Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to an article in this morning's Washington Post that I shall place in the Record. It is an op-ed written by myself. It involves the subject of how public broadcasting could become self-sufficient. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in introducing legislation to reform the mining law of 1872. I congratulate my distinguished friend, Senator Larry Craig, for all of his hard work on this very important issue. As a Senator from a State with significant mining activity, reform of the obsolete mining law of 1872 is imperative. There are currently 95 mining companies operating in the State of South Dakota, bringing in more than $321 million in gross State revenues. Many of these are small businesses. Dakotans. I therefore represent many dedicated individuals who are an integral part of South Dakota's economy. I also represent a number of citizens who believe all mining activity should be stopped. In South Dakota, as in a number of States, citizens are deeply divided on issues related to mining. However, my constituents are all in agreement on one basic point: the mining law of 1872 is outdated. It needs to be revised. I believe the legislation we are introducing today is a fair approach to reforming this antiquated law. Mr. President, in my State of South Dakota, five major gold mining companies conduct large scale surface mining for gold on roughly 2,400 acres of land in the Black Hills. Current expansion proposals cover at least another 1,300 acres, including 800 acres of U.S. Forest Service land. Additionally, there are numerous exploratory drilling operations on Forest Service lands in the Black Hills. Over the past few years, I have held many public meetings in South Dakota in which South Dakota mining operations were discussed. The problems inherent in the mining law of 1872 come up again and again at these meetings. Many South Dakotans are particularly concerned about the existing land patent provisions and the extremely low fees required to purchase Federal land. Current law allows Federal land to be offered at a base price of $2.50 or $5.00 per acre. This is a virtual giveaway. Anyone who has visited the beautiful Black Hills National Forest in western South Dakota would certainly agree that those lands are worth far more. It is important that responsible mining activity be permitted. However, in this time of huge Federal deficit spending, it is time these fees were reformed to reflect good fiscal common sense. This legislation takes care of that. It brings much needed revenue back to the Federal Government. This legislation mandates that the fair market value be charged for ownership of Federal lands. In addition, it imposes claim holding fees of $100 per year, per claim. This legislation also would ensure that the Government gets paid for some of the value of what is in the land. It would impose a net royalty of 3 percent on proceeds from mining activity. This provision is based on the State-imposed net proceeds tax, which is working quite successfully in Nevada. It makes good economic sense. Another issue South Dakotans always raise is reclamation. It is certainly important that we encourage responsible caretaking of South Dakota's Federal lands--both to maintain the health of the Black Hills National Forest, and to preserve its natural beauty. Who knows best how to take care of South Dakota's Federal lands than South Dakotans? That's why I support the provision of this bill which places the responsibility for developing reclamation standards in the hands of the States. Those of us here in Washington, from Members of Congress to Government bureaucrats, don't always know what is best for the Federal lands in South Dakota--or even Wyoming or Colorado. Each State is in a better position to judge for itself what is best for its own environmental well-being. Last year, we spent a great deal of time working to develop a compromise on mining law reform. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in passing a final bill. I believe that this year's legislation incorporates many elements of last year's compromise. This bill has widespread support from the mining industry. It is sound legislation, and we should not delay in moving it forward. On behalf of many South Dakotans, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to give this matter serious consideration. Many provisions of the 1872 mining law need to be revised. The dedicated miners of South Dakota and the rest of the country should no longer be asked to shoulder the burdens imposed by this antiquated law. I look forward to working with members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as they strive to make this bill into a fair and equitable mining reform law.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce legislation designed to attack a growing problem: the use of false identification documents [ID's] by young people under 21 years of age. I introduced a similar bill late last year. Several years ago, Congress conditioned Federal highway funding on the requirement that States have a minimum drinking age of at least 21 years. Since then, all 50 States have come into compliance. One consequence has been a dramatic increase in the use of false ID's by young people to illegally purchase alcoholic beverages. An illegal, underground black market has emerged, supplying cheap documents to satisfy this demand. The prevalence of counterfeit ID's poses a growing menace to the licensed beverage industry, and promotes alcohol abuse among young Americans. With modern computer graphic programs, counterfeiting a driver's license is child's play for sophisticated computer users. On October 3, 1994, the Washington Times published a front-page article entitled ``Fake IDs surmount high-tech obstacles: Underage drinkers flock to buy them.'' The article describes how easily falsified identification documents can be created by computers and the steps various States are taking in response. Several State driver's licenses, including Maryland and California, now include a hologram, two separate pictures, and a magnetic strip in an effort to make counterfeiting more difficult. However, even these measures are being duplicated with relative ease. It is time for Congress to take action. The bill I am introducing today attacks this problem in two ways. First, it reduces, from five to three, the number of false identification documents that must be in an individual's possession before a prison sentence, a fine, or both, can be imposed under Federal law. Second, it requires a prison sentence, a fine, or both, for anyone convicted of using the mail to send a false ID to someone under 21 years of age. Mr. President, let me explain both of these provisions in more detail. The first provision tightens current Federal law which provides penalties for knowingly possessing or transferring unlawfully five or more false identification documents. The number of false ID's necessary to trigger this law would be reduced from five to three. Someone convicted under this provision would face a fine of up to $15,000, imprisonment of up to 3 years, or both. These days, it is far too easy and cheap to buy a fake ID. therefore, buying alcohol is not difficult for someone under 21. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated that ``minors can get state driver's license in Times Square in New York City for $10 to $15 each.'' Young people always have attempted to buy alcohol at an early age. Nothing Congress does will suppress the urge for alcohol in young people. However, this bill is not directed at someone under 21 years of age who possesses one or two false ID's. We can do little to address the demand, but we can do something to reduce the supply. The Federal Government needs to crack down on those in the business of illegally producing and transferring false ID's. By stiffening Federal penalties for the production and distribution of false ID's, this bill will punish those who profit from teenage alcohol abuse and make obtaining false documents more difficult. The second provision of this bill creates a new penalty for using the mails to distribute false ID's. Under this provision, anyone who knowingly sends an identification document showing an individuals to be 21 years old or older through the mails--without first verifying the individual's actual age--can be imprisoned for up to 1 year, be fined, or both. Verification can be satisfied by viewing a certification or other written communication confirming the age of the individual being identified. This provision attempts to stem the interstate distribution of false ID's. Forty-six States currently have laws prohibiting youths from misrepresenting their age in order to purchase alcohol. But nothing prohibits minors from obtaining false ID's from other States This provision will affect businesses specializing in mail-order false ID's. To conclude, let me say this legislation has the support of the National Licensed Beverage Association and the South Dakota Retail Liquor Dealers Association. I urge my colleagues to join them in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record at this point. I also ask consent that several newspaper articles be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, since 1981, there have been eight balanced budget amendment measures that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and reported to the Senate. Three of these measures have received floor consideration. In 1982, the Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 58 by a 69-to-31 vote. This marked the first time either House of Congress had approved such a measure. Although a substantial majority of the House of Representatives voted in favor of a counterpart of Senate Joint Resolution 58, the 236-to-187 margin fell short of the necessary two- thirds vote. In 1986, the Senate rejected a balanced budget amendment (S.J. Res. 225) by a vote of 66-to-34, thus failing to achieve the necessary two- thirds majority by a single vote. Then during 1994, the Senate defeated Senate Joint Resolution 41 by a vote of 63-to-37, 4 votes short of the two-thirds necessary for adoption. Since coming to the Senate in 1979, I consistently have cosponsored and supported balanced budget amendment measures, and have voted for adoption of these measures at each and every opportunity. I strongly support the proposed amendment before us which was approved by the House of Representatives. With our vote today, the Senate will choose between a failed status quo or a new road toward true fiscal accountability. Mr. President, there is compelling need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The Federal Government has run deficits for 23 years in a row and for 54 of the last 62 years. As a result, our national debt has spiraled to more than $4.8 trillion. The gross annual interest on the debt exceeds $300 billion. Moreover, if we maintain the status quo--as reflected in the President's budget request for fiscal year 1996--the national debt would increase to more than $6.7 trillion in 2000. Mr. President, is this the kind of legacy we want to impose upon our children and grandchildren? The harsh fact is that up until now we have tried every legislative means possible to lower deficit spending and achieve tax revenues in excess of outlays. In the past 10 years, we have seen Gramm-Rudman, Gramm-Rudman II, the 1990 budget amendment, and the failed 1993 budget plan. These well-intended measures have failed to move us closer to a balanced budget. Even if it were to succeed for one budgetary cycle, what assurances are there for continued balanced budgets and surpluses sufficient to eliminate our national debt? There must be a measure beyond Federal statute and outside the present legislative process that would require continued balanced Federal budgets. That is why a constitutional measure is necessary. The constitutional amendment before the Senate today would prohibit deficit spending except during any fiscal year in which a declaration of war national security crisis. Also, the limit on deficit spending and the limit on the national debt may be waived by a recorded vote of three- fifths of the whole number of each House. It seems that if the limits on deficit spending and the national debt could be waived by a simple majority vote of the House and the Senate, the purpose of the constitutional amendment would be nullified. It is clear more than a majority should be required to waive the amendment. Year after year huge deficits have been incurred by simple majority votes. Requiring a supermajority vote is not unique. The Constitution currently has nine supermajority requirements on specific actions or measures. These supermajorities include: ratification of treaties; veto overrides; expulsion of a Member of the Senate or the House; impeachment of the President, Vice President, and other Federal civil officers and judges; waiver of disability of certain persons who engaged in rebellion against the United States; election of a Vice President by the Senate; and amendment of the Constitution. Also, supermajorities are provided for in each House under its constitutional right to determine the rules of its proceedings. Measures such as a declaration of war or an amendment to the Constitution were rightly considered by the framers to be the most serious of policy commitments. They believed a broader consensus was needed for these beyond a simple majority. The framers also imposed supermajority requirements to ensure that the fundamental rights of individuals were not overrun by the tyranny of a majority. Mr. President, we have reached a point in our history that any serious thought of further mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren should require a broader consensus than a simple majority. It is for them that we must get our fiscal house in order. It is for them that we must pass this balanced budget amendment. The proposed amendment would take effect within 2 years after ratification by three-fourths of the States, or by 2002, whichever comes later. It is significant that 48 States, including my home State of South Dakota, have constitutional provisions limiting their ability to incur budget deficits. Such constraints have proven workable in the States. It is not surprising that a large majority of persons throughout the country who have been polled on this issue support a balanced budget amendment. Certainly, a large majority of South Dakotans from whom I have heard and with whom I have met urge that this resolution be adopted. They know it is the only way to achieve balanced Federal budgets and reduction of the national debt. I hope, Mr. President, our colleagues will bring that about.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of Al Cornella to be a member of the 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. This Commission was created by Congress in 1990 with the intention it would be an independent, nonpartisan decision-making body. I can assure my colleagues, Al Cornella is a man of the highest integrity. He will be fair in his deliberations and recommendations. During his opening statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Al committed himself to conducting his deliberations in a fair and impartial manner. Al Cornella is a man who keeps his word. The law requires the Commission to make recommendations based on specific criteria, ranging from military readiness to fiscal cost. Al Cornella's deliberations will be fully consistent with the law. Mr. President, I am confident in Al's character and trust his judgment. Al Cornella exemplifies the American spirit of community involvement. He is one of South Dakota's very best. Currently, Al is a small business owner in Rapid City, SD, and has served as chairman of the board of the Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce. In addition to his civic involvement, Al has a strong interest in and knowledge of military issues. He served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam conflict. Being a Vietnam veteran myself as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army, I strongly believe his commitment to duty and country should not go unnoticed. For many years, Al served as a key leader in issues concerning military affairs in the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce. For the past 3 years, Al has served as a member of my Service Academy Advisory Board, evaluating applicants seeking admission to our three military academies. Again, Mr. President, Al Cornella is a man of integrity. I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation. Al Cornella has distinguished himself in every endeavor in his life. He will do so again as a member of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this week our Nation celebrates National Engineers Week. This week is sponsored by a coalition of 64 engineering societies, corporations, and government agencies. This year the event is being chaired by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers [AIChE] and Fluor Corp. As chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I would like to take a moment to recognize the contributions the 1.8 million engineers in our country make to improve the quality of our lives. Mr. President, try to imagine what our lives would be like without the engineering achievements of the 20th century. Imagine a world with no television, no airplanes, no computers, no cordless telephones, no miracle drugs, no interstate highway system, no central heating and air conditioning, or no communication satellites. Each of these items began only as an idea. Each needed engineers to transform the idea into reality. Engineers are the men and women who plan, design, and direct the manufacturing or construction of nearly every human-made element of the world. The very word ``engineer'' comes from the Latin word ``ingeniare'', which means ``to devise.'' For centuries, engineers have devised things to solve problems. From clothes to communications, medicines to microwave ovens, television to transportation, potato chips to microchips, the work of engineers touches every aspect of our lives. Engineers turn ideas into reality through technology. In the process, engineers make our lives easier, healthier, more efficient, and more fun. Mr. President, I am sure several of my colleagues already are aware of the significant role engineers play in our society. That is because they are engineers themselves. The Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and the senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, were both trained as engineers. They each made significant contributions to the national security and leadership of our Nation before serving their country in this body. Both bring technical expertise and a much needed perspective to our public policy debates. During National Engineers Week, we should not only look back at the achievement of engineers, but also look forward. If we are to maintain the standard of living and leadership role in the world we currently enjoy, we must assure a strong emphasis on mathematics and science in education. The quality of our future lies in our ability to attract the best and the brightest young minds to study and pursue careers in engineering. Mr. President, I commend the engineers of the Nation, past and present, for their contributions to the well-being of our Nation. I join them in celebrating National Engineers Week.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Donald ``Cootie'' Masters, the newspaper publisher in my hometown, who recently passed away. D.J. Masters was not only a publisher of a weekly newspaper, he was also a State legislator. He was a fine man, and an inspiration to me. I think that the role of the weekly editor in America has been overlooked. The importance of the women and men who run our smalltown newspapers is seldom recognized. Our weekly newspapers have almost been forgotten in this telecommunications age, when we have satellite TV, when we have all the various modern technologies. But our weekly newspapers are still there at the heart of their communities. I received the Humboldt Journal even when I was in the Army in Vietnam. My mother bought me a subscription and sent it. I received the Humboldt Journal when I was away at the University of South Dakota and later when I was a student at Oxford University in England, and then at Harvard Law School. I still get the Humboldt Journal at home. You cannot get the weekly hometown paper out of the boy, I suppose you could say. D.J. Masters was a true South Dakotan. He took great pride in his work, his family, his community, and his faith. He was an example and inspiration to many. I do not know if many people really understand the positive impact on the lives of South Dakotans that the editors of our weekly papers have. As the editor of my hometown newspaper, the Humboldt Journal, Cootie Masters was part of the lives of thousands of South Dakotans. Born on July 7, 1906, Cootie began his rich and fulfilling life in the town of Humboldt, SD. This small town upbringing and his strong family ties instilled in him a deep respect for traditional values. He graduated from Humboldt High School in 1924 and went on to attend the University of South Dakota. I would like to note that in 1924 it was quite an accomplishment for a young student from a small town to attend college. This was only the beginning of Cootie's many achievements. In addition to his studies at USD, Cootie participated in basketball and was a fraternity brother in Delta Tau Delta. He demonstrated at a young age the importance in life of social involvement and balance between intellectual and physical pursuits. After Cootie graduated from college, he became involved in his family business. His father owned and operated the Humboldt Journal and passed on his business knowledge to Cootie. Cootie's father died suddenly in 1936, leaving Cootie as the sole owner and editor of the Journal. Anyone you may know in a family business will tell you that successfully passing on a family business to the next generation is much more difficult than most people realize. Cootie not only succeeded in taking over the Journal in 1936, but also was successful in operating it until well after his official retirement. That is no small feat. Cootie's life involved much more than his newspaper work. He contributed to the whole State of South Dakota by serving in the State house as a representative from Minnehaha County from 1936 to 1941. Cootie balanced his successful business and political careers with devotion to his family and friends. On June 12, 1933, he began his family by marrying Mildred Newton. Cootie and Mildred had three sons: Neal, Tom, and Bob. Today, the Masters family includes 7 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren. I know that Cootie considered his family to be the most precious blessing in his life. Aside from his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, what may have kept Cootie young for so long was his robust enjoyment of life. After college, he continued to participate in baseball and basketball. He also fishing and hunting. He certainly picked the right State for enjoying the great outdoors. What is most impressive about Cootie is that with all of his public activities, he is still described as a man with not one enemy. Cootie was a true friend to me, to our community, and to our State. I will always remember him fondly. I extend my deepest sympathies to the Masters family on the loss of their beloved Cootie. Mr. President, I pay tribute not only to him but to the weekly newspapers of South Dakota and to the South Dakota State House of Representatives from which he served during his career.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wish to correct an error in my statement from the Congressional Record of January 24, 1995. In a discussion of the financial potential of public broadcasting, my statement as published stated that, according to the viewer magazine of WETA Washington, this public television station's viewers have an average household net worth of $627,000 plus an average investment portfolio of $249,000. My statement should have been recorded as saying WETA's contributors, not its viewers, have that financial status.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, as well as Senators Campbell, Simon, Pell, and Dorgan in introducing legislation to establish the Wounded Knee National Tribal Park in the State of South Dakota. The purpose of our legislation is to acknowledge, preserve and protect the historically significant sites of the Wounded Knee tragedy of 1890. National recognition of this area is long overdue. The legislation we are introducing today is the product of our cumulative efforts over the past several sessions of Congress to properly recognize the Wounded Knee tragedy. Indeed, Wounded Knee has been the subject of Senate consideration for a number of years. Let me highlight some of this activity: During the 101st Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs held hearings to discuss the historical significance of Wounded Knee. Also during the 101st Congress, the Senate adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 153, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre. This resolution, which I cosponsored, also expressed support for the establishment of a suitable and appropriate memorial to those who were slain at Wounded Knee in 1890. Late in the 102d Congress and again in the 103d Congress, Senator Daschle and I introduced legislation (S. 3213 and S. 278) to establish the Chief Big Foot National Memorial Park and the Wounded Knee National Memorial. During the 103d Congress, the Senate Energy Committee's Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests held a hearing on S. 278 (July 29, 1993). In addition to this congressional activity, the National Park Service has studied the historical significance of Wounded Knee six times since 1950. The Park Service consistently has reaffirmed it as a nationally significant area. In fact, our bill is in part based on one of the proposed alternatives mentioned in a January 1993 NPS report on Wounded Knee. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will agree during this 104th Congress to ensure the protection and preservation of the historical sites at the Wounded Knee tragedy. I look forward to working with my colleagues, members of the Cheyenne River and Oglala Sioux Tribes, the Governor of South Dakota, the National Park Service, and other organizations to move this legislation forward. Above all, we must ensure this legislation is implemented with proper consultation with the Indian communities. It is imperative that Indian perspectives be included in developing the memorials' interpretive sites. Enactment of our legislation will promote a greater understanding of the events associated with the Wounded Knee tragedy. In addition, appreciation of Indian culture, heritage, and history will be enhanced through establishment of these memorials.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that addresses a major concern of land owners and businesses not only in South Dakota but throughout the United States. The concern is wetlands. Traveling throughout South Dakota and listening to the people, it is clear that wetlands are an issue on everyone's mind. More often than not, current wetlands policy is a burden on our farmers, ranchers, and business people. Problems with current wetlands policies have affected farmers and ranchers predominantly. However, current policies also are now affecting those who live in our cities and small towns. The bill I am introducing today would go far in establishing a policy that neither is burdensome nor imposes unwarranted costs and regulations. And what are these wetlands concerns? The right to own private property is one. Compensation to property owners when land is taken away or when use of the land is restricted is another. Government- forced changes in farming and ranching operations are on everyone's mind. Current excessive penalties and fines could force young farmers and ranchers off the land. Obstacles to business expansion are another current concern. Mr. President, the list of concerns goes on. These concerns are not imagined. They are real. Problems are occurring throughout South Dakota. In just one county in South Dakota--Kingsbury--nearly 20 percent of that county's farmland contains Government wildlife easement wetlands. However, Government officials have not notified farmers of those easements. Seven possible wetlands violations were reported in Kingsbury County last year. Yet four of the seven operators charged had no idea there were wetlands easements on their farms. In several cases, local officials quickly identified the problem, and notified the affected farmers. The farmers, unaware of any wetlands damage or violations, quickly repaired the disruption of their wetlands. Now these farmers are waiting for a ruling from Washington bureaucrats on what their penalty will be. The penalties will not be light. Farmers have told me they are being threatened with fines as high as $515,000. Fines as high as $65,000 have already been levied. Mr. President, I do not know any farm or ranch family that can afford to lose that amount of money. Efforts must be taken to ensure that any fine or penalty is in line with violations. Many violations are incidental and quickly repaired. Penalties should fit the crime. Thousands of South Dakotans have written, called, or visited with me about the definition of wetlands and the rules and regulations designed to protect wetlands. Farmers, ranchers, business men and women, and individual South Dakotans have clearly identified one of the most important issues affecting their lives. They are concerned about the definition of wetlands and what guidelines should be adopted to protect them. The bill I am introducing today addresses these wetlands concerns. My bill would create much-needed guidelines for identifying and delineating wetlands and creating a balance between growth and the protection of private property. Simply put, this bill puts common sense into our wetlands policy. Current law is too broad, and it is causing to many problems throughout the country. Congress has never passed a comprehensive law defining wetlands. Without that definition, Federal agencies have been aggressively pursuing control over private property in the name of saving wetlands. What the Government should or should not be doing in this area needs to be defined clearly. My bill does that. It provides definitions that protect true wetlands areas and protects the rights of private property owners. My bill requires certain criteria to be met and verified before an area can be regulated as a wetland. Such an approach is more reliable in identifying true wetlands. It prevents field inspectors from mistakenly classifying dry, upland areas that are drained effectively as wetlands, and also eliminates a major source of confusion and abuse caused by current regulations. Mr. President, I ask that an explanation of the bill be printed in the Record at this point. Mr. President, I applaud my friend and colleague Senator Breaux for being the leader on this issue during previous Congresses. Only through the kind of common sense and balanced approach proposed in my bill can the Nation's agricultural, business, environmental, and individual interests be addressed properly. Action is needed. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have spoken critically of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the whole system of public broadcasting with which it is associated on this floor on some occasions, but I would like to compliment CPB for something its board did last week. The board decided to begin to require that the CPB will receive a percentage of income from sales exceeding $25,000 of toys, books, clothing, and other products related to shows funded by the CPB. I hope that this will begin immediately to substitute for taxpayers' payments to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. President, I have been one who has advocated reinventing or possibly privatizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That means the corporation here in Washington, DC. Each State has its State public broadcasting system and a lot of them do a great deal of good in terms of education, and in terms of providing unique programming. Indeed, it is my opinion that public broadcasting in South Dakota would be better off under a privatized or a reinvented system of public broadcasting. I also want to commend the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in that the executives, I understand, are starting some meetings with at least one regional Bell operating company. I hope they meet with several cable companies and others to see how they can interact with the information superhighway and perhaps provide other income and enrich programming in public broadcasting in the United States. Last Friday, I had a fascinating conversation with Glen Jones, of Jones Intercable of Colorado. He is privately providing educational materials and educational programming across the United States and around the world. He wants to expand upon this and finds it is a very marketable and useful thing to do for public service, as well as in terms of promoting his own company. In addition, there are many privately run cable channels elsewhere which are making a great contribution in terms of quality educational programming. Nickelodeon is making a great contribution to children's programming and is even marketing children's programming in France. The Learning Channel, the History Channel, Arts and Entertainment, the Disney Channel, and many more, are providing good programming with which our public TV friends could interact and could achieve a great deal of income in some cases. Earlier, I observed on this floor that we could privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other entities in public broadcasting; that if a private company would take a percentage of the program rights that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Public Broadcasting Service or National Public Radio just give away, it would more than replenish the $300 million a year that the Congress gives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That has been verified by many corporate leaders who have told me they would like to buy public broadcasting entities or they would like to participate in partnerships for public broadcasting. These private sector leaders assured me they would accept conditions requiring preservation of a certain amount of rural service or small city service or children's programming. I have compared the situation to a local telephone company which is a private company but which has public service requirements such as universal telephone service. So, Mr. President, I think it is very appropriate that we should be working on reinventing and privatizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and public broadcasting in general. The Vice President, after all, asks that Government be reinvented and that we try to privatize certain agencies. But I would strongly disagree with those who say we are trying to kill Barney or we are trying to kill children's programming. That is just not true. Or that we are trying to kill individual States' public broadcast programs. That is simply not true. What we are trying to do is to be inventive. We are facing a budgetary crisis of profound proportions. Let's face it: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting most likely at least will receive a cut. We are in a situation where I think they would be grateful for ideas on how they could make more money. One of those is getting a percentage of the program revenues. Presently we have a lot of people making a lot of money from public broadcasting while the taxpayers don't share the wealth. Also, Mr. President, the corporation has to look at its distribution of funds. I do not think my State of South Dakota gets a very good deal, very frankly. Much is made of $1.7 million in Federal funds that is sent to South Dakota. But the State legislature, individual contributors, and corporate grants provide an overwhelming majority of the funding. If we take a look at where some of the money goes, one station in New York gets about $20 million from Federal taxpayers. That is not the State of New York, that is one station. That station has executives earning between $200,000 and $400,000 a year. We have the so-called Children's Television Workshop, which has, as Senator Dole has pointed out on this floor, paid salaries of between $400,000 and $600,000 a year. Those are taxpayers funds. ``Well,'' they say, ``we take that money out of what is contributed.'' But it all comes out of the same pot. Now, I am not against people getting rich. I am not against people in the private sector getting high salaries, but these folks wrap themselves in the cloak of public service. They wrap themselves in the clothes of one serving the public and then collect taxpayers' money. Meanwhile, our States that are told, ``You are so lucky to get $1.7 million, you are so lucky, you should be so grateful.'' If you really look into it, most of the money is going to a small public broadcasting clique--an east coast and inside-the-beltway gang. I think the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting acted correctly the other day when it voted to start getting a percentage of profits from the programs and related products. They should have done it long ago. I do not think they would have done it if it were not for the pressure from people such as myself on the Senate floor and elsewhere. The taxpayers should get some relief. I am going to make sure they do. There was a 1981-to-1984 study about privatizing public broadcasting and getting revenue from more commercial advertising. Make no mistake about it, there are ads today on public radio and television. Granted, they are called by the code word, ``underwriting,'' but they are ads just the same. This study found that the viewers were not offended by having ads at the beginning and end of programming or even more extensive ads. This is one source of revenue. There are the programming rights. That is another source of revenue. There is the chance to interact with the information highway. That is still another potential source of revenue. So, I think the public broadcasting executives should be creative in going of opportunity and, also, new sources of material. I have been troubled by the fact that I think taxpayers' money is being used to lobby for more taxpayers' money. There is a nationwide grassroots program to contact your Congressman to be sure to continue full funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is being done, in part, with Federal money, in my opinion. If you ask, they say, these are our affiliates doing this and they are doing it with money that is contributed in these beg-a-thons, money being contributed privately. But the contributors are not told that. They are told this is listener-supported radio and TV. They are not told part of their money will be used to lobby for Federal money. They should be told, ``This is a taxpayer-supported channel. We get some private contributions but much of it is taxpayer supported, both State and Federal.'' There should be honesty in these beg-a-thons. But, also, let us be very careful about this business of lobbying for more Federal money with Federal money. Here we have a very sophisticated group concentrated in Boston, New York, and Washington, DC, that is doing so. They are not saying, ``Senator Pressler wants to keep public radio and TV at the State level.'' They are saying, ``Anybody who wants to change anything is trying to kill public radio and TV.'' I submit that public broadcasting will be stronger when it is reinvented and privatized. I submit that the entire public broadcasting system has become bureaucratic, inefficient, and wasteful. Taxpayers around the country would be amazed at how much money is being wasted. The 20th Century Fund did a study in which they found that 75 cents of every $1 in public TV is spent on overhead. That has not been rebutted. So those who serve on the oversight committees--and I chair the Commerce Committee, which has a duty to conduct oversight over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--it is our job to dig into things, to make suggestions, maybe to take some heat. But it is not the job of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the other public broadcasting entities to put false information out across the country. They are wrong when they say that people who are required to make budget cuts and suggest ways to reinvent the system are trying to kill local public broadcasting. That is not the case. There was local public broadcasting before the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its glut of Federal funding ever came along. In fact, some people feel we would have a stronger set of local public stations had the national Corporation for Public Broadcasting never been created in 1967. We should think about that. Here we have a very intelligent, sophisticated, lobbying campaign that has people scared that their public broadcasting channels will be shut off if this group here in Washington, DC, does not get their Federal money. That is not true. That is not true at all. In fact, my State may well be better off in a reinvented or privatized system of public broadcasting. That is true of most States. Again, I congratulate the CPB board for doing what they should have done long ago, getting a percentage of the program and product profits. That will provide them with a good deal of revenue. It might provide more revenue than they have ever gotten from the Federal Government, and that would not bother me a bit. I hope they continue to make such steps. I hope public broadcasting executives have many meetings with the companies that are on the information superhighway, ranging from local telephone companies to cable companies to long distance companies to computer companies, to see what interrelation there can be. Finally, I would like to know what is public broadcasting's own plan to reinvent itself? So far it seems only to be to get more Federal money, to stay just as things are, not to make any changes, and of course to be the self-appointed arbiters of American culture. But I am asking them to roll up their sleeves, get out, listen to a few people, and not expect increases in Federal funding because it will not be coming. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak at this point.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President and Members of the Senate, I was concerned this morning to see in the Washington Post a story that was critical, essentially, of companies that might be interested in purchasing, acquiring, or partnering with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other public broadcasting entities. In fact, the story highlighted or used as a headline, referring to these companies as ``vultures moving in,'' and quoting one public broadcasting executive as referring to them in that way. I think it is most unfortunate that fine, honest, telecommunications companies or other companies who might be interested in purchasing or running or managing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other public broadcasting entities or contributing the same amount of money the Federal Government now contributes in exchange for certain program and commercial rights with conditions of children's programming and conditions of rural radio and rural TV, to refer to them as ``vultures'' indicates the mentality of the insider group at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the so-called public broadcasting family. This family consists of inside-the-beltway crowd at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio, the Association of Public Television Stations, et cetera. It includes groups and certain foundations that surround the Corporation for Public Broadcasting such as the Children's Television Workshop. It includes some of the stations that get the lion's share of the funds such as WNET, which gets at least 20 times as much Federal money as my huge geographic State gets. This group is very defensive to any change. Madam President, I am chairman of the committee that has oversight over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and related agencies. We are supposed to think of some new ideas. There has been a telecommunications revolution since 1967. I think it was good that public radio and TV were created. It is now up and running. There are several other privately funded areas that are producing the same kind of programming at a great profit, including Nickelodeon in children's television, including the Learning Channel, including the History Channel, and so forth. Granted these are on cable. Some say that they do not reach everybody. We are also in an age when we have the computer Internet and many other exciting telecommunications and information technologies which did not exist in 1967. We have VCR's, we have a number of additional new telecommunications and information technologies that will be coming if my Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 is enacted. We will have an explosion of new telecommunications and information technologies. It is time that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other public broadcasting entities in this country be reformed and reinvented. So I put these suggestions forward in the most sincere of fashions, but every time I make a suggestion, somebody in the public broadcasting family comes back with a very critical comment, discrediting it without any discussion of the facts. The facts are that the American taxpayer is now providing a free public platform for many performers who make great profits, and I have nothing against profits, but the taxpayer is left out. So I want the quality programming. It could be sold with conditions. Telecommunications in this country is privately owned, but they have conditions for universal service and certain rules on telephones and telecommunications devices. Railroads in this country are sometimes sold with public conditions, such as the Conrail sale a few years ago. Airlines have public conditions under which they operate. We have reached a time when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting must rethink its role, it must rethink its relationship to some of the other communications technologies. It can profit from them. It can get along without a Federal subsidy, and it would be operated much better if it were privatized. I have spoken to several privatization experts in the last week. I find the only people opposed to this are those inside the beltway, the people in that public broadcasting family who get salaries of between $200,000 and $600,000 a year, in some cases, whose salaries exceed the Members of this body. But these people cloak themselves in the public robe, saying that they are public servants. Well, if they want to be public servants then they should be paid like public servants, I suppose, in the opinion of some, if they do not want to be private. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They now have advertising on public radio and television. They get all sorts of grants. They have private-sector salaries, but yet they want the taxpayers' money. So I say decide what you are or who you are, but get caught up with the telecommunications revolution, in any event. And the fact that several telecommunications companies are interested in buying, acquiring, or partnering with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other public broadcasting entities indicates a synergistic relationship in this day and age. How wonderful it would be if public broadcasting would synergistically interact with the other new telecommunications, with computer Internet, with VCR's, cable TV, and with lots of other technologies. For example, Nickelodeon, which produces so much good children's programming that it is being sold in France.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to rise to say a few words about the Mexican debt situation and about our relationship with Mexico. I have been very troubled that our leadership has agreed to support this loan guarantee package with Mexico without further analysis. There are two things that give me great trouble, and as a member of the Finance Committee I will be asking some very hard questions. First of all, why can we not get this package collateralized? Why can it not be attached either to the Mexican oil resources or to some other collateral, because I am afraid the American people may not get their money back. Many who are advocating this are going around saying it will not cost us anything. But I have been in this body since 1978, and the House since 1975, and I have heard this again and again, and the U.S. taxpayers frequently end up paying the bill. The second thing that troubles me a great deal is the Chile example. Economists tell me that the example of what happened in Chile in the early 1980's is almost perfectly analogous to what is happening in Mexico. For example, in Chile in the early 1980's they had a similar economic crisis where their money had been devalued and Chile was unable to get any assistance from the United States at that time because General Pinochet, the dictator, was not approved by the United States and the United States had cut off all aid and even economic relations with Chile so Chile had nowhere to turn. Under General Pinochet's leadership Chile made economic reforms. They tightened their belt, they went through the steps necessary to restore their economic health internally, and today Chile is one of the most prosperous and booming countries in the world. Indeed, Chile is emerging like one of the supereconomies that we have seen emerge in Asia. Chile is the first such supereconomy of South America. And Chile now seeks to join in a trade agreement with the United States. Its businesses are competing around the world. If we roll history back and imagine that in the early 1980's Chile had been a democracy and we had been giving aid to Chile, we would have given Chile a series of loan guarantees and aid and Chile would not have made the necessary economic reforms. And Chile would probably still be a struggling Third World country today. So I say the same is true with Mexico at this time, 1995. Mexico has not taken many of the strong measures necessary. I had great hopes for the last Salinas government. It seemed, as it got toward the end of that time, Mexico, and the PRC, in wanting to win the election, took softer and softer economic policies, devaluing, trying to create artificial wealth, printing money, and doing all the things they are not supposed to do in terms of sound economic decisions. Now should the American taxpayers be asked to pay for that? Once again we are in one of these circumstances where a lot of aid would be going to some of our large bond funds and banks in the United States. Mutual bond fund types who bought a lot of the Mexican paper would be bailed out. We would be bailing out a lot of our own mutual bond funds, banks and others. We are also bailing out the Mexican politicians who did not make the right decisions and the hard decisions, who did not tell their people the truth in their speeches as they went about Mexico. But the worst part of the whole thing is, aside from bailing out private groups who maybe do not deserve it, the worst of all is that we may well be delaying real reform in Mexico. Would it not be better to let 6 months or 1 year pass and observe that Mexico is taking some of those tough economic measures? Why do we have to act on this so quickly? I think Mexico should be required to make internal economic reforms and also to collateralize the loan guarantee. The Mexicans refuse to sell their publicly owned oil fields and oil industry, which was nationalized at one point. It is a socialistic endeavor and a very unhealthy one in terms of what it produces for Mexico. Here we are, a free-enterprise country, giving a noncollateralized guarantee to Mexico while not requiring them to sell their oil industry. The economists tell me if they were willing to privatize their oil industry, they could have far in excess of the billions of dollars they are seeking from the United States. So in closing I would like to say, let us call this what it is. It is a bailout. There are many arguments that are made--the specter of refugees coming across the border, et cetera, et cetera. But we are going to have the same problem again in 2 or 3 years unless Mexico makes the economic reforms that are necessary. Let us look at the Chile example, the example of a country that made the reforms, did not get any aid from anybody, and is one of the healthiest countries in the world today. In terms of foreign aid, I have observed over the years the countries that have developed the most economically in the world have been those that have not received economic aid from the United States--with one or two exceptions. All the tigers of the Far East did not receive aid packages from the United States. They did it themselves. Many of the countries that we have consistently given foreign aid to have faltered, have not made internal decisions, have expected a handout, and have remained very, very poor. So we have not done these poor people a favor. As Chile, when they needed help and they were looking for international grants and aid--nobody gave it to them. They have become the most prosperous country in South America as a result of it. So I think there is something to be learned here. I know it may sound harsh. Maybe it sounds cold and calculating. But if we really want to help people, sometimes we should require they make reforms before we give them aid, or we should try to give them trade rather than aid. Also, I point out the huge budgetary deficit we have in our own country and the number of people we have in need of some kind of small business assistance here within the United States. So, I have made it known to the leadership I was disappointed that both sides, both the President and Republican and Democratic leadership, endorsed this plan without further consulting and assessing the feelings of other Members of the Congress. As a member of the Finance Committee, I do not feel obligated to support this until I see much more collateralization, until I see much more performance on the part of the Mexicans in terms of getting their house in order, and until I see the American taxpayers reassured. Recently I have been in on some debates about privatizing public broadcasting in this country, and I have been criticized for things I have never said. I find that privatizing sounds bad to some people inside the beltway. The fact of the matter is, there are ways that public television can make a great deal of money through programming rights, through working with regional communications companies, and through working with other communications companies. In terms of marketing the product that they have, they can make a lot of money and they can save the taxpayers money. But in the whole debate the taxpayer is almost forgotten. So it is with the Mexican debt issue. Let us think about the taxpayers of this country as we consider the Mexican debt situation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. that?

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send the three resolutions to the desk. So the resolutions (S. Res. 66, S. Res. 67, and S. Res. 68) were agreed to, as follows: S. Res. 66 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--(a) the National Education Goals Panel should disapprove, and the National Education Standards and Improvement Council should not certify, any voluntary national content standards, voluntary national student performance standards, or criteria for the certification of such content and student performance standards, on the subject of world and United States history, developed prior to February 1, 1995. (b) voluntary national content standards, voluntary national student performance standards, and criteria for the certification of such content and student performance standards, on the subject of world and United States history, established under title II of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act should not be based on standards developed primarily by the National Center for History in the Schools prior to February 1, 1995; and (c) if the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, or any other Federal agency provides funds for the development of the standards and criteria described in paragraph (6) the recipient of such funds should have a decent respect for the contributions of western civilization, and United States history, ideas, and institutions, to the increase of freedom and prosperity around the world.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to send to the desk three resolutions and that they be considered en bloc, agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. For the information of my colleagues, the three resolutions are the texts of the Gorton amendment, Bradley amendment and Boxer amendment that were offered to the unfunded mandates bill and voted on Wednesday.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I herewith submit for publication in the Congressional Record a copy of the rules of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. These rules were adopted by the committee January 12, 1995.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of 1995. I originally introduced this bill last November, during the special GATT session. As I said then, the American people sent a strong, clear signal on November 8: they want less Government and they want it now. My bill would keep the Federal Government from intruding into an area it has no business being in, and where its protections are unwanted by everyone concerned. Specifically, my bill would exempt State and local courts reporters from the compensatory time requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] when they perform private transcription work outside of normal working hours or regular working days. A recent interpretation of the U.S. Labor Department threatens to radically change the way court reporters have been paid for many years. This bill would keep undisturbed current pay arrangements between State and local reporters and their court employers. I am pleased my friend from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, the new chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, is cosponsoring this legislation. She has always been a strong proponent of limited government. We both realize the public demand for less government has never been greater. Mr. President, let me explain the situation which brought about the need for this legislation. For years, official State and local court reporters have enjoyed a unique status among government workers. In most States, they are treated as both government employees and independent contractors, depending on the nature of the work. While performing their primary duties of recording and reading back court proceedings, reporters are considered employees of the court. As such, they are typically compensated with an annual salary and benefits. However, in addition to these in-court duties, most jurisdictions also require official court reporters to prepare and certify transcripts of their stenographic records for private attorneys, litigants, and others. The reporter and his or her assistants prepare and deliver transcripts using their own equipment, without any supervision by the court. The reporter then bills the attorney or other client directly and collects a per page fee set by law or court rule. The transcription fees earned are usually twice the amount, or more, than those earned during an hour of salaried work for the court. Indeed, it is possible for a court reporter to earn more from private transcription work than from his or her annual court salary. When preparing transcripts for a private fee, the court reporter is clearly acting as an independent operator, as has been specifically determined by the Internal Revenue Service. For taxation purposes, transcription fee income is treated as separate and apart from reporters' annual court salaries. In fact, in my home State of South Dakota, court reporters are required to collect and pay sales tax on this income. They also file self-employment income forms with the Internal Revenue Service. The transcription services provided by court reporters are invaluable to private parties. Attorneys are able to obtain a highly accurate recording of court proceedings quickly and reliably. Court reporters are small businessmen and businesswomen performing a cost effective and timely service. There may be many flaws in our system of justice, but our system of court reporting is not among them. As I stated earlier, everyone is happy with the current situation. It has developed over many years. All interested parties--court reporters, judges, and private attorneys--are very satisfied with the present arrangement. Everyone was happy, that is, until the U.S. Department of Labor inserted itself into this situation. Last fall, the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Division took the position that official court reporters in Oregon are still acting as employees of the court, for purposes of FLSA, when they prepare transcripts for attorneys, litigants, and other parties. Similar letters have been received regarding official court reporters in Indiana and North Carolina. Official court reporters in the vast majority of States operate in circumstances similar to these three States. The DOL's interpretation would require State and local courts to pay court reporters one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all transcription work performed during overtime hours in a given week. The Labor Department's position also exposes State and local courts to potentially enormous liability costs from court reporters suing for overtime back-pay. If a suit is successful, the court would owe the reporter at least 2 years worth of overtime back-pay. The amount would be doubled if the court could not demonstrate that it was acting in good faith and could go back 3 years if the violation were deemed willful. If allowed to stand, the impact of the Labor Department's position of the court reporting system would be dramatic. State and local courts would face increased salary budgets and liability exposure. Court reporters facing budgetary cutbacks could lose a significant part of their income and, in some cases, their jobs. Private parties would lose the productivity and efficiency of the current method of transcription. The decision would have adversely affected all interested parties. As you might imagine, no one involved in the court reporting system is happy with DOL`s position. Faced with exposure to millions of dollars of liability nationwide, some courts have already implemented changes. Beginning this month, the South Dakota Court System imposed a new system of pay for transcription on their court reporters. Court salary budgets have also been tightened. State court judges must avoid using their reporters too much, to keep overtime down. Court administrators have been burdened with additional administrative duties and headaches. Private attorneys are concerned they can no longer rely on speedy transcriptions at a reasonable price. No one is happy with the changes. So why are these changes being considered? Because the U.S. Department of Labor says so. After all these years, the Department has suddenly decided that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies in a situation never contemplated by Congress. What fantastic benefits will result from this governmental meddling? None. I have a solution, however: Don't fix what is not broken. Keep the Federal Government out of the situation. The bill I am introducing today would allow official court reporters an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act while they are performing transcription duties for a private party, provided there is an understanding between the court reporters and their State or local court employer. The bill also would bar lawsuits by court reporters for overtime back pay. Note that only State and local court reporters would be affected. That is because Federal court reporters already enjoy a complete exemption from FLSA. State and local court reporters deserve similar treatment. Passage of my bill would allow all official court reporters--Federal State, and local court reporters--to perform their work in the same way. The Fair Labor Standard Act is designed to protect workers from abusive employers. In this situation, however, the very workers who would receive the so-called protections of the Federal Government, don't want them. Official court reporters would be greatly harmed if the helping hand of the Federal Government takes them under its wing. They don't want, or need, to be taken care of, especially by Washington. That is why the National Court Reporter Association strongly supports this bill. Mr. President, here is a rare instance where labor and management are in agreement on the best solution regarding a labor issue. Everyone agrees that the current system serves everyone's best interests. When performing transcription services for a private party, court reporters are acting as independent contractors. That is what the IRS considers them. Federal court reporters are treated that way. I can't think of a reason in the world why State and local reporters should be treated any differently. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.