Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to praise Paul Glader, a young man from my home State of South Dakota. Although only 17, Paul has accomplished much. At his young age, he already is an experienced, successful journalist, having published several articles in local and regional newspapers. Paul is, indeed, a talented, articulate person. I always am pleased and impressed with the accomplishments of young South Dakotans. Paul and other talented, young South Dakotans represent the future of my State. I am proud of their successes. I encourage and support their efforts. Mr. President, Paul recently sent me three articles he published while working as a news editorial intern at the Indianapolis News. The articles demonstrate that Paul Glader has a promising, exciting future. I look forward to seeing more of Paul's work as he pursues his career. I am pleased to ask unanimous consent that three of his columns be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Again, my congratulations to Paul Glader. I wish him continued success.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay special tribute to Norman Sandager, a South Dakotan and a veteran of the Korean war. Norman represents the very best our Nation sent to Korea when on June 25, 1950, the North Korean People's Army swept over the 38th parallel in an effort to extinguish the light of freedom for the people of South Korea. As a U.S. marine, and commander of a machine gun squadron, Norman Sandager helped thrust back an invading tide of communist aggression in South Korea. In fact, Norman successfully led his machine gun squadron of 13 men through 200 days of combat without losing a single soldier or taking any wounded in his group. Norman's achievement speaks highly of his courage and commitment. Mr. President, the Korean war is sometimes referred to as the ``forgotten war,'' possibly because it so closely followed the Second World War and was in many ways overshadowed by the divisive Vietnam war. Nevertheless, Norman's service and sacrifice are not forgotten. Norman put his life in harm's way by crossing the 38th parallel five times on behalf of a people he did not know except for the shared bond of liberty and freedom. In doing so he has enobled himself and our Nation. It is for his service and the service of thousands of brave, patriotic Americans that we recently dedicated the Korean War Memorial--a moving tribute to those who served. As a Vietnam veteran myself, having served in the United States Army, I extend my sincere appreciation for his answering the call to duty more than 40 years ago.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, all parents understand the pride and joy we have in our children. They are the apple of our eyes, our most precious resource, our future, and our hope. Today I rise with many of my colleagues to submit a bipartisan resolution declaring the second Sunday in October, ``National Children's Day.'' National Children's Day is about hope--the hopes we have for children and the hope they should have for themselves. We live in a rapidly changing world--a world of difficulties and uncertainties for many children. Many children growing up today must overcome tremendous obstacles and challenges, such as drug and alcohol abuse, illiteracy, poverty, pregnancy, physical abuse, absentee parents, and neighborhood violence. How does the future appear for children who do not have a supportive, nurturing environment? To some, the future is uncertain and dark. According to the Children's Defense Fund, 15.7 million children lived in poverty in 1993 and every 98 minutes a child was killed in 1992. Children need nurturing, guidance, time, understanding and the reassurance of a childhood and hope in their future. The fortunate children receive all the love and support they need. However, many children do not receive the appreciation they deserve. Children are our most precious human resource, for they hold our future in their hands, hearts, and minds. Mr. President, you may be interested to learn that the first Children's Day was celebrated on the second Sunday in October 46 years ago on the campus of Notre Dame University. Dr. Patrick McCusker and his wife Mary decided to honor not only their children but children throughout the country. This year marks the 6th year a Senate resolution has commemorated this traditional day. The intent of National Children's Day has not changed. National Children's Day assures children, as a Nation, that we will be here for them. As a Nation, we will try our best to provide for them, look out for them, and to give them the best our Nation can. National Children's Day reaffirms, that we will keep our children in mind. National Children's Day is a celebration of America's hope in the children of today and tomorrow.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the majority leader to offer this amendment, which would condition the lifting of sanctions against the former Yugoslavia on specific improvements in Kosova. I am concerned deeply with events taking place in the former Yugoslavia. It is my hope that a workable peace agreement can be reached in the troubled Balkan region. However, I remain concerned with the fragile condition in Kosova. The United States should be resolute in averting an accelerated campaign of ethnic cleansing and Serbian aggression against Kosovar Albanians. I believe the legislation introduced today will ensure United States policy interests in Kosova stand a far better chance to be achieved. Briefly, our amendment would require specific conditions be met in Kosova before lifting sanctions against the former Yugoslavia. These conditions include: full restoration of all civil and human rights; the return of international observers to monitor the human rights situation in Kosova; permitting the elected Government of Kosova to assemble; and bringing an end to the brutal Serbian-imposed martial law. Last year, President Clinton announced a set of conditions concerning the lifting of sanctions against Serbia. However, these requirements did not include improvements in Kosova. I believe the situation in the former Yugoslavia demands that the plight of Kosovar Albanians be addressed. Unquestionably, Albanians in Kosova have suffered great hardship. Since the Belgrade government expelled international observers, basic civil and human rights have deteriorated significantly. Currently, Serbian-imposed martial law, institutionalized discrimination, and organized repression characterize daily life for the more than 2 million Albanians living in Kosova. Kosovar Albanians are denied education, employment, and due process of law solely on the basis of their ethnicity. Given these dire circumstances, I believe the termination of sanctions imposed on the former Yugoslavia should be coupled with a successful resolution to the crisis in Kosova. Mr. President, I have long been an outspoken advocate for Kosovar Albanians. This amendment would help to resolve their current plight. I urge my colleagues to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the people of my beloved home State of South Dakota. The daily grind of life inside the beltway leaves me searching constantly for reminders of the sights, the sounds, and the citizens of the State I love. I always enjoy those moments when South Dakotans from back home visit my Washington, DC, office. I also look forward to the times when I can return to the people and the places I hold dear. As my colleagues know well, without the constant input I receive from the folks back home, we could not do our jobs effectively here in Congress. I am very fortunate that my fellow South Dakotans keep me in frequent touch with the issues of concern to them. I also enjoy the many letters from, and conversations with, South Dakotans regarding the diverse beauty of our home--the rolling fields of grain, the endless prairie, the majestic Black Hills, the sunsets against a backdrop sky of pink, orange, and purple hues, and the wide Missouri River. These daily visits and the calls and letters from South Dakotans mean a great deal to me. I cherish my home. I cherish the people of my State. Every day, through them, I feel a renewed pride in being South Dakota's U.S. Senator. Every day, through them, I am proud to be a South Dakotan. Mr. President, recently an article by Robert Pore appeared in the Huron, SD, Plainsman newspaper, describing many of the issues that are pertinent to the people of South Dakota. I would like to share these concerns and ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the rededication of the D.C. Booth Historic Fish Hatchery in Spearfish after extensive renovations. These developments represent exciting opportunities for learning and historic preservation. It was Senator Pettigrew, one of South Dakota's earliest and most prominent Senators, who first appropriated funding for the hatchery in the 1890's. Originally called the Spearfish National Fish Hatchery, it was later renamed in honor of the original superintendent, D.C. Booth. The facility is now almost 100 years old and has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is one of the oldest fisheries west of the Mississippi River and now plays a significant role in western South Dakota's tourism industry, bringing in over 200,000 visitors each year. I worked closely with my colleagues on South Dakota's congressional delegation to authorize the renovation of the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery. In 1991, Congress recognized the historic importance of this fish hatchery. Funding was subsequently provided to renovate the existing facilities. In addition, an [[Page S 14308]] underwater fish viewing area and a new historical fishery records and archive center were constructed. The archive center, which collects and preserves the national public historical fishery records and artifacts, is the only one of its kind in the country. Over the years, the hatchery has also made strides towards improving fish population and diversity in western South Dakota. Interestingly enough, the trout which are raised at the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery are not native to the Black Hills area. This hatchery originally was responsible for stocking not only the Black Hills, but also Yellowstone National Park. One particularly interesting feature which will soon be available to tour is an old Federal Fishcar Service railroad car. At one time, trout eggs were transported to and from Spearfish in refrigerated rail cars. With the advent of faster transportation, this method has long since been abandoned. When the exhibit is finished, visitors will be able to walk through a renovated rail car, complete with original dishes and trout egg storage trays. On Sunday, September 24, 1995, a ceremony was held in Spearfish, SD, to rededicate the renovated D.C. Booth Historic Fish Hatchery. This ceremony would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of Mr. Arden Trandahl, director of the site for the Fish and Wildlife Service. During his tenure in Spearfish, he has been thoroughly committed to preserving the historic significance of the hatchery. Thanks to the devotion of Arden Trandahl and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of South Dakota, and the community of Spearfish, this renovation project is now a reality. I would also like to thank Molly Salcone and the other members of the D.C. Booth Society. As president of this non-profit society, she has fostered a unique private-public partnership which provided valuable assistance in the restoration of the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery. This project is a great example of how we can all work together to make things happen. The renovated D.C. Booth Historic Fish Hatchery provides a unique educational experience, combining past and present fish management. I extend my congratulations and best wishes for the future success of the facility.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I would like to call attention to a monument recently dedicated to the memory of four men who lost their lives in a catastrophic plane crash near Minot, ND. The crash occurred during a blizzard in February 1994, as the pilot and passengers--three Indian Health Service [IHS] doctors--were travelling to several IHS clinics in the area. The West River Monument Co. of Rapid City, SD, constructed a monument made of Dakota mahogany granite as a tribute to the victims of the crash. This monument, entitled ``Four Eagles Memorial,'' was dedicated on Saturday, September 16, 1995. For years now, I have been a strong advocate for small aircraft safety. It saddens me each time I learn of aircraft-related fatalities. The men who lost their lives in the crash were dedicated to their work, their families, and their friends. Their loss continues to be felt. Yet, tributes like the one made to these men are heartfelt. While a year and one-half have passed since this tragedy, we will not forget the victims of the crash. My thoughts continue to be with the families and friends of the men who perished in this unfortunate accident. The Four Eagles Memorial will serve to remind us always of these four admired and well-respected men. A recent article appeared in the Rapid City Journal of Rapid City, SD, regarding the dedication of the memorial. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bumpers amendment and in support of the space station program. I am a longstanding supporter of NASA's space station program. Undertaking technological challenges like the space station in why we have a NASA. I also believe the space station is the next logical step in our quest to extend human presence in our solar system. Space station will provide invaluable information to scientists and engineers on humans' ability to live and work in space. That information and experience will be critical if we undertake any future missions to the Moon or Mars. The space station's greatest benefit may be in the area of spinoffs. Many technologies we take for granted today--such as microcomputers, pacemakers, artificial limbs, insulin pumps, and communications satellites--are byproducts of past space missions. If NASA's past is any indication, the space station will usher in a new generation of inventions and technological breakthroughs we cannot yet imagine. Earlier this year, I attended the Oshkosh Air Show with NASA Administrator Dan Goldin. I was amazed at the number of NASA-related spinoffs on display. Many, if not most, of the advanced aircraft, engines, and other technologies we saw owed their development in some way to NASA's research. In fact, it has been estimated that for every dollar invested in the space program, the Nation gets a return of $2 in the form of related spinoff benefits. In 1993, our trade surplus in aerospace technology was $39 billion-- our strongest export sector. Without question, that positive balance of trade is due in large measure to the U.S. space program and the related technology transfer to U.S. industry. If this pattern continues, taxpayers can expect enormous returns on their investment in the international space station program. It would be a sad waste of the time, effort, and money spent so far on the space station if we were to give up now. Since 1984, the United States has spent $12 billion on the space station. Equally important, 13,000 Americans in 38 States in space station-related jobs have been working hard to make this great dream become a reality. Now NASA is ready to go. Facilities have been built. Hardware has been constructed. Plans have been finalized. We are now only 2 years away from the launch of the first element of the station. It is time to finish what we started. We also must not forget the United States is not the only investor in the space station. Indeed, the station is not only an international project, it is the largest international science project ever undertaken. Japan the European Space Agency are each developing a lab module for the space station and the Canadians are developing a robotic arm. Our newest partner, Russia, also is playing a key role by providing launches, a navigational system, and rescue vehicles. Together, our foreign space station partners have spent $4 billion on the project--with billions more budgeted. Increasingly, big science projects are becoming far too expensive and complex for any one country to undertake alone. If we do not honor our commitments to our foreign partners, we cannot expect them to participate in any future international space and science missions. Mr. President, these are some of the reasons I endorse the space station program. In that connection, in July, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I introduced authorization legislation for NASA, which provides full funding for the space station, as well as for Mission to Planet Earth and other important space and aeronautics activities. Mr. President, while I support the space station, my support is not unqualified. I do have some serious reservations about the program. None are so serious as to lead me to support killing the program. However, the Commerce Committee will be keeping a close eye on each. First of all, I am concerned about the program's overreliance on the Russians. Until 1993, space station was largely a United States program, with substantial contributions by the European Space Agency, Japan, and Canada. However, late in 1993, the administration added Russia as a space station partner. Today, the program increasingly seems to be driven by the Russians, and not the United States. Under the current plan, 44 of the launches to assemble and supply the station are Russian launches compared to only 27 shuttle launches. Furthermore, Russian spacecraft will be used for both the navigation system for the space station and its crew rescue vehicles. If, for any reason, the Russians are forced to withdraw from the station, the program would be in peril. Second, I am troubled by the sheer complexity of the space station effort. For instance, the assembly of the space station will require 77 launches over a 5-year period, each of which must occur within a tight window of time and in a proper sequence. Moreover, this assembly will require over 600 hours of space walking by astronaut crews. Traditionally, NASA has tried to minimize space walking because it places crews at risk, complicates the accomplishment of mission goals, and takes away from the astronauts' research time. Finally, my biggest concern about the space station is its enormous cost. When it was first proposed in 1984, the space station was estimated to cost $8 billion. However, in a June 1995 report, the General Accounting Office [GAO] estimated that the total cost of the design, launch, and operation of the space station will be $94 billion. That is about seven times the entire annual budget for NASA. My fear is that, if the space station suffers substantial cost overruns, its budget may eventually crowd out every other NASA program and leave the space station as NASA's only mission. This result is clearly not in the public interest. I am particularly concerned about the impact of space station funding on Mission to Planet Earth. I believe Mission to Planet Earth to be NASA's most important and relevant program. Using the latest satellite technology, Mission to Planet Earth will help scientists understand and predict the global climate trends that affect our lives. As a Senator representing a State whose economy is extremely dependent on agriculture, I have a keen interest in the program's potential to provide detailed data on soil conditions, topography, crops, and other information critical to the farming and ranching communities. I also take great pride in the important role the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, will play in converting the huge volumes of satellite data into useful information for the entire Nation. Accordingly, as much as I appreciate the scientific and economic benefits of the space station, I could not have supported it at the expense of Mission to Planet Earth. I am pleased that the authors of the underlying bill--H.R. 2099--did not place us in that dilemma, but managed to find a way in this tight budget climate to fund both space station and Mission to Planet Earth. This could not have been easy and I commend the managers of the bill on their wisdom and good judgment in addressing this issue. Mr. President, let me be clear. The space station is a monumentally complex and costly undertaking. Some say it is an impossible dream. However, NASA's heritage and history is about doing the impossible. I am confident that, under Dan Goldin's leadership, NASA will bravely meet this challenge and finally build the orbital space laboratory we have been planning for two decades. In a world where economic growth increasingly depends on technological leadership, space station is the kind of bold step needed to increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen U.S. competitiveness. [[Page S 14197]] So, Mr. President, despite my questions and reservations about the space station, I believe it is the Nation's interest to go forward and complete this important project. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bumpers amendment and vote ``yes'' for space station and the future of our space program and the future of our Nation.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his remarks. His leadership on this issue has been remarkable. [[Page S 14005]] Last night I traced the beginning of this amendment. It started out as a way to give Pakistan money and to give Pakistan arms. And Pakistan supported this amendment as the original thing. It was Pakistan's not telling the truth to then Vice President George Bush and John Glenn and others that led us into this problem. They bought the airplane under false pretenses. That is the whole problem that has led to where we are today. I do not want to go back and punish anybody for any right and wrong. But, if we pass the Brown amendment today, it will be opening the door to proliferation. We are rewarding a proliferator. We are rewarding a country that has violated an agreement on nuclear nonproliferation. And it is an amazing thing, because if it happens, all bets are off on nuclear nonproliferation. I want to commend Senator Glenn for his leadership on this issue. He has fought it for years. I made my speech last night. This is an amazing thing; if our country is for nuclear nonproliferation, we will be rewarding a country for proliferation.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and others I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of the Congress in support of last Sunday's successful elections in Hong Kong. Mr. President, when Mr. Christopher Patten became Governor of Hong Kong 3 years ago, he made a very important decision. He decided to allow the people of Hong Kong the opportunity to express their preference on a simple issue: democracy--yes or no? As last Monday's New York Times editorial noted, ``Hong Kong's voters declared overwhelmingly on Sunday their preference for democracy and their doubts about Beijing's plans for the colony's future.'' Final returns from Sunday's vote show the Democratic Party led by Mr. Martin Lee won the largest number of seats, 19, in the 60-seat Legislative Council. Other prodemocracy allies will give Mr. Lee a working majority of 31. By contrast, pro-Beijing candidates of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong won only six seats and the party's top three officials were all defeated. Regrettably, spokesmen for Beijing have not learned to lose gracefully and have resorted to threats and intimidation. Again Governor Patten has proved to be the best analyst: ``Everybody has to recognize that Hong Kong has expressed its views about the present and the future with great clarity.'' Mr. President, the amendment I have offered congratulates the people of Hong Kong for exercising their right to vote, calls on China to respect the clear will of the people of Hong Kong to have a fully democratic government, and calls on China to enter into a dialog with the democratically elected representatives of the Hong Kong people. I wish the people of Hong Kong well as they continue to demonstrate their clear will to maintain the cause of democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. amendment no. 2753 (Purpose: To impose sanctions against Burma, and countries assisting Burma, unless Burma observes basic human rights and permits political freedoms) At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great disappointment that an agreement further liberalizing United States/ United Kingdom aviation relations was not struck in London last week. Once again, I believe the British Government put the interests of one constituent above the best interests of British consumers. The United Kingdom is one of our largest and most important trading partners. For many years that trading relationship has flourished. Open market principles have been the engine responsible for its success. Without a doubt, the free flow of commerce between our two nations has significantly benefited both economies. Perhaps the biggest winners of all have been consumers on both sides of the Atlantic who have reaped the benefits of enhanced consumer choice and competitive prices. Regrettably, over the last few decades, the British have repeatedly rebuffed our attempts to extend our open trade relationship to include commercial aviation rights. In fact, the United States/United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement is our most restrictive international aviation agreement. For good reason, that agreement, the so-called Bermuda II agreement signed in 1977, is widely regarded as being the high water mark for international aviation protectionism. In London last week, the United States and United Kingdom had an historic opportunity to further liberalize our aviation relationship. Instead of taking a major step forward, United States/United Kingdom aviation relations seem to have taken a giant leap backward. I am very concerned that the failure to reach agreement last week has squandered hard earned momentum from the phase 1 deal in June and resurrected mistrust between the countries that has plagued negotiations for years. Mr. President, despite these concerns, the United States and United Kingdom must press forward with [[Page S 14082]] phase 2 negotiations. We owe it to consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. For far too long the United States/United Kingdom aviation debate has focussed primarily on the interests of passenger and cargo carriers. I urge negotiators on both sides of the table to resume talks with a broader focus, one which considers the significant stake consumers have in enhanced air service and more competitive prices. In a speech before the Aviation Club of Great Britain earlier this week, Gerald Greenwald, the Chairman and CEO of United Airlines, echoed this point. Mr. Greenwald called for a ``renewed concentration on consumers'' and quite accurately observed that the real losers under the restrictive Bermuda II agreement are consumers ``in the United States and United Kingdom alike.'' He is absolutely correct. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Greenwald's speech before the Aviation Club of Great Britain to which I referred be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, I hope benefits to consumers are factored into the equation next time American and British negotiators meet in phase 2 talks. Perhaps then the need for liberalization of the United States/ United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement will be clearer to the British. Undoubtedly, the benefits of liberalization will be more readily apparent.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to certain members of the American Legion Auxiliary, Unit 230, Pike-Huska Post in Aurora, SD. Governor William Janklow designated the first day of the recent South Dakota State Fair as ``Victory Day Golden Anniversary Celebration'' in honor of South Dakota veterans who served in the Second World War. Ten special women in the American Legion Auxiliary in Aurora provided South Dakota World War II veterans attending the celebration with tokens of their appreciation and gratitude in memory of our veterans' dedicated service. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to join my fellow South Dakotans at the State fair in expressing appreciation to the outstanding men and women who served their country during the Second World War. I am proud of the contributions made by South Dakotans during the war years. More than 2,200 South Dakota National Guardsmen served on active duty. More than 41,000 South Dakotans were called into military service through the draft and 23,192 South Dakotans enlisted. More than 1,500 South Dakotans stood face to face against Hitler's war machine and gave their lives to turn back Nazi aggression. At home, South Dakotans dug deep into their pockets to keep American troops armed, fed, and clothed. During eight national fund-raising campaigns, South Dakota consistently ranked first or second in the per capita sale of series ``E'' war bonds. In fact, South Dakotans raised $111.5 million from the sale of series ``E'' war bonds to help the war effort. Mr. President, as a war veteran myself, having served in the United States Army as a lieutenant in Vietnam, I extend my sincere respect, admiration, and appreciation for the dedicated service and selfless sacrifice of South Dakota's Second World War veterans. I especially appreciate the 10 members of the American Legion Auxiliary in Aurora, SD, who provided on behalf of themselves and all South Dakotans, a small token of our boundless gratitude for those courageous veterans who answered the call to duty more than 50 years ago.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, when Mr. Christopher Patten became Governor of Hong Kong 3 years ago, he made a very important decision. He decided to allow the people of Hong Kong the opportunity to express their preference on a simple issue: Democracy--yes or no? As the New York Times editorial today notes, ``Hong Kong's voters declared overwhelmingly on Sunday their preference for democracy and their doubts about Beijing's plans for the colony's future.'' Final returns from Sunday's vote show the Democratic Party led by Mr. Martin Lee won the largest number of seats, 19, in the 60 seat legislative council. Other prodemocracy allies will give Mr. Lee a working majority of 31. By contrast, pro-Beijing candidates of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong won only six seats and the party's top three officials were all defeated. Regrettably, spokesmen for Beijing have not learned to lose gracefully and have resorted to threats and intimidation. Again Governor Patten has proved to be the best analyst: ``Everybody has to recognize that Hong Kong has expressed its views about the present and the future with great clarity.'' Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the recent elections in Hong Kong. The resolution congratulates the people of Hong Kong for exercising their right to vote, calls on China to respect the clear will of the people of Hong Kong to have a fully democratic government, and calls on China to enter into a dialogue with the democratically elected representatives of the Hong Kong people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that number of articles and editorials from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me time?

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, let me give a little history of how this amendment came about, if I may be allowed to do so. In the mid 1980's, the Carter administration had shut off aid to Pakistan because of their alleged nuclear activities. In about 1985, there was an amendment in the Foreign Relations Committee known as the Cranston amendment which would have legally shut off aid to Pakistan. The Reagan administration at that time asked me to offer an amendment to the Cranston amendment which would allow Pakistan to get money. The amendment said that Pakistan would receive United States aid money and buy military aircraft, and so forth, so long as the President could certify that they did not have a nuclear weapon. Now, under the terms of that agreement, Vice President Bush at that time and others were promised by the Pakistanis that they were not developing a nuclear weapon and that the so-called Pressler amendment would never come into effect. Indeed, until 1990, Pakistan received aid and received military equipment and there was military sales. Then, in 1990, then President Bush, who had been Vice President at the original time we worked this out, was President and his administration could no longer certify that Pakistan did not have a nuclear weapon. So, in other words, President Bush concluded that Pakistan had not told the truth and it was buying arms under false premises. That is the twist to this debate which seems to have been forgotten. Originally, Pakistan supported the Pressler amendment. Originally, the Pressler amendment was a means to help Pakistan get money and to buy arms provided that she was not developing a nuclear weapon. That seems to have been forgotten in this whole debate, because we talk about countries' honor and countries' decency, and so forth. There are many twists to this story regarding the Pressler amendment. Since 1990, each year our CIA with our technical means of assessment has concluded that Pakistan does, indeed, have a nuclear weapon, although Pakistan has continued to deny that, although on one or two occasions their top generals have said that that is true. Another complex thing in this whole matter is that there seems to be two distinct governments in Pakistan. And let me say, first of all, I like Pakistan. I have been to Pakistan several times. I want our country to be friends with Pakistan. I have been up to the Khyber Pass. I know that Pakistan has been our ally and Pakistan has done a great deal for and with the United States, and we have done a great deal for Pakistan. I want to be friends with India and Pakistan in the long run. I think China is driving the nuclear weapons race over there, basically. And China [[Page S 13943]] really is the country we should be worried about. So I am not here to beat up on Pakistan or to criticize it. But I would also say that I have had some good talks with the Prime Minister of Pakistan about trying to get this resolved. The problem is that it is the Pakistani military who really makes the decisions, I think, on the issue of nuclear weapons and on whether or not they possess them. So that is how we have gotten to where we are today. Now, it is proposed that we are somehow guilty or we have done something wrong as a nation. But Pakistan purchased these planes while knowing very well that they were developing nuclear weapons, knowing very well that we had a law against it, knowing very well that they would not be able to be delivered if that were discovered. And in 1990 that was discovered. So there has been kind of a twist put on this whole thing that is a reverse twist so to speak. Now, Mr. President, the three key powers in the region--Pakistan, India, and China--have nuclear weapons programs. A fourth, the renegade terrorist state of Iran, will stop at nothing to acquire nuclear capability. All are striving to obtain modern delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles and aircraft. There also have been credible reports that Pakistan has received from Communist China M-11 ballistic missile technology. Without question, a nuclear war in South Asia would be cataclysmic. The names of the perpetrators, and their accessories, would be cursed for a millennium. To its credit, Mr. President, the U.S. Senate consistently has taken initiatives to promote peace and stability in South Asia--the core of that leadership has been the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1985, the committee--under the able leadership of the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar]--voted to adopt my amendment that allowed United States aid to Pakistan to continue as long as the President could certify that Pakistan was not in possession of a nuclear explosive device--the so-called Pressler amendment. Why did the committee take this action? At that time, Pakistan was the third largest recipient of United States foreign assistance, receiving as much as $600 million annually. Pakistan and its people were instrumental in channeling American resources to Afghan rebels as they sought to repel Soviet invaders. U.S. officials rightly were concerned, however, that government in Islamabad at that time was intent on developing a nuclear weapon--a course of action clearly not in our national interest. I have recounted the events, but the purpose of the Pressler amendment was designed to send one message: Nuclear proliferation has a price. And if we are going to do what is in the Brown amendment, we are accepting nuclear proliferation. Now, let me say, Mr. President, I think it is very strange that the Clinton administration, with all the things President Clinton and Al Gore have said about nonnuclear proliferation, that they would allow support for this amendment or they would give support for this amendment, because we are excusing nuclear proliferation, we are excusing a country that promised us, that made a deal with us, that they would not develop a bomb. We are giving them a carte blanche to go ahead. In fact, a number of Senators believed enough evidence existed to verify Pakistan's drive for the bomb, and strong enforcement of United States laws that would result in an immediate cutoff of United States aid. The Pressler amendment was designed to avoid an immediate United States aid cutoff, but reinforce our Nation's policy that it would not condone--through United States taxpayer dollars--Pakistan's drive for the bomb. In addition, the Pressler amendment was designed to give Pakistan a financial incentive to ensure that its nuclear program served a peaceful purpose. In short, the Pressler amendment was designed to send one message: Nuclear proliferation has a price. Mr. President, those were the key reasons why the U.S. Congress adopted the Pressler amendment 10 years ago. It was the right thing to do. President Ronald Reagan agreed. So did the Government of Pakistan at that time. Let me repeat that: the Government of Pakistan supported the Pressler amendment. It gave our Government its assurance that it was not pursuing a nuclear bomb program. By supporting the Pressler amendment. Pakistan agreed that if it acquired a nuclear explosive device, it deserved the penalty of a United States aid cutoff. In 1990, President Bush could no longer certify, under the terms of the Pressler amendment, that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. As a result, all United States economic and military aid to Pakistan was terminated. Further, a $1.4 billion commercial order of military equipment to Pakistan was put on hold. Now, Mr. President, it is clear that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. It is also clear that Pakistan was pursuing a nuclear bomb program between 1985 and 1990, despite repeated public assurances that it was not. During that time, Pakistan received approximately $3.5 billion in United States foreign aid. Again, the Government received these funds from the American taxpayer in return for its assurance that it would not go nuclear. Yet, the reality was that the existing government in Pakistan in fact produced nuclear explosive and used the American people's money to do it. That was an extraordinary act of deception. That is the history behind the Pressler amendment. And to borrow the words of Abraham Lincoln, we cannot escape history. We cannot escape the fact that the United States subsidized Pakistan's nuclear weapons program for 5 years after the Pressler amendment became law. We cannot escape the fact that Pakistan repeatedly assured its ally, the United States, it was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto stood in this building--in the House Chamber--on June 7, 1989, and stated: ``Speaking for Pakistan, I can declare that we do not possess nor do we intend to make a nuclear device. That is our policy.'' The opposite was true in each case. Mr. President, we cannot escape history. We also were given assurances by Pakistan's government regarding the level of enrichment of its uranium, foreign nuclear procurement, cooperation with communist China, and other related nonproliferation issues. In each case, the Government of Pakistan broke its word. Thus, despite United States law, despite clear United States policy, and despite repeated assurances from its leaders, Pakistan built a nuclear weapons program and used American taxpayer dollars to do it. Those are the facts. We cannot escape history. Yet, we are here today to consider an amendment that ignores history. Even worse, if we adopt this amendment, we would be condemning ourselves to repeat history. Nothing in the Brown amendment would ensure that American taxpayer assistance would not further directly or indirectly Pakistan's bomb program. Do any of my colleagues believe we should reverse this long-standing United States policy? Should we risk once again subsidizing Pakistan's nuclear bomb program with the American people's tax dollars? Certainly not. That is the fundamental reason why this amendment should be defeated, because that is exactly what it would do. So, Mr. President, what I am saying to you, in the past, American tax dollars directly or indirectly have been used to develop a nuclear bomb in Pakistan. The passage of this amendment will allow American taxpayers' dollars to be used in that regard again. I urge my colleagues to consider the impact of unconditionally reversing a fundamental element of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy. I ask my colleagues to consider what signal this amendment would send to other nations who play by international non-proliferation rules. Frankly, it sends the worst possible message: nuclear proliferation pays. Mr. President, some years ago I served as chairman of the Arms Control Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. We held numerous hearings, and we urged other nations to engage in nonproliferation policies. We have elaborate schemes and treaties. This amendment would leave a big hole and set a terrible precedent for [[Page S 13944]] our nuclear nonproliferation efforts throughout the world. Perhaps no issue is more critical to our national security--and the security of all people--than nuclear nonproliferation. I agree strongly with the Senator from Colorado that we must improve our relations with Pakistan. And I would like for us to be friends with Pakistan. I consider myself a friend of Pakistan. Very few would disagree. The question is: How? My concern here is that our nuclear nonproliferation policy will made a sacrificial lamb on the alter of better relations with Pakistan. The Pressler amendment has achieved a number of successes in the area of nuclear nonproliferation. First, through never verified, Pakistan claims it has ceased developing weapons grade enriched uranium. Second, the threat of Pressler sanctions has deterred a number of states that pursued active nuclear weapons research programs in the 1980's, including Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. Second, despite what's being said, nuclear nonproliferation does not discriminate against Pakistan. Pakistan is not the only country that is identified by name for nonproliferation sanctions. For years a number of other countries have been designated for special controls and sanctions. China has been singled out for violations of ballistic missile sanctions. Yet, ironically, Pakistan is the only country to receive waivers of United States nonproliferation laws in order to receive United States aid. One eight occasions, Congress authorized special waivers of United States nonproliferation laws just for Pakistan. The Pressler amendment itself was effectively a waiver to prevent tougher enforcement of U.S. law. Yes, Congress has engaged in special discrimination, but it was discrimination in favor of Pakistan, and against all other countries that play by international nonproliferation rules. In addition, Mr. President let me point out that our relationship with India is impacted by United States nonproliferation policy. Because of India's unsafeguarded nuclear program, there is no United States/Indian agreement for nuclear cooperation. United States military cooperation with India is merely consultative. The United States will not export certain forms of missile equipment and technology to India and any other goods that are related to weapons of mass destruction. It is true that United States sanctions have not been invoked against India, but that is because India has not violated its commitments under United States law. Mr. President, the bottom line is this: in 1985, the Government of Pakistan agreed with the United States government that future United States aid would be tied to its development of a nuclear explosive device. That was Pakistan's contract with America. Pakistan understood and accepted the potential price if it development the bomb. I believe my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn, said it best in 1989 when he said: ``There simply must be a cost to noncompliance--when a solemn nuclear pledge is violated, the solution does not lie in voiding the pledge.'' The Brown amendment proposes that very solution. We are being asked to void a portion of this contract by allowing nonmilitary aid to resume unconditionally. Second, we are being asked to set aside Pakistan's contract with America so that the administration can deliver without conditions nearly $400 million of United States military equipment previously purchased by Pakistan. This package--part of a larger $1.4 billion order that included 28 F-16's--includes P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft, Harpoon and Sidewinder missiles, and engines and parts for Pakistan's existing fleet of Cobras and F-16 aircraft, which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Though it supported its 1985 contract with America, the Government of Pakistan now argues that we should either return the military equipment or pay back Pakistan. In short, we are being asked to honor our military contract with Pakistan. The reason why the equipment and the funds remain out of Pakistan's hands is because Pakistan was found in 1990 to have violated its 1985 contract with America. Pakistan knew that if the Pressler contract was violated, its military contract would be put on hold. I recognize that is a tough deal. Again, nuclear proliferation has a price. However, I am willing to consider options to compensate Pakistan. In fact, I would not oppose using proceeds from a third party sale of any of the equipment to reimburse Pakistan. That is a fair approach. To his credit, President Clinton took my suggestion to seek a third party sale of the 28 F-16 aircraft sought by Pakistan. I commend the President. It was a wise move for one simple reason: F-16's are capable of carrying a nuclear payload. It would be contrary to the spirit and letter of our Nation's nuclear nonproliferation policy for the United States to waive a nonproliferation law so that Pakistan could take possession of nuclear delivery vehicles. That is one of the main reasons why I called for a third party sale of the F-16's last May. However, I also stated I would oppose the return of any military equipment to Pakistan that would serve to undermine our nuclear nonproliferation goals, and add to the current instability in the region. That is why I am opposed to the Brown amendment. The military transfer called for in the Brown amendment is ill- advised for three key reasons: First, it would spark a renewed arms race between Pakistan and India. As my colleagues know, P-3's serve a dual function--they are naval reconnaissance aircraft with offensive capabilities. The military aid package also includes torpedoes and missiles that can be launched from a P-3. The P-3's would give Pakistan greater naval surveillance and striking capabilities than the aircraft Pakistan currently uses, the French-made Atlantique. In addition, as the Department of Defense admitted, the F-16 components in the military package represent a reliability upgrade of Pakistan's F-16 aircraft, which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Given our longstanding policy on nuclear nonproliferation, I do not understand why the Clinton administration would seek to improve Pakistan's nuclear delivery capability with United States-made equipment. I recognize that the Senator from Colorado has gone to great lengths and made every conceivable effort to reassure his colleagues that this military package would not upset the strategic balance between India and Pakistan. However, the Indian Government assessed this package on all levels-- political, strategic, and diplomatic. It concluded it would have no choice but to engage in additional military procurement if this transfer goes through. Why should the United States risk a potential arms race in an already unstable South Asia? Second, the military transfer could inadvertently improve the terrorist state of Iran's military capability in the region. According to news reports, Iran and Pakistan have been cooperation on nuclear weapons research for a decade. Also, Iran and Pakistan have been engaged in cooperative military efforts dating back as far as last year, when the two countries conducted joint naval maneuvers in the Arabian Sea. I was disturbed to learn that a new round of naval maneuvers is scheduled later this fall. Given this sustained Pakistan-Iran cooperation, the P-3's take on added significance. The P-3's surveillance capability would cover the entire Arabian Sea and the entire Persian Gulf. The data from this extended surveillance--data on the movements of our own Navy in the region--surely would be of critical use to Iran as it seeks to extend the reach of its naval power. Is there anything in the Brown amendment that would require a written assurance from Pakistan that the P-3's or any other United States made military equipment would not be used to benefit a terrorist country? No. If that is the case, why would we inadvertently enhance Iran's military alliance with Pakistan to the detriment of our own naval forces, and our friends and allies in the region? It makes no sense. Finally, this transfer sends the worst possible message: nuclear proliferation pays. In this case, a country that has gone into nuclear proliferation, after it agreed with us not to, is being rewarded, and we are supposed to have sanctions against countries that have [[Page S 13945]] entered into agreements and broken them. So we are rewarding nuclear proliferation in this very move. The Clinton administration assured Congress that the United States would oppose any commercial military upgrades for Pakistan. This has been U.S. policy since 1990. Yet, the proposed transfer would break its assurance to Congress in the worst way--by upgrading Pakistan's nuclear delivery vehicles--its F-16's. This upgrade is not just a reversal of U.S. arms policy, it undermines the very principles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It defies logic that the Clinton administration would work so valiantly to ratify this treaty and then turn around and support a clear violation of that treaty's core principles. Despite these very disturbing activities, the administration is intent on going ahead with the military transfer--one that does not achieve one credible United States policy initiative, while undermining three vital policies--regional stability in South Asia, containment of Iran, and worldwide nuclear nonproliferation. Do we have alternatives? Yes. Last week, I called on President Clinton to expand this initiative one step further by pursuing the third party sale option on all the military equipment sought by Pakistan. And as I said with respect to the F-16's, if the administration and the Congress wish to use the proceeds from the third party sales to reimburse Pakistan, I would not object. Mr. President, let me take a moment to discuss the provisions in the amendment that would repeal nonmilitary sanctions against Pakistan. My colleagues will recall that similar language was offered by my friend from Colorado during consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. These provisions, though seemingly well-intended, go too far. First, this amendment specifically rewrites the Pressler amendment so that the sanctions apply only to military aid. This amounts to an unconditional repeal of nonmilitary sanctions against Pakistan. This is an extraordinary and far-reaching change that could have serious implications. In fact, this amendment could be used to aid Pakistan's nuclear bomb program. All of us know that scores of nonmilitary items can serve military purposes. Pakistan knows that all to well. Let me provide one specific example: A story in the McGraw-Hill newsletter NuclearFuel, detailed how Pakistan intended to violate a joint venture with Siemens AG by using telecommunications equipment as part of a project to enhance uranium into bomb grade material. I ask unanimous consent that this story be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this is just one example. The fact is Pakistan built its current bomb program in part from seemingly nonmilitary transactions. Further, in February 1993, then-CIA Director James Woolsey described for the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs how untied and seemingly nonmilitary loans and grants could further Pakistan's nuclear program. Does the Brown amendment require Pakistan to make written and verifiable assurances that seemingly nonmilitary aid will not aid directly or indirectly its bomb program? No. Again, Mr. President, we cannot escape history. We once before inadvertently aided Pakistan's bomb program. Now, with this open-ended, unconditional repeal of a portion of the Pressler amendment, we are setting ourselves up to make the same mistake yet again. Why would we once again put American taxpayers in the position of aiding Pakistan's bomb program? Further, let me correct for the record a serious misperception of the Pressler amendment. Some have argued that we need this amendment so that we can provide vital civic and humanitarian assistance to Pakistan. We already can provide that assistance. Current law permits United States aid to Pakistan through nongovernmental organizations in a wide range of areas, including agriculture and rural development, nutrition, human rights, endangered species, and illicit narcotics prevention. Pakistan also continues to receive annually hundreds of millions of dollars in development assistance via multilateral lending agencies to which the United States is a major contributor. The Brown amendment goes beyond even a limited approach, and again would do so without requiring a single nuclear concession from Pakistan. Mr. President, I strongly respect and admire my friend from Colorado. He sincerely is interested in trying to find ways to improve our relations with Pakistan and improve the conditions for the entire Indian subcontinent. I commend him for proposing a U.S.-led multilateral summit designed to reduce the presence of nuclear weapons in South Asia. I would support such a summit. It represents a more constructive first-step toward what I hope is the elimination of the nuclear threat from South Asia. But, in this case, we are not moving toward nonproliferation with this particular amendment. We cannot escape history, and I have outlines that history of the Pressler amendment, of which there is much misunderstanding. Beyond that, my friend from Colorado and I disagree on how best to approach the vexing problems in South Asia. We also need to keep in mind the question of United States--India relations. For more than 40 years, our relations with the world's most populous democracy were difficult, dictated largely by cold war conventional wisdom. Since 1991, our relations have improved markedly. India's economy is undergoing a remarkable transformation, fueled by a nearly five-fold increase in foreign investments from 1990 to 1994. More than one-third of those investments were from American firms. It is my hope that Pakistan can enjoy similar progress in the near future. Economic growth for both countries is the key to long-term regional stability. One of the lessons of our improved relationship with India is that our actions have a clear impact on Indian public opinion. That certainly is the case in Pakistan as well. Given this impact, I believe that we must pursue our policies in South Asia with great care and great caution. We must ensure that we do not unnecessarily return to the previous, unproductive levels of our relationship. We also must ensure that we do not unnecessarily fuel the already strong tensions that exist in the region. In conclusion, Mr. President, I must repeat yet again, we cannot escape history--both the history behind us and before us. The history we make today not only will determine the history of tomorrow, but will determine how well we comprehended the hard lessons of history. The Brown amendment is a grim reminder to all of us that those who try to escape history are condemned to relive it. I cannot allow that to happen. We must not ask the American taxpayer to subsidize a bomb program we cannot condone. Nor do we need ask the American taxpayer to subsidize an arms race in South Asia, or the military ambitions of a terrorist state. Last year, the President states that no single foreign policy issue was more important than nuclear nonproliferation. If that is the case, there is no justifiable reason why Pakistan once again must be exempt from Federal nonproliferation laws or the nonproliferation policies we impose on all other signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Let us give Pakistan some concrete incentives to honor its word. Let us not reward proliferation. Since we cannot escape history, let us learn constructively from it. I urge the defeat of the Brown amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, there have been a number of ads run on television and newspapers regarding senior citizens programs in my State of South Dakota and, I understand, around the country. These ads are very misleading. They wrongly allege if current plans by the majority in Congress are carried out, certain people will not be able to get care for Alzheimer's disease or nursing care or medical treatment. These are scare tactics. In my own case, I have taken great interest in senior citizens. In fact, my father, unfortunately, died of Alzheimer's disease. I have an Alzheimer's foundation. I am active on the board of the Alzheimer's association nationally and in my State. I have been a champion of senior citizens. I am very concerned about their welfare. That is why I was concerned greatly when Medicare's trustees--a majority being members of President Clinton's own cabinet--declared earlier this year that Medicare would go bankrupt unless we do something about it--we who hold responsibility. A general plan to protect and preserve Medicare has been put forth by those courageous enough to be involved with it. I serve as a member of the Finance Committee, and I have been a part of the development of this plan. Our plan would not cut Medicare, but would slow its rate of increase from about 10 percent a year, which is well above inflation, to about what President Clinton once called for 2 years ago, about 6 percent, twice the inflation rate. Now, Mr. President, it seems strange to me that all these baseless ads imply--and they list me by name in my State--that Senators who are trying to save Medicare are somehow forgetting senior citizens and people with Alzheimer's disease. I resent that deeply. As one who had a father die of Alzheimer's disease, I will not take a back seat to anyone regarding the care of senior citizens. I also do not intend to sit idly by and let Medicare go bankrupt. Nor will I allow our fiscal house be dismantled in order to protect well-intentioned, but wasteful or inefficient Government programs. We cannot go around promising everybody everything. We have a huge deficit that threatens our children's future. We also have a Medicare system its trustees' have predicted will go broke if we do not do something about it. We can save Medicare by reforming Medicare. We can save Medicare by finding greater efficiencies, and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. It means we have to use new telecommunication methods and other medical technologies to lower costs. It means we have to encourage greater choice in the kinds of medical services available to seniors, which would also lower costs. We can do all these things and more without cutting Medicare, but by slowing its growth rate in order for Medicare to be there for seniors well into the next century. And that is very appropriate. Now, we should take a look at who is running these ads, at least in my State and maybe around the country. Who is disseminating this false information? First of all, one of the sets of ads is being funded by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Of course, one wouldn't know that by listening or reading the ads, because the ads are being run under a different name, the so-called Save America's Families Coalition. Another is run by the so-called American Health Care Association. I think that there should be truth in advertising here. Who are really behind these ads and what is there agenda? Let me say that I know there are many sides to American politics. However, more and more, ads are being run on television and the radio and in the newspapers by front groups that try to hide the true source. It is hard to know by the disclaimer exactly who is behind these ads. And so, Mr. President, I would say as one who comes from a family who has seen the tragedy of Alzheimer's disease firsthand that I am very, very concerned. I am concerned about our Nation's seniors. I have fought for our [[Page S 13713]] seniors from the very first day I took office as a U.S. Congressman. And I will continue to fight for them as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. My resolve is stronger than ever. Our first priority for seniors is simple: to preserve and protect Medicare. I have just come from a meeting working on a comprehensive plan to save Medicare. I would hope that instead of running Medi-``scare'' ads, these liberal special interest groups would offer real solutions to what President Clinton and every Member of Congress believes is a very severe problem. I would like to see their ideas, their plans specifically. All of us will have to stand on the Senate floor soon and vote up or down on these issues within the next few weeks. At that time, our views and our votes will be known. Before that occurs, I hope all those behind the current ad campaigns will step forward and join in a constructive effort to save Medicare. This issue is too important for our seniors, and they deserve a constructive dialogue and debate. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, I will. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a problem which severely affects the economic growth of my home state of South Dakota. This problem is an acute shortage of air service within my state coupled with insufficient connecting air service between South Dakota cities and hub airports in nearby states. Congressional attention is needed. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 created significant domestic travel benefits for many Americans. In addition, airline efficiencies resulting from deregulation have helped reduce the cost of international travel. Unfortunately, these benefits have not been evenly distributed across the country. Indeed, they have not been shared by Americans living in many smaller cities and rural communities. One need only try to schedule air travel to South Dakota to know that my state, as well as other rural states, have paid a harsh price for airline deregulation. For numerous small cities, fares are higher and service less frequent since deregulation. Moreover, I know from personal experience--and statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) confirm--that non-stop jet service to many South Dakota cities has been replaced by connecting turboprop service. The result? Often, it is less desirable service involving circuitous routing on slower and less comfortable aircraft. Mr. President, several months ago I requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to prepare a study comparing air service for large, medium and small cities across the country. That study, which I understand is progressing well, is considering differences between these markets in terms of the cost of air travel for consumers, the extent to which jet service is available, [[Page S 13618]] and safety. I am confident this study will be very enlightening. In connection with the GAO study, the DOT already has provided statistics that dramatically illustrate the great burden rural states like South Dakota bear as a result of airline deregulation. For example, for the month of February 1978, prior to deregulation, there were a total of 2,384 scheduled commercial flights departing South Dakota airports with 186,080 seats available for the traveling public. By comparison, for the month of February 1995, there were 2,421 commercial flights departing my home state but only 94,538 seats were available on these flights. These statistics show that at the same time the number of flights departing South Dakota increased by 1.5 percent, the total number of seats available to the traveling public have dramatically decreased--a 49.1 percent reduction in seating capacity. At first glance, these statistics seem inconsistent. How is it possible for the number of seats available for departing passengers to fall so dramatically at a time the number of departing flights actually increased? The answer is that airlines are substituting small, non-jet aircraft in small city markets previously served by larger jets. For example, in May 1978, 19 percent of commercial flights departing Rapid City, South Dakota involved non-jet aircraft. In May 1995, that percentage has more than doubled to 42 percent. Turboprop aircraft substitution in many small city markets is a post-deregulation reality. The impact of non-jet aircraft substitution in smaller markets is significant. It hits my constituents and other small city air travel consumers right in the wallet. Let me explain. Like most goods and services, the price of air travel for consumers depends to a large extent on the supply and demand of seats. Naturally, therefore, air fares increase when demand for seats goes up at a time when the supply of available seats declines. That is precisely what has happened in my state. As I mentioned, while the demand for air travel has been generally increasing, the supply of seats available to passengers departing South Dakota has declined by 49.1 percent. Just ask my constituents if this ``supply squeeze'' has caused higher air fares. It clearly has increased the price of air travel in South Dakota. At my request, the GAO is examining these air service issues on a national scale. When the GAO report is issued, I plan to hold a hearing on its findings. The report is expected to be completed in the Spring of next year. Mr. President, I cannot stress strongly enough what a problem insufficient and unaffordable air service is in South Dakota as well as other rural states. However, there may be hope for improvement. Indeed, I am guardedly optimistic about a new development. The development to which I refer is the availability of a new generation of small commuter jets, so-called ``junior jets.'' These smaller jets will give airlines a service option that previously did not exist. Previously, when airlines' planners assigned aircraft to particular routes, there was a choice only between larger jetliners and turboprops. Now, they have a third option. Let me illustrate this point. On a flight which customarily serves 40 passengers, it is currently uneconomical for airlines to use jet aircraft, which generally have 100 or more seats. Previously, the only alternative was to use turboprop service on such routes. Now, however, junior jets will permit airlines to serve that market with a 50 seat jet aircraft. If airlines purchase and use junior jets, jet service may return to some small cities. Other small cities may see an increase in jet service. Of significant importance, use of junior jets could increase the number of seats available in small city markets and this added capacity could help to lower the cost of air travel. In fact, these jets could reduce airlines' costs of serving some routes and this could lead to lower air fares in the long run. All the air service challenges small communities face surely will not be resolved by junior jets. Use of these aircraft would, however, be a step in the right direction. I will ask unanimous consent that a recent article appearing in the New York Times which addresses the great potential junior jets represent in providing service to smaller air service markets be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Will airlines take advantage of the option of providing air service to small cities on junior jets? As airlines mull over this questions, I urge them to keep several important points in mind. First, last year more than 37 percent of all passenger enplanements in the United States occurred at airports other than the 25 large connecting hubs, such as Chicago O'Hare. Many of these more than 200 million enplanements were passengers flying to or from small cities. I urge airlines to never forget that small cities, such as Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Aberdeen, SD, are a very important component of their customer base and provide critical passenger feed for the airline industry's domestic and international networks. Second, improved quantity and quality of service and lower fares that could result from the use of junior jets could stimulate demand in small city markets. In addition to making passengers happier, using junior jets could also benefit airlines by increasing the number of passengers traveling in these markets. Mr. President, the benefits of airline deregulation have not been shared by citizens living in smaller cities. Fairness dictates this unfortunate reality be changed. I urge airlines to carefully consider the benefits of using junior jets to serve these cities. These new aircraft have the potential to make a bad situation better. I also urge airlines not to underestimate the importance of small city markets. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today's debate is the culmination of a long process of rethinking social programs. Welfare originally was designed as a transitional program--a safety net. The system is no longer a temporary safety net, but a lifetime security blanket. The result? Millions of Americans now are trapped in a cycle of dependency. To end this cycle we must rethink our concept of welfare. We need a new approach. The bill offered by the majority leader, Senator Dole, represents the fresh start we desperately need. The Dole bill would bring common sense back to welfare. It would restore personal responsibility and self- sufficiency. Compassion can no longer be defined in the number of dollars spent on welfare. Since the War on Poverty began three decades ago, welfare spending has increased to more than $137.6 billion. Despite this massive infusion of cash, our poverty level remains virtually the same--roughly 13 percent. Today, more than 69,000 South Dakotans are on welfare. That is more people than the population of Rapid City. We can no longer throw taxpayer dollars at a so-called poverty program that has not worked. We must change the incentives in the current system that encourage dependency on welfare. We must refocus our priorities to emphasize work and family. The Dole bill does just that. My liberal friends on the other side of the aisle prefer to continue the status quo. I do not understand why. The current system is cruel and unfair--to both welfare recipients and taxpayers. The current system holds people in a dependent state of poverty. It prevents them from realizing their personal potential and contributing to their family and community through work. Last June, I met with a group of mothers from South Dakota who are on welfare. Their heartfelt stories varied, but all are working actively for the day when they will leave welfare. They want welfare to be a transitional program. Their goal should be the welfare system's goal as well. We can no longer tolerate blatant gaming of the system. Generations of able-bodied families have stayed on welfare rather than work. This abuse is an insult to hardworking Americans. South Dakota has many working poor families. The small farmer, the local waitress and convenience store clerk struggle daily to provide for their families without government assistance. Welfare recipients should not get a free ride at the expense of hard working taxpayers. Frankly, they should not live easier or better than our working poor, who strive daily to put food on the table without a handout. The loopholes that allow people to cheat the system and defraud taxpayers must be closed. The Dole plan would transform welfare to workfare. It would restore personal responsibility by requiring work for benefits after 2 years on public assistance. Work would be required for food stamps as well. It would impose a 5 year lifetime limit on benefits. The bill would end disability assistance payments for alcohol and drug addicts to continue their habits, which is allowed under current law. It would [[Page S 13617]] tighten eligibility for food stamps. It would toughen child support enforcement. The Dole bill also would streamline child care programs, child nutrition programs, and job training programs. Collectively, these steps would move our antipoverty programs from welfare to workfare; dependency to personal responsibility. It is about time. We all agree that we have a responsibility to provide public assistance to truly needy children and families. This bill would continue the necessary transition assistance for those families who find themselves in circumstances beyond their control. It would not cut benefits to needy children. Instead, it would eliminate one-third of the cumbersome bureaucracy at the Department of Health and Human Services and scores of needless Federal regulations. The second pillar of personal responsibility is family. Welfare reform should remove disincentives to a sound family structure. The current system rewards illegitimacy and discourages marriage. An entire class of children are growing up in single parent families, usually without fathers. South Dakota small towns and cities are no longer immune to these problems. If we expect to restore family values, we must first restore the family structure. We should encourage marriage and family values while we encourage work. Perhaps most importantly, the Dole bill would give South Dakota and other States the ability to craft the solutions that best serve local needs. It has been proven time and again that Washington bureaucrats cannot completely understand unique local needs from thousands of miles away. Nor can we expect Washington bureaucrats to be the sole source of creative changes. By giving States welfare funds in a block grant, South Dakota would be free to pursue innovative ways to meet the needs of their welfare recipients. Like many other States, South Dakota has been operating under a waiver from the Federal Government since January 1, 1995. This waiver has allowed them to make some of the key reforms called for in the Dole bill. South Dakota implemented work for benefits, and incentives to moving off welfare, such as a transition period between AFDC support and employment. These changes are working. Case rolls are decreasing dramatically. In fiscal year 1994, South Dakota had a monthly average of 19,446 people on aid to families with dependent children [AFDC]--the central welfare cash assistance program. In May 1995, we had 16,737 people on AFDC. This reduction is proof that workfare truly works. We can change the incentives in the system. Further, South Dakota, like other States, can do a better job than the Federal Government. I would like to speak for a few moments about the unique welfare problems in South Dakota. A number of the welfare problems in South Dakota are ours alone--in fact, they differ greatly from even our Midwest neighbors. My State has three of the five poorest counties in the entire Nation. Our State has the lowest wages in the country. More than half of our welfare recipients--58 percent--are native Americans-- the highest percentage in the country. In some reservation areas, unemployment runs more than 80 percent. Long distances between towns and a lack of public transportation are further barriers to gainful employment and quality child care. All of these factors create a situation that needs special attention. What is needed to end welfare dependency in Oglala, Fort Thompson, or Rapid City, SD, is not what is needed in Los Angeles or Mississippi. With this bill, we recognize that we are a nation with people of vastly different needs. As such, we need individualized solutions. True welfare reform in South Dakota demands welfare reform on our reservations. Because of South Dakota's special problems, I have been especially concerned with the treatment of native American tribes in this legislation. Both the tribes and the State of South Dakota agree that the best way to relieve poverty and welfare dependency on reservations is give tribes the option to run their own welfare programs. A number of my colleagues--Senators McCain, Hatch, Murkowski, and Domenici--and myself, have agreed on a proposal which is included in the Dole bill. Our proposal would give tribes the ability to allocate their share of a State's AFDC dollars among tribal members. Much like the overall welfare system, handing out unlimited Federal dollars in public assistance has not changed the deplorable poverty on reservations. Welfare reform for native American tribes also means changing incentives. Workfare must be employed on our native American tribes, but done in a manner that recognizes the unique circumstances that exist. By making tribes directly responsible for their members, tribes will have an incentive to find solutions to chronic unemployment and poverty. This also is consistent with the long-standing Federal policy of tribal self-governance. Under our proposal, for example, tribes in high unemployment areas such as Shannon County would be given some flexibility in meeting participation rates. This proposal is fair and I thank all my colleagues for their help in taking the first step to resolve this important, but difficult issue. I am proud to be part of this effort today. Ultimately, what this bill is about is change--positive change. We can change the current failed system to help people become self-sufficient and productive members of society. We can change incentives to restore personal responsibility and family values. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that workfare becomes a reality.