Larry Pressler

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 would like to report to the Members of the Senate the progress of the telecommunications bill and urge that all Members continue to show great interest. I also urge all citizens interested in this legislation to show vigilance and continue to support the bill and urge that it be passed. As Members of the Senate know, consideration of this bill has gone on for a long time and it is a bipartisan bill. It has attracted the support of many groups across the country. We now have the regional Bell companies supporting the bill and we have the long-distance companies supporting the bill. That is an unusual, rare moment in American history when the regional Bells and long-distance companies are temporarily at peace, so to speak. Indeed, the labor union, the Communications Workers of America [CWA], yesterday sent a letter to Senator Dole urging that the bill be passed. So this bill has gotten an unusual amount of support. The big cable companies and the small cable companies support it. The broadcasters support it, to the extent of what is in the bill now. I know there is a dispute over the spectrum area. What I am saying is that we have an historic opportunity to pass a bill. But if we hesitate very long, this whole thing will come unraveled. I am very worried about it coming unraveled. So I rise to ask for the continued vigilance and support of everybody across the country and of my fellow Senators. Let me say a word or two about the spectrum issue that has arisen. Our leader has, quite correctly, raised the issue of the spectrum. I would say this bill does not give the spectrum away as it is written. We believe strongly that there is some misunderstanding about what the bill says about the spectrum. Indeed, this Senator tried very hard to put the spectrum auction issue into the reconciliation bill, and later have it dealt with as a budgetary matter. The point before us is that we are going to have to have a broad spectrum bill. I like to call it a ``grand spectrum debate.'' I think the sale to MCI yesterday, its new bid of approximately $680 million for something that was scored by CBO at less than $100 million, shows the value that there is in the spectrum and the potential savings to taxpayers. We have to think about the taxpayers. It is not just the broadcasters who use the spectrum. The spectrum is also used by people with handheld radios, and by people doing radar photography. The military has a good deal of spectrum allocated to it, as does the CIA. We need to educate ourselves and the people of the country about the value of all this spectrum use and what the taxpayers' interest in it is. There has been very little, for example, on television shows discussing the spectrum, strangely enough. We have not had a feature on the spectrum and its value to the taxpayers on ``60 Minutes'' that I know of. Nor have we seen Ted Koppel doing a feature on the spectrum and how valuable it might be to the taxpayers. For some mysterious reason, there have not been very many television shows on the networks that educate the public about the spectrum. I urge those shows to do so. In any event, it is not just the broadcast spectrum we are dealing with here. It is all the spectrum out there that is being used. New technologies may make four or five uses out of the spectrum where once only one use was possible. Something designed for one use can now be used for transmitting data and other things. As new technology and new inventions come into play, it may be worth four, five times as much. Where once you might have one TV channel, you now may be able to have four. You may be able to transmit data on one station and do something else with another. So the taxpayers have a real interest in this, as do budget balancers. We did not really try to solve this problem in the telecommunications bill. Some misunderstandings are floating around. We more or less delayed a decision on the spectrum in the telecommunications bill. So I have suggested that we have a grand spectrum debate and that we have a spectrum bill. We have already had hearings. I suggest that we go through all the spectrum, from the broadcasters' use to other, different uses of it, including that held in public and private use. That we look at what the military has and what the CIA has. We will have to have a classified briefing. We should not hold up the telecommunications bill for that purpose. It is my hope that in a few days we can work out some language, or leave the present language in the bill. So we are making a good-faith effort. I am saying that I do not think we can solve all of the spectrum issues at this time. I have tried to do it. The votes are not there. We are in a deadlock situation. Let us not lose the whole telecommunications bill over this matter. It is too good a bill. We have worked long and hard. It is a bipartisan bill. It is the best bill in this Congress, in this Senator's opinion. It will create jobs in our country. It will provide a road map for investment. I urge that we act on it soon. I am continuing to lobby our leaders and everybody else. In fact, yesterday the spectrum and the telecommunications bill were the subject of Senator Dole's remarks when he traveled in South Dakota. I commend him again and thank him for his kind remarks about my work on this bill. I hope we can work out these problems soon. I urge all groups not to slip into lethargy. We have a lot of work left to do on this bill. It will not pass automatically. We must keep working at it. That is what I am doing. That is what I urge my colleagues to do.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to waive the budget act to increase funds for education. I certainly agree with the goal of the amendment. Federal programs such as Impact Aid and title I are important to South Dakota schools and students across the country. However, although this amendment looks favorable at first glance, further study reveals two significant problems. First, in order to pay for the amendment, other vital programs would be cut. The National Institutes of Health, elderly nutrition programs, Maternal and Child Health block grants, and job training programs would be reduced beyond the levels outlined in the continuing resolution. This amendment simply would rob Peter to pay Paul. Second, this amendment would risk another Government shutdown by sending the bill back to the House of Representatives. The previous continuing resolution expires at midnight tonight, and any delays in sending this bill to the White House could cause a shutdown. Good progress has been made in budget talks this week. We must continue to move forward to a balanced budget. We cannot afford to slide backward to gridlock. Let me emphasize, the funding levels for education are temporary, until March 15 of this year. I will continue working to ensure that vital education programs receive sufficient funds for the remainder of the fiscal year. In fact, the Senate should consider the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, I intend to offer an amendment to increase funding for the Impact Aid Program. I hope to offer this amendment in the near future. In the meantime, we must pursue the goal of a balanced budget without wavering. The greatest single threat to education and a bright future for younger generations is runaway Federal spending. If we do not act, young people will be saddled with a much greater burden--the burgeoning $4.8 trillion debt. Without balanced budgets, interest on the Federal debt will continue to skyrocket, eventually squeezing out funding for legitimate programs such as title I or school lunches. The most important step the Federal Government can take to improve the opportunities for young people is to control Federal spending and eliminate the deficit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to this end. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take a moment to read a story in today's New York Times on proposed military actions by the People's Republic of China [PRC] against the Republic of China on Taiwan. I ask unanimous consent that this article appear in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. According to the story, the People's Republic of China has finished plans for a limited missile attack on Taiwan--an attack that could come following Taiwan's first Presidential election, which is scheduled for March 23. This revelation is the latest in a series of intimidating tactics that work to threaten Taiwan and destabilize East Asia. Between July 21 and July 26, the PRC conducted a series of ballistic missile test firings 85 miles off the coast of Taiwan. All the missiles were modern, mobile and nuclear capable. No country ever has held this level of field tests for nuclear capable missiles before. The results of that action were predictable--the stock market and the local currency in Taiwan plunged. These ballistic missile exercises resumed on August 15, and continued through the fall leading up to last December's elections in Taiwan for the 164-seat Legislature. Now comes word that the PRC has done more than just test its military capability. It has matched its hardware testing with military planning--a plan that calls for one ballistic missile to be launched each day for 30 days. As was the case with the missile tests, this recent report can be seen as a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming Presidential elections in Taiwan. There could be more to this story. I believe this is an attempt to intimidate the Clinton administration and test our Nation's resolve in the Taiwan Straits. The fact that the PRC has advanced a limited but sustained missile attack plan indicates that it believes the Clinton administration may do nothing to strengthen Taiwan's defenses or come to its aid in the event of an attack. It is not hard to understand why the PRC has come to this conclusion. The Clinton administration's policy with respect to the Taiwan-Mainland China issue is nothing short of confusing. The administration claims to be advancing a policy of deliberate ambiguity. For example, high level administration officials recently have been asked if the United States would come to Taiwan's defense in the event of an attack from the PRC. Their responses were consistently and ominously vague. The administration seems to believe that this ambiguity will be enough to deter Beijing. Today's report indicates that the exact opposite has occurred. I believe this policy of strategic ambiguity is wrong and has failed. It is not just dangerous for the people of Taiwan, it is potentially destabilizing for the entire East Asia region. It is an approach that clearly advances the PRC's interests and not our own. The administration's ambiguity policy has fueled the belief within the PRC that the United States will look the other way if PRC missiles are launched. Because of our ambiguity, the PRC believes that it can achieve its policy goals at the very least through intimidation and military posturing. Even if the PRC privately has no intention for a direct military confrontation against Taiwan, our ambiguity gives the PRC's military maneuvers greater credibility. It sends a signal of weakness. It fosters a belief that we can be pushed around by the PRC. It is a belief shared by many in Taiwan as well. Indeed, this ambiguity has troubled other Asian democracies in the region, compelling many--from Japan to the Philippines--to increase their defense budgets. Mr. President, as I said last August, in response to the PRC's first ballistic missile exercise, the United States is faced with three choices: First, we can do nothing, which appears to be the present course. I believe that is not in the national security interest of the United States. We must not allow Asia--a region of many thriving free market, democratic societies--to be dominated by an aggressive, nondemocratic power. Second, at the other extreme, we could intervene should the moment of conflict become imminent by interposing the United States Pacific fleet in the Taiwan straits. President Truman did so in 1950. This, again, is an extreme course and thus, should only be considered as a last resort. It is a course that could result in a direct military confrontation with the People's Republic of China. Finally, we can take what I believe is the wisest course, which is a clear and unambiguous demonstration of political and military support so that Asian democracies, including Taiwan can resist aggression. In short, a clear statement of U.S. policy goals and conditions in the region will promote peace and stability far better than the administration's deliberate vagueness. Both houses of Congress have come to this conclusion as well. Both the House and Senate versions of the State Department authorization bill contain identical language that would amend the Taiwan Relations Act [TRA] to supersede restrictions on United States arm sales to Taiwan. These restrictions were imposed in a August 1982 communique between the People's Republic of China and the United States. The amendments to the TRA represent a clear statement by Congress that the TRA requires the United States to provide Taiwan with the appropriate means to defend itself. This latter course achieves a number of important policy goals. First, it demonstrates to all democracies in Asia that the United States intends to work with them to ensure peace and stability in the region. Second, it demonstrates support for the continued political liberalization in Taiwan. Third, it sends a clear signal to the People's Republic of China that the United States will not accept the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland by force. This latter point is important. Since President Nixon's overtures to Communist China, this Nation has taken a one China policy. The advent of that policy, coupled with the passage of the TRA, was designed to foster a strong diplomatic and economic relationship with the People's Republic of China, while sending a clear signal that our Nation would defend against any forced reunification of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China. Reunification, if it is to occur, must be done through diplomatic means. I have said before on the Senate floor that our relationship with Taiwan is one of the ironies of history. Taiwan is a democracy and a growing economic power. The United States is Taiwan's primary foreign investor and trader. About 25 percent of Taiwan's exports go to United States markets. Many of Taiwan's business, academic and cultural leaders have studied in the United States. Yet, we do not have diplomatic ties with Taipei. We must not add tragedy to this irony. In the midst of all its posturing, the People's Republic of China's real intentions are not clear. Most experts are divided on the question of whether or not the People's Republic of China actually will put its military plans into action. We must leave nothing to chance. Regardless of the People's Republic of China's intentions or its goals, the Clinton Administration has to recognize that its current policy of strategic ambiguity has failed. The United States needs to maintain a positive, constructive relationship with both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. It is time we recognize that this triangular relationship can only be furthered if all sides of this triangle understood United States policy goals in the region. It is time this Nation make very clear that we will not ignore direct or indirect intimidation against an Asian democracy. It is time that the administration not engage in any sales of advanced telecommunications technology that could be used to further the People's Republic of China's military capability. It is time that the administration came to the conclusion that any military attack by the People's Republic of China against any Asian democracy directly threatens the crucial regional and national security interests of the United States. It is time that we reassert that any reunification of Taiwan with the mainland must not be done through military aggression. Mr. President, when Congress returns next month, it is my hope that Congress will take the opportunity to take a step toward a clear definition of United States policy in the region, and demonstrate its clear support for the democratic process underway in Taiwan. Given the strong support for amending the Taiwan Relations Act, we may want to consider making these changes through legislation independent of the State Department authorization bill, and to pass this legislation before the upcoming March 23 elections. That's one possible option. Wherever democracy may emerge, the United States should demonstrate its support for such efforts. I believe we should do so, hopefully with the administration's cooperation, but if necessary, without it. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Jan. 24, 1996] As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens (By Patrick E. Tyler) Beijing, January 23.--The Chinese leadership has sent unusually explicit warnings to the Clinton Administration that China has completed plans for a limited attack on Taiwan that could be mounted in the weeks after Taiwan's President, Lee Tenghui, wins the first democratic balloting for the presidency in March. The purpose of this saber-rattling is apparently to prod the United States to rein in Taiwan and President Lee, whose push for greater international recognition for the island of 21 million people, has been condemned here as a drive for independence. While no one familiar with the threats thinks China is on the verge of risking a catastrophic war against Taiwan, some China experts fear that the Taiwan issue has become such a test of national pride for Chinese leaders that the danger of war should be taken seriously. A senior American official said the Administration has ``no independent confirmation or even credible evidence'' that the Chinese are contemplating an attack, and spoke almost dismissively of the prospect. ``They can fire missiles, but Taiwan has some teeth of its own,'' the official said. ``And does China want to risk that and the international effects?'' The most pointed of the Chinese warnings was conveyed recently through a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Chas. W. Freeman Jr., who traveled to China this winter for discussions with senior Chinese officials. On Jan. 4, after returning to Washington, Mr. Freeman informed President Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, that the People's Liberation Army had prepared plans for a missile attack against Taiwan consisting of one conventional missile strike a day for 30 days. This warning followed similar statements relayed to Administration officials by John W. Lewis, a Stanford University political scientist who meets frequently with senior Chinese military figures here. These warnings do not mean that an attack on Taiwan is certain or imminent. Instead, a number of China specialists say that China, through ``credible preparations'' for an attack, hopes to intimidate the Taiwanese and to influence American policy toward Taiwan. The goal, these experts say, is to force Taiwan to abandon the campaign initiated by President Lee, including his effort to have Taiwan seated at the United Nations, and to end high-profile visits by President Lee to the United States and to other countries. If the threats fail to rein in Mr. Lee, however, a number of experts now express the view that China could resort to force, despite the enormous consequences for its economy and for political stability in Asia. Since last summer, when the White House allowed Mr. Lee to visit the United States, the Chinese leadership has escalated its attacks on the Taiwan leader, accusing him of seeking to ``split the motherland'' and undermine the ``one China'' policy that had been the bedrock of relations between Beijing and its estranged province since 1949. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeman, asked to comment on reports that the Chinese military has prepared plans for military action against Taiwan, said he was awaiting a response from his superiors. Last month, a senior ministry official said privately that China's obvious preparations for military action have been intended to head off an unwanted conflict. ``We have been trying to do all we can to avoid a scenario in which we are confronted in the end with no other option but a military one,'' the official said. He said that if China does not succeed in changing Taiwan's course, ``then I am afraid there is going to be a war.'' Mr. Freeman described the most recent warning during a meeting Mr. Lake had called with nongovernmental China specialists. Participants said that Mr. Freeman's presentation was arresting as he described being told by a Chinese official of the advanced state of military planning. Preparations for a missile attack on Taiwan, he said, and the target selection to carry it out, have been completed and await a final decision by the Politburo in Beijing. One of the most dramatic moments came when Mr. Freeman quoted a Chinese official as asserting that China could act militarily against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United States because American leaders ``care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan,'' a statement that Mr. Freeman characterized as an indirect threat by China to use nuclear weapons against the United States. An account of the White House meeting was provided by some of the participants. Mr. Freeman, reached by telephone, confirmed the gist of his remarks, reiterating that he believes that while ``Beijing clearly prefers negotiation to combat,'' there is a new sense of urgency in Beijing to end Taiwan's quest for ``independent international status.'' Mr. Freeman said that President's Lee's behavior ``in the weeks following his re-election will determine'' whether Beijing's Communist Party leaders feel they must act ``by direct military means'' to change his behavior. In recent months, Mr. Freeman said he has relayed a number of warnings to United States Government officials. ``I have quoted senior Chinese who told me'' that China ``would sacrifice `millions of men' and `entire cities' to assure the unity of China and who opined that the United States would not make comparable sacrifices.'' He also asserted that ``some in Beijing may be prepared to engage in nuclear blackmail against the U.S. to insure that Americans do not obstruct'' efforts by the People's Liberation Army ``to defend the principles of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and Chinese national unity.'' Some specialists at the meeting wondered if Mr. Freeman's presentation was too alarmist and suggested that parliamentary elections on Taiwan in December had resulted in losses for the ruling Nationalist Party and that President Lee appeared to be moderating his behavior to avoid a crisis. ``I am not alarmist at this point,'' said one specialist, who would not comment on the substance of the White House meeting. ``I don't think the evidence is developing in that direction.'' Other participants in the White House meeting, who said they would not violate the confidentiality pledge of the private session, separately expressed their concern that a potential military crisis is building in the Taiwan Strait. ``I think there is evidence to suggest that the Chinese are creating at least the option to apply military pressure to Taiwan if they feel that Taiwan is effectively moving out of China's orbit politically,'' said Kenneth Lieberthal, a China scholar at the University of Michigan and an informal adviser to the Administration. Mr. Lieberthal, who also has traveled to China in recent months, said Beijing has redeployed forces from other parts of the country to the coastal areas facing Taiwan and set up new command structures ``for various kinds of military action against Taiwan.'' ``They have done all this in a fashion they know Taiwan can monitor,'' he said, ``so as to become credible on the use of force.'' ``I believe there has been no decision to use military force'' he continued, ``and they recognize that it would be a policy failure for them to have to resort to force; but they have set up the option, they have communicated that in the most credible fashion and, I believe, the danger is that they would exercise it in certain circumstances.'' Several experts cited their concern that actions by Congress in the aftermath of President Lee's expected election could be a critical factor contributing to a military confrontation. If President Lee perceives that he has a strong base of support in the United States Congress and presses forward with his campaign to raise Taiwan's status, the risk of a military crisis is greater, they said. A chief concern is that Congress would seek to invite the Taiwan leader back to the United States as a gesture of American support. A Chinese military leader warned in November that such a step could have ``explosive'' results. In recent months, American statements on whether United States forces would come to the defense of Taiwan if it came under attack have been deliberately vague so as to deter Beijing through a posture of what the Pentagon calls ``strategic ambiguity.'' Some members of Congress assert that the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 includes an implicit pledge to defend Taiwan if attacked, but Administration officials say that, in the end, the decision would depend on the timing, pretext and nature of Chinese aggression.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Mount Rushmore, set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest, was created as a shrine to America's democracy. As a powerful American symbol, it is the jewel of the National Park System. Like all other units of the National Park System, Mount Rushmore was forced to close as part of the Government shutdown on December 15, 1995. However, thanks to the extraordinary dedication of one man, Mount Rushmore will remain illuminated for all to see during this dark period preceding fiscal responsibility. Mr. Art Oakes has graciously donated funds to ensure that the monument is able to remain lit for the more than 2 million visitors it receives each year. I share with all Americans the frustration that the Federal Government remains partially shut down. It is clear that Americans want a balanced budget and are willing to shoulder the burden to get it done. Mr. Oakes has shown us just how dedicated Americans are to a balanced budget. He is willing to give up his own hard-earned money to help Mount Rushmore through this shutdown crisis. He recognizes that Mount Rushmore is not just a park, but a symbol of what America represents-- both to other Americans and to tourists from overseas. Today, my wife Harriet and I would like to show our support for Mr. Oakes' efforts by donating $200 for continuing the nightly illumination of the Mount Rushmore monument. As many of you may know, Mount Rushmore was designed in 1927 by Gutzon Borglum, the son of Danish immigrants. The monument is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, Father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years later, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America. It represents the freedom of democracy, the melting pot country which offers the hope of a better life. Yet how can we continue to promise a better life if our President refuses to agree on a plan to balance the budget? We need a balanced budget. The American people want and deserve an end to shamelessly wasteful spending programs. Washington must operate under a budget where we live within our means--as people in my home State of South Dakota do every day. I feel passionately that we must give the dream of America-- represented by Mount Rushmore--back to our children. We can do that only if Bill Clinton agrees on a balanced budget. I want the National Park Service and the rest of the Federal Government back at work and fully functioning. This will happen if Bill Clinton agrees on a balanced budget. It is that simple. Bill Clinton should stop stalling and start leading. He should support our goal of a balanced budget.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important development in U.S. international aviation policy that occurred over the past year. I do not refer to any particular bilateral aviation agreement, although the number of new international air service opportunities created in 1995 was impressive and unprecedented. Instead, I wish to highlight the critical lesson we learned during the year and, hopefully, will continue to apply. Simply put, the best way for the United States to secure the strongest possible international aviation agreements is for our negotiators to make decisions based on economic analysis with the goal of maximizing benefits for the U.S. economy. In other words, international aviation decisions should turn on what is best for our country, not which carriers can generate the most political support. In 1995, Transportation Secretary Pena did an excellent job in this regard and the results speak for themselves. U.S. passenger and cargo carriers are capitalizing on a plethora of new international opportunities, while the increased competition brings consumers lower air fares, reduced shipping costs, and greater choices. This new focus on economic analysis, which I have advocated and enthusiastically support, is beneficial in several other regards. First, it has the practical effect of elevating U.S. international aviation policy to the status of a national trade issue. Second, it clearly defines the criteria the United States applies in assessing international aviation agreements and, by doing so, gives foreign nations a clearer understanding of what will and will not be acceptable to our negotiators. Finally, it prevents foreign nations from exploiting parochial disagreements between our carriers. Looking ahead to 1996, it is imperative that sound economic analysis continues to be the guiding principle in our international aviation negotiations. We face a number of significant challenges, most notably aviation policy with Japan and the United Kingdom. Also, we have a golden opportunity to obtain an open skies agreement with Germany which would be a catalyst for further liberalization of air service opportunities throughout Europe. Next year is shaping up to be a very important year for U.S. international aviation policy. Mr. President, let me emphasize that I believe the best bilateral aviation agreement for all parties involved is one which is open and permits market forces to determine what air service is provided in particular markets. Open skies agreements ensure consumers pay a competitive air fare, maximize consumer choice, and promote greater efficiencies for all carriers. Having made that important point, let me briefly turn to our relations with our three most important aviation trading partners overseas: Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany. As I have said in this body before, the major impediment to liberalizing aviation relations with the Government of Japan is the high operating costs of Japanese carriers. Due in large part to Japan's tightly regulated airline industry, Japanese carriers have operating costs significantly higher than United States competitors. Until the Government of Japan permits its carriers to become more competitive, there will be enormous pressure within Japan to continue to protect the Japanese air service market. The Government of Japan, along with other Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] members including the United States, recently committed to work toward the goal of free and open trade between all member nations. The so-called Bogor Declaration has the potential to have a major impact on United States-Japan aviation relations. Time will tell. One thing, however, is certain in United States-Japan aviation relations. The continued refusal of the Government of Japan to abide by the terms of United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement concerning beyond rights guaranteed to several of our carriers will undoubtedly complicate aviation relations between our two countries. Currently, the Government of Japan is refusing to honor United Airlines' right to provide service between Osaka and Seoul, Korea. Also, Federal Express Corporation is being wrongfully denied the right to provide service between Japan and China. In August, this body unanimously passed a resolution I sponsored calling on the Government of Japan to respect the beyond rights of our so-called 1952 carriers. Apparently that message has not yet been heard. Why have beyond rights become such a point of contention between the United States and Japan? From a long-term perspective, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that passenger and cargo service opportunities in the Asia-Pacific market beyond Japan are booming. For example, the International Air Transport Association [IATA] estimates by the year 2010 there will be around 288 million international passengers traveling within the intra-Asian air service market alone. Beyond rights from Japan are absolutely essential if U.S. carriers are to fully participate in the booming Asia-Pacific market. Turning to aviation relations with the United Kingdom, I continue to be very concerned about the extremely restrictive United States-United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement. Of all our international aviation agreements, I believe the most restrictive agreement--and therefore our most anticonsumer bilateral--is the so-called Bermuda II agreement with the United Kingdom. Ironically, in areas other than aviation, our trade relations with the British are generally based on free market principles. How lopsided is the United States-United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement? For starters, recent statistics indicate approximately 58 percent of the passenger traffic between the United States and the United Kingdom is carried on British carriers. Due to capacity controls and other restrictions, our carriers are forced to settle for 42 percent of that traffic. Moreover, according to a recent report prepared by the Commission of European Communities [EC], between 1984 and 1994 British carriers improved their market share vis-a-vis United States carriers by 21 percent. During the same period, a majority of carriers from other European Community countries lost market share. These statistics are particularly remarkable when one considers the fact that operating costs of European carriers generally are higher than those of U.S. carriers. Clearly, market factors are not controlling the distribution of air service opportunities between the United States and Britain. Mr. President, the principal problem in United States-United Kingdom international aviation relations continues to be access for our passenger carriers to London's Heathrow Airport. Access to Heathrow is particularly important since it is arguably the most important gateway airport in the world. It offers connecting service opportunities worldwide. In fact, approximately one-third of all passengers traveling to Heathrow connect to flights elsewhere. So why is access to Heathrow such a sticking point? The British argue the sole explanation is airport congestion. This may be part of the problem but, as I explained to this body several months ago, the British could create significant new take-off and landing opportunities at Heathrow simply by switching their runway operations to a more efficient operating mode. Perhaps another factor is yields on flights to Heathrow are generally 15 percent higher than those to London Gatwick Airport. Heathrow is the hub of British Airways, the most profitable airline in the world. Since October, phase 2 negotiations with the British have been suspended. I believe, however, we owe it to consumers on both sides of the Atlantic to continue to press for further liberalization of the United States-United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement. In that regard, I recently wrote Sir Colin Marshall, the chairman of British Airways, in response to his call for a ``bigger, bolder and braver approach'' to liberalizing air service opportunities between our two countries. I hope his enthusiasm is shared by the British Government. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my correspondence to Sir Colin Marshall to which I have referred be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, in contrast to the reluctance of the British to liberalize air service opportunities between our countries, a very important opportunity has presented itself in Germany. Based on a recent meeting with German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann, I believe the German Government is enthusiastic about promptly securing an open skies agreement with the United States. For this reason, I recently wrote Secretary Pena and Secretary Christopher urging them to intensify our negotiating efforts with Germany. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that correspondence be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. What would an open skies agreement with Germany mean for United States carriers? Such an agreement would produce significant direct and indirect benefits for our carriers. Let me explain. In terms of direct benefits, an open skies agreement with Germany would immediately produce new air service opportunities for our carriers between the United States and Germany. Equally important, German airports would provide well-situated gateway opportunities for our carriers to serve points beyond Germany such as the Middle East and the booming Asia-Pacific market. In that regard, the Germans recently have expanded airport capacity in Frankfurt and Munich, and a new international airport is planned in Berlin-Brandenburg. The potential of Germany as a gateway to the Asia-Pacific market is particularly intriguing. IATA estimates that by the year 2010, 10 percent of all international passengers traveling to the Asia-Pacific region annually will originate in Europe. Significantly, that is the same percentage of Asia-Pacific passengers IATA estimates will originate in North America. With respect to indirect benefits, an open skies agreement with Germany would be an important catalyst for further liberalization of air service opportunities throughout Europe. To put this point in perspective, an open skies agreement with Germany--in combination with liberalized air service agreements we already secured with the Netherlands in 1992 and with nine other European countries earlier this year--would mean nearly half of all passengers traveling between the United States and Europe would be flying to or from European countries with open skies regimes. Under such a scenario, tremendous competitive pressure would be brought to bear on European countries with whom we do not have liberalized aviation relations. The recent European Commission report on EC/U.S. aviation relations supports my assessment of the competitive impact of an open skies agreement with Germany. In its report, the EC astutely concluded that as a result of our successful initiatives to secure open skies agreements with some European countries, other European countries which resist liberalization ``will either have to follow the open skies policy, or risk being left behind in the competition and in market share.'' Mr. President, I believe the competitive impact of an open skies agreement with Germany would be particularly acute in the United Kingdom and France. As a result, such an agreement would have the significant collateral benefit of strengthening our hand in negotiations with both the British and the French. Let there be no mistake, both British and French airports are today competing with other European airports for international travelers and statistics clearly show the trend favors countries with an open skies policy. For instance, between 1992 and 1994, total passenger traffic between the United States and the Netherlands grew an astounding 56 percent. During the same period, total passenger traffic between the United States and the United Kingdom grew just 7.5 percent. What does this illustrate? It demonstrates that Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport is drawing passenger traffic originating in the United States away from United Kingdom airports, particularly Heathrow. The significance of this point is not fully appreciated until it is understood that currently passengers connecting onto British carriers at Heathrow alone account for more than 1 billion pounds a year in export earnings for the United Kingdom. Since this is such a critical point, let me share another example of market forces driving passengers to European countries that have an open skies agreement with the United States. Between 1992 and 1994, the number of passengers traveling from Germany to the United States was more or less stable. During that same period, the number of German passengers choosing to travel to the United States via Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport increased approximately 80 percent. The potential direct and indirect benefits of an open skies agreement with Germany are tremendous. As I have said, I believe Secretary Pena and Secretary Christopher should aggressively pursue this opportunity. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that the international aviation challenges we face in 1996 make it imperative that our negotiators continue to make decisions based on economic analysis with the goal of maximizing benefits for the United States economy. This was a successful formula in our 1995 international aviation negotiations. In 1996, it is critical we build on the lesson we learned over the past year. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, DC, November 21, 1995. Sir. Colin Marshall, Chairman, British Airways, Berkeley Square House, 6th Floor, London, England. Dear Sir Colin: With great interest I read your speech on United States/United Kingdom aviation relations delivered to the Wings Club in New York last week. Your call for a ``bigger, bolder and braver approach'' to liberalizing air service opportunities between our countries peaked the interest of many on this side of the Atlantic. I agree with you that no two nations are better suited to have a fully liberalized transatlantic air service market than the United States and the United Kingdom. To the extent nations worldwide have embraced the Bermuda I and Bermuda II agreements as a model for restricting air service opportunities in their markets, such an initiative would undoubtedly serve as a shining example for open aviation markets globally. As you correctly observed, consumers benefit most when markets are open and competition is robust. I hope we can continue the dialogue we started in London in July on how this vision can come to pass. In the meantime, please contact me or Michael Korens of my staff if I can be of assistance. Sincerely, Larry Pressler, Chairman. Exhibit 2 U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, DC, December 1, 1995. Hon. Federico Pena, Secretary, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Pena: As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am writing to urge you to intensify your efforts to obtain an open skies aviation agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany. I am aware that some progress has been made in this regard. I believe, however, the importance of this initiative calls for renewed vigor on the part of both the Department of Transportation and the Department of State. In addition to immediately creating additional new opportunities for our carriers in Germany, such an agreement would be enormously beneficial to our national interest in liberalizing air service markets throughout Europe. Simply put, an open skies agreement with Germany would bring considerable competitive pressure to bear on all European countries which currently restrict air service opportunities to our carriers. For instance, I believe an open skies agreement with Germany would contribute significantly to our efforts to liberalize our air service relationship with the United Kingdom. Moreover, such an agreement would provide invaluable leverage in securing a bilateral aviation agreement with France. Mr. Secretary, I am aware that you share my vision of an open skies agreement with Germany. As your efforts in that regard intensify, please contact me if I can be of assistance. Sincerely, Larry Pressler, Chairman.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased that we are considering H.R. 1358, legislation to authorize the conveyance of the National Marine Fisheries Service laboratory located in Gloucester, MA, to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This provision embodied in S. 1142, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Authorization Act of 1995, was reported by the Commerce Committee on August 10, 1995. The amendment that I have offered, cosponsored by Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry, adds several other noncontroversial sections of the reported NOAA bill to H.R. 1358. They include: the conveyance to NOAA of a pier located on the Charleston Navy Base in South Carolina; an authorization concerning the cleanup of NOAA property located on the Pribolof Islands of Alaska; and an authorization to construct and consolidate fisheries research facilities at Fort Johnson, South Carolina, and in Juneau, Alaska. Mr. President, the provisions in this bill address a number of noncontroversial issues that have been reviewed and adopted by the Commerce Committee with bipartisan support. I have brought them to the floor in this fashion simply to expedite their passage. I urge my colleagues to join me in the adoption of the amended bill.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senate will now consider the conference report to H.R. 2539, the ICC Termination Act. The Senate- passed version of this legislation is S. 1396, the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995, which I introduced on November 3, 1995. My bill was adopted by unanimous consent in the Senate on November 28th. Swift passage of this conference report is necessary to provide for an orderly closure of our Nation's oldest regulatory agency. As my colleagues know, this legislation was crafted in response to the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution which assumes the elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] and the fiscal year 1996 DOT appropriations bill, H.R. 2002, which provides no funding for the ICC after December 31, 1995. This means that just over 1 week from now, the ICC will close its doors forever. This conference agreement ensures the agency's sunset will be accomplished in a reasoned fashion and that certain core and vital functions will continue. The conference report authorizes the sunset of the ICC effective January 1, 1996. It also eliminates scores of obsolete ICC regulatory functions. Finally, it transfers residual functions partly to a newly established independent Surface Transportation Board within the Department of Transportation and partly to the Secretary of Transportation. Mr. President, this is historic legislation. The ICC is America's oldest independent regulatory agency. It was established in 1887--108 years ago. The ICC originally was created to protect shippers from the monopoly power of the railroad industry. Throughout subsequent years, the ICC's regulatory responsibilities were broadened and strengthened, and expanded to other modes. Today, the ICC has jurisdiction over the rail industry, certain pipelines, barge operators, bus lines, freight forwarders, household goods movers and some 60,000 ``for-hire'' motor carriers. During the past decade, a series of regulatory reform bills significantly deregulated the surface transportation industries, reducing the ICC's authority. Even with this considerable deregulation, however, the ICC continues to maintain a formidable regulatory presence. It determines policy through its rulemaking and adjudicative proceedings to ensure the effective administration of the Interstate Commerce Act, related statutes, and regulations. Clearly, the positive and necessary adjudicatory role of the ICC should not simply cease at the end of the year. This legislation will ensure such limited core functions continue. Mr. President, this conference report identifies which ICC functions can and should continue to be performed by a successor. While that premise is the report's central theme, the agreement also takes into account the fact that the new successor--a 3-member Surface Transportation Board--will have a very limited budget. Overall, it provides a reasoned approach designed to ensure continued protections for shippers against industry abuse--protections vitally important to shippers in places like my home State of South Dakota--while at the same time, assure continued economic efficiencies in our Nation's surface transportation system. As with any conference report, this is the result of compromise on the part of both the House and Senate. Throughout this process, however, I have been guided by the need to retain sufficient protections for shippers while reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on our Nation's rail and trucking industries. This legislation meets that objective. Mr. President, Senator Dole received a communication yesterday afternoon from Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena and Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stating the President would veto this legislation if we did not adopt a provision supported by rail labor imposing mandatory labor protection on small railroad mergers. In my view, the Clinton administration acted in an irresponsible fashion by threatening significant regulatory reform and protections for our shippers, farmers and ranchers. A veto would create a regulatory black hole on January 1. Statutory and regulatory requirements would remain on the books, but no Government agency or official would be in place to administer them. This legislation would maintain critical functions affecting the rail and trucking industries that protect small shippers and others from market abuse. A veto would be in complete disregard of the needs of farmers and small agricultural shippers who rely on adequate transportation service provided by these surface transportation industries. Therefore, with extreme reluctance we agreed to the administration's demand to modify the legislation to meet the completely unfounded concerns of rail labor. Thus, the conference report to H.R. 2539 is accompanied by a concurrent resolution which strips the class II/class III railroad merger provision agreed to in conference that created an option to merge such railroads under current law. The administration insisted we use language from the House-passed bill requiring that class II/III mergers proceed only under a special new rule which lowers labor protection from 6 years to 1 year, but which states collective bargaining agreements may not be avoided by allowing a shifting of work from a union carrier to a nonunion carrier. In my view, the language in the House-passed bill is drafted in such a way as to potentially create serious questions. Therefore, I can assure my colleagues we will be revisiting this issue in the next session of Congress. The language is designed to prevent a carrier from shifting work from unionized workers to nonunionized workers to avoid contracts as a part of a merger implementation. My point is the Board established in this legislation must use the preemption provisions of the legislation to review how laws should be accommodated to enable these mergers to occur in a timely fashion and in a way that best serves the public interest in continued and effective rail transportation. This revised section is not intended to create a special rule of law that allows labor unions to delay or veto mergers between class II and class III railroads. After all, they do not have such power in any other segment of American industry. The provisions of this bill must be read in totality. Again, Mr. President, I want my colleagues and the new Board to understand this change to the conference report is not intended to give rail labor a veto over the transportation needs of communities and shippers who would benefit by a merger between class II and class III railroads. Mr. President, on balance this conference report is the result of nearly a year's worth of bipartisan study, discussion and work. It represents a reasonable compromise. I want to thank the conferees, their staffs and the staff of the Commerce Committee for all their dedicated work and long hours in producing this final legislative package. The legislation before us will eliminate a host of outdated and unnecessary laws while ensuring continued protection for America's shippers. I urge its adoption.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment prior to Senate enactment of the conference report to H.R. 1655, the Intelligence Authorization bill to express my views regarding several provisions that I fear could weaken U.S. sanctions laws and weapons non- proliferation policy. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the leading security issue facing the United States and its allies. The President himself said so in a speech last year. There is a direct connection between the imposition of sanctions under U.S. and international laws and the volume of weapons trafficking. Strong enforcement of sanctions laws is a critical element of U.S. and international non-proliferation policy. The likelihood of punishment must be high. The commitment of our nation as the principle leader in international non-proliferation efforts must be taken seriously. Our resolve must be unquestioned. To do otherwise would send the worst signal, particularly to terrorist states and rogue groups. In that kind of environment, the very security of the United States may be in question. It is for that reason that I must express my concerns with H.R. 1655, and more to the point, section 303 of the bill, which would create a new Title IX in the National Security Act. This new title would give the President unprecedented authority to stay the imposition of sanctions related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, as well as other advanced conventional, chemical or biological weapons. This waiver authority could be exercised if the President determines that the imposition of sanctions ``would seriously risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation directly related to the activities giving rise to the sanction or an intelligence source or method directly related to the activities giving rise to the sanction.'' I am very concerned that with this provision, diplomatic and political pressure may make it impossible for the United States to do the right thing and sanction major offenders. For the last several years, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems of such weapons appears to be intensifying. All this year, we have heard reports that the People's Republic of China has engaged in the proliferation of ballistic missile systems to Pakistan and possibly even Iran--activities that would be sanctionable under the Missile Technology Control Regime, MTCR. China also is reported to be actively involved in the expansion of Pakistan's nuclear program, as well as Iran's drive for nuclear technology. The fact that all of this reported activity can occur without as much as a threat of sanctions from the United States has led me to believe that we may need to make our sanctions laws tougher. In fact, I am the author of a law that gives the President presumptive authority to impose sanctions against parties that export questionable materials to terrorist countries. This law, which went into effect last year, was designed to give the President the ability to impose sanctions in cases where he simply had reason to believe that weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery had fallen in the hands of terrorist countries. He need not wait for actual proof. If he waited, it may be too late. Equally important, the law compels the sanctioned country to come forward to demonstrate that no violation actually took place. This law, in short, broadens the President's authority to enforce non-proliferation policy. The conference report to H.R. 1655 goes in the opposite direction--it broadens the President's authority to weaken non-proliferation policy. Mr. President, I recognize that the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction and their related delivery systems takes place out of sight. I also very much respect that fact that intelligence sources and methods designed to monitor a nation's weapons activities are almost always, if not entirely, at risk of discovery. The consequences of such discovery certainly are life-threatening to say the least. Virtually all prosecutions and sanctions are developed from intelligence sources and methods. Therefore, I am very concerned that the conference report would provide the President with a very tempting waiver option--an option that would give the President the opportunity to make a political decision to forego prosecution or to avoid imposition of sanctions, but base it on ``sources and methods.'' In other words, the President would have the opportunity to place political expediency or other factors above our nation's non-proliferation laws. I believe that kind of discretion is a serious mistake. I raised these concerns to the distinguished Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Specter. I know a number of my colleagues in the House and the Senate expressed similar views. Both the final bill language and the joint explanatory statement of the conference committee attempt to address these concerns. First, the conferees required that Title IX would be in effect for just one year. This limitation was placed to afford the Congress the opportunity to monitor closely the use of this new authority. Second, the conferees make clear that this authority is to be used for its stated purpose--to preserve sources and methods, as well as ongoing criminal investigations when seriously at risk--and ``not as a pretext for some other reason not to impose sanctions such as economic or foreign policy reasons.'' I appreciate the effort made by the conferees to restrict the President's ability to exercise this waiver authority to the purposes stated in the legislation. I also appreciate the conferees' insistence that this provision only be in effect for one year. Despite these efforts, I still believe we are setting a dangerous precedent and opening a Pandora's box that could be difficult to close. Consider two facts: first, intelligence sources and methods are virtually the only means that allow a President to proceed with sanctions; and second, only the President is in the best position to determine whether or not a source or method is at risk if sanctions are imposed. These facts lead this senator to conclude that the new Title IX is based on a flawed premise--that Congress has the ability to ensure that the President will not abuse this new discretionary authority to waive sanctions. I say it is flawed because only the President is in a position to determine whether or not a source or method is at risk. This risk determination is subjective--a judgement call. And, again, given that the basis for sanctions comes from sources and methods, the President is given the latitude to consider numerous economic, political or foreign policy implications, but on paper base his conclusion on sources and methods. What methods and resources do we in Congress have to second guess the President should he make a ``sources and methods'' risk determination? Would the Congress even want to second guess the President, given the fact that doing so could be even more dangerous to that intelligence source or method? The fact is our sources and methods are almost always at risk, to say the least, but until today, our priority always has been the enforcement of our non-proliferation laws. I am hopeful that in the next year, Congress will closely monitor the President's use of this waiver authority. I urge my colleagues not just to consider the President's ability to comply with the conditions set by the conferees, but also our own ability to ensure that these conditions are in fact followed by the President. As the world's sole superpower, all nations concerned with the threat of nuclear proliferation look to the United States to lead by example. Vigorous U.S. enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation laws and agreements is crucial to the security of all people. I am very concerned that the conference report sets a bad precedent that could undermine vigorous enforcement in the year ahead, and even beyond if Congress allows the law to continue. I intend to follow this matter very closely in the year ahead. It is my hope that tough, consistent enforcement of our non-proliferation laws will not be sacrificed.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I am pleased that an agreement has been reached to enable S. 1340 to pass the Senate. I have worked closely with Majority Leader Dole and Minority Leader Daschle on this issue that is vitally important to livestock producers in South Dakota and the Nation. This issue has been a troubling one for producers in South Dakota for more than a year now. Frankly, I still say that the U.S. Department of Agriculture can take immediate action today and not have to wait for this legislation to become law. Yesterday, I called Secretary Glickman to discuss this with him. He told me he was watching Senate action on this issue and would appoint a Commission. Madam President, now is the time to act. Twice before I have urged the Secretary to take this action. I ask unanimous consent that two letters on this subject be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. This past August I chaired a field hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in my home state of South Dakota. It was the first time that a Commerce Committee hearing had been held in South Dakota and the turnout was tremendous. Hundreds of people attended the hearing and witness after witness clearly demonstrated the importance of this issue and the need for action is needed because extremely low prices for fed cattle and calves deeply hurt South Dakota ranchers. Further, the impact of this will be felt beyond our ranches. It affects our rural communities, as well as larger towns and cities. With ranchers having fewer dollars to spend, small businesses in our small towns could be put in jeopardy. What is of great concern to producers is the fact that while cattle prices are nearing, or at record lows, retail prices have not shown any significant drop. This represents a combination punch to South Dakota ranchers --as producers, they are getting fewer dollars for their livestock; yet, as consumers, ranchers--armed with fewer dollars--are forced to pay more to put their own product on the dinner table. To say this is a concern of my fellow South Dakotans is a gross understatement. Thousands of South Dakotans have written, called, or visited with me on this. They rightly are concerned about the impact of the current situation on their ability to run their farms and businesses and provide for their families. I would like to commend the South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture, Dean Anderson, for being a national leader on this issue. Dean was responsible for bringing this matter before the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture who have called for an investigation that we are asking for in this bill. I am proud of Secretary Anderson's leadership on this matter. In summary, I am pleased the Senate is taking action in support of South Dakota ranchers. However, this action could get delayed in the other body. Therefore, I ask once again that Secretary Glickman immediately appoint a Commission on this subject. Either way, I will not rest until this Government finally addresses this disturbing problem facing our livestock producers. Exhibit No. 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 17, 1995. Hon. Dan Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to ask you to appoint a commission to make recommendations on action needed to assure competitive markets in the livestock industry. As you well know Mr. Secretary, for some time now there has been great concern among livestock producers about packer concentration in the marketing of livestock. In 1992, Congress appropriated $500,000 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue a report on this very subject. That report is due shortly. However, that report only contains data through 1993. Since 1993, retail price spreads and the prices that producers have received for their livestock do not even compare with the 1992 or 1993 numbers. The Congress continues to be concerned on this subject. In August, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held a field hearing in Huron, South Dakota, on this matter. The high attendance and strong concern by South Dakota ranchers was overwhelming and universal. Previously, I requested that you appoint an independent counsel to recommend an action plan to remedy problems livestock producers are experiencing due to captive supplies by livestock packers. Legislation is expected to be introduced shortly to establish a Presidential Commission on this matter. Mr. Secretary, you have the authority to establish a commission immediately and begin to find solutions to this problem. You do not need to wait for legislation. An independent review would ensure a completely unbiased report for an appropriate action plan. I urge your prompt attention to this request and look forward to working with you to resolve this problem. Sincerely, Larry Pressler, United States Senator.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, on Monday, December 18, my good friend from New York, Senator D'Amato and I, sent a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher, urging the Clinton Administration to reconsider its decision to sell 120 Army tactical missile systems [ATACMs] to the government of Turkey. I was troubled to learn last night that the Clinton Administration intends to proceed with the sale. This transfer is ill-advised, to say the least. I strongly urge the Administration to reconsider its decision or at the very least, place clear, indisputable restrictions on deployment and use of these weapons. This transfer does not make sense. Generally, it is disturbing because the Turkish government has used U.S. and NATO military equipment repeatedly in the past to advance policy and military objectives that are clearly not in our best interests. As all of us are well aware, the Turkish government in 1974 used NATO military equipment when it invaded the island of Cyprus. More than two decades later, Cyprus remains divided, with one side subjected to an occupation force of 35,000 Turkish troops. I have held a great interest in resolving the Cyprus dispute. This is a matter of strong, bipartisan interest. The Clinton Administration has stated that it intends to make a serious effort to reunite Cyprus. Frankly, I cannot see how the proposed missile sale helps our nation achieve this goal. I believe the opposite is true, and that is very unfortunate. I also am concerned about American made military equipment being used to prolong the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It has been documented that Turkey has transferred U.S. and NATO military hardware to the Azeris, who have made use of this equipment against civilian populations in the besieged Nagorno-Karabagh region. It is my understanding that it is contrary to U.S. policy for a buyer of U.S.- made military equipment to transfer such equipment to a third party. What assurances do we have from Turkey that it intends to abide by this policy? Finally, I am concerned that this missile sale could serve to prolong continued violence between the Turkish Army and the Kurds. For more than a decade the Turkish government has waged a brutal war against the Kurdish people. Human rights watch [HRW] estimated that the conflict has resulted in the death of 19,000 Kurds, including 2,000 civilians, and the destruction of 2,000 villages. More than 2 million Kurds have been forced from their homes. HRW also reported that in 29 incidents from 1992 and 1995, the Turkish Army used U.S.-supplied fighter-bombers and helicopters to attack civilian villages and other targets. Further, U.S. and NATO- supplied small arms and armored personnel carriers have been used in a counter-insurgency campaign against thousands of Kurdish villages. Clearly, these instances stretching over a period of more than two decades are contrary to our nation's interests as well as our own moral sensibility. In the face of this evidence, the President now wishes to supply the Turkish Army with 120 ATACMs. What exactly are ATACMs? Basically, the U.S. Army handbook describes the ATACM as a conventional surface-to-surface ballistic missile launched from a M270 launcher. Each missile has a warhead that carries a combined payload of 950 small cluster bomblets, which can spray shrapnel over a large area. The practical use of an ATACM does not leave much to the imagination. This kind of missile can be used to disable numerous human and material targets at once and very quickly. Kurdish villages and organized teams of Kurdish dissidents easily could be targets for ballistic missile attack. This would be a terrible tragedy. The Administration has argued that these missiles are a necessary deterrent against two potential aggressors along Turkey's borders--Iran and Iraq. I believe these missiles are far from necessary. Consider the following: Turkey is an ally of the United States. It is a member of NATO. The Turkish military's Incrylik air base is a launching point for our enforcement of the no-fly zone over Northern Iraq. And Turkey will participate in the enforcement of the Dayton peace accord in Bosnia. I would think that the strategic importance of Turkey to the United States and Europe is enough to deter any foolish military action by either Iran or Iraq. If our nation can mobilize the world to expel Iraq from the tiny nation of Kuwait, imagine our response if Iraq or Iran even made a hostile gesture toward Turkey. Clearly, the Administration's ``deterrent" argument to justify the missile sale is hollow at best. Indeed, I can find no credible political, economic or strategic cause that is furthered by the sale of the ATACMs to Turkey. Madam President, just last month, Congress took a strong stand against Turkish aggression in the region by voting to cap US economic support funds for Turkey. This is an important step. My friend from New York, Senator D'Amato, and I are sponsors of legislation that would take even tougher action. It is my hope that we in Congress can all agree that there must be an added price for US economic and military assistance to our allies, particularly our NATO allies, and that price is morally responsible use of U.S. assistance. I do not see how the Administration's missile sale fits even that basic standard. We have seen a number of different initiatives designed to bring peace to troubled regions, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and the Middle East. However, the Administration needs to demonstrate our nation's strong interest in bringing the violence in Kurdistan and Nagorno-Karabagh to an end. The sale of 120 ATACMs moves our nation in the wrong direction and could further fuel the war and destruction in both regions. Though the Administration has announced it intends to pursue the sale, I make one last plea to urge it to reconsider its decision. If the Administration intends to complete the sale, I would urge at the very least that it impose a few basic conditions. In short, if these missiles are for national self-defense, the sale should be conditioned solely for that purpose. More to the point, the missiles should not be placed so as to pose a threat to the people of Greece and Cyprus. Further, the Turkish government should promise that none of the missiles be transferred to Azerbaijan. And finally, the missiles should not be used to prolong the violence in Kurdistan. The Clinton Administration at the very least should insist on these conditions at the very least. The Clinton Administration also should make clear that failure to abide by these conditions could undermine future economic and military assistance. Again I believe this sale to be bad policy. It is a mistake. However, if the Administration intends to pursue this sale, it should at the very least make clear that this nation insists on this equipment being strictly limited to self-defense. If we are going to be forced swallow this very bitter bill, the Administration should try to make it less bitter. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter to Secretary Christopher be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would require the Department of Interior to report to Congress within 30 days on the availability of unobligated tribal school construction funds. These are funds that were appropriated for construction in a previous fiscal year, but never spent. Tribal schools have a deplorable backlog of needed construction and repairs. Indian children continue to attend school in dilapidated and even condemned buildings despite congressional efforts to correct the problems over the last several decades. Many in Congress are interested in finding ways to finance the cost of these needed improvements in the face of limited Federal resources. However, the first step is to determine and account for funds previously appropriated. This accounting is necessary in order to consider financing options. I sincerely regret that it takes legislation to request an accounting of these unobligated funds. The distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator McCain, and I repeatedly have asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] for a report, but the BIA has refused to provide this information. I sincerely hope that this refusal is not due to mismanagement of this particular BIA account. Therefore, in light of the BIA's failure to accurately account for its own budget, legislation is necessary. I look forward to hearing from the BIA on this matter and will work with my colleagues on this important issue. The bottom-line goal is to provide native American children a positive, healthy, and safe environment to learn. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would require the Department of Interior to report to Congress within 30 days on the availability of unobligated tribal school construction funds. These are funds that were appropriated for construction in a previous fiscal year, but never spent. Tribal schools have a deplorable backlog of needed construction and repairs. Indian children continue to attend school in dilapidated and even condemned buildings despite congressional efforts to correct the problems over the last several decades. Many in Congress are interested in finding ways to finance the cost of these needed improvements in the face of limited Federal resources. However, the first step is to determine and account for funds previously appropriated. This accounting is necessary in order to consider financing options. I sincerely regret that it takes legislation to request an accounting of these unobligated funds. The distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator McCain, and I repeatedly have asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] for a report, but the BIA has refused to provide this information. I sincerely hope that this refusal is not due to mismanagement of this particular BIA account. Therefore, in light of the BIA's failure to accurately account for its own budget, legislation is necessary. I look forward to hearing from the BIA on this matter and will work with my colleagues on this important issue. The bottom-line goal is to provide native American children a positive, healthy, and safe environment to learn. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution in opposition to the Clinton administration's decision to send troops to Bosnia as part of the NATO Implementation Force, known as IFOR. I commend the Senators from Texas and Oklahoma and the other cosponsors of this resolution for their efforts in bringing it to the Senate floor. The resolution is brief, simple and to the point. It states: ``Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy United States military ground forces into the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its associated annexes.'' Further, the resolution also states: ``Congress strongly supports the United States military personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its associated annexes.'' That is it. This resolution is the people's resolution, because it accurately reflects the views of the vast majority of the American people. Most Americans oppose sending our brave soldiers to Bosnia. And far more agree that, if the President insists on deployment, we must stand by our troops. Though we may disagree with our President, we must not do so in a way that would put the lives of American soldiers in Bosnia needlessly at risk. Mr. President, debate on the use of United States troops should not be put in terms of whether we support a peace agreement in Bosnia. We all want peace. No one disagrees with that. Few deserve the chance for peace and stability more than the families in Bosnia and Herzegovina. What we have witnessed in the Balkans these past few years has been nothing less than tragic. To his credit, the President has tried to achieve a negotiated peace framework. However, I am afraid that this peace agreement is fatally flawed in several respects. First, a large number of those responsible for the atrocities--a level of mass slaughter unequaled since Hitler and Stalin--likely will go unpunished. Second, the agreement assumes continued cooperation between the Croatia and Bosnian Moslem leadership. That is a dangerous assumption. The fact is the Bosnian Moslems and the Croats often have been on opposing sides of this regional conflict. In fact, 2 years ago, Croat forces were launching attacks on Moslems in Mostar and the surrounding townships. This peace agreement and the President's plan to enforce it fly in the face of history that dates back far longer than the last few years. The recent atrocities we have witnessed are an intensification of a conflict that dates back at least five centuries. This is a regional civil war. This is a civil war rooted in ethnic and religious differences. This is a civil war older than our own country. And at no time in our history has this civil war represented a national security threat to the United States. It was not a national security threat then. It is not one now. Finally, Mr. President, this is a flawed agreement because it does not have the support of many in the affected regions. In the last few weeks, Bosnian Serbs in Sarajevo have made it very clear they will not support this agreement and allow for Moslem control of Sarajevo. The resolve of the rank and file in Sarajevo to stand their ground brings images and lessons to mind--of Beirut, Lebanon; Mogadishu, Somalia; and from my personal experience, of countless towns and villages in Vietnam. Mr. President, our troops represent the finest, best trained military force on the planet. The fact is 20,000 of our finest soldiers cannot erase 500 years of hatred and bloodshed. Peace will not come from the resolve of American soldiers. Peace must come and must last from the resolve of the Bosnians, the Croats, and the Serbians to say and believe that more than five centuries of conflict is enough. In fact, the injection of foreign troops into a civil war would only work to prolong the conflict in the long term. Our own Civil War would have lasted far longer and been far more devastating had Europe intervened. That was why President Lincoln worked tirelessly to prevent Europe's involvement. Though we will never know for certain, I believe Lincoln's efforts and Europe's decision not to intervene ultimately saved lives--American and European. Similarly, in the long run, I believe we could save more lives--American and European--by pursuing other means to achieve a lasting peace other than the limited deployment of IFOR. Mr. President, I know what it is like to serve my country in a mission that did not have the clear support of the American people. I am a Vietnam veteran, a former second lieutenant in the United States Army. I am proud to have served my country in Vietnam. However, it was my hope that this Nation learned a few lessons--lessons that would make clear that sending troops to Bosnia is a serious mistake. It is my hope that the President will reconsider his decision to deploy United States troops to Bosnia. However, my fondest wishes and current reality are worlds apart. The President has demonstrated his resolve to defy the wishes of the American people and the clear history of the region and put our troops in harm's way. That being the case, and once the troops are deployed, it is my hope that we in Congress will not do anything to jeopardize the safety of our troops. However, that should not deter us from closely monitoring the situation in Bosnia, just as we did in Somalia, and just as we did in Haiti. I intend to do so. The people of South Dakota, especially the families of the soldiers who may be deployed there, deserve no less. Finally, my thoughts and prayers are with the brave young men and women who have been called to serve in or in support of the Bosnia mission, as well as their families and friends. I know this is a very difficult time. I know what it is like to tell family members that I will be serving my country in a conflict half a world away. And now I know what it is like to learn that a member of my own family has been called to serve. My nephew Steve Pressler, son of my brother Dan and his wife Marcia, has been called to duty as part of an eight-member South Dakota National Guard unit that has been put on alert. It truly brings the matter home, both for my family and the other families with members who have been called to duty. Again, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison resolution--the people's resolution. The President needs to understand that, as the people's representatives, we support the well-being of our troops, but we cannot support a policy that puts the lives of our troops on the line without a clear national security purpose. The policy is wrong. Our troops should not go.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to commend the hardworking people of South Dakota for making Sioux Falls--South Dakota's largest metropolitan area--the sixth most successful entrepreneurial spot in the country. I am proud to say the pioneer spirit still thrives in South Dakota. Mr. President, it is not Fortune 500 companies alone that form our country's economic base. Rather, the hard work and dedication of self- employed entrepreneurs and small business owners are responsible for much of our Nation's economic activity. The business of South Dakota is small business, from the family farm to the corner drug store. I am proud to represent such an ambitious and successful constituency-- people who are willing to work hard in order to get ahead. Some South Dakota small businesses have grown to become regional and national success stories. A prime example of entrepreneurial spirit in action is Gateway 2000, a mail order personal computer (PC) corporation started 10 years ago in a farmhouse. Because of South Dakota's excellent business climate and a solid work ethic, Gateway 2000 has become the tri-state metropolitan area's second largest employer and the largest mail-order PC vendor in the United States. Gateway 2000 is a testimonial to what can be achieved with a vision and a strong work ethic. When I travel home to South Dakota, I always marvel at the continued development my home State has undergone. Entrepreneurial South Dakotans have helped South Dakota evolve into a diverse industrial breadbasket. Now, with the designation of Sioux Falls, SD, as an international port- of-entry, the success of South Dakota will extend to new markets around the world. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent article from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader which details South Dakota's economic boom. I am sure all who read it will be impressed with South Dakota's recent surge of economic development.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I would like to say that I feel very strongly that the basic decision to send troops to Bosnia, under the circumstances, is a mistake. I voted today for the Hutchison resolution, and I did so as a Vietnam veteran, as one who served in the Army in Vietnam. I feel strongly that we have made a mistake by sending troops to Bosnia. Certainly, all of us want our troops to be well cared for and well equipped, but I oppose the basic decision to send troops there. Indeed, from my State, in the National Guard callup, 1 of 8 people who have been called up so far, probably to go to Bosnia, is a nephew of mine. And he will willingly serve his country, just as I did. But I disagree with the basic decision to send troops there and have so voted today. Those were not easy votes, and I feel that the last vote was more or less papering over the whole decision, so I voted against that resolution. I feel very strongly, and my constituents feel, that we are engaging in an adventure from which we will not be able to get out of easy, and if we do get out of it, it will be with a large foreign aid bill. There has been fighting in that country since the 15th century, and it has continued largely because foreign armies have come every time they have had a civil war, and it has never been resolved. That will probably be the case again. So, Madam President, I wish to state that, certainly, we all care a great deal for our troops. One of them is going to be my nephew. I make my decision based on experience as a lieutenant in the Army in Vietnam. I just do not think this will work. That is the reason I voted as I did today.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to commend an outstanding South Dakota writer, Lawrence Brown of Buffalo, SD. Lawrence is a South Dakotan who has put his appreciation for his State down on paper. His book, ``Buffalo Commons Memoirs,'' brings to light life on the upper plains and the reasons why life in America's heartland is so rewarding. As I read ``Buffalo Commons Memoirs,'' I was reminded of my own experience growing up on a farm in Humboldt, SD. As some of my colleagues know, life on a farm is not always easy. Early mornings and late nights during planting and harvest seasons come with the territory. However, Lawrence Brown reminds us correctly that hard work builds character. Although Lawrence grew up on the farm at an earlier time, I am pleased to note the same solid Midwestern work ethic has been passed on to today's young South Dakotans. Mr. President, Lawrence writes in his chronicles that he chose to spend his life in a small city in western South Dakota. Lawrence, like so many South Dakotans, particularly new residents who have moved from other States, has realized that South Dakotans recognize the important things in life--the values of family, friends and community. Mr. President, I am proud to represent people such as Lawrence Brown-- people who appreciate the things in life that matter most, and live each day to its very fullest. I would like to share an excerpt from Lawrence Brown's book with my colleagues. I am confident that they, too, will enjoy Lawrence's entertaining work. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a section from ``Buffalo Commons Memoirs.''

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the legal profession in my home State of South Dakota has lost a great counsel. Bill Sahr, a long-time friend and supporter, passed away on Monday. I will miss him. For many years, Bill headed the State Bar of South Dakota. In that capacity, he epitomized the very best of the legal profession in our State. An indefatigable worker on behalf of the legal community, Bill also served the people of our State and Nation with great distinction. Bill's public service career began with a memorable tour of duty with the U.S. Army during World War II. During the war, he was with the troops at the Battle of the Bulge, later receiving four battle stars along with his European Medal. Beginning his legal career in our State's capital, Pieree, Bill later served two terms as State's attorney from Hughes County. In 1962, Bill began walking the two blocks from the lovely historic home he shared with his wife Carla and their children to the State capitol, where he served two terms as a legislator. His legal background, coupled with his legislative experience, made Bill a perfect candidate to head the State Bar of South Dakota. Bill played a major role in shaping and bringing into being South Dakota's present-day legal system. It is hard to imagine anyone who had more influence on the legal system and the profession of law in our State than Bill Sahr. In addition to being a great professional, Bill Sahr was a great individual. He had a quiet demeanor coupled with a keen intellect and sharp wit. You could count on his word. Bill's engaging smile made you want to stay and listen to him while he worked his quiet, highly effective powers of persuasion upon you. During his threescore and eleven years on this earth, Bill Sahr accomplished the work of several lifetimes for the profession he loved and the people of South Dakota. Bill Sahr--a legal legend of our State--will be truly missed. I ask unanimous consent that the obituary for Bill Sahr from the December 5, 1995, edition of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to address briefly a few provisions in H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, that relate to funding of the United Nations. First, I want to compliment the fine work of the new subcommittee chairman, the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, for his great work on this bill. As all of us know, our friend from New Hampshire had to assume command, so to speak, while this bill was in flight. And as all of us know, this is a very important and complicated piece of legislation. The Senator from New Hampshire took command and has produced a good bill that is worthy of our support. One provision worth noting is that which would limit U.S. contributions to the United Nations. Under the conference report, 20 percent of the funds appropriated for our regular budget assessed contribution to the United Nations would be withheld until a certification is made by the President to the Congress that the United Nations has established an independent office of inspector general as defined in section 401(b) of Public Law 103-236--the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1994. This withholding requirement should sound familiar to my colleagues. The provision in the conference report extends a withholding requirement I offered as an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act during Senate consideration in 1994. The reason why I took this step nearly two years ago was because of rampant waste, fraud, abuse, and outright thievery at the United Nations. For years, I have identified specific examples of budgetary mismanagement and wasteful practices at the United Nations. I believed that the solution to these practices was the same solution the federal government has adopted to ensure American taxpayer funds are well- spent: an independent inspector general. Specifically, what was needed then and now is an office or mechanism that can conduct budgetary audits; recommend policies for efficient and effective U.N. management; investigate and detect budgetary waste, fraud and abuse; and provide an enforcement mechanism that would enable the Secretary General, or even the so-called inspector general, to take corrective action. The withholding requirement was put in place for two reasons: First, it was important to demonstrate that the U.S. Government was very serious about putting an end to U.N. fiscal mismanagement. As the single largest contributor to the United Nations, I believed that it was time to use this leverage to achieve real reform at the United Nations. Second, I believed that American taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize waste, fraud, and abuse. Frankly, I had sought a higher withholding amount--50 percent--to achieve this goal, but twenty percent was the highest I could get through what was then a Senate controlled by the Democrats. Since the adoption of this withholding provision, U.N. reform has become a more important and open topic of discussion in the halls of the United Nations, and the Clinton administration. During the 50th anniversary celebration of the United Nations, the President devoted much of his address to U.N. management reform. The United Nations has appointed a so-called inspector general that released a report detailing vast mismanagement within the United Nations, particularly in the area of peacekeeping activities. All this is good news. A few years ago, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, in his capacity as Undersecretary General for Management, produced a similar report, and the United Nations did everything it could to hide it from public view. So the fact that the United Nations has produced a report detailing its own mismanagement is an important development. The United Nations has been a mismanagement addict, and it has taken the vital first step to reform its addiction: recognition. The United Nations recognizes it has a serious mismanagement problem and it now is willing to admit it. It is about time. However, one more crucial step needs to be taken: action. The U.N. must take action to correct its addiction, and that is why the withholding requirement in the conference report before us today is so important. By my interpretation of section 401(b) of Public Law 103- 236, the President would be unable to make this certification because of the requirement in that section that the United Nations has procedures in place designed to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the inspector general. In short, there must be enforcement of management reform, not simply recognition or discussion of the need for it. That is why the withholding requirement in the conference report before us is needed. We have made progress, but we have yet to achieve our ultimate goal: real reform within the United Nations. For that reason, we must stay the course. We must continue to insist on a withholding of taxpayer dollars until the United Nations has cleaned up its act. Mr. President, I intend to speak in more detail on this matter in the near future, particularly on the subject of our contributions to the United Nations, and additional reforms that must be put in place. In the meantime, I am pleased that the conference report maintains our commitment to U.N. reform. I commend my friend from New Hampshire for his efforts to make sure this provision was included in the final bill. I look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to ensure our U.N. management reform goals are met.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the champions of the 1995 South Dakota High School Football Playoffs. The playoffs were held at the ``Dakota Dome'' on the campus of the University of South Dakota in Vermillion on Friday, November 3, and Saturday, November 4. In class 11AA, the Yankton Bucks won the championship for the second year in a row and the fourth time in school history. First year coach Jim Miner led the Bucks. Quarterback Mason Mehrman was named the game's Most Valuable Player (MVP). The Vermillion Tanagers capped an undefeated season by claiming the class 11A crown. The Tanagers, who also won a State title for the fourth time in school history, are coached by Gary Culver. Running back Vince Roche was named the game's MVP. The Cavaliers of Bon Homme County High School, located in Tyndall, South Dakota, won the class 11B championship for the second year in a row. The Cavaliers extended their consecutive winning streak to an impressive 21 games. The Cavaliers are coached by Russ Morrell. Running back Josh Ranek was named the game's MVP. In class 9A, the Wakonda-Gayville-Volin Panthers won their first State title. The Panthers, who finished the season undefeated, are coached by Glen Ekeren. Quarterback Dan Freng was named the game's MVP. The Wildcats of Grant-Deuel County High School, located in Revillo, SD, captured their first ever class 9B championship. Coach Chad Gusso led the Panthers. Running back Heath Boe was named the game's MVP. I congratulate all the coaches, the players, and the parents of these five schools, as well as all the South Dakota schools that competed in this year's playoffs. In the spirit of competition, they have demonstrated the hard work, commitment, and teamwork that it takes to be champions. They all are to be commended for continuing such a great football tradition in South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rosters of each championship team be included in the Congressional Record at this time.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Lady Clio Crawford was a personal friend of mine. I recall many great conversations with her when I was a student at Oxford. I remember in particular a wonderful dinner at Elizabeth's Restaurant, at which we discussed all of Africa and the problems of the emerging states of the continent. Having spent much of her life there, she was an expert on Africa. Later, when I was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army in Vietnam, serving in the Mekong Delta, she sent me some audio tapes on which she spoke to me, expressed concern about my safety, and wished me well. Her son, Tony, was a good friend of mine at Oxford University. Lady Clio Crawford passed away in Geneva, Switzerland, on October 25, 1995, after a short illness. Lady Clio Crawford was born Clio Colocotronis on February 2, 1925. Her mother came from the island of Crete and her father from the Peloponnese. Her family were direct descendants of Gen. Theodore Colocotronis, who was instrumental in liberating Greece from Turkish occupation 150 years ago, and whose statue and name adorn present-day Athens. At the age of 17, Clio Colocotronis, whose family were living in Alexandria, Egypt at the time (her father was a banker), was courted by and married Vassos Georgiadis, who was a highly successful Greek industrialist in East Africa and some 20 years her senior. Clio Georgiadis bore two sons in Kampala, Alexander and Antony, but she became a widow at the tender age of 27 in 1952. With all the energy, courage and determination which were hallmarks of this remarkable lady, she took over responsibility of her late husband's multi-faceted business empire: This included the East Africa Tobacco Co. which was one of Africa's dominant corporations. She learned the complexities of the businesses, expanded them, and even diversified in Europe to become a major shipowner. But what she considered her major achievement was bringing up her two sons on her own, ensuring they had the best education at Oxford and U.S. business schools, watching with pride as they succeeded in life. In 1961, she married Sir Frederick Crawford, who was then British Governor and Commander-in-Chief in Uganda. After he handed Uganda over to majority rule in 1961, he moved to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), where he became the head of the British South Africa Co. and was on the boards of many Anglo-American companies in southern Africa. Sir Frederick Crawford sadly died in 1978. Lady Clio Crawford resided in Geneva since that time. She travelled extensively throughout her life. She was one of the most energetic, charming, imposing and kind-hearted persons I have ever met. From her early days and throughout her life, she was also very actively involved in all sorts of charities. She became the honorary consul for Greece in Uganda, which was the first time a woman held this post. She was head of the Red Cross, and was instrumental in establishing the Greek Orthodox Church in Uganda. In Switzerland, she and her sister were very much the pillars of the Greek community. Lady Crawford had a close connection with Oxford University in that her husband, Sir Fredrick, was a graduate of Balliol College. Her sons and stepsons all attended St. Edmund Hall (one of Oxford's oldest colleges), with which she maintained a close association over the years. She and her family were generous sponsors of many college developments and an area of St. Edmund Hall bears her name. She left behind two sons, Alec and Tony Georgiadis, who have charming wives--Ann and Elita--and six grandchildren, three from Tony and Elita (Clio, Vassos John and Ileana), and three from Alec (Vassos, Nicholas and Philip). In tribute to this grand lady, I quote the comments sent to her family by a former vice chancellor of Oxford University: ``I remember her as one of the most cheerful, energetic, independent and altogether delightful women I have every met. I always found her confident good humour and marvellous `joie de vivre' infectious. . . . She never seemed to lack the vigour and vitality and warm understanding which were her hallmark. She was a wonderful, gracious lady who enriched the life of a friend like myself. The thought that I shall not see her again is a sad wrench. May she rest in peace--no one better deserves to do so.