Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Federal Express Corp. on the opening last week of its new cargo hub at Subic Bay in the Philippines. This is a very favorable development for consumers of shipping services on both sides of the Pacific. As many will remember, Federal Express had intended that its Subic Bay hub be fully operational in July. Unfortunately, even though the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement clearly authorized Federal Express to do so, the Government of Japan refused to permit Federal Express to operate several flights from Japan which were integral to its hub operation. In late July, Japan reversed its position and thereby enabled the Subic Bay hub, the cornerstone of Federal Express' intra-Asian network, to become fully operational. As a result of the Subic Bay hub operation, consumers will be able to rely on expanded intra-Asian and trans-Pacific service. However, consumer choice will not be the only benefit. A recent article from the Journal of Commerce predicts this expanded service will come at a reduced cost to consumers. One economist estimates the price of intra- Asian shipping may drop by as much as 25 percent as a result of competition from Federal Express' intra-Asian network. I am confident the Federal Express experience in Subic Bay will again prove U.S. air carriers can compete effectively in any international market they have a chance to serve. With respect to the widespread benefits of the Subic Bay hub, the Journal of Commerce article points out a very interesting irony. By violating the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement, the Government of Japan tried to prevent the Subic Bay hub from opening. Yet, Japanese companies are among the first flocking to the Subic Bay area to set up operations so they can benefit from Federal Express' superior air delivery services. For example, the Japan International Development Organization is planning a 450-acre industrial park in the area which will serve as a research and manufacturing center for 10 Japanese companies. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Journal of Commerce to which I have referred be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on several occasions during the pendency of the United States/Japan cargo aviation dispute I cautioned that the economic stakes in that dispute were very [[Page S 13380]] significant. A recent study by the Boeing Co. emphasizes the critical importance of our firm stand during that dispute. Boeing Company's recently released annual world cargo forecast predicts the highest air freight market growth over the next 20 years will occur on Asian routes. Moreover, the study found international express delivery service grew 25 percent last year and it predicts the market will grow 18 percent a year for the next 20 years. That is why it was of critical importance that we safeguarded Federal Express' beyond rights. Now, Federal Express is well-positioned to earn its fair share of expanding Pacific rim business opportunities. Later this month in Tokyo, our negotiators will attempt to secure a United States/Japan open skies agreement on cargo. I hope these talks result in the fullest liberalization of cargo shipping rights possible. I am confident our cargo carriers can effectively compete with their Japanese counterparts if protectionist regulations are eliminated and market forces are allowed to work. Exhibit 1 [From the Journal of Commerce, Aug. 31, 1995] FedEx Hub To Give Lift To Shippers, Philippines (By William Armbruster and P.T. Bangsberg) Subic Bay, once the jumping off point for the U.S. military's cold war efforts in Asia, becomes key to Federal Express Corp.'s expansion plans on Monday, providing a major boost for the company, the local Philippine economy and both Asian and North American shippers. AsiaOne, FedEx's intra-Asian network, opens its new Asia hub Sept. 4 at the former naval base. The operation, which nearly sparked a trade war with Japan, is shaking up the Asian market, making both regional and trans-Pacific shipments easier, quicker and cheaper while spurring foreign investment in the Philippines. ``It's really going to expand opportunities for investment in the Philippines,'' said Levi Richardson, director of the U.S.-Philippine Business Committee in Washington. AsiaOne, FedEx's intra-Asia network, ``will make the Philippines very attractive as a regional hub for other companies,'' Mr. Richardson said. ``A lot of small and medium companies are looking at countries with a good infrastructure. FedEx's investment is going to provide them an opportunity to grow their business.'' Joseph Schwieterman, a transportation economist at DePaul University in Chicago, said the new FedEx service will lead to intense price competition. ``I think you're going to see the price of intra-Asia shipments drop as much as 25% as competition heats up,'' he said, adding that AsiaOne also will provide overnight service on some routes for the first time. Much of the foreign investment thus far at Subic Bay, a former U.S. naval base, has come from Taiwanese companies, such as Acer Inc., ranked the world's seventh-largest brand name personal computer vendor in 1994 by International Data Corp. in Framingham, Mass. ``The new FedEx service will be a great benefit for us by cutting lead time inbound and speeding shipments outbound,'' said Kenny Wang, manager at Acer Information Products (Philippines) Inc. ``Having a direct flight into Subic from Taipel will cut the time for delivery of components to one or two days from two or three days when routed via Manila, and 10 days by sea,'' Mr. Wang told The Journal of Commerce. Cliff Deeds, a FedEx spokesman, said the carrier will have a single cutoff time for pickups in the Asian markets served by the new network, whereas shippers in the past faced different cutoffs depending on where they were shipping their goods. For those in Penang, a high-tech manufacturing center off the northwest coast, they might have a 1 p.m. deadline for shipments to Seoul, but a 2 p.m. cutoff for packages going to Taipei. Under the new FedEx network, the cutoff in Singapore will be 4 p.m., for example, but at Subic Bay, it will be 10 p.m., Mr. Deeds said. ``I see FedEx being instrumental in bringing Asian markets closer to the U.S.,'' said Raul Rabe, the Philippines' ambassador to the United States. The Subic Bay flights, connecting 11 Asian business centers, will hook up with the carrier's expanded trans- Pacific operation. Acer's Mr. Wang said he looks forward to the new flight starting Sept. 4 from Osaka to Oakland, Calif., where FedEx has a regional hub serving Silicon Valley. ``We've been promised one-day service on that run,'' he said. Subic is Acer's first manufacturing site outside Taiwan. It has earmarked $35 million over the next two years for expansion, with officials expecting to double capacity of its existing complex to 200,000 units by next year. Acer will also add a global repair center at Subic ``to take advantage of the abundant availability of high-quality local engineering talent,'' said Managing Director Harvey Chang. texas instruments greets move Larry Horton, manager of logistics carrier management for Texas Instruments, welcomed the new FedEx operation. ``It will give us a lot more cargo flights,'' he said. ``We used to have to rely on commercial carriers for intra-Asia shipments.'' The semiconductor manufacturer has a large operation in the Philippine city of Baguio and hopes FedEx will set up a small feeder service linking it with Subic Bay, he said, adding that the new hub will enable the company to feed its plants in Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. ``It should help us. Cycle time should be improved. Inventory reduction should take place,'' Mr. Horton said. another memphis Joseph C. McCarty, FedEx's vice president for Asia, told a conference in Washington this summer that the Subic Bay operation will do for the Philippines what the carrier's main hub in Memphis has done for that city, where more than 100 companies have set up manufacturing operations to take advantage of the carrier's overnight network. Japanese companies are starting to move in. The Japan International Development Organization is planning a 450-acre industrial park that will serve as a research and manufacturing center for 10 Japanese companies. Subic, meanwhile, is promoting itself as an alternative printing and distribution center in Asia, a field now dominated by Hong Kong and Singapore. Eric Montandon, manager at New Age Publications in Subic, said the new FedEx service could help his firm. New Age is essentially a printer, but also distributes newsletters, advertising and other material within the region. ``We were spun off and set up at Subic in anticipation of good air connections,'' he told The Journal of Commerce. ``We need the overnight service to Southeast Asia FedEx is now promising.'' Current movement to Singapore can be two or even four days, he said. DHL Worldwide Express plans to set up its own intra-Asia hub later this fall in Manila, but has had difficulty putting all the pieces together. Nonetheless, spokesman Dave Fonkalsrud said its traffic within the region was up 48% in the first half of this year, reflecting the tremendous potential in the world's fastest-growing area.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, nearly 2\1/2\ years have passed since South Dakota Gov. George S. Mickelson and eight distinguished South Dakota businessmen were killed tragically when their small aircraft crashed near Dubuque, IA. During this time, South Dakotans have grieved together over the loss of the crash victims. They are greatly missed. Dealing with the loss of these prominent citizens has not been easy. Yet, the people of South Dakota have been strong. They have channeled their sorrow into great displays of respect and affection for the crash victims. Memorials have been built, statues erected, scholarships funded, and schools renamed--all in honor of the nine who perished in the fiery crash. I am proud of South Dakotans. Last Saturday, September 9, a marsh near Estelline, SD, was dedicated in memory of Governor Mickelson, an avid geese hunter. Commissioned to paint an image of the Mickelson Wetland Memorial, Mark Anderson, a South Dakota wildlife artist, created a poignant image of the late Governor [[Page S 13381]] and the marsh. These tributes are powerful. They are reminders of the admiration and respect South Dakotans hold for the crash victims. They are reminders of the lives--not the deaths--of nine fellow South Dakotans. They are reminders of how their lives gave our lives and our State meaning and fulfillment. Kevin Woster of the Sioux Falls, SD, Argus Leader, recently wrote an article describing the painting Mark Anderson completed of the wetland memorial. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. It is unfortunate that my schedule prevented my wife Harriet and me from being at last Saturday's dedication. Our thoughts and prayers certainly were with Linda Mickelson and the families and friends of George Mickelson on that special day. The dedication of the marsh and Mark Anderson's work are a fitting tribute to a great South Dakotan who dedicated his life to a State and a people he loved.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Americans are great and diverse thinkers. Unfortunately, not enough of that original thought and invention takes place in the big gray stone government buildings that sit around Washington. What we need to do is to try to unleash American ingenuity. At a minimum, we need to make sure we do not block it. I will continue to fight to make sure we do not--whether it is thought the comprehensive telecommunications reform bill, spectrum policy reform or public broadcasting reform. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me say I think it is time that we fundamentally think about spectrum policy reform in this country. I think we must think about the taxpayers. The Commerce Committee has been charged to raise $17 billion, give or take a few half billion. Indeed, we are told that we are supposed to round everything off to a half-billion dollars. So, having grown up on a farm in South Dakota and being told to round things off, in my response to a half-billion dollars, that is quite a change from the kind of money that I usually think about in my life. In any event, the new potential uses of the spectrum of the property of the American people--as William Safire says, they should be auctioned off. How else will we do it? The auction system has been used successfully for some of the earlier spectrum that we have auctioned off. We now have this complicated matter where the broadcasters propose to migrate from the spectrum they are on, the analog, to the UHF and digital, and they say that at some point they will give back the original spectrum, although some say that when the time comes that will not happen. What we are proposing here is not to take anything away from them, not to take anything that they feel they may have paid for in terms of licenses to stations. What we are proposing is merely to auction the new uses of the spectrum, and the American taxpayers have a great interest in this. It is billions of dollars. I propose that we use a small portion of that to capitalize public broadcasting and to set up a privatized base, and they would then be cut free from annual appropriations. We could eliminate the headquarters, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and many of the stations will testify this week that they would like that approach. We could do that without spending any appropriated taxpayers' money. So we need to have some innovative thinking. We also need to think about reinventing many areas. As Mr. Safire quotes in his article, he quotes me as saying in the public broadcast area there is much spectrum and many overlapping jurisdictions where the taxpayers could be saved a great deal of money. I know that anyone who makes proposals along these lines will be criticized by both the broadcasters and some in the public broadcasting area. In fact, I am sure the broadcasters will strongly oppose--I know they are strongly opposed to what I am trying to do. The people inside the beltway here in public broadcasting are strongly opposed. They are strongly opposed to changing anything. The stations have formed a coalition, that they want to change, and they would like to see this. The people out in the country in public broadcasting would like to see the change. So, Mr. President, we stand at a crossroads with this spectrum reform. It is something that sounds like Greek to the average citizen, but the average taxpayer has a great interest in it. We have a responsibility to stand up to special interests and to auction off those portions of the spectrum that will provide new uses and will provide billions of dollars for the taxpayers of this country. It will provide the basis for the Commerce Committee's reconciliation responsibilities, and it will provide our country with a more innovative and a better future. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Plows, PC's, Satellite Dishes (By Ira Breskin) As computer power drops in price, a new way to farm called site-specific or precision farming is taking off. Precision farming lets growers take into account the unique features of each field, without boosting cost much. Paycheck usually takes about a year. ``Farmers used to farm fields,'' said David Franzen, a soil expert at North Dakota State University in Fargo. ``Now they farm locations in fields.'' Within five years, about half the 150,000 major grain farmers in the Midwest will use the approach, says Harold Reetz, Midwest director of the Potash and Phosphate Institute. About 10% to 15% do now, he says. Most started this year or last. Sugar beet growers also are strong proponents. ``Interest among farmers is stronger than we anticipated,'' Reetz said. ``It helps us deal with the variability that is out there.'' Among these are big differences in soil found across a large farm. The goal is to make the land more productive by using just the right amount of costly fertilizer and pesticide for each field or even part of a field down to a 20-foot section. These inputs now are blended to meet average regional conditions. Fully outfitted farmers need high-tech yield monitors, crop moisture sensors and a satellite receiver, all mounted on a tractor. Personal computers and special analytical software usually is bought separately or provided by a consultant. Farmers also can buy special gear for applying field nutrients. ``The one thing that makes site-specific farming work is the computer processing power that is available today,'' said Steve Koep, marketing manager at privately held Ag Chem Equipment Co. in Minnesota, Minn. The company makes a 20-ton- capacity precision fertilizer applicator that costs about $250,000. Site-specific farming ``minimizes cost and maximizes production,'' said Ron Phillips, a spokesman for the Fertilizer Institute in Washington. The environment also gains. By making better use of nutrients, farmers reduce leaching, runoff into streams and soil erosion. Pesticide use often is cut. Most farm chemical suppliers back site-specific farming because it helps them provide value-added service, says Jim Egenreider, regulatory affairs director at the Agricultural Retailers Association in Washington. ``For (farm) cooperatives, it's a wash,'' said Cheryl Kohls, an agronomy equipment specialist with Conex-Land O'Lakes Services, a co-op in St. Paul, Minn. Farmers may use less fertilizer in one area but more in another. And even if co-ops do sell fewer chemicals, many also supply soil testing and other services needed for precision farming. About half the time, farmers get exacting field maps so they can receive the most precise results. Farmers use a plow-mounted device to record signals from an orbiting satellite, part of the Global Positioning System. New ``differential correction'' signals have boosted precision farming. They unscramble and orient the GPS satellite signal to a known, fixed point, ensuring accuracy. The receiver is used to map the field on a grid. Separately, crop yield and moisture data are taken from sensors on the tractor when farmers harvest crops. The field maps and crop data later are correlated on a PC. Demand for GPS hardware is strong, says Colin Stewart, a sales rep for Satloc Inc. of Tempe, Ariz., a major supplier. The company's backlog now is four to six weeks. Other data also may be matched up to the maps. In Britain, for instance, farmers can quickly assess weather conditions by retrieving recent photos of cloud formations taken by a weather satellite. The British Metrological Office offers these photos for a $750-a-year license fee and $7.50 a frame. Photos are shipped to PC's via phone lines. Even without weather photos, farmers gain. By overlaying and analyzing crop and soil data from their fields, they can pinpoint where yields are falling short. ``Yield monitoring is like a report card,'' said Koep. ``It tells you how you did.'' Farmers can buy the receiver-yield monitor and analytical software for less than $8,500. The satellite signal runs about $500 a year. Using the data to improve yields usually means hiring an expert who relies on still more high-tech equipment to correlate data and figure out why the yields are low. The experts analyze soil samples and field features, again using the satellite to get precision positions. They then offer prescription. Topography and location of drainage systems are taken into account. Treatments are straightforward. Farmers vary the use of additives over a large field, seeking maximum efficiency. They may rely on precision applicators with tracking equipment. But some, armed with the new data on their fields, will fall back on institution and their old application gear when putting this information to use.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, a major priority for the 104th Congress involves giving American private enterprise a fuller and fairer chance. Right now, we just have too many rules and too many of them just do not make any sense. Remember, bad rules are not just expensive and foolish, they represent far more than a dead-weight loss for the economy; they are obstacles to progress. One of the challenges we face today concerns channels that have been earmarked for advanced television. Not only has the FCC set aside a significant number of channels for the broadcast television industry, it has also placed severe restrictions on additional uses of those channels. Mr. President, technologically speaking, these channels could be used to provide extensive new and competitive offerings, in addition to more TV. Due to advances in digital technology, they could be used for new mobile radio services, for wireless loops that could make the local telephone business more competitive, and for many other services as well. Legally speaking, however, these channels currently are dedicated to one specific use: High-definition television, or HDTV. In effect, the Washington bureaucracy has defined and limited the future. The bureaucrats, not consumers of the marketplace, have decided what new technology will be offered, where it will be offered and how it will be offered. It is time to revisit these regulatory decisions. If broadcasting is the best and highest use of those channels, let the marketplace make that decision. Once the best use for these channels is determined, how should the licenses be allocated? Again, let the market decide. Consumer choice and preference will quickly choose who best deserves the licenses associated with the new channels. I thus intend to work toward several changes in the FCC's advanced television broadcasting plan. All of these changes are geared toward unleashing creative powers, not smothering them with FCC rules. Therefore, our committee is considering allowing everyone--broadcasters including--to bid for the right to develop these channels. That bidding process can be carried out through spectrum auctions. At the same time, however, we want to guarantee the winning bidders have sufficient commercial and operational flexibility. In other words, they must be given the discretion to make what they think is the best use of those channels to meet consumer demand and increase consumer choice. I will chair a Senate Commerce Committee hearing concerning this very topic tomorrow. Earlier this year several newspaper articles, including an excellent piece by William Safire, which I ask to be included in the Record following my remarks, characterized the FCC's HDTV plan as ``a billion dollar giveaway.'' At a July 27th Commerce Committee hearing, Henry Geller, former FCC General Counsel and NTIA Administrator, testified that giving broadcasters an additional six megahertz would be a ``national scandal.'' A number of organizations across political lines recently have come out against giving free spectrum to the broadcast industry and support auctioning the advanced television spectrum. Not surprisingly, the television broadcast industry strongly opposes auctioning spectrum which the FCC proposes to give away to them for free. But beyond the special interest arguments, let me tell you, Mr. President, why this proposal is especially important. It is important because it plays right into another major priority for the 104th Congress--stimulating economic growth. The great thing about communications technology is that it is such a powerful catalyst for growth. Engineers and economists talk about communications as a leverage technology. Experts point out it is both demand-inducing and cost-reducing at the same time. That is, at the same time advances in communications technology make it possible to encourage consumption and investment, they also make it possible for businesses to keep costs in line. This keeps America competitive. Mr. President, some of the best economists in the world work for the Japanese Government. They have actually quantified how communications fosters economic growth. Their calculations show that for every dollar we invest in communications, we get almost 3 dollars of growth. That is why telecommunications industries are so important. You cannot improve and expand communications services, however, if the basic building blocks--like the radio spectrum--are locked up in some regulatory backwater. You cannot improve and expand communications services, if the people who develop innovative ideas are artificially denied the ability to move their product to market. Getting more spectrum into the hands of more people with more and better ideas on how to use it is a critical objective. Beyond bringing new and exciting technologies to the consumer, it also is an excellent way in which to contribute toward the new jobs, new services, and new investment opportunities this country needs. This leads to public broadcasting policy reform regarding spectrum. Such a bold, forward looking approach on spectrum policy reform also creates an opportunity to reinvent and privatize public broadcasting. To borrow a phrase from my good friend, Vice President Al Gore, we need to reinvent the way we finance public broadcasting in this country. Ever since President Johnson's administration and the heyday of the Great Society, we have relied on taxpayer funds, channeled through the Washington-based bureaucracy at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Over the past few decades, literally billions of dollars in appropriations have flowed through Washington back to the public broadcasting stations. Federal funds successfully have built a nationwide public broadcasting system that enjoys wide support. Viewers such as myself help stations with annual membership dues and other contributions. Corporate underwriting contributes significant programming support. At the same time, Federal financing funneled through a Washington bureaucracy has created a public broadcasting system not necessarily in touch with most Americans. Today the public broadcasting system is mature. It now must be allowed to evolve. Why? One very good reason is that with today's crushing national debt, all [[Page S 13311]] Federal spending must come under careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, when I first raised the issue of privatizing public broadcasting, no one in the public broadcasting establishment seemed to hear what I was saying. I was accused of trying to kill Big Bird and Barney. Fortunately, public broadcasting is beginning to look at realistic options for survival in a budget deficit conscious world. I am encouraged by these efforts and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure public broadcasting continues to serve public needs. Should we reexamine the charter CPB was given in 1967? I think we should. As I mentioned earlier, today public broadcasting is a mature system. There are still some regions which are not served, but the vast majority of Americans receive one--if not several--public radio and television stations. Efforts to consolidate and increase efficiencies should be encouraged. At the same time, reaching under-served areas of our Nation must remain a primary objective of any reinvented public broadcasting system. What about programming? Today's competitive marketplace has made the market failure rationale for public funding obsolete in some respects. Cable television network services including the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, Arts & Entertainment, the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, and others provide quality, educational and artistic programming once thought only available on public television. At the same time, I believe most Americans want more quality children's and educational programming available over free TV. The great promise of broadcasting to educate and uplift our children and our citizens has not been realized. Too much violence and tawdry programming dominates the public's airwaves. Children's and educational programming should be the primary, if not sole, focus of taxpayer support for public television programming. Public radio also should be helped to flourish. At the same time, American taxpayers cannot afford to continue the inefficiencies in the current system. Because of historical accident, PBS and National Public Radio, for example, have separate distribution networks. I understand PBS actually has more audio capacity on its system than NPR. However, CPB has no power to make PBS and NPR consolidate and realize these efficiencies. Congress does. We should accept that responsibility and reinvent public broadcasting to provide a meaningful and quality legacy for our children. We also need to provide public broadcasting with a baseline of support. An excellent model already exists for how a baseline of support can be continued in an industry while providing the flexibility necessary to allow the industry to evolve, improve its product, and expand its services. We have accomplished the kind of privatization of Federal functions I am talking about in other areas--with, for instance, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association, the Student Loan Marketing Association--Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae. We can and should do the same for public broadcasting. We can accomplish the goals I have laid out by establishing a new privatized entity to provide public broadcasting baseline support. We can get the seed money necessary to carry out this initiative through the spectrum auction process. The fundamental goal should be to privatize the financing process and to empower broadcasters and public broadcasting organizations besides just those that exist in Washington--inside the Beltway. This approach would pay a number of public policy dividends. It would provide public broadcasting with a financial baseline of support. That is, this year's, or next year's, financing would not be subject to the vagaries of the Washington appropriations process. That, in turn, would help stations plan. Among other things, public broadcasters would not have to continuously lobby Washington to get the support they need. They could bank on continued support. Not all the money for the initial capitalization, moreover, would have to come from Washington. The business community, foundations, and others would be encouraged to participate. Financial experts currently are working out how much seed capital would be required. Indeed, I will chair a second Commerce Committee hearing this week in which we will take testimony from an investment banker at First Boston on how to move forward with this capitalization idea. At the same time, and as a way of ensuring the continued success of public broadcasting, we need to change some of the restrictions on public broadcast stations. This can be controversial. Nobody wants to sanction unfair competition between tax-exempt public broadcasters and the private sector's commercial broadcasters. But there are safeguards that can be established. One of the concepts that has been around for years is that of limited advertising. Numerous public broadcasting organizations in Europe already have commercials, clustered at natural program breaks. Limited advertising represents a significant source of revenue for public broadcast stations. It also represents a source of funds that may be preferable to the current situation in which companies basically produce and underwrite the programs run on public broadcasting. Advertising revenue tends to come without the content strings that program underwriting inevitably entails. Privatization means relying more on private, individual effort, less on a Washington handout. It also ensures decisionmaking can take place at a level much closer to the particular consumer in the particular market. In any country as big and diverse as the United States, that is especially important. A one-size-fits-all approach virtually never works well in our society. My thinking regarding public broadcasting is consistent with the approach this new Congress has taken in other areas. One of the cornerstones of most of the sound welfare reform proposals, for instance, is the concept of block grants and State and local decisionmaking. The thinking there is that local authorities are in the best position to manage these issues wisely, and Washington can assist them in addressing their State and local needs. Privatizing public broadcast financing would accomplish much the same objective. It would cut the Washington umbilical cord--or should I say straitjacket--and vest decisionmaking--plus the money and resources needed--with the stations and people at the local level. It is they, after all, who provide the service to the American public. Mr. President, the simple theme running through each of the reform ideas I have spoken of today is the fundamental principle that we do not want the Washington bureaucracy determining what is possible and what is going to be allowed. Let me conclude with an excellent example of what telecommunications policy reform means at a practical level for my home State of South Dakota and other areas of the often forgotten West. I am referring to an article in Investor's Business Daily last August 31st. That is the new Wall Street Journal competitor, incidentally, which makes an effort to provide news, especially financial news, that is important to people out West. The newspaper reported on a new communications technique that could revolutionize farming--a vitally important part of South Dakota's economy. It is called ``site-specific'' or ``precision'' farming. Having grown up on a family farm, I find the technology fascinating. First, soil moisture and crop yield sensors are spotted in fields. These sensors can narrow acres and acres of land down to as little as 20 foot squares. These censors then interact with the new Global Positioning Satellite network. The system feeds information back to computers on the farm. This information give farmers the kind of precise information they need to target fertilizer, irrigation, and other services. The approach radically reduces operating costs. It helps the environment by reducing leaching and stream run-off. It is the kind of smart farming we need in this country to maintain our global competitiveness. Mr. President, it is possible only because of the marriage of computers and communications. Now, Mr. President, do you honestly believe the inside-the-Beltway crowd would ever have thought of this? I doubt it. It took innovative entrepreneurs to identify and fill a market need. What if the Washington bureaucracy had set up a system of rules that [[Page S 13312]] kept communications channels from being used for ``site-specific'' farming? Its promise and all that means to the farming sector and the American economy as a whole would never have been realized. I ask consent the ``Investor's Business Daily'' article be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I have made telecommunications policy reform my top priority for the 104th Congress. I am quite proud of the swift progress made to date, including the sweeping Senate passage of S. 652, the Telecommunications Communications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. As I indicated before we left for the August recess, as significant and necessary as S. 652 is for our country's economic and social well- being in the 21st century, it is only one item in my overall plan for telecommunications policy reform. Today, I would like to take a few minutes to briefly discuss two additional areas of telecommunications reform I intend to pursue through the remainder of the 104th Congress: Spectrum reform and public broadcasting reform. Regarding spectrum policy reform, there was a recent essay by William Safire in the New York Times entitled ``The Greatest Auction Ever. Get Top Dollar for the Spectrum.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William Safire's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. PRESSLER. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. If we could deal with this amendment, it has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of amendment 2501.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment that is designed to give States greater authority to crackdown on welfare fraud. This amendment would allow States to intercept Federal income tax refunds in order to recover overpayments of welfare benefits due to fraud or error. This technique, called tax intercept, would be used as a measure of a last resort against former welfare recipients who defraud the system. Originally, welfare was designed as a transitional program to help people become self-sufficient. Many families find themselves [[Page S 13207]] in circumstances beyond their control and legitimately need temporary help. However, as we all know, far too many individuals abuse the system, making public assistance a way of life. This amendment is designed to crack down on the persistent fraud problems that plague our welfare system. It is estimated that welfare overpayments represent about 4 percent of payments paid by AFDC, food stamp, and Medicaid programs. Many of these overpayments are due to deliberate fraud. This type of abuse is an insult both to hard-working taxpayers who struggle daily without Government assistance as well as families on welfare who play by the rules. Currently, a similar tax intercept is reducing fraud successfully in the Food Stamp Program in 32 States. My amendment would create a similar model for AFDC. It is also designed to protect taxpayer privacy. Just as important, my amendment would save States at least $250 million, enabling them to use the savings for those who truly need assistance. The most recent estimate of this proposal was done in 1992, when the United Council on Welfare Fraud estimated that States could save $49 million per year. If a similar analysis were done today, I expect the savings from my amendment would be even greater. I am pleased this amendment will be accepted. It means getting tough on the cheats who abuse our welfare system. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Bryan be added as an original cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleague for his cosponsorship and support and leadership in this area.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole approach on the welfare bill. We must restore workfare to our welfare program. The system of welfare that we have in this country was set up in the early 1960's. I remember well the war on poverty, and the intentions were good. But the result has been our inner cities have had generational welfare. The same thing has happened on our Indian reservations. We all want to help people who need help. But we must restore the principle of workfare. That is what the Dole bill does. Also, we must turn over to our States more of this responsibility, because the States can judge who deserves welfare better. We now have all these Washington bureaucrats with the entitlement programs, situated in Washington, DC, making judgments on who should be on welfare in South Dakota or California. Under this new legislation, under this reform, there will be workfare and the States will decide who gets welfare. That will save the taxpayers money. But more importantly, it will reform our welfare program so we will have a real welfare program that helps the people who need it and requires people to work who are able to work. It is time for reform in welfare. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wanted to bring to my colleagues' attention the concerns of several prominent South Dakotans regarding the Superfund Program. Like many of my colleagues, during the August recess, I spend considerable time back in South Dakota talking to my constituents. While in South Dakota, one issue came up on a number of occasions: Superfund reform. This issue is important to small business men and women throughout South Dakota. In fact, several South Dakota small business leaders just launched a new coalition, South Dakotans for Superfund reform. Recently, the coalition leadership's comments on Superfund, and an op-ed from Rob Wheeler of Lemmon, SD, were published in local newspapers in the State. I ask that these articles 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 are 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 and 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 complied with past laws and regulations to shoulder the burden of cleaning up our hazardous waste sites. I believe these newspaper articles represent 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 must take these concerns to heart as we reexamine the Superfund Program. Exhibit 1 [From the Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD), Sept. 5, 1995] Message to Clinton Clear--Reform Superfund Program (By Rob L. Wheeler) I attended the White House Conference on Small Business in June--one of about 2,000 entrepreneurs and business owners from across the country invited to Washington by the Clinton administration. At the end of the four-day event, the White House asked us to put together a list of the most important steps the federal government could take to really help small businesses. One of the top recommendations may come as a surprise: overhauling the Superfund program. Superfund was created by Congress in 1980 to clean up the nation's worst hazardous waste dumps. Fifteen years have passed since then and more than 1,300 Superfund sites have been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency. Over $20 billion in government and private sector funds has been spent. But only 6 percent of those sites have been cleaned up completely. With a record of failure like that, it's no mystery why the Superfund is nearly universally regarded--by environmentalists and business owners alike--as the single most ineffective piece of environmental legislation in history. Why is the Superfund such a hazard for small businesses? [[Page S 12679]] It starts with the Superfund's liability scheme called ``strict, retroactive, joint and several liability.'' Retroactive liability means a small business owner can be held responsible for action that took place before the law has passed. Even if you didn't act negligently, even if you followed every law and regulation completely--you're still on the hook. Joint and several liability means the company can be forced to pay 100 percent of the cost of cleaning up a Superfund site even though it was only responsible for a small fraction of the pollution. With marching orders like that, you can guess the EPA's standard operating procedure: Find any organizations even remotely connected with a Superfund site; then drag them into court to make them pay the clean-up bill. So far, over 20,000 small businesses, hospitals, towns, and community groups-- even a Girl Scout troop--have been stamped as ``polluters'' by the EPA and face potentially crippling legal liability. All that litigation costs money--a lot of money. More than 20 percent of all Superfund dollars get spent in the courtroom, not to clean up the environment. That translates into an incredible $6.7 million in lawyers' fees and court costs per Superfund site. No wonder the EPA keeps about 500 lawyers on staff just to work on Superfund liability issues. So our first recommendation for Superfund reform is repealing retroactive liability for waste disposal prior to 1987, when small businesses were first required to keep detailed disposal records. The conference also recommended changing ``joint and several liability'' to proportional liability, so those liable would only pay to clean up what they're responsible for. Another recommendation was that Congress should require the EPA to use ``sound science and realistic risk assessments'' in identifying toxic sites and establishing cleanup standards. That just sounds like common sense; you'd thing that danger to health and safety would be the only criteria for selecting Superfund sites. But you'd be wrong. Today's EPA standards are so seriously flawed that according to a recent federal government study, more than half of the so- called hazardous sites on the EPA's National Priorities List don't even pose a threat to human health. There are several other reforms on our list, but they all share a common goal: creating a new Superfund that focuses on cleaning up the environment, not harassing innocent businesses. These reforms have a good chance of passing Congress, but the Clinton administration--which asked for our recommendations to begin with--is now resisting. Recently, a group of business and civic leaders from across the state got together to form South Dakotans for Superfund Reform--a grass-roots coalition dedicated to the type of Superfund reform we proposed to the White House. Our goal is to work with South Dakota's elected representatives in Washington to fix Superfund this year. There are currently four Superfund sites in South Dakota, including one that has been on the EPA's list for more than 10 years. And 15 small businesses and other organizations in South Dakota have been targeted by the EPA. Unless Clinton and Congress fix Superfund, those busineses--and the jobs they provide to South Dakotans--will remain in jeopardy. The Clinton White House should be on notice. If it's serious about helping small business, it needs to stop blocking Superfund reform. Washington conferences on small business are fine. But real action speaks a lot louder.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join with all Americans to applaud the tremendous achievement of Baltimore Orioles shortstop, Cal Ripken, Jr. Tonight, Cal will play in his 2,131st consecutive major league baseball game, eclipsing the previous record set by the immortal Yankee great, Lou Gehrig, in 1939. I commend Cal not just for the singular distinction of being baseball's all-time iron man, but the way he achieved it: with class and with dignity. His approach to baseball is the approach hard-working Americans take to their professions--each and every day he goes out and tries to do his best not just for himself but for his coworkers, his team. He doesn't try to be flashy or flamboyant. He quietly and consistently goes out and gets the job done. And for nearly 13 seasons without missing a game, he has done just that--he got the job done. Cal also recognizes that being a baseball player also means being a role model to millions of youngsters. Cal plays his life off the field the same way he plays on the field--with tireless energy and quiet excellence. He devotes time to numerous charities in his community. He spends countless hours signing autographs and working with young people on how to be both good ballplayers and good citizens. Most important, Cal Ripken is a husband and father of two children. When asked about how important this day is to him, Cal was said to have replied that it was indeed a big day because he was driving his daughter, Rachel, to her first day at school. I commend Cal Ripken, Jr., and wish him well. Tonight, he will make history as baseball's most consistent, hardworking ballplayer. For myself and on behalf of all South Dakotans, I applaud him for that. I also applaud him for demonstrating that same consistency, that same hardworking spirit off the field as well.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass S. 1087, the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense [DOD] appropriations bill, and soon will pass S. 1026, the fiscal year 1996 DOD authorization bill. I am pleased to support both pieces of legislation. Both bills call for a full investment in the B-1 bomber in the coming fiscal year--a clear reflection of the Senate's wise and strong support for the bomber. As a strong supporter of this important component of our long-range bomber force, I believe this is great news for those who support both a strong national defense and a sound fiscal policy. One of the critical military force structure issues that the U.S. Senate has considered in recent years is the funding level needed to sustain an effective heavy bomber force. In my view, the continued effectiveness of our long-range bomber fleet rests on a full investment in the Conventional Mission Upgrade Program [CMUP] for the B-1 bomber [B-1B]--the Lancer. The B-1B is critical to our Nation's bomber force structure. As my colleagues know, the B-1B originally was designed as a multirole bomber during the cold war, with its primary mission being its capability to deliver a nuclear payload. Today, in response to these dramatic changes and new demands on our post-cold-war national security goals, the United States must commit fewer resources to nuclear deterrence in favor of advancing conventional capabilities. Our bomber force now must fill a dual role. First, it must continue its commitment to nuclear deterrence missions. Second, our bombers must adapt to serve conventional needs. Of the three heavy bombers--the B-52, the B-1B, and the B-2-the B-1B has the greatest potential to serve both nuclear and conventional missions. I have been a strong supporter of the B--1B throughout the years because it is one of the most versatile aircraft ever constructed. This was the view of the Department of Defense when, as part of its 1993 Bottom-Up Review, it concluded that the B-1B represented the backbone of the heavy bomber force. Further, the Pentagon believed that a full investment in the B-1B's conventional capabilities was the most cost-effective method to maintaining a bomber force structure capable of meeting our national security goals. Over the years, I have talked to many associated with the B-1B--its designers, Pentagon strategists, and the dedicated men and women who fly and maintain this extraordinary aircraft. All believe in the B-1B and its place in our force structure. Yet, despite these glowing reviews, a skeptical Congress over the last several years has subjected the B-1B to a series of performance evaluations and studies. The B-1B has met each and every challenge. The first congressionally mandated test was the Operational Readiness Assessment [ORA]. The purpose of this test--code-named the Dakota Challenge--was to determine if one B-1B wing, when provided fully with the necessary spare parts, maintenance equipment, support crews, and logistics equipment, could meet the Air Force mission availability rate goal of 75 percent. Tasked to take on the Dakota Challenge was the 28th Bomber Wing stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City, SD. The 28th Bomber Wing more than met the goal of the Dakota Challenge, achieving an extraordinary 84-percent mission capable rate. Additionally, improvements were seen in other readiness indicators, including the 12-hour fix rate--a measure of how often a malfunctioning aircraft can be repaired and returned to the air within one-half day. The enormous success of the Dakota Challenge prompted Gen. John Michael Loh, commander of the Air Combat Command to state that the B-1B has established its title as ``a solid investment in our Nation's capability to project power on a global scale.'' A second congressionally mandated study released this year was done by the Institute for Defense Analyses [IDA]. The IDA study represents perhaps the most in-depth, comprehensive analysis of the entire bomber fleet. This report examined the deployment options of our long-range heavy bomber forces--in association with additional tactical forces-- under the circumstances of two hypothetical, nearly simultaneous world conflicts. Under these circumstances, the IDA study found that the B-1B is not just mission-effective but cost-effective as well. The study concluded that the B-1B could serve successfully as the centerpiece of American airpower projection, while producing the highest return on our defense investment. [[Page S 12565]] The Dakota Challenge and the IDA study together made clear that an investment in the B-1B's conventional capabilities was the best investment in fiscal and national security terms. These congressionally mandated tests have changed the congressional view of the B-1B from one of skepticism to support. The DOD authorization and appropriations bills before us today reflect this wise shift. Specifically, the DOD appropriations bill would provide $407 million for the B-1B. This funding includes support for research and development, modification programs and of course, the Conventional Mission Upgrade Program. What would all this funding do? It would enhance the B-1B in three key ways. First of all, the B-1B would be outfitted with new precision weapons to bring added conventional lethality to the bomber. Second, computer upgrades would enable the B-1B to be ultimately capable of carrying the new generation of smart weapons. Third, the B-1B would be equipped with state-of-the-art jam-resistant radio to allow the aircraft to communicate with fighters and other support aircraft. In addition, upgrades would be provided to improve the B-1B's survivability in medium-high threat areas. The end of the cold war has brought a world environment of unpredictability. New regional threats could occur with very little warning. In this environment, we must look to our bomber force to quickly respond to conventional threats. By fully funding the CMUP for fiscal year 1996 and providing additional enhancements to make up for prior year delays, we can provide our bomber force better prepared to respond to this dynamic world environment. Mr. President, the people of Rapid City, SD, know well of the effectiveness and the importance of the B-1B to our national security. Many civilians in Rapid City have a family member, a friend, or a neighbor who serves in the 28th Bomber Wing--the men and women who collectively are the backbone of our bomber fleet's backbone. They do more than just keep the B-1B's flying. They firmly believe that the B- 1B is a high quality aircraft, capable of being the centerpiece of the bomber fleet in the years to come. They were willing to put their beliefs in their bomber to the test. Through the Dakota Challenge, they proved what they believed. And today, the 28th Bomber Wing's success is being recognized by the U.S. Senate, which will show its strongest support yet for the future conventional success of the B-1 bomber.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I see the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Defense, my friend from Alaska, on the floor, and I wanted to be sure he is aware of concerns brought to my attention by the South Dakota National Guard. The concerns involve a funding difference for multiple launch rocket systems [MLRS] between S. 1087, the fiscal year [FY] 1996 Department of Defense [DOD] appropriations bill and S. 1026, the fiscal year 1996 DOD authorization bill. Any addition of MLRS batteries to National Guard units would be an important contribution. Over the next several decades, our national security increasingly will need to respond rapidly and decisively to regional security threats. The post-cold-war defense drawdown will result in an increased reliance on the National Guard and the reserve forces to meet our national security needs. The opportunity for the South Dakota National Guard to be fielded an MLRS battery would improve greatly its readiness and capability to respond rapidly to time critical targets. I urge the chairman and the appointed conferees to consider going to the authorized funding level for MLRS launchers, as S. 1087 proceeds to conference. I believe doing so would ensure the successful reconditioning and fielding of 29 MLRS launchers important to our reserve forces.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska. I appreciate his consideration of my request and look forward to working with him on this matter of importance to the South Dakota National Guard.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, between July 21 and July 26 China conducted a series of ballistic missile test firings 85 miles from Taiwan. The missiles were all MTCR class four short range and two intermediate range. All were modern, mobile, nuclear-capable. No country has ever held this level of field tests for nuclear capable missiles before. The result was predictable--the stock market and the local currency in Taiwan fell precipitously. Mr. President, yesterday China announced that a new round of ballistic missile tests are due to begin next week. Again the test range is very near Taiwan. And again, the same result--the stock market in Taiwan plunged this morning to a 20-month low and the local currency dropped to the lowest level in 4 years. Mr. President, the United States is faced with three choices: First, we can do nothing. However, I believe that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to allow Asia to be dominated by a nondemocratic power. Second, at the other extreme, we could interpose the United States Pacific Fleet between the Chinese coast and the Asian democracies. President Truman did so in 1950 but I believe that should be considered only as a last resort. Finally, we can take what I believe is the wisest course. That is, the United States can provide the requisite material and political support so that the Asian democracies can resist aggression. Mr. President, when we return there will be a number of legislative opportunities to address this issue. I believe we should do so, hopefully with the administration's cooperation, but if necessary, without it. Mr. President, I ask that a number of wire service stories on this issue be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Fears Widespread in Taiwan as China Renews Tests (By Joyce Liu) Taipei, August 11.--Taiwan's financial markets plunged and the dollar tumbled to a four-year low on Friday amid fears roused by a second series of missile tests China is planning near the island. Taiwanese officials tried to allay widespread concern over the tests, with Huang Yao-yu, director-general of Taiwan's ruling Nationalist Party's department of mainland operations, saying they were not a direct military threat but were politically motivated. They saw the tests as an attempt to create instability before presidential elections next March. ``There should not be any situation which is out of control. It has not yet reached the level of real military actions,'' Huang said on state-funded television. ``It (China) hopes our elections can meet its expectations.'' China announced on Thursday it would hold the second round of guided-missile tests in less than a month in the East China Sea between August 15 and 25, just north of Taiwan. Financial markets reacted sharply to the tests. On Friday, the stock market plunged 4.57 percent to 4,551.89, a 20-month low, and the Taiwan dollar tumbled to the lowest level since 1991 against the U.S. dollar at midday. Taiwan has said it would hold a military exercise, described as a routine military inspection, in southern Taiwan before the island's National Day on October 10. ``Communist China holds exercises and Taiwan also wants to hold exercises. What is the government doing and what should we stock investors do?'' said an angry middle-aged housewife at a Taipei brokerage. As well as creating instability in Taiwan, China's motive is also seen by political analysts as cutting support for Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui, who is widely expected to run in the first presidential elections. Analysts said that if China could not intimidate Taiwan, it might continue to increase tensions in the Taiwan Straits before the island's December parliamentary elections and the March presidential elections. ``It seems communist China wants to cross the middle line and start to use force to incite Taiwan,'' said Hu Fo, political science professor at National Taiwan University. China has considered Taiwan a revel province since the Nationalists lost the civil war in 1949. Both say they want eventual reunification but on very different terms. ``It will be very dangerous if communist China thinks it can no longer solve the reunification issue with a peaceful method. Taiwan should handle the issue very carefully now,'' Hu said. President Lee's landmark visit to the United States in June, although private, infuriated Beijing which interprets Lee's moves to promote the island's international image as advocating independence. Relations soured after Lee's U.S. trip and China's last missile tests, between July 21 and 26 in the sea north of Taiwan, triggered fear throughout Taiwan, forcing the stock market and the dollar down. Taiwan cabinet's Mainland Affairs Council, which sets the island's China policy, has blasted China over Thursday's missile test announcement, saying the tests were unfriendly and irresponsible.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the historic action taken in the House of Representatives on August 4. Our colleagues in the other body, under the able leadership of Chairmen Tom Bliley and Jack Fields and ranking minority member John Dingell, overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bi-partisan vote of 305 to 117, H.R. 1555, a companion bill to S. 652, the Senate telecommunications reform bill. As my [[Page S 12364]] colleagues will recall, in June the Senate overwhelmingly approved the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 by a vote of 81 to 18. We have moved in record time--through both houses of Congress--the most comprehensive rewrite of America's telecommunications laws in over 60 years. Since the 1970's, Congress has considered broad based legislation to modernize our laws governing the telecommunications industry. Nothing, however, has been enacted into law. The Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 will make dramatic and long needed changes in the Government's regulatory oversight of the telecommunications industry. It promotes unprecedented competition among the various providers of telecommunications products, services, and technologies and dramatically reduces costly and counterproductive regulation of this vitally important sector of American industry. The changes made in the legislation are long overdue. The dramatic enhancements in technology over the last few years have vastly outstripped the existing regulatory process. A major overhaul of this process is essential if we want competition and its results: better jobs, more exports, greater choice and lower prices. That is exactly what the telecommunications reform bill does. In moving forward to pass reform legislation, we are shunning the old way of doing business. Instead of splitting the difference between warring commercial interests and special pleaders, we must keep our focus on a free-market outcome that will benefit consumers and taxpayers across the country. Americans trust this country's free enterprise system. Consumers know there is far too much regulation in much of American business. We have witnessed a burgeoning computer industry develop over the past decade precisely because it has been unfettered by excessive Government regulation. Many parts of the telecommunications sector have been less dynamic, because of excessive Government regulation and micromangement. Consumers know that more competition means more choices, lower prices, better quality and more technological innovation. That is what the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 is all about. The bill affirms the tenets of the American free enterprise system by establishing that the marketplace shall determine the winners and losers, not those companies who have demonstrated prowess in protecting markets through the courts and the regulatory process. Mr. President, passage of telecommunications reform legislation is but one step in moving America forward in the information age of the 21st century. As a next step forward, I intend to press ahead with dramatic radio spectrum reform. Mr. President, many Americans are aware that wireless technology provides the magic of radio broadcasting and the miracle of television. What is not as well known, but equally important, is that the radio spectrum also enables consumers to receive and transmit a wide variety of wireless voice, data, graphic and video information over the airwaves. At a hearing of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which I chaired on July 27, Members saw demonstrations of a variety of advanced spectrum services. Wireless communications often are overlooked by many experts in the policy community who rely far too heavily on a high fiber diet. This is unfortunate. Wireless communications is a rapidly expanding multi- billion dollar industry that is transforming modern American life as profoundly as the landline telephone system did at the beginning of this century. This is especially important in parts of our country dominated by small cities and towns such as in my home State of South Dakota. Such places experience a significant cost differential between wireless and wireline communications--and wireless is far less expensive. Wireless technology could provide solutions to universal service problems we face currently. Equally profound is the effect wireless communications will have on the once-sacrosanct local wireline telephone monopoly. The introduction of radio technologies into the long distance segment of the telecommunications market in the 1950's led directly to the breakup of the monopoly for long distance services. New generations of wireless telephones will work the same transformation in the local exchange market. This, of course, is one of the fundamental purposes of S. 652. Today, two out of every three requests for new telephone service are wireless. There are 25 million cellular telephone subscribers and 20 million users of paging technology. Direct Broadcast Satellite DBS service is providing over 200 digital video and audio channels in competition with cable TV. This is only the beginning. Mr. President, America--indeed the world--is on the cusp of a golden wireless age of communications. Just yesterday I had the great privilege of making the first PCS call in America--to my mother in South Dakota. PCS, or personal communications service, is a fully digital, wireless communications system with advanced features. The launching of PCS service in America is an especially important milestone in our march to the wireless age. While many people talk about how telecommunications promotes productivity, mobile radio services provide positive proof. Moreover, radio frequency systems are important from a social policy perspective. Mobile radio is a liberating technology. Wireless communications also play an important role against crime, saving lives and promoting public safety. There are over a half-million wireless calls per month to 911 nationwide. On July 27, the Commerce Committee saw demonstrations of advanced products, services and technologies utilizing the radio frequency spectrum. We also heard witnesses present an informative discussion of new spectrum policy reform initiatives to increase American competitiveness and consumer options. To spark a major reform of our Nation's spectrum use, I will promote legislation for more auctions of spectrum and for more flexibility in spectrum use as part of the reconciliation process. The spectrum is an enormously valuable, yet finite resource. Unless a reform plan is developed that creates a more effective and efficient use of the spectrum, as well as a more stable supply of spectrum for private sector use, a vast array of new spectrum-based products, services, and technologies will go unrealized. Such a prospect is particularly disheartening when one considers the benefits that are derived from current spectrum-based technology. The example of cellular telephone technology is a cautionary example. In 1962, AT&T was operating its first experimental cellular telephone system. It was not until 20 years later that the first cellular licenses were handed out by the FCC. Bureaucratic delay and inefficient regulation hampered the development and availability of cellular phones for years. Today, the cellular industry generates about $14.2 billion in revenues a year. From its very beginning, wireless communications has played a vital role in protecting lives and property and, subsequently--through the development of radio and television broadcasting--in delivering information and entertainment programming to the public at large. More recently, there has been a realization that wireless, spectrum-based telecommunications services, products and technologies are indispensable enablers or drivers of productivity and economic growth, as well as international competitiveness. The use of spectrum, however, is determined through bureaucratic licensing rules, regulations and procedures first developed in the 1920's. Under this Byzantine system, the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] determines the general uses for the radio spectrum, allocates bands of frequencies to each of those uses, and then issues/ assigns licenses for the use of frequencies in each band for specific uses. Spectrum utilized by Federal Government agencies is managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] of the Department of Commerce. Compared to that of most other countries, the U.S. spectrum management system allows for some degree of private sector involvement in spectrum. Yet, the system involves a [[Page S 12365]] central Government planning scheme by Federal regulators and bureaucrats. It is, in short, electromagnetic industrial policy. The FCC must determine which services, which frequencies and the conditions under which they will be provided, and often the specific technology to be used. The spectrum management system currently utilized in the U.S. tends to result in an inefficient use of the spectrum resource. Federal regulators--rather than consumers--decide whether taxis, telephone service, broadcasters, or foresters are in greatest need of spectrum. Most importantly, new services, products and technologies face inordinate delays which impose tremendous costs on society. It typically takes many years to get a new service approved by the FCC. The lengthy delay in making cellular telephone service available, as noted earlier, imposed a huge cost on the economy. One recent study estimated the delay cost our economy $86 billion. In addition, the system constrains competition. One of the most important determinants of a competitive industry is the ability of new firms to enter the business. The allocation process typically provides for a set number of licenses for each service, precluding additional competitors. Only two cellular franchises, for instance, are allowed in each market. This takes on added significance when one considers the important role wireless services will play in bringing competitive alternatives to the wireline telephone system. Changes in new communications technologies, especially the digitization phenomenon, are making the bureaucratic system even more unworkable. New wireless communications technologies, services and products are being developed at an ever accelerating rate. Even if the FCC were able to weigh the needs and merits of the relatively few spectrum-based services which existed in the 1930's, it is simply not able to do so today. Even if it could, the lengthy delays associated with the allocation and assignment processes, while perhaps acceptable in a slow-changing analog world, are seriously out of step with the fast-changing digitized world of today. Spectrum auctions employing competitive bidding for spectrum would give applicants for spectrum the right incentives. Applicants would have incentives to bid only for that amount they truly need, and to use it in the most efficient manner possible. The Government would be compensated at a fair market value for granting an applicant the use of the spectrum. There is already a vigorous private market for spectrum rights. The only difference between the private auctions and FCC auctions is that taxpayers, rather than lucky lottery or comparative hearing winners, receive the revenue. In addition to expanded auctioning authority, I also intend to pursue spectrum flexibility reforms. Historically, when Government allocated a portion of the spectrum was allocated, they have done so for one and only one use. More flexible use of spectrum would be more productive. Since the 1980's, the FCC has allowed the cellular industry to use its spectrum for alternative purposes. As a result of this increased flexibility, we have seen the advent of data services. The recently passed Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. 652, contains provisions for spectrum flexibility for broadcasters. Now is the time to expand on this important spectrum reform. Recent digital technological developments make other applications of flexible spectrum use feasible. Smart radios using microprocessor technology now make continuous communications possible on tiny slivers of shifting, noncontiguous spectrum. Such spread spectrum technologies also make it possible to program a cellular telephone to operate on different frequencies based on the part of town from which it is transmitting, or even on the time of day. Mr. President, our country's future hinges on our ability to maintain our leadership in telecommunications, computing and information technology and innovation. The growth in jobs, productivity and international competitiveness will come in the telecommunications, computing and information sector if the Government gets out of the way. By passing a major overhaul and deregulation of telecommunications, and following this with reform of the spectrum system, this Congress can make a major contribution toward greater consumer choices, jobs creation and U.S. competitiveness in global markets.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow South Dakota's national parks to be managed by the State of South Dakota. Natural resources always have played a significant role in the heritage of my State. South Dakota is the proud home of three of our national treasures: Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, as well as a number of State parks, wildlife preserves, and recreation areas. It is not surprising that tourism is the second largest industry in the State. People travel thousands of miles to view South Dakota's natural wonders. Located just south of Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park is one of the nation's oldest national parks. The park provides protection to hundreds of prairie wildlife, including bison, antelope, coyotes, elk, and prairie dogs. The cave itself is 70 miles of winding underground passageways. The natural formations of boxwork, flowstone, popcorn and frostwork combine with helictites and stalactites to amaze and educate visitors from around the world. Northwest of Wind Cave, is Jewel Cave National Monument--the fourth longest cave in the world. Ninety miles of underground passageways have been mapped to date, but many more miles are left to be discovered. The cave takes its name from glittering jewel-like calcite crystals which line the walls of many of the cave's rooms and tunnels. Finally, there is Mount Rushmore, set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest. The Mount Rushmore National Memorial attracts more than 2 million visitors each year. It is truly America's Shrine of Democracy. The monument was designed in 1927 by Gutzon Borglum, the son of Danish immigrants. The Memorial is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years later, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America. This year there has been a great deal of discussion about the ever diminishing funds for the National Park Service. In light of possible budget cuts, some even erroneously questioned whether the parks would be able to stay open. Mr. President, I agree that like most Federal Government programs and agencies, the Park Service is due for some belt tightening. However, fiscal responsibility should not place at risk the effective management of our national parks. Our Nation has some of the most spectacular scenery in the world and we must carefully preserve this natural legacy that has been placed in our care. The challenge that we face should not be the threat of a park closing. That is not an option. Such scare talk is no substitute for what is truly needed during these tough times--imagination. We need to consider new ways to do more with less. To paraphrase an adage used at dinner tables across America, we must learn to stretch our Park Service dollars. That is exactly what I have done. In the past few weeks, I have worked closely with Bill Janklow, the distinguished Governor of South Dakota, to formulate a plan that would direct the National Park Service to enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota to manage three of our four National Parks--Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. However, Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that these parks would remain Federal property. Management of the parks would change hands, but ownership and title would remain with the Federal Government. While the National Park System has managed these areas well, Governor Janklow has put forward an initiative that would allow the State to provide the same high quality management at less cost; and I commend his innovative cost-cutting ideas. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from Governor Janklow be printed in the Record following my statement. The legislation I am introducing today would give the State the opportunity to prove its ability to manage its national parks. Specifically, this legislation would freeze funds for South Dakota's national parks at 1994 levels, and would transfer those moneys to the State. By combining Federal fiscal resources with the State's tested management of its own parks system, the State has the opportunity to demonstrate that it can maintain our parks responsibly and efficiently. My legislation is a simple ten-year pilot project. After that time, the success of the management transfer would be evaluated for possible renewal. This bill does not ask the State of South Dakota to perform a task it is unfamiliar with. The State administers its own vast park system, the largest unit being Custer State Park which is directly adjacent to Wind Cave National Park. In addition, Custer State Park headquarters are less than 20 miles from Mount Rushmore National Memorial and 28 miles from Jewel Cave National Monument. This close proximity would allow the State to consolidate resources, and generally streamline management responsibilities. The result? Overall efficient management of both State and National parks. South Dakotans have a great history of stewardship of the land. South Dakota's department of game, fish and parks is representative of that deep commitment to our State's natural resources. South Dakota has more State parks than any other State. Thanks in great part to the State's efforts, tourism in South Dakota is now the second-largest industry. The success of this industry can be attributed to the diversity of natural resources and recreational activities which South Dakota provides in conjunction with the effective and successful management of those resources by the department of game fish and parks. Mr. President, South Dakota is proof that Washington bureaucrats do not have a corner on the market of expertise to manage Federal lands. Washington could learn a thing or two from South Dakotans. Indeed, as in areas like welfare reform and law enforcement, we are seeing that Washington bureaucrats are too far removed to understand local problems and needs. The same applies to the National Park Service. Given South Dakota's tradition of effective stewardship, who could better manage South Dakota's park resources than the State itself? Mr. President, Americans believe the time has come for the Federal Government to clean up its fiscal mess. Meeting this vital goal will require cost-effective innovation, not just from Washington, but from across the Nation. The State of South Dakota is ready to step up to the plate. My legislation would enable the National Park Service to control its budget by giving South Dakota creative authority to institute its cost-effective management practices on three national parks. I have confidence this demonstration will prove to be a great success. It is my hope this project will set a precedent for future State management of our National Parks. I urge my colleagues to study my legislation, and I look forward to working with the members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to give South Dakota the opportunity to prove its ability to effectively and efficiently manage its National Parks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for their clarification and assurance.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I wish to discuss several provisions included in the Fiscal Year 1995 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill of significant importance to the Committee. A number of the authorizing provisions in this bill are within the jurisdiction of our Committee which is the proper forum for their consideration. Mr. President, I raised jurisdictional concerns with the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee last week prior to the Transportation Subcommittee's markup of this legislation. I understand other members of my Committee also raised similar concerns and objections. In fact, the very afternoon this legislation was marked up by the Subcommittee, the Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee held a three and one- half hour hearing on the issue of reform of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) System. Several of the authorizing provisions in H.R. 2002 which I objected to related to FAA and ATC reform. Other objectional provisions related to matters such as airport funding which my Committee is also considering. As shown by the lengthy debate relating to the Roth amendment to strike several provisions in the legislation dealing with FAA procurement and personnel reform, these are very complex issues which require the careful and thoughtful consideration that my Committee has been undertaking. The importance of the FAA and ATC reform debate is very significant. The safety of the air traveling public is at stake. Also, the efficiency of our air transportation system, which is the envy of the world, should not be put at risk by hasty actions of the Congress. For these reasons, the steady and careful pace which my Committee has taken in developing legislative solutions to adequately address these problems is appropriate. The Subcommittee Chairman on Aviation, Senator McCain, and other members of the committee plan to introduce comprehensive reform legislation to safeguard the traveling public [[Page S 12212]] and improve the FAA and its activities. In fact, Senator McCain worked nonstop to try to bring a bill for the Committee's consideration during our mark up session of today, August 10. Unfortunately, negotiations with the Administration and the FAA to develop bipartisan legislation which the Administration could endorse was not achievable prior to today's session. However, our Committee continues to work diligently with Administration officials to craft this legislation. Therefore, I am pleased the managers of the bill agreed to postpone the effective date on the FAA procurement and personnel reforms included in the bill until April 1, 1996. This will give the Senate necessary time to achieve a consensus on how best to proceed in this most important area. Mr. President, I would also like to clarify for the record another matter regarding action by the Commerce Committee that was brought up during the Senate's consideration on this bill. During the short debate earlier today regarding my amendment to fund the Local Rail Freight Assistance (LRFA) program and the Section 511 loan guarantee program, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee argued against my amendment, opposing it because the Commerce Committee has not reported a bill to the Senate to authorize funding for LRFA. I want to explain to my colleagues why this bill, which we approved on July 20th, has not been filed since. I did not have an opportunity to rebut the opposition prior to the vote. On July 20th, the Commerce Committee approved a measure to reauthorize Amtrak and to permanently authorize LRFA. This approved bill has been available to the public since the Committee's approval. The Committee's authorization levels for Amtrak and LRFA have been readily available. To date, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not provided a budget estimate to our Committee which must be included in the report. It is my understanding CBO has been inundated with scoring requests because of the on-going work on the appropriations bills. Again, the Committee approved the measure three weeks ago today. The report is ready to go as soon as we receive this information from CBO. I should reiterate that the LRFA reauthorization included in a bill that also reauthorizes Amtrak. A great deal of funding was provided for Amtrak in this appropriations bill, even though the bill has not been reported. Further, the 511 program is permanently authorized, but no funding was allocated.