Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join the President, Members of Congress, and the American people in welcoming the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, to the United States. I wish her well during her visit. I had the opportunity to meet with her in Pakistan just a few months after her re-election as Prime Minister in October 1993. I enjoyed visiting her beautiful country. The opportunity for lasting peace and economic growth both within Pakistan and throughout South Asia should be a top priority for the United States and all the countries of that region. I suspect that it is largely due to the visit of Prime Minister Bhutto that the Clinton administration once again is publicly questioning the effectiveness of the so-called Pressler amendment, the law that prohibits direct United States aid to Pakistan. As my colleagues know, it was 10 years ago that I successfully offered an amendment in the Foreign Relations Committee to cut off aid and military sales to Pakistan if the President could not certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. The Reagan administration supported the amendment. In fact, they helped write it. Even the Government of Pakistan did not object to the amendment because they claimed they were not pursuing a nuclear option. In fact, my amendment was considered a compromise. Our former colleague from California, Senator Alan Cranston, had another amendment that immediately would have cut off aid to Pakistan, without Presidential certification, because he believed Pakistan already possessed the materials needed to assemble a nuclear bomb. In October of 1990, nearly 5 years after the Pressler amendment became law, the Bush administration was unable to certify that Pakistan was not in possession of a nuclear explosive device. As a result, all U.S. direct aid and military sales were terminated. At the time of the aid cutoff, Pakistan was attempting to purchase a fleet of F-16's from the United States. Because of the enforcement of the Pressler amendment, delivery of the aircraft never took place. Despite claiming to have a strong policy on nuclear nonproliferation, the Clinton administration consistently has shown hostility toward the Pressler amendment--the only nuclear nonproliferation law with teeth. In the fall of 1993, the Clinton administration called for the repeal of the Pressler amendment, but backed off after pressure from Members of Congress. The Clinton administration last year began to float a new proposal to grant a one-time waiver of the Pressler amendment to allow for the delivery of at least 22 of the F-16 aircraft sought by Pakistan-- aircraft that can carry and drop a nuclear bomb. The administration's proposal was originally unconditional, but was later modified with a condition that Pakistan promise to cap its nuclear weapons arsenal. In recent weeks, the Clinton administration has been at it again, proposing a $1 billion package of military equipment, consisting mainly of the F-16's. Frankly, Mr. President, I find simply preposterous any proposal that would transfer even one F-16 to Pakistan without first securing that nation's compliance with the Pressler amendment and its signature on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty [NPT]. The latest Clinton F-16 transfer plan--like the first--is unacceptable. I am astounded that an administration that pays so much lip service to the cause of nuclear nonproliferation would consider providing Pakistan with aircraft capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. Never before in history has a nation sought to transfer nuclear delivery vehicles to a country that has nuclear weapons and say it is doing so in the interest of nuclear nonproliferation. The Clinton plan defies basic common sense. Indeed, President Clinton's proposed military aid package to Pakistan would have the worst of consequences: and worldwide nuclear nonproliferation; undermine the tremendous economic progress that has occurred in South Asia; launch a nuclear arms buildup in South Asia; and perhaps most frightening, increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Indeed, any individual who has an interest in the future economic development of South Asia should have serious concerns with the Clinton administration's proposal. I recognize that a number of U.S. aerospace firms have a strong interest in this issue. The transfer of F-16's would mean new business, new contracts, and new jobs here at home. I suspect these firms are putting tremendous pressure on the Clinton administration to push for military aid to Pakistan. Mr. President, the aid package may mean more jobs at home, but it would come at a heavy price on a global scale. I do not believe any issue is more important to the security of all free people than nuclear nonproliferation, particularly in potential hot spots such as South Asia. I am concerned that the transfer of F-16's would spark a nuclear arms race in South Asia. The Clinton administration has traveled this same road before. The catalyst for the nuclear tightrope walk that occurred in North Korea was the perception by officials in Pyongyang that the United States was not serious about nuclear nonproliferation. I would have thought that after North Korea, the Clinton administration would have learned an important lesson. It does not appear they have learned. Once again, the administration is willing to be the catalyst for destabilization. The wrong signals are there. I fear India will be forced to rethink its current military force structure if Pakistan takes delivery of the F-16's, including resumption of their nuclear program, deployment of short-range weapons, and even development of long-range options. Further, Mr. President, we must consider not just the instability between India and Pakistan, but instability within Pakistan itself. With all due respect to Prime Minister Bhutto, I have very serious concerns about the ability of her civilian government to hold its military leaders accountable to civilian-based policies. I urge my colleagues to examine closely this military-civilian chain-of-command issue. We also must examine the inability of Mrs. Bhutto's government to respond effectively to the shocking wave of violence sweeping her country. Terrorist groups, such as the Harkatul Ansar--the Movement of Friends--are based in Pakistan, but have links to similar groups in Iran. The New York Times recently reported that a massive worldwide network of Islamic terrorism was traced to a university in Peshawar-- the University of Dawat and Jihad. This is not a run-of-the-mill institution of higher learning. Students go there to seek advanced degrees in worldwide terrorism. Graduates of this university have applied their lessons of death in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Terrorist violence is a mortal plague within Pakistan, leaving more than 1,000 people dead since the beginning of last year. This wave of terror recently claimed the lives of two American diplomats, who were tracked down and killed in cold blood. Even Prime Minister Bhutto questioned whether or not she had the resources necessary to crack down on the militant organizations operating within her country. Others question whether or not Prime Minister Bhutto has enough political capital to take the tough action needed to restore stability. Therefore, I shudder at the thought of a nuclear capable government in South Asia that is incapable of controling its own military command or restoring order at home. This internal instability increases the possibility that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of a terrorist state or organization. It boggles my mind that President Clinton would propose an aid package that would add both to the Government's nuclear capability and to the region's instability. This fact raises yet another problem, which gets to the very essence of the Pressler amendment. Mr. President, the Pressler amendment was meant to be a strong warning to an ally: If you go nuclear, it will come at the expense of U.S. aid. The United States cannot condone-- through taxpayer assistance--the Government of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power. This policy has worked to a large degree. Pakistan has at least frozen the development of its nuclear program. A number of states that pursued active nuclear weapons research programs in the 1980's have abandoned them, including Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. They responded to American diplomacy and their own good common sense. It is worth noting that both South Korea and Taiwan have antidemocratic neighbors and the temptation to hide behind a nuclear shield is undoubtedly high. In one of the worst ways imaginable, the Clinton administration's proposed military aid package would be seen as a certification and acceptance of Pakistan as a full-fledged nuclear power--a signal that runs counter to our own support and insistence for the ratification of the NPT. Pakistan is not a signatory of the NPT. It does not allow inspections. Yet, these facts do not seem to be important to the Clinton administration. Just as ominous, the proposed military aid package tells other countries that there are no long-term penalties for going nuclear. Mr. President, I have made this point: The administration's proposal to change the Pressler Amendment is a bad policy. I urge my colleagues to review it carefully, but skeptically. Let me reiterate: I want to see Pakistan succeed economically. I want to see peace achieved both within and beyond Pakistan's borders. I want to see our nuclear nonproliferation goals achieved. The administration can achieve all those policies by withdrawing its proposed aid package and standing firmly behind the Pressler amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I also understand my concerns regarding the consistency of disaster declarations are shared by others. As Chairman of the Committee, I am sure the Senator from Oregon is very familiar with questions regarding disaster declaration criteria. Does the Senator from Oregon agree this is a common concern?

Mr. PRESSLER. Will the distinguished Senator from Oregon agree that it is imperative that FEMA apply its declaration criteria consistently, regardless of where the disaster is taking place?

Mr. PRESSLER. As the Chairman knows, I am prepared to offer an amendment to strike all the language after the rescission provision. I am willing to modify my amendment to further ensure the future of EAS is not jeopardized. Would the Manager of the bill be willing to accept my amendment?

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend from Oregon. First, I understand this legislation would rescind $5.3 million in ``Payments to Air Carriers.'' What is the impact of this rescission?

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the leader would yield 5 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this amendment represents the complicated dilemmas that can be presented. Of course, I am in favor of senior citizens, and I also support public broadcasting. In fact, I contribute and have contributed to public broadcasting through the years. As chairman of the Commerce Committee this year I have discovered that public broadcasting could well become self-funding. I agree with Al Gore that we need to reinvent and privatize wherever possible. In talking to a lot of telecommunications people, I discovered that they plan to get into video dial TV and so forth, and I asked them where they are going to buy their programming? They would say from Arts and Entertainment, the History channel, or Learning channel. I said, ``Why not buy it from public television or radio? They have all kinds of public programming.'' And they said, ``Well, they do not try to sell it.'' I came up with a plan, along with some House leaders, and an agreement has been reached, or an informal agreement, with some of the leading people in public broadcasting to move towards self-funding. Where would the money come from? First of all, public broadcasting can digitize and sell a lot of their programming. There is a good market for that type of programming. They can sell it to the channels I mentioned as the History channel, the Learning channel, Arts and Entertainment. Nickelodeon is marketing a lot of children's programming in France where it is dubbed--educational children's programming. There is money to be made in this. Public television has taught that. Second of all, the spectrums that public broadcasting has throughout the country. Now we are finding that, with modern technology, we have extra spectrum. They can sell it or rent parts of their spectrum and make a great deal of money. Third of all, they have a lot of overlapping spectrum that can be sold or represented. For example, in the Washington, DC, area, many homes get two or three public television signals with the same programming or virtually the same programming. The taxpayers of the country need some relief. Fourth, the great bureaucracy that has grown inside the beltway here and the excessively high salaries that are paid to foundations that get grants directly from the corporation can be cut. There is great room for efficiency there. By the way, our States are not getting their fair share of the money. In fact, our State legislatures support most of the public broadcasting in this country as well as private contributors such as myself. Finally, public stations could make money by getting a bigger percentage of what is played on the free public platform. I have spoken out about this, and indeed I commend the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because they passed a resolution to start getting a bigger percentage of Barney and other programming that appear on the free public platform provided by the taxpayers of this country. Mr. President, the States are not getting their fair share. My little State of South Dakota, which is vast in geography but small in population, gets $1.7 million, but they have to send $1 million back immediately for programming, which they might be able to buy elsewhere at a better rate. The ``shields'' used by public broadcasting are children in rural areas. Let me say the State legislature in my State voted against a resolution to seek more funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because it is such a charade they must go through. So, I believe strongly in lowering the deficit. I believe in less Government involvement. This is an opportunity, a plan has been developed, and they are working with a big investment bank in New York to privatize, to become self-funding. There is not a need for taxpayers money here. If we are going to transfer this money, we do not need to transfer it to the corporation. The House leaders reached an agreement to privatize, to work toward self-funding. I have outlined various sources of revenue the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get. I have not mentioned additional advertisement. They already have a great deal of advertising. They call it ``enhancements'' or something. That is fine. Even without further advertising they sit on a treasure trove of resources here. I recently wrote an article in the Washington Post outlining the five ways public broadcasting can get more revenue without any more advertising. They are sitting on a treasure trove of spectrum, of overlapping spectrum. Inside the beltway here their headquarters are bloated bureaucracies. The States are really not getting the money that they are supposed to be getting. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post article I mentioned printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1995] Reality-Based Broadcasting (By Larry Pressler) ``Public broadcasting is under attack!'' ``Congress wants to kill Big Bird!'' These and other alarmist cries have been common in recent weeks. The problem is they are lies. That's right, lies. I tried to conceive of a more polite way to say it. I could not. With rare exceptions the press largely has ignored the specifics of the position taken by members of Congress seeking to reinvent public broadcasting. I have struggled to make my position clear. Yet the misrepresentations continue. I am convinced many simply do not care to report the facts--facts they do not find as interesting as the scenarios they create. That is too bad. The average American taxpayer would find the facts extremely interesting. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am not seeking to destroy public television and radio. I am a strong supporter of public broadcasting, both in my home state of South Dakota and nationally. Pull the plug? Absolutely not. Rather, my plan would expand opportunities and save taxpayer dollars. Why do I seek change? Because times have changed. Today's electronic media are vastly different from those of the 1960s, when the current system of federal subsidies for public broadcasting was established. The old theory of ``market failure'' for educational programming is completely untenable in today's environment. Educational and cultural programs can and do make profits when their quality is good and marketing astute. The only money losers in today's arrangement are the taxpayers. A Feb. 24 Post editorial stated it is time for the public broadcasting industry to face reality. The issue no longer should be whether federal subsidies for public broadcasting will be cut. I could not agree more. Congress now is debating when and how much. The House Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services already has cut the public broadcasting budget. The House leadership promises more to come. I fully expect the Senate to follow suit. Instead of crying over public cash, it would be more prudent for public broadcasting executives to use their talents and resources developing the numerous potential sources of revenue available to replace the federal subsidy rather than continuing to fan the flames of fear and exaggeration. As captains of a major corporation, their responsibilities should be clear. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) need to learn to stand on their own feet. To help in that effort, I recently provided the chairman of the board of CPB with a plan to end its dependency on federal welfare in three years. Ideas to end CPB's addition to taxpayer dollars include: profits from sales CPB should renegotiate sales agreements and improve future agreements to get a larger share of the sales of toys, books, clothing and other products based on its programming. In 1990, Barney-related products retailed at $1 billion! Steps have been taken by the CPB board to improve its share of such sales. More should be done. make the most of new technology Use of new compressed digitization technology would permit existing noncommercial licensees to expand to four or five channels where once they had only one. Public broadcasting stations could rent, sell or make use of the additional channels for other telecommunications and information services. end redundancy At least one-quarter of public television stations overlap other public television stations' signal areas. Public radio also suffers from the inefficiencies of redundancy. Ending this overlap and selling the excess broadcast spectrum would provide substantial revenues to public broadcasting. switch channels Moving public television stations from costly VHF channels to less costly UHF channels in certain markets would provide a substantial source of new revenue. team with other information services CPB could increase commercial arrangements in the computer software market and with on-line services. These are only a few of the ways in which the CPB could reinvent itself into a self-sufficient corporation for the '90s and, indeed, for the next century. Ending federal dependency does not end public broadcasting. Today's subsidy amounts to only 14 percent of the industry's spending! Indeed, my current plan asks the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to end its dependency on federal welfare in three years--that's one year more than what current proposals would give welfare recipients to get off federal assistance. It would be tragic if the public broadcasting industry ignores its responsibilities when the federal budget is in crisis. It also would be tragic if the industry spurns exciting opportunities in new markets and technologies. Perhaps most tragic of all, however, would be continued retrenchment from public broadcasting executives crying, ``It can't be done.'' It can be done. It should be done.

Mr. PRESSLER. So, let me conclude by saying that it may well be that moneys could be transferred from here to there, but they do not need to be transferred anymore for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The committee level and the House level gives them more than they need. I yield the remainder of my time to my chairman.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise at this time to voice my concerns with apparent inconsistencies in the administration of disaster recommendations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. As my colleagues well know, H.R. 1158, the fiscal year 1995 Disaster Supplemental/Rescissions Bill, contains $1.9 billion for outstanding expenses accrued from previous disasters in 39 States, including recent flooding in Southern California. I am sure all of us have seen news footage of the raging winter storms that have wreaked havoc across virtually the entire State of California. The devastation families have endured is terrible. As a result, the President--acting on recommendations made by FEMA--declared many California counties disaster areas. This includes Ventura County, which is located along the Southern California coast north of Los Angeles. There is one particular area of Ventura County I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues. Homes located on a hillside in La Conchita, CA recently sustained considerable damage. Because of the President's declaration, private and public property damaged by the disaster is eligible for four different kinds of FEMA assistance. These homeowners rightfully have the hope of relief. My concern is not with the fact that relief is being made available to those affected by the La Conchita mudslide. Rather, I am concerned with what I believe could very well be an inconsistent approach to disaster recommendations made by FEMA. Permit me to explain. Mr. President, geologists have known for several decades that the La Conchita hillside has been moving for 23,000 years. In other words, La Conchita was a potential disaster waiting to happen. Thus, FEMA is making relief available in response to a disaster resulting from a preexisting condition. This is a policy vastly different from one FEMA applied last July. I see my colleague, the chairman of Appropriations Committee, is now on the floor. I ask the Senator if he is familiar with a similar situation that occurred in Lead, SD.

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator from Oregon for inquiring. Last May, a slow moving landslide damaged homes, businesses, and infrastructure. This landslide was exacerbated by excessive precipitation. Despite a request by the governor of South Dakota and the urging of the State's Congressional delegation, FEMA recommended that the President deny South Dakota's relief request for the Lead landslide. According to FEMA, the landslide resulted from a preexisting condition and did not pose ``an immediate threat to public health, safety, and improved property.'' The Lead landslide forced the community's only grocery store, pharmacy, and discount store to close. Some of the stores were forced to relocate to the community hall and church basement. Clearly, the people of Lead suffered a great deal. This isolated community has yet to reopen the only grocery store in the area. Although the Economic Development Administration has offered a grant to help mitigate the slide, the city will have to sacrifice vital repairs to streets, gas lines, and water lines. By contrast, the residents of the La Conchita hillside in Ventura County will have access to expedited FEMA assistance. This lack of consistency concerns me. I would like to verify with the Senator from Oregon that monies provided in H.R. 1158 will be used, in part, to assist the victims of this winter's storms in California. Is this correct?

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my good friend the Senator from Oregon and thank him for his leadership. I yield the floor. health care financing research and demo projects

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am very concerned about a section in chapter IX of this legislation that in my view could have an adverse impact on the future of the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. Specifically, I am very concerned about the language affecting ``Payments to Air Carriers,'' otherwise referred to as EAS subsidies. I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the floor. Would the chairman be willing to enter into a short colloquy on this issue and explain the intent of this section of the bill?

Mr. PRESSLER. I understand about 79 cities rely on EAS to remain linked to the national air transportation system. I am pleased the chairman of the Appropriations Committee will continue to uphold our commitment to these small communities. Now, as my friend from Oregon knows, there are EAS agreements in at least 13 States that will expire before September 30 of this year. The committee amendment to the bill before us includes a provision to prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Transportation [DOT] from entering into any new EAS agreements beyond September 30, 1995. I am concerned about the purpose of this restriction. In my view, it implies congressional support for EAS ends September 30, 1995--the end of the current fiscal year. My support for EAS will not end on that date. Would the chairman explain the purpose of this specific provision?

Mr. PRESSLER. I am very pleased to know my friend from Oregon does not view the provision in question as a threat to the future of EAS. However, I still have strong concerns about the language in this bill. Specifically, I remain concerned the most economic continuation of EAS may be hindered by this provision. Permit me to explain. As my friend from Oregon knows, when an EAS agreement is about to expire, current law requires the Department of Transportation to invite and consider competing proposals from any interested air carriers. The objective of that policy is to maximize the carriers' incentives to be efficient, to control costs effectively and to develop demand in the EAS market. This process yields two primary benefits: subsidy burdens are minimized and service to the community is often enhanced. That process has served the EAS program very well. As I mentioned, EAS agreements will expire in 13 states before September 30th. Several already have expired. The practical reality of the proposed restriction to limit contract commitments would result in very short contracts at much higher costs in order to continue air service to those 13 states for the remainder of this fiscal year. I am concerned efficiencies will be jeopardized if the DOT is prohibited from entering into any agreements beyond September 30th. I do not believe new carriers would seek to serve any of these 13 states for such a limited time period. In turn, those EAS carriers serving the 13 states will almost assuredly demand higher subsidies if they are held into those markets through the end of the fiscal year. Further, DOT already issues notification to carriers that subsidy payments under EAS agreements are subject to the availability of funds in future fiscal years. Therefore, EAS carriers already know their subsidies are contingent on the annual approval of the Congress. In my view, competition could be eliminated by this provision. In turn, Chairman?

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of the agreement offered today on H.R. 1158, the rescissions bill. The leadership can be commended for their hard work on this compromise. This rescissions bill has been a drawn-out and difficult process. But this hard-fought agreement represents good news for many South Dakotans: it contains my amendment that would restore funds for Section 8002 of the Impact Aid Program, otherwise known as Section 2. The inclusion of my amendment to save this important program is a significant reason why I offer my whole-hearted support for this agreement. The impact aid program is not aid in the traditional sense. It is called Impact Aid because the presence of the Federal Government is having an adverse impact on nearby school districts. The adverse impact is the loss of tax revenue to the schools, and the Impact Aid Program is designed to compensate schools for that lost tax base. In short, impact aid is an ongoing Federal responsibility. Impact aid does aid provides support payments for basic day-to-day operations. It is neither a wasteful nor ideologically driven program--these funds go directly to a school district's operating budget. Impact aid represents fairness--to the schools and the parents and children they serve. Section 2 of the Impact Aid Program is the lifeblood of many schools across the Nation. This program provides support payments to school districts for Federal land. Across the country, schools in 27 States rely on Section 2 payments. It would be most unfair to federally impacted districts and the children they serve if the Federal Government opts to deny them both a tax base and Federal support. If Section 2 payments had been terminated, the Pollock School district in northern South Dakota would have closed, forcing potentially displaced students to travel up to 50 miles in order to receive an education. Pollock and similarly situated school districts would have been forced into this drastic course of action because no other revenue options are available. Mr. President, federally impacted schools already have taken their share of cuts. The Impact Aid Program suffered a $70 million cut last year. If we were to add to this cut the elimination of Section 2 payments, federally impacted schools would be left without the assistance they had planned on to pay teachers, buy textbooks, or as in the case of Pollock, to even function. Like my colleagues, I am committed to reducing wasteful government spending. My voting record consistently has been in favor of a balanced budget. I also appreciate fully the difficult nature of the Appropriations Committee's job this year. We are all in the difficult position of needing to cut bureaucracy and federal spending. However, our leadership can be commended for realizing where our priorities must lie. Impact aid is a program that enjoys support on both sides of the aisle. However, I especially would like to thank my distinguished friends from New York and Virginia, Senators D'Amato and Warner, for their leadership on this issue. These Senators and others on both sides of the aisle were prepared to support my amendment to restore the Section 2 payments. It is because of this bipartisan commitment to education that the leadership has restored this important program. I appreciate their help and support. I hope this bipartisan support for impact aid will send a clear signal to our colleagues and especially to the administration. Impact aid is vital to our schools and it should continue to be fully funded. It is my hope that we will not have to fight this battle again during the budget negotiations for fiscal year 1996. President Clinton has requested a $109 million cut in the Impact Aid Program for next fiscal year. I hope it has been made clear that such a cut would be unacceptable. I would be happy to work with my colleagues to demonstrate why impact aid is critical to so many school children. I also look forward to working with my colleagues on the budget and appropriations committees to maintain the vitality of the Impact Aid Program for many years to come. restore funding for the cdfi fund

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chairman. I very much appreciate his support for EAS and his leadership on this overall legislation. I also thank him for his support of my amendment and urge its adoption. colloquy on smithsonian institution funding

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, another thoughtful voice has joined the debate in favor of re-inventing public broadcasting. Jack Kemp has written an article, published in today's Wall Street Journal, making the case that public broadcasting can be re-invented and become self- funding. This would be a win-win proposition for taxpayers, for television and radio audiences, and for the public broadcasting industry. Secretary Kemp's analysis is timely, because through the rescission bill Congress has an opportunity to begin an orderly and reasonable phasing out of Federal subsidies for public broadcasting. I support the approach of the House of Representatives, to begin phasing out the subsidies in a significant measure, now. Secretary Kemp just this week has been named chairman of the new National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. This is by appointment of Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich. Secretary Kemp is superbly qualified for this position. I offer Secretary Kemp my hearty congratulations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Secretary Kemp's article, entitled ``Privatizing PBS Doesn't Mean Killing Big Bird,'' from today's Wall Street Journal.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation met in executive session this morning and voted 13-6 to report favorably S. 565, the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995, with an amendment. The amendment, a Chairman's mark, is an amendment in the nature of a substitute for S. 565. However, it did not replace the bill's original content. Rather, it built upon the good work of Senators Gorton and Rockefeller. I want to have the amendment printed in the Record so that my colleagues have the opportunity to review the legislation over the recess period we are about to begin. I understand the leadership intends to take up S. 565 when we return from the recess and I want all Senators to have ample time to understand its provisions. In addition to the original provisions contained in S. 565, the Chairman's mark incorporates the entirety of S. 303, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1995. Senators Lieberman and McCain introduced S. 303 on January 31, 1995 and the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of S. 303. The biomaterials provisions are found in Title II of the Chairman's mark. The Chairman's mark made two other notable changes to S. 565. Modifications were made to address the vicarious liability of rental car companies and of equipment lessors. Such entities would be treated as ``product sellers'' under the mark. Another exception was added to the statute of repose for durable and capital goods used in the workplace. Now, when there is an express warranty in writing as to the safety of the product involved, and the warranty period is longer than the 20 year statue of repose, a product liability action is timely for the duration of the warranty. Mr. President, beyond these changes made by the Chairman's mark, Senators will find S. 565 remains much as introduced several weeks ago. In other words, it remains very much a product liability reform bill. The Committee did not act to expand the legislation beyond its jurisdiction--tort reform connected to injuries caused by products in the stream of commerce. I ask unanimous consent that the Chairman's mark to S. 565, which the Commerce Committee voted to report this morning, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, on a second subject, I was very disappointed this morning in a conversation with Vice President Gore to learn that the administration is opposed to my telecommunications bill and that the present plan is to veto that bill if it were to pass. I say that because I believe in this Chamber there would be 85 to 90 votes for the telecommunications bill today if it came up for a vote. The Vice President said the administration was opposing it for three reasons. First, because they do not like the cable provisions; second, because they do not like the lack of a merger prohibition on regional telephone and cable companies; and third, because they would like to have a Justice Department review, in addition to an FCC review, in determining when Bell companies can enter the long-distance and manufacturing markets. Madam President, we have worked out these matters. Every Democrat on the Commerce Committee voted for this bill. The administration did not avail itself of the opportunity to come up here during all the long negotiations and let us know of their strong feelings. Then all of a sudden the Vice President is working against having the bill brought up--and announces that the administration is opposed to it. This comes after we have made substantial accommodations and we have worked out the cable and long distance issues. For example, with regard to cable rate deregulation, the basic tier remains regulated in the bill. The upper tier is deregulated with a bad-actor proviso--that is, rate regulation would be possible if a cable operator charges rates which are substantially above the national average. So there is consumer protection on the cable issue. And then after 2 or 3 years, or when there is at least 15 percent of DBS--direct broadcast satellite--in a market, basic cable is deregulated. Or when there is video dialtone service present in a market, basic cable would be deregulated. The Vice President feels strongly that this is inappropriate. But this represents a compromise that was worked out between Republicans and Democrats. In fact, every Democrat on the Commerce Committee voted for it. The committee overwhelmingly approved the bill by a 17-to-2 margin. The next objection was on cable and telephone company mergers. The decision not to put that in was agreed to on both sides of the aisle. The proposal to limit cable and telephone company acquisitions, mergers or joint ventures is redundant, as current law--Hart, Scott, Rodino-- already provides antitrust scrutiny in this area. Regarding the Justice Department, we already have the FCC, with public interest and competitive checklist language, reviewing this. There is no need for a second review by the Justice Department. We are repealing the MFJ. That is the whole idea of this bill, to replace the courts with congressional action. The Justice Department could still bring antitrust action. They have that power on any aspect of American business. So I am strongly in disagreement with the Vice President's assessment. And I am very saddened by it because it means, as a result of that, we will not be bringing my bill up this week. We will bring it up early after we come back. But I am fearful that during that time this bill will be picked apart by the various interests. It is the sort of bill where we had good momentum until the administration opposed it and began working against it here, working against its being brought up. I ask my colleagues from the Democratic side to contact the Vice President and to persuade him and the administration that this is a good bill. It is the best bill we are going to get. And it is supported across the country. I am very worried and saddened at the developments that have occurred here. I am determined to go forward. We will get the bill up in April or May. We will proceed with it. This body will vote for it overwhelmingly, and should vote for it. All the staffs on both sides of the aisle have been involved. I do not think any bill has ever had more consultation or more staff work-- without a day off, from Christmas Day, literally--on this bill. It has been an open, inclusive process. The last time, people complained that nobody knew what was in the telecommunications bill; there was not enough consultation. So we had meetings all day and all night, even Saturday and Sunday, with staff from Members on both sides who were interested. So everyone had their input--except the administration, which never made a peep. Now, suddenly, the administration is actively working to encourage Democratic Members to contact the minority leader's office to keep it from being brought up. And that saddens me a great deal. I hope, Madam President, that this is merely a delay. We will fight on with this piece of legislation. Probably no piece of legislation this year has been more widely discussed and consulted about. All 100 Members of the Senate have been involved in some way. We are ready to go. The bill is filed. The report is filed. The committee has voted. It has amendments added to it. We need to bring it up and vote amendments on the floor. The country needs this bill. Now, what will happen if we do not pass this bill? It will reduce jobs and hurt the United States. This bill has been called a $2 trillion bill by George Gilder because it will cause an explosion of new activity in telecommunications. It will boost our exports. It will cause a number of new devices to be distributed to the American people. Presently, we have very little of the so-called information superhighway here. Everybody talks about it. We have cellular phones, some computer Internet, and we have cable TV. But that is all. Most people are not on the information superhighway and they will not be until we pass this bill. Otherwise, the people who invest in telecommunications are paralyzed, waiting for a roadmap, waiting for the ground rules. In fact, many people who invest in telecommunications are investing in Europe because they cannot get approval, because we have economic apartheid of the regional Bells, economic apartheid of the long-distance companies, and so forth. So I call upon this administration to listen to the Democrats in this body and to the Republicans, and not to obstruct this bill. Indeed, we will bring it up for a vote. We will get 85 votes on final passage on this bill, or more. It is very strange. In my time in Congress, in my 21 years, I have never seen a situation where a committee votes out a bill with all the members of the President's party voting for it, and then the administration, which has been absent, announces it is opposed to it and will veto it--without, apparently, consulting with any of the members of that committee. That is very, very strange. Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. But I do not think I have ever seen anything like that happen before. I think that there is something going on in Presidential politics or something that I am not quite a party to. I find it very disappointing and very strange. But let me say to all the supporters of the bill not to lose faith. We will carry on. We will pass it. It is going to be tough. I do not think, in the end, the President will veto it if it is in the light of day and when the country understands what is in it. But if he does, we will override the veto in both Houses, because the votes are there. Madam President, I thank you very much for the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise to speak on a portion of this consideration regarding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It has been my concern for some time that we could make the Corporation for Public Broadcasting self-funding, or, if I may use the term, privatized, although I think self-funding would be better. Presently the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private corporation with Federal funding. At the end of their programming each day you see it says, ``The Corporation for Public Broadcasting funded by the Federal Government''--a private corporation funded by the American people. I am of the opinion that through a program that I recently presented in the Washington Post, the corporation can become private, can become self-funding, and it is not necessarily by increasing advertising. It is rather by digitizing, compressing its programming, and making it available for sale to such outlets as Arts and Entertainment, to the Learning Channel, to the History Channel, and to the hundreds of new video dial tone channels that are springing up across the country from the regional telephone companies. Also, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its public broadcasting entities could get a great deal larger percentage of the things that appear on the free public platform. They have already voted to start getting a larger percentage of that. For example, whether it is Barney, or whether it is Bill Moyers' Journal, or whatever else, if there is money made from the sale of tapes of that show and paraphernalia, I think the taxpayers ought to be entitled to 20 percent or 30 percent of it--or maybe more--whatever they can negotiate in a businesslike way. In addition, public broadcasting will be digitizing and compressing parts of its spectrum, and they can rent part of that spectrum or sell it or use it in some way, and they can have far more money than they have now. So my point is, Madam President, that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the other public broadcasting entities are sitting on a treasure trove that they can utilize. The taxpayers of this country do not have to subsidize them. They can do just as well. They can provide more money to rural radio and TV and more money to children's programming than they are now. If this body wishes, when it comes to zeroing out and to replacing over a 3-year period or 2-year period their moneys, they can place a requirement for certain rural programming and for children's programming--just as when Conrail was privatized on this Senate floor and we placed certain covenants or requirements on Conrail to provide certain local service, just as we require airlines to provide certain safety for the public, just as we require that other private companies meet service requirements, such as the regional telephone companies who have a universal fund to provide long-distance services in rural areas and small towns. All of this can be done. Vice President Gore talked about reinventing and privatizing. I think and have thought that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Public Broadcasting Service, and National Public Radio can do so. Madam President, the defenders of the status quo have waged a nationwide campaign that is very misleading. They say that Senator Pressler and others are out to kill Big Bird or out to kill rural radio. Is it not strange that they do not talk about cutting anything inside the beltway? When we look at the National Public Radio building and its equipment; at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its salaries; at the nonprofit organizations that have sprung up alongside that receive their grants and which in turn pay salaries two and three times higher than Senators make--we should remember that this is taxpayers' money. So I join in this effort that is on the Senate floor, and also I am working with the Budget Committee to have a 3-year plan to phase out the Federal subsidy. Earlier this year, Madam President, there was some controversy about a questionnaire that I sent to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As chairman of the oversight committee, I asked a lot of questions about where and how the money moved. In my State of South Dakota, we get $1.7 million from Washington, DC, but instantly have to send over $1 million back for programming. My State and small rural States should be able to shop around. Maybe they would want to buy some digitized compressed programming from Arts and Entertainment, or from Nickelodeon. This children's programming is marketed to France, incidentally, and dubbed. It is about the only cultural import the French welcome, educational children's programming made privately. The point of the whole matter is that there are plenty of opportunities for public broadcasting to make money, and it is most unfortunate that they are not carrying that out. But they put forth the argument that we are trying to take away children's programming and rural radio. That is not true. In my State, our State legislature voted down a resolution urging that more Federal moneys be sought for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because people understand that there is a very misleading campaign underway here. My State is one of those that has the most rural radio perhaps of all. Let me say, Madam President, that I have contributed every year to public broadcasting, long before this debate. I contributed again this year because I think it has its place. But those small States are not getting their fair share under the present formulas that are used. And far more of the moneys go to grants to their favorite foundations and nonprofit groups here inside the beltway that pay salaries up to $750,000 a year as Senator Dole published on this Senate floor, and other salaries of $450,000, and so forth. Those are taxpayers' dollars, incidentally. So the next time someone comes up to me and says, ``Ah, you are against rural radio,'' I would say to them that one salary here paid at the favorite foundations of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is greater than my whole State gets in a year's time. So let us put things into perspective. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its related entities here inside the beltway have become a bloated bureaucracy, and reform is needed. They are making some reforms now, and I commend them for those reforms. One of the reforms was that they voted and make profits on the free public platform that is provided. Another reform that they are making, I believe, is that they are starting to learn to partner with the information superhighway to compress and digitize their programming and sell it, or swap it, and that is something that I have advocated for a long time. So I think what will come out of this is a better Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a better public TV and radio in this country. So far as the questions that I submitted, they are the same questions that every broadcaster in this country must answer every year regarding minority hiring, but public broadcasting somehow feels they are exempt from it. They have the stories written in the paper that I asked about the ethnicity and race of employees. That is what every broadcaster in this country must answer every year, and every small businessman who has contracts with the Federal Government can be called upon to produce at any time. And they also, if questioned, have to say who the minorities are. It is alleged, though I cannot prove it or disprove it, that they do not meet their minority hiring requirements with permanent employees. They do it with part-time employees. A small businessman in my State can be prosecuted for doing that, but they think they are exempt from responding to the committee that has oversight, apparently. So I find that the attitude there is very unusual. Now, I have another interesting thing that I learned, which is that the reporters who wrote about this for the New York Times and the Washington Post, coincidentally, are paid to appear on public television, although they did not say that in their stories. It is hard to get a story correct. I do want to commend the Post though. They did allow me to publish an op-ed that laid out my point of view after I met with the board of editors of the Washington Post. I think what we have is a very arrogant system, from a management point of view, that has been built up in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I never really looked into it until I became chairman of the committee this year. That is my job. That is what I am supposed to do. But they are forward-funded through next year. I think the House of Representatives has done an excellent job of laying the groundwork to phase out the Federal funding as they phase in these self-funding devices. That is a positive thing. But the Corporation and its allies have run a misleading campaign around the country telling people that those Republicans are out to kill Big Bird and are out to shut off rural radio. That is simply not true. Madam President, there are many reasons that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created in 1967. But public radio and TV existed before that. I gave my first speech in a debate at the University of South Dakota on public television in 1963 before we ever had the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And so I join with my colleagues here on the Senate floor, and I hope I can say I join with the leadership of public broadcasting in this country, to move toward a better system, a system not so bloated with bureaucracy. In our States, our State legislatures pay most of the costs of our public radio and television. Individual contributors also, such as myself and, I might add, Newt Gingrich, have contributed to public radio and TV. The State legislatures pay for most of the public radio and television in this country. The corporation was founded so there would be a national clearing house, so to speak, and it did a lot of good things. But we have now entered an age where it has been proved that this quality programming can be marketed, and their programming could be marketed. It does not need to mean more ads. Incidentally, public radio and TV in many cases has more revenue from ads than does commercial radio and TV in many markets. That is another unknown. They call them enhanced underwriting, but they are advertisements, and that is fine with me. I think we should analyze the thing as it really is. In the oversight committee, we should look at the facts as they really are, and so for that reason I join in efforts here on this floor to do what the House of Representatives has done, to start a phaseout over a 3-year period of the moneys, of the taxpayers' money. To replace that, there is an abundance, a treasure trove from which it can be done. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have printed in the Record my op-ed that was published in the Washington Post that deals with the subject of how public broadcasting can become self-financing.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I now move that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to report to the Senate on the Commerce Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. It is my strongest hope now that we can get this bill up for action on the floor this week, before the recess. The danger in delay is that it could be picked apart by the various interest groups. This bill would be a roadmap for investment for the next 15 years, until the wireless age. There will be an explosion of investment if we pass it. The benefits to consumers will be tremendous. I wish to urge Members of the Senate and the various interests and consumer groups that are lobbying and working on this bill to remember that if we give one group a special consideration, then we have to give it to others. It seems that everybody wants to have a bill. CEO's all say they want a bill; the administration wants a bill. But we will not have a bill unless we have some cooperation and everyone working together. That has been my message. So I do hope we get the telecommunications bill up this week. If not, we will pass it later--but it is far better to act sooner than later. I would implore the various interests in this country which are following this bill to work together. This is the sort of bill that is not on every American citizen's mind every day, but I think it is the most important bill for our country's economy in the Congress today. It is up to those of us in the Senate and the House and the White House to work together cooperatively. I look forward to doing that.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment to allow the renewal of grazing permits on Forest Service lands until the completion of the required analyses under the National Environmental Protection Act [NEPA]. The management of Federal lands is the hub of multiple-use strategies. Sound stewardship and range management practices represent the foundation needed to protect Federal lands and ensure that they are maintained for future generations. Multiple-use practices by the ranchers themselves greatly enhance the condition of Federal lands. Keep in mind that many generations of ranch families have made a living, raised their families, and maintained these lands for future generations. The sustainability of their livelihoods is linked to the substainability of the land. They are the true environmentalists. Despite their previous good stewardship, ranch families now risk being punished for the Forest Service's inability to complete the studies required by NEPA in time for the beginning of the 1996 grazing season. Over 120 Black Hills' grazing permits must be reissued by the Forest Service before the 1996 grazing season, which begins in March 1996. In accordance with NEPA, before the permits can be reissued the Forest Service must analyze each allotment for effects on endangered species, and environmental, cultural, historical, and water resources. In this time of downsizing, already 4,000 jobs at the Forest Service have been eliminated. Yet despite this reduction in human resources, the Forest Service must now take on sweeping studies of every single ranking allotment--not just in South Dakota--but throughout the Western States. I met with Chief Jack Ward Thomas of the Forest Service last week. He said that in order to complete these analyses as close on time as possible, he will have to concentrate both his financial and human resources on completing the NEPA studies. Chief Thomas said it himself: ``This means that every other function of the Forest Service in the West will suffer as a result.'' The timber industry will suffer, as well as the ongoing Black Hills forest management plan activity. In addition, because Forest Service personnel and resources will be spread so thinly, the risk of appeals-- of both timber sales and grazing permits--is even greater. I recognize that due to recent court action, the Forest Service is between a rock and a hard place. My amendment will solve the Forest Service's dilemma. It allows the permits to be renewed until the completion of the NEPA analyses. I would like to note that my amendment is very similar to an amendment offered yesterday by my colleague from South Dakota. However, my colleague's amendment was included as a part of the Regulatory Transition Act which could be delayed in conference for some time. The very fact that I am introducing a similar amendment again today attests to the gravity of the situation, and my commitment to passing a resolution to this problem into law. Unfortunately, Mr. President, we do not have much time. It is imperative that we resolve this issue quickly, for the sake of the ranchers and loggers in South Dakota--and across the West. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I will now yield to my colleague who has taken a great deal of leadership on this issue, the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Under a previous order, at 10:15 a.m. the Senate will resume executive session for 10 minutes of debate on the nomination of Daniel Glickman to be Secretary of Agriculture. Therefore, a rollcall vote will occur on the confirmation of Mr. Glickman at 10:25 a.m. For the information of all Senators, a vote will occur at 10:15 a.m. on the nomination of Mr. Glickman, and the Senate will then resume the supplemental disaster assistance bill. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur throughout Thursday's session of the Senate. The Senate will also be asked to remain is session into the evening on Thursday in order to complete action on the appropriations bill.