is best for consumers. There may come a time in the future when the 
Federal Government can remove itself from any involvement in this 
industry, but we have not reached that point. I believe it is necessary 
for government to continue to play a role in telecommunications 
oversight to protect the American consumer.
  The Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 
attempts to deregulate this industry and largely allow market forces to 
structure the industry. I support the free market ideals of this 
legislation. However, we must recognize that deregulation is not always 
synonymous with fair competition. Due to the fact that a small group of 
companies control most of our nation's telecommunication networks, 
there are many concerns about the potential abuse of this advantage. In 
order to ensure the American people are the ultimate beneficiary's of 
these services, we must provide adequate safeguards to accompany these 
deregulatory efforts.
  There are presently a number of government entities with 
responsibility for the oversight and regulation of the 
telecommunications industry. Not only are many of these roles 
duplicative, but they are also extremely cumbersome for consumers and 
the companies providing the services.
  One historical example of these overlapping functions is the break-up 
of the AT&T telephone monopoly. The Department of Justice initiated 
this action by determining that AT&T was in violation of Federal anti-
trust laws. The courts followed by establishing the modified final 
judgement which created the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies. 
Currently, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of 
Justice, State and local governments, and the courts each oversee 
segments of the long distance and local telephone services in this 
country. The break-up of AT&T was a necessary development, but the 
final results continue to confuse and alienate consumers to this day.
  The legislation we are debating today addresses almost every aspect 
of the telecommunications industry in some capacity. Additionally, it 
allows Congress to re-establish its responsibility for setting policy 
in this area. For the past 6 years the Congress has attempted to 
address this issue. Though these efforts have largely been 
unsuccessful, we all recognize this area needs reform and that action 
is past due. The House and Senate have each crafted bills to revise 
current telecommunication laws this year and the congressional 
leadership has also made their strong commitment to passing a 
telecommunications reform bill very clear. This will not be an easy 
endeavor, but I remain hopeful that Congress will move forward on this 
important matter in this Congress.
  During this important debate, we have heard a great deal about how 
this legislation will impact the telecommunications industry. However, 
Mr. President, it is also the Federal Government's rightful role to 
help our citizens receive access to advanced technologies and not just 
reserve this privilege to those who can afford it. The provision 
included in this bill by Senators Snowe and Rockefeller will allow 
rural health care facilities, public schools, and libraries to receive 
telecommunication services at a discounted rate. The Snowe-Rockefeller 
language, which I support, will provide telecommunications access to 
numerous needy institutions throughout our country. For example, the 
Portals Project in Oregon, which electronically links several learning 
institutions, will be a beneficiary of this amendment.
  Mr. President the reform of this industry is a huge effort and I 
commend the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator 
Pressler, and the panel's ranking minority member, Senator Hollings, 
for their leadership on this important matter. They have both worked 
long and hard on this contentious issue to establish a foundation for 
the future of our telecommunications needs.
  I continue to have several concerns with the Pressler-Hollings bill, 
which I hope will be addressed through the amendment process. However, 
I also believe they have crafted a bill that takes a comprehensive step 
toward addressing the needs of the American consumer and the 
telecommunications industry as we move further into the Information Age 
of the twenty-first century.


                          ____________________