Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as a long-standing member and now Chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, I have been an outspoken critic of movie and television programs that have a negative impact on our children. However, I do make a point to single out those who make a positive contribution to quality programming. Today I want not only to pay tribute to an individual who has worked diligently to create programs that uplift and instruct our children, but also to extend congratulatory birthday greetings. Henry Winkler, an individual who already has established a milestone in television history, will celebrate another milestone on October 30, when he turns a golden fifty years of age. All of us know Henry Winkler as the ``Fonz'' on the long running TV show ``Happy Days''. His famous motorcycle jacket is a permanent piece of the Smithsonian Institute's collection. As an actor, Mr. Winkler created a national icon. Today, he has established himself as one of Hollywood's most respected producers of family-oriented entertainment, and has drawn attention to humanitarian and family causes. In the 1970s, he won the prestigious Humanitas Award for his program ``Who Are the DeBolts?'', a documentary on a family with nineteen children, many of them adopted with special needs. In the 1980s, Henry brought back the ``Fonz'' to host the video ``Strong Kids, Safe Kids'', a widely distributed cassette that addressed child abuse. His production company, ``JZM''--the initials derived from each first name of his three children--produced children's specials addressing a variety of important issues such as divorce and teenage drunk driving. Families also have enjoyed the exploits of ``MacGyver'', the story of an action hero who solved crimes with creativity and scientific knowledge, rather than guns or brute violence. Henry also continues to act, portraying characters who invariably learn or teach a heartwarming lesson, including last year's ``Truman Capote's One Christmas'', in which Henry co-starred with the legendary Katherine Hepburn. As both actor and producer, Henry has proven that good, clean programming can be entertaining, and as the ``Fonz'' would say, cool. Henry Winkler's devotion and commitment to quality programming stems from clear fact: Henry Winkler is a quality human being. He has applied this same energy to the welfare of all children. He is a founding member of the Children's Action Network, dedicated to raising the profile of children's issues through the media. He has been national chairman of the annual Toys for Tots campaign, honorary chairman of the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the Special Olympics, and numerous teenage alcohol and drug abuse programs. In recognition of his many humanitarian efforts, Henry Winkler has been honored by the United Nations, B'nai B'rith, Women in Film, and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Also honored by Hollywood, Mr. Winkler has his own star on the ``Walk of Stars''. In both his personal and professional life, Henry Winkler set a positive and highly respected standard for the entertainment industry. My wife, Harriett, and I join Henry's family and friends in wishing him a very happy birthday, good health and best wishes for another half-century of continued success.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 534, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to declare victory for rural community and small city electric ratepayers. I am pleased that both the House and the Senate budget reconciliation bills do not contain any language requiring a sale of the Southeastern, Southwestern or Western Power Marketing Administrations--collectively known as the PMAs. As I have stated on this floor many times before, this is a critical issue to my fellow South Dakotans. As my colleagues know, during Senate consideration of the Budget Resolution earlier this year, my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, and I offered an amendment that expressed the Senate's opposition to the sale of the Southwestern, Southeastern and Western Area Power Administrations. The Senate voted overwhelmingly against a motion to table that amendment. The balanced budget reconciliation bill now before us reflects the wishes of the Senate. The PMAs represent a government program that works. They provide affordable power to rural communities and small cities and still manage to turn a profit for the Federal Government. As I have said again and again, sale of the PMAs would have a devastating effect on South Dakota citizens in rural communities and small cities--and on people across the country. Public power serves many functions in South Dakota. As a sparsely populated State, utilities are faced with the challenge of how to get affordable electricity for those who live in small cities and rural communities where there are less than two people per mile of transmission line. Public power provides the solution. Public power, purchased through the Western Area Power Administration, known as WAPA, costs South Dakotans an average of 2.5 cents less than the market rate. This lower cost is essential to encourage economic development in small cities and towns. It allows revenue to be reinvested in additional transmission lines, and better service. The availability of hydropower from the Missouri River to rural cooperatives and municipalities has helped to stabilize power rates. With 7,758 miles of transmission lines in the Pick-Sloan region, WAPA can serve 133,100 South Dakotans--without charging them an arm and a leg. Public power has brought more than electricity to South Dakota. For example, Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency, based in Sioux Falls, has embarked on a program offering incentives for planting trees. The goal is to plant at least one tree for each 112,500 meters in the Agency's membership territory. Public power also brings new jobs to the communities it serves. In part due to the low cost of power from East River Electric, there are now three injection molding plants based in Madison, SD. East River Electric also is involved in other economic development activities. It provides classes to help the community attract new businesses, and offers grants for feasibility studies associated with economic development projects. South Dakota clearly has benefitted from the work of Jeff Nelson, the general manager of the East River Electric Power Cooperative. Public power is a South Dakota success story. It is a source of innovation, development, and community pride. I am sure the same is true in other small cities and rural communities across America. That is why I fought against proposals to sell WAPA and two other power marketing administrations. The proposal to sell the PMAs was a budgetary smoke-and-mirrors effort to disguise a backdoor tax on rural and small city Americans. In fact, a PMA sale would force South Dakotans--and public power consumers everywhere--to cover for the rest of America. Why? Because the sale of the PMAs could result in rate increases totaling more than $47 million. Some argued that the sale of the PMAs would generate revenue for the Federal Government. Would it? Let us look at the facts. PMAs still owe almost $15 billion in principal. Also, more than $9 billion in interest already has been paid to the Federal Government. By selling the PMAs, the government would forfeit future interest earning on the outstanding loans. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] recently released its scoring of a House proposal to sell the Southeastern Power Administration [SEPA]. The proposal, approved by the House Transportation and Natural Resources Committees, limited the sale only to actual power generation and the right to market the power. CBO scored the House proposal to sell SEPA at zero--showing that the sale would cause no gain or loss to the Treasury. In other words, CBO certified what I have said all along--that a PMA sale would not generate net revenue. In addition, CBO estimated that the proposal to sell SEPA would cause rates to increase up to 75 percent in some areas. CBO noted that the supposed rate ``cap'' included in the House proposal would do nothing to protect 95 percent of the rural electric cooperatives or municipal utilities that buy power from SEPA from significant rate increases. This proves what South Dakotans have known all along--selling the PMAs would rob rural ratepayers and destroy a vital community resource. Mr. President, I am pleased that with strong bipartisan support, we fought successfully to prove the worth of public power. We demonstrated how necessary it is to the lives of rural and small city Americans. I am proud of the people of South Dakota who have stated their message loud and clear--through thousands of postcards, letters, and phone calls. South Dakotans such as Ron Holsteen, Bob Martin, and Jeff Nelson have been leaders in their opposition to the proposed PMA sale and I again congratulate them and commend their hard work. They and their counterparts are the true heroes in this victorious battle. Public power is a solid investment for the Nation. Public power is one of the great success stories of South Dakota. There is no question: For now, we have won the war for the continued existence of public power. This is a victory for all Americans who reside in small cities and rural communities.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wanted to bring to my colleagues' attention the concerns of a prominent South Dakotan regarding the Superfund program. Like many of my colleagues, during the August recess, I spent considerable time back home talking to my constituents. While in South Dakota, one issue came up on numerous occasions: Superfund reform. This issue is important to small business men and women throughout South Dakota. Recently, an op-ed by Bill Huebner of Rapid City, SD, was published in the Wall Street Journal. This article details Mr. Huebner's own unfortunate experience with Superfund. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. We all agree that the current Superfund program does not work. It is one of the most expensive environmental programs on the books. Despite the vast amounts of taxpayer dollars that have poured into the Superfund, the program has a very low success rate. One of the prime causes of this low success rate is a confusing and costly liability system. This system is unfair to small businesses. It encourages excessive and costly litigation. I am encouraged by the draft proposal drawn up by my esteemed colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Smith. As chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Management Subcommittee, he has assumed the daunting task of rewriting the existing Superfund law. I look forward to working with him to create a new Superfund law based on fairness and common sense. We should not insist on a system that calls on small businesses that have complied with past laws and regulations to continue shouldering the burden of cleaning up our hazardous waste sites. Bill Huebner's article represents not only the concerns of South Dakota small business leaders, but of all small business men and women across the country. They are the innovators who collectively make our economic engine run. For that reason, we should take their concerns and experiences to heart in our reexamination of the Superfund program. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 26, 1995] My Superfund Nightmare (By Bill Huebner) I'm sitting here at my desk starting at a three-foot-high pile of letters, legal motions, and other documents. That pile of paper tells my Superfund story--a 3\1/2\-year nightmare that cost my company time, money and business. For those who don't know, Superfund is the federal government's program to clean up America's worst hazardous waste sites. It was established by Congress in 1980 with $1.6 billion in funding. Today, 15 years later, more than $20 billion in government and private sector funds have been spent. More than 1,300 hazardous waste sites have been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency. But only a tiny fraction of these sites have actually been cleaned up. Where did Superfund go wrong? Read on. Back in November 1991, I received a letter addressed to Ace Steel & Metals, claiming I owed $47,000 as my share of the bill to clean up the Douglas County, Neb., Superfund site. Between 1940 and 1982, the letter said, the property had been owned by a series of battery recycling companies. Apparently, some battery lead and acid had seeped into the ground, creating a hazardous waste area. There were only a few problems. First my company is Act Steel & Recycling, not Ace Steel & Metals. Second, we never sent any batteries to Douglas County. And third, we weren't even in business until 1989--a full seven years after they said the last battery was dumped. A simple case of mistaken identity. I thought. In 1989, we bought about 20 % of the assets of a company called Ace Salvage, as well as the right to use the ``Ace'' name. That company was still in business, operating as Lipp Ventures. Lipp had sent the batteries to the Douglas County site, so they must be the one the EPA wanted. A letter from my lawyer explaining the situation should clear the whole thing up, right? Wrong. Our first letter generated no response, so we sent another. This time, we documented everything. We sent copies of our original articles of incorporation from 1989, proving that we couldn't have been responsible for the problems at the Douglas County Superfund site. Again, no response to speak of. Just a letter of acknowledgment saying thank you very much for the information, but you still owe $47,000. Needless to say, as a small business, we didn't have an extra $47,000 to spare--in fact, that was more than our profit for the entire year. We had to fight on or go out of business. Finally, after 3\1/2\ years, Lipp's attorney settled with the lawyers from Douglas County. No one ever admitted there had been a mistake, but Ace Steel & Recycling was removed from the case ``with prejudice.'' That means the plaintiff reserves the right to bring us back into the lawsuit, so we might not be out of danger yet. Don't think for a minute that my case was some kind of freak accident. More than 20,000 small and medium-sized businesses, community groups, and other organizations across America have been dragged into the Superfund mess. The primary problem with Superfund is its unfair liability system known as ``retroactive, strict, joint and several liability.'' Retroactive liability gives the EPA the power to make companies pay to clean up problems that occurred before Superfund was passed, even if they followed every rule on the books at the time. And under joint and several liability, a single company can be forced to finance the entire cleanup cost, no matter now marginal its contribution to the site. With marching orders like those, you can easily guess the EPA's standard operating procedure: Track down every company with even the most remote connection to a Superfund site, force them to pay, or drag them into court. Most companies fight the charges, rather than pay to clean up a problem they had little or no responsibility for creating. All the litigation caused by Superfund's notorious liability scheme is the main reason it now costs $30 million and takes 12 years to clean up the average Superfund site. Congress will shortly begin debating Superfund reform legislation. Its top priority must be total repeal of retroactive liability. Superfund reform opponents claim that ending retroactive liability will let polluters off the hook and force taxpayers to pick up the bill. Not true. The program will still be financed by a tax on oil and chemical companies and other large corporations. Individual taxpayers won't have to pay a penny--unless Congress keeps Superfund on it failed course for another 15 years. Repealing retroactive liability will put an end to wasteful litigation and force the EPA to focus on cleaning toxic waste sites instead of harassing innocent companies. Superfund cleanup could start immediately. And think of how many additional Superfund sites could be cleaned up if 50% of the money wasn't wasted on lawyers and bureaucrats.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Chuck Grassley is a man I much admire. Someday when I am out of here teaching a college course, I plan to cite Chuck as a model Senator. He is not aware that I am placing this into the Congressional Record, and I am sure that he would protest the cost. However, I believe it is well worth it because he is probably the hardest working, most decent Senator around here. I often say, ``Chuck Grassley is a real U.S. Senator. He is the real McCoy.'' He keeps a low profile but gets a lot done around here that never is credited to him. He is the type of a U.S. Senator that I particularly like. While some are retiring from this body with much fanfare, and others are holding press conferences about their achievements, Chuck Grassley keeps quietly working away. In the end, he will go down as one of the great U.S. Senators. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent article that appeared in The Hill on October 25, 1995.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it has been my great privilege to have attended Naomi Rosenblatt's bible classes over the past few years. I have found her teaching to be directly related to my duties in the U.S. Senate. She is a splendid teacher, but more importantly, a fine, insightful person. I wish that time would allow me to attend more of her classes. Naomi Rosenblatt takes the approach that the great stories of the Bible are relevant today--as we struggle with some of the same issues in running the United States as Joseph faced in running ancient Egypt for the Pharoah. Recently a review of her new book appeared in the Washington Post. It summarizes some of her classes that I have attended along with certain other Senators and journalists. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I want to join the strong chorus of bipartisan support for S. 1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act. As an original cosponsor of this bill, as well as the legislation introduced early this year, S. 770, I am pleased the Senate is taking decisive action. This bill already has more than 60 cosponsors--a testament once again to the strong bond between the people of the United States and Israel, our friend and ally in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this legislation and send it to the White House as soon as possible. Swift passage would not only be appropriate, but timely. In less than 2 weeks, Prime Minister Rabin and Mayor Olmert of Jerusalem will be with us here in the Capitol to commemorate the 3,000th anniversary of the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by King David. It was 45 years ago, in 1950, when Jerusalem formally was reestablished as the capital of Israel. Throughout this city's rich history, Jerusalem has been an important city to people of many faiths. It has been occupied by military governments, psuedo-states, and empires. However, for three centuries, only one State has called Jerusalem her capital--the State of Israel. Jerusalem is and should forever be the capital of Israel. Jerusalem is where our Embassy belongs. The Senate repeatedly has expressed in a strong, unified voice that the United States Embassy in Israel should be relocated to Jerusalem. Earlier this year, I was pleased to join a vast majority of my colleagues--92 to be exact--in a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher, urging that the State Department begin taking concrete steps to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The legislation we will pass today more than gets the process moving. Specifically, S. 1322 would set a definitive timeline for the construction and relocation of the [[Page S 15527]] United States Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. It would authorize funding over the next 2 years to ensure the timeline is met, including the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. Madam President, I strongly disagree with those who claim that this legislation could threaten the Middle East peace process. There is no rational basis to question the Senate's commitment to achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East. All want to see the peace process succeed. The safety and security of all the people of Israel is critical to attaining a stable environment in the Middle East. Clearly, a number of issues in the peace process remain to be worked out. However, there are a few facts that are not in dispute: Jerusalem is an undivided city. Jerusalem is a city open to all people of all nationalities and faiths. Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel. By relocating our Embassy in this historic city, we simply reinforce these facts--facts that reinforce U.S. policy. Nothing more. Nothing less. Again, Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this very important legislation. Throughout my career in the Senate, this body has passed a number of nonbinding resolutions recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. U.S. policy is clear. Congress has spoken many times. Now the time has come for action. I commend the majority leader, my friends and colleagues from New York--Senator D'Amato and Senator Moynihan--and my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for their tenacious leadership to see this bill through to final passage today. I can think of no action by the United States to be more appropriate on this extraordinary year--the 3,000th anniversary of King David's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel--than to place our Embassy in Israel's capital city, Jerusalem--a city forever free, forever undivided and forever the capital of the people of Israel.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. It is my understanding, based on information from NASA that the breakdown of the market value of the real and personal property at the site is: Land--$3.8 million based on a recent appraisal; fixed assets, buildings--about $10 million in market value because of their uniqueness to rocket manufacture, their completion status, and location; personal property--about $10 to $15 million in market value, some of which is so unique to rocket manufacture that it can only be sold as scrap. However because of the limited purposes for which the property can be used, these figures may somewhat overestimate the real market value of the property.

Mr. PRESSLER. I agree that such action would be in the best interests of all taxpayers.

Mr. PRESSLER. I appreciate the remarks of the senior Senator from Michigan and the information he has provided. I understand that the NASA IG's final report does not make any recommendation regarding termination of CIESIN's EOS related activities and finds CIESIN's SEDAC activity well within the goals of the EOS and EOSDIS programs.

Mr. PRESSLER. I agree with the Senator that the Federal Property Act helps ensure that the taxpayers interest are protected.

Mr. PRESSLER. No formal screening has occurred. However, NASA contacted the following agencies which it believed could make use of the Yellow Creek facilities: the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Army, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. After much discussion between NASA and these parties, none of these agencies indicated that it could make use of this facility.

Mr. PRESSLER. I would be pleased to discuss this issue with my friend from Ohio.

Mr. PRESSLER. I understand the Senator's point and will certainly work in conference to obtain similar language in the final bill regarding CIESIN's ability to bid on contracts.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering S. 1048, the NASA Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, which I introduced as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Let me also take this opportunity to thank Senator Burns, who is chairman of our Space Subcommittee, for his fine contributions to this bill and his leadership in space policy matters. NASA faces two challenges. The first is maintaining America's leadership in aeronautics and space. The second is accomplishing these leadership goals within the confines of a balanced Federal budget. This authorization bill allows NASA to meet both of these challenges. NASA started out this year with a plan to cut $5 billion over 5 years from its budget. Then, the Senate and House developed budget plans requiring even deeper cuts. In keeping with this new fiscal reality, our bill authorizes a total of $13.8 billion for NASA in Fiscal Year 1996, a 3-percent decrease from the current funding level of $14.26 billion. Despite the funding cut, the bill manages to support a diverse and forward-looking space program. It authorizes all of NASA's major current programs such as Mission to Planet Earth, space station, space science, and aeronautics and, in almost all cases, at their requested funding levels. At the same time, it prepares NASA for the future by authorizing a number of new starts--including the new reusable launch vehicle technology development program aimed at providing private industry the technology to eventually build a shuttle replacement, and a new radar satellite program to develop and make use of the latest advances in satellite remote sensing technology. Mr. President, I would now like to make special mention of certain portions of the bill. I believe Mission to Planet Earth may be NASA's most important and relevant program. The satellite data from Mission to Planet Earth will deliver direct benefits to the taxpayer in contrast to the speculative spinoffs promised by other space activities. For this reason, the bill fully funds this activity at $1.36 billion. Using the latest satellite technology, Mission to Planet Earth will help researchers understand and predict the global climate trends that affect our lives. As a Senator representing a State whose economy is dependent upon agriculture, I have a keen interest in this program's potential to provide detailed data on soil conditions, topography, crops, and other information critical to the farming and ranching community. I also take great pride in the selection of the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, as one of the regional data centers that will collect and distribute this satellite data. If Mission to Planet Earth is to realize its full potential, we must ensure its satellite data are converted to useful information that can be applied to real life problems. Reflecting that thinking, our bill authorizes $10 million for an Upper Missouri River Basin project to support hydrology studies of that flood-plagued region. This project will enable a consortium of regional institutions led by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to apply NASA's space-age technology to develop better systems for managing and investigating floods and other natural disasters. I am hopeful NASA will undertake more projects of this type in order to put our country's wealth of scientific knowledge and talent to work for the taxpayers' benefit. I am pleased with the current direction of the Mission to Planet Earth Program, but, equally significant, so is the scientific community. In September, the National Academy of Sciences released its long-awaited report on the program. The report, which was based on a 10-day workshop featuring the Nation's finest scientists, strongly endorsed the program's goals, missions, and activities. In short, the scientific community formally declared that Mission to Planet Earth is indeed good science. It is because this program is on the right track that I am deeply concerned about the possibility of NASA taking any imprudent and unnecessary efforts to further restructure the program. Mission to Planet Earth has just completed a restructuring exercise. In my view, further redesigns to the program would only add costs, produce schedule delays, and reduce scientific capabilities. To guard against this occurrence, the bill specifically prohibits NASA from changing the data management component of the program, unless, 60 days before such action, NASA has reported to Congress on the nature and overall impact of the planned changes. Mr. President, the bill also provides the full $2.1 billion requested funding for space station. However, this authorization should not be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of that program. I am a longstanding supporter of the program, but, in recent years, I have become concerned that it has become too expensive, too complex, and too dependent on the contributions of Russia, the latest station partner. [[Page S 15304]] In a June 1995 report, the General Accounting Office [GAO] estimated the total cost of the design, launch, and operation of the space station will be $94 billion. That is almost seven times the entire annual budget for NASA. Given the history of past missions, it is fair to assume the $94 billion price tag for the program will increase over time. If that happens, we may wake up to find the enormous space station budget has crowded out every other NASA program to become NASA's only mission. Earlier this year, I voted for space station funding, but I may well reconsider my support in the future if the program starts to threaten the balance in our space program. As important as current space programs are, we also have an obligation to prepare NASA for the future. To that end, the bill supports several new initiatives at NASA to extend its vision into the next century. The bill authorizes a reusable launch vehicle program, which will support NASA's X-33 and X-34 activities to pave the way for the later development by the private sector of a replacement for the shuttle in the next decade. Employing 1970's technologies and costing $400 million per flight, the shuttle may have outlived its usefulness. However, within today's budget constraints, the Government cannot afford to foot the entire bill for a new multibillion-dollar spacecraft development program. That is why the reusable launch vehicle program--with its emphasis on sharing development costs with industry and its goal of moving our national space transportation system toward privatization--seems a viable concept worth pursuing. The bill also authorizes the New Millennium initiative to develop new microminiature technologies aimed at reducing the cost and development times for satellites, and provides funding for two infrared astronomy programs to help us better understand the vast universe in which we live. Mr. President, radar satellites are one of the most important new technologies in satellite remote sensing. In recognition of that, S. 1048 authorizes a new radar satellite program and a third shuttle flight for the shuttle imaging radar ``C'' satellite. Because radar satellites have the ability to ``see'' through cloud cover, they will dramatically enhance the capability of America's existing optical-based satellite systems such as Landsat. Japan and Europe already operate radar satellite systems, and Canada is set to deploy one later this year. To maintain our scientific leadership as well as protect our national security, the United States must not get left behind in this critical technology. In my role as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, it has become apparent to me that small city, rural States like my home State of South Dakota are often forgotten in our vast $70 billion Federal science and technology enterprise. That part of America wants to be part of the technological revolution. More importantly, it wants to contribute. It is in the national interest to strengthen the scientific talent, resources, and infrastructure in our rural States through appropriate research, education, and outreach activities. The bill attempts to accomplish this in several ways. It increases funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Program [EPSCoR] from its current level of $4.9 to $6.9 million. NASA's EPSCoR Program, as well as similar programs in six other science agencies, have been instrumental in providing Federal funding for quality academic research in rural States. Our bill also funds a rural teacher resource center, a rural technology transfer and commercialization center, and a regional science education and outreach center for the Plains States region. Mr. President, I believe NASA is up to the challenge of keeping America preeminent in aeronautics and space despite the intense budget pressure and despite the increasing competition from other spacefaring nations. It is my belief this authorization bill provides NASA with the support it needs to meet that challenge. I wish to thank my colleagues for their contributions and support and I urge the Senate to pass S. 1048 as amended.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the global marketplace changes constantly as the economy and consumer preferences fluctuate. To be competitive, businesses must keep pace with marketplace trends. As a result, prestigious business schools across the Nation continuously develop and update new curricula in response to our changing world. Management practices, in particular, are beginning to depart from traditional business school teachings. After years of educating future business leaders about the art of managing businesses to maximize profits, professional schools are beginning to direct attention toward the management of not-for-profit organizations. Nonprofit groups are growing rapidly, becoming larger and more influential. Consequently, emphasis on the unique skills associated with nonprofit management is becoming increasingly important. John Whitehead, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, renowned entrepreneur, philanthropist, and expert in the world of nonprofit management, is paving the way for scholars to study the art of managing nonprofit organizations. Mr. Whitehead is founder of the John C. Whitehead Fund for Not-for-Profit Management at Harvard Business School. He is dedicated to teaching students about the important role not-for-profit organizations play in a traditionally for-profit business world. A recent article appeared in the New York Times describing Mr. Whitehead's achievements and his devotion to teaching nonprofit management. This article details Mr. Whitehead's recent contributions to the Harvard Business School and offers a fascinating account of his entrepreneurial ventures. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, John Whitehead is a skilled businessman and a generous philanthropist. His contributions to the study of nonprofit management will help those currently running nonprofit organizations and future managers maximize efficiency and attain group goals. Not-for-profit management strategies deserve greater attention both in the academic and business world. I applaud Mr. Whitehead for his dedication to the mission of nonprofit groups and wish him well as he continues to promote better, more-effectively managed nonprofit organizations. Exhibit 1 How to Succeed in Nonprofits by Really Trying--Harvard Is Given $10 Million To Teach Management Skills (By Karen W. Arenson) When John Whitehead was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs from 1976 to 1984, it was held up as the epitome of the well- managed Wall Street firm. It made money and it ran smoothly. Now Mr. Whitehead is trying to bring some of those same management skills to the nonprofit world. In what he calls the third stage of his life, after Goldman Sachs and service as Deputy Secretary of State, he has presided as chairman or president over several venerable institutions, from Harvard- University's Board of Overseers and the Brookings Institution, to the Trustees Council of the National Gallery of Art and the Greater New York Councils/Boy Scouts of America. But he is not content simply to bring his own management counsel to the boardrooms of a Rolodex of nonprofit organizations. He has a broader aim: to improve the whole art of managing nonprofit organizations. To that end, he is giving $10 million to the Harvard Business School to endow the John C. Whitehead Fund for Not-for-Profit Management. His goal is to encourage several developments: research in nonprofit management techniques, teaching of these techniques, and more emphasis on training business school students and managers of nonprofit groups. ``I became fascinated by nonprofits,'' Mr. Whitehead said. ``Their reach is much bigger than I realized. One out of every 10 workers in the United States works for a nonprofit. And if you add in the volunteer time, it's even greater.'' ``But I came to realize that while people who run nonprofits are fully committed, they are not very good managers, and nonprofits are not very well run,'' Mr. Whitehead said. Sometimes they are not on the up-and-up either, as Mr. Whitehead has learned the hard way. Earlier this year, after he had planned his gift to Harvard, he and other prominent businessmen were embarrassed to learn that they had foolishly lent their names to the New Era for Philanthropy, a charity based near Philadelphia that was essentially a giant Ponzi scheme. New Era for Philanthropy filed for bankruptcy protection in May, and it and its president, John G. Bennett Jr., have been charged with fraud. But the more common problem, one he has seen much of since he became involved in the nonprofit world during his years at Goldman Sachs, is a lack of management expertise. That is something he can offer, although he is quick to add: ``Just to show that I don't know everything. I went on the board of a regional theater that went out of business.'' He declines to name the theater. He describes himself as a sucker for getting involved in nonprofit groups, and said he has a particular affinity for the ones that need help, ``not just the big prestigious ones, but some of the little, weak ones.'' The list, he says in an embarrassed tone, is too long to enumerate, because someone might think he does not have time for so much. But he is disciplined in his approach, spending the first hour of each day in his Park Avenue office working on business for AEA Investors Inc., a private investment company of which he is chairman. The rest of the day, sometimes starting with a 7:30 breakfast meeting and going through a late dinner, is devoted to his menagerie of nonprofit institutions. ``He does so many things, but the remarkable thing is that he does it all so effectively,'' said William Boardman Jr., director of university capital giving at Harvard. ``His very special capacity is to focus and not to waste time, and he's very insightful.'' Mr. Whitehead has given one other $10 million gift, to Haverford College, ``my other first love,'' where he was an undergraduate and other nonprofit groups say he has been generous. He described his own philosophy that good citizens need to be generous in both time and money. Having had the ``good fortune to make all this money,'' he said, ``I say somewhat facetiously that by giving it back, it will come out even at the end.'' When he started discussions with John H. McArthur, dean of the Harvard Business School, a couple of years ago, he discovered that several faculty members there had been talking about doing more on nonprofit management. Mr. Whitehead held out the prospect of a large gift if they could develop a productive plan. The group did more than plan. Research has begun to build. Courses have been added (elective courses on Social Entrepreneurship and on Field Studies in Social Enterprise). Case studies are being written. An eight-day advanced management program for executives who run nonproit programs attracted 50 participants last spring (at a subsidized price of $3,000), and another session will be held next year. Satisfied that the commitment was there, Mr. Whitehead told the school he was ready [[Page S 15336]] to make the gift. Even though Mr. McArthur is stepping down today, to be succeeded as dean by Kim Clark, Mr. McArthur has promised the nonprofit initiative would remain a priority, and that he will stay involved with it. Despite the new attention, it is unlikely that nonprofit management will ever be a main theme for the school. The M.B.A. class of 1996, for example, has only 40 students out of 807 who came out of government, education or nonprofit jobs. Even though 10 percent of the class of 1995 cited working with a nonprofit group as their career goal after graduation, the school sent only 11 students into those fields. ``The financial pressures are very high,'' Mr. Whitehead said. But Mr. Whitehead said he did not worry that nonprofit management would be a stepchild at the business school. He said the new course on social entrepreneurship was over- subscribed last spring, when more than 10 percent of the second year class signed up for it, instead of the 60 that had originally been set as the limit. ``Usually elective courses start small and build their reputations,'' Mr. Whitehead said, ``But this was very successful. I was just delighted.'' He spoke of the growing interest among business students, who know they are likely to serve as directors of nonprofit groups, as he and so many other business executives do now; and the growing recognition that they should know more when they do. ``I believe more of this kind of program, and more scholarship, will help,'' he said. That is not to say that Mr. Whitehead sees such programs as curing all ills. He does not think that better education would have stopped the scandal involving the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy. New Era persuaded sophisticated executives like Mr. Whitehead to funnel money they wanted to contribute to other charities through New Era, saying that it would be matched after six months. The participation of top business leaders like Mr. Whitehead helped attract other donors. ``New Era was a real tragedy,'' said Mr. Whitehead, who stands to lose up to $1 million in the bankruptcy. ``I doubt that a program like this would have lessened the problem. If you have a dishonest guy, there is not much you can do. I hope we will all be able to put it behind us.'' Although the management of nonprofit institutions is a relatively new academic specialty, Harvard is by no means the first university to turn its attention to the subject. There are now more than three dozen centers for the study of nonprofit enterprises at universities around the country, from Yale and Duke to the New School for Social Research and the University of San Francisco, and at least a dozen offer some focus on management. In addition, there is already one other school at Harvard, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, that focuses on nonprofit enterprise, and sends about a third of its graduates into jobs in nonprofit institutions. It even offers the only course on nonprofit management at Harvard. While the two schools talked about the possibility of a joint program, Mr. Whitehead's money was ultimately directed to the business school. ``They both have a role to play,'' he said, ``My interest is in teaching managers business skills. The Kennedy School teaches them about the policy issues. There is a different kind of emphasis, and there is room for both.'' Those connected with the business school program, the Initiative on Social Enterprise, which was established in 1993, concede that there is much to learn before there is a discipline that offers the depth and breadth of business management. They talk of the overlap between the two fields-- and the differences. And they talk about building new intellectual capital. V. Kasturi Rangan, a business school professor who is one of the leaders of the social enterprise initiative, talked about the crossover in his own field of marketing: ``Nonprofit management offers its own challenges, but the trick is to bring the core disciplines into these challenges,'' he said. ``We don't have Marketing 1 for toothpaste, and marketing 2 for computers. marketing is marketing.'' He added, however, that nonprofit groups face a dual customer problem that is unique to them, because they need to concern themselves both with the clients who receive their services, and with the donors who pay for the services with their charitable contributions. The usual marketing discipline, coming out of consumers' choices that weigh benefits against costs, doesn't apply when consumers and payers are separate, he said. So a nonprofit group needs to develop special internal measures to know whether its products are appropriate. It is analysis like this that excites Mr. Whitehead and makes him feel that his money will be well spent. ``This is fun,'' Mr. Whitehead said. ``This is what keeps me going.''

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a [[Page S 15145]] message from the House of Representatives on S. 652 a bill to provide for a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendments to the bill (S. 652) entitled ``An Act to provide for a pro- competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and for other purposes'', and ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That the following Members be the managers of the conference on the part of the House: From the Committee on Commerce: Mr. Bliley, Mr. Fields of Texas, Mr. Oxley, Mr. White, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Rush: Provided, Mr. Pallone is appointed in lieu of Mr. Boucher solely for consideration of section 205 of the Senate bill. As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 1-6, 101-104, 106-107, 201, 204-205, 221-225, 301-305, 307-311, 401-402, 405-406, 410, 601-606, 703, and 705 of the Senate bill, and title I of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Klug, Mr. Frisa, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Gordon, and Mrs. Lincoln. As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 102, 202-203, 403, 407-409, and 706 of the Senate bill, and title II of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Hastert, and Mr. Frisa. As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 105, 206, 302, 306, 312, 501-505, and 701-702 of the Senate bill, and title III of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Stearns, Mr. Paxon and Mr. Klug. As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 7-8, 226, 404, and 704 of the Senate bill, and titles IV-V of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Hastert, and Mr. Klug. As additional conferees, for consideration of title VI of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Klug. As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the Senate bill (except sections 1-6, 101-104, 106-107, 201, 204-205, 221-225, 301- 305, 307-311, 401-402, 405-406, 410, 601-606, 703, and 705), and of the House amendment (except title I), and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Hyde, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Schroeder, and Mr. Bryant of Texas. As additional conferees, for consideration of sections 1-6, 101-104, 106-107, 201, 204-205, 221-225, 301-305, 307-311, 401-402, 405-406, 410, 601-606, 703, and 705 of the Senate bill, and title I of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Hyde, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hoke, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bryant of Texas, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Mr. PRESSLER. If the Senate should agree later today, I believe that the Chair will be appointing the following conferees to the telecommunications bill. If the Chair so appoints and if there is not objection, Senators Pressler, Stevens, McCain, Burns, Gorton, Lott, Hollings, Inouye, Ford, Exon, and Rockefeller will be named as conferees. Mr. President, let me summarize for the Senate where we stand on the telecommunications bill. The House and Senate have both passed major bills reforming the Telecommunications Act of 1934, bringing it up to date, and also making certain changes in our Nation's telecommunications laws. In addition, there are efforts to make it more procompetitive and deregulatory but also to protect the rights of the consumers in our country and to move the telecommunications bill forward. We are in a situation today that our Nation very much needs to modernize its telecommunications laws. A House-Senate conference will soon begin to iron out the differences between the Senate and the House versions of telecommunications. We are doing this on a bipartisan basis, and I hope that it will proceed quickly and thoroughly. I look forward to working with those Senators and all Members of this Chamber. Let me say, Mr. President, that although there are certain conferees named, all Senators are invited to have input, as they have had on this bill. I commend Senator Hollings of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat and former chairman of the Commerce Committee, who has provided so much leadership on this bill. Indeed, he has brought to this process a very bipartisan spirit, and I look forward to working with him and the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House. Mr. President, I reserve as much time as I may have and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would just like to make a couple of remarks regarding the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would say that through this legislation we are trying to address and correct some of the problems raised, and we will be proceeding with the conferees after they are agreed to. I thank all of my colleagues who have participated in this debate, and I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time on this side. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time.