Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Earlier today and throughout the day my staff has been discussing an amendment with the staff of the Appropriations Committee, and we thought we had it on the list. In fact, discussions were held throughout the day with Anne Miano. We called the cloakroom and said, please, put it on the list. I think there has been an error made, a good-faith error, and I would very much like to offer this amendment because as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, several of my members wanted a chance to vote on this amendment. I will not take much time, but I am not trying to do anything by sleight of hand. There has been a genuine slip-up, so to speak, and I am not blaming anyone. I am not here to blame staff at this hour of the night. But we did intend to have this on the list. It was our intention. We discussed it throughout the day with members of the staff. I would like to ask unanimous consent--first of all, let me explain, if necessary. I am not going to get into a tit for tat about what is on and what is not. I will spend some time explaining what is in the amendment. As you know, on the Commerce Committee, we try very hard to work with various critical transportation modes--rail, passenger. Indeed, I went out of my way to help with the Amtrak bill this year even though my State has no Amtrak. There is assistance for different types of transportation in this country. My State frequently does not share as generously as some other States, but I have fought hard for things that the Senator from New Jersey believes in. I know there is Amtrak in his State, and I could have blocked the Amtrak funding in the Commerce Committee. But I did not choose to do so because I think there is a national interest. There is one area of service that is not included, and that is the local rail freight assistance program and the section 511 loan guarantee programs. These programs are critical to addressing our Nation's rail freight infrastructure needs. While billions of dollars have been invested in Amtrak over the years and now high speed rail initiatives are receiving increased focus, little has been invested in the rail freight lines serving our smaller cities and rural areas. Indeed, capital investment needed to maintain our secondary rail lines far outpaces supply. In my view, Federal involvement in rail service should not be limited to rail passenger service. Certainly Amtrak and high speed rail are important. However, to smaller-city States such as mine, which has no Amtrak service and will never benefit from high speed rail, freight rail is even more important. As my colleagues know, H.R. 2002 provides a good deal of money to fund rail passenger service. Certainly a limited amount of funding should be provided to meet very serious rail freight needs. Even limited Federal involvement will help to rebuild and improve the rail lines serving our smaller cities and rural areas. These lines, run mainly by short-line regional railroads, are critical to the survival of rural America's economy, yet the capital needed to maintain these secondary rail lines is very limited. Mr. President, the LRFA program has proved to play a vital role in our Nation's rail transportation system. Created in 1973, the LRFA provides matching funds to help States save rail lines that otherwise would be abandoned. For instance, over the past few years, several rail improvement projects in my State and other States have been made possible. And I know we have been unable to reach the Senator from Iowa tonight, but he has worked on this. In fact, one of the east coast Senators wished to have a chance to speak on this tonight. Without LRFA, our freight funding needs would go largely unmet. Of particular importance is how LRFA's matching requirements enable limited Federal, State and local resources to be leveraged. Indeed, LRFA's success has been in part due to its ability to promote investment partnerships, thus maximizing very limited Federal assistance. Historically, LRFA has received only a very modest level of Federal funding. For example, $17 million was provided for LRFA in fiscal 1995. But a substantial portion of this very limited appropriations, $6.5 million, was rescinded recently by Public Law 104-6. In fiscal year 1995, 31 States requested LRFA assistance for 59 projects totaling more than $32 million in funding requests. Unfortunately, less than one-third of the funding was available to meet these rail infrastructure needs. With continued railway structuring, these legitimate funding needs will only increase. LRFA is a worthy program and should be funded. As my colleagues may already know, oftentimes small railroads face unique problems and difficulties securing needed financing. Unlike other businesses that need short-term loans, smaller railroads need long-term financing for big-ticket items, ranging anywhere from equipment to track rehabilitation. Yet, I understand most financial institutions will not make loans that are not repaid within 7 or 8 years. These loans and loan arrangements simply do not work for smaller railroads. And 511 loans were permanently authorized to address these problems and should be funded. In this era of significant budgetary pressures, the 511 program provides a cost-effective method of ensuring modest infrastructure investment on a repayable basis. We should support programs like the 511 program and the LRFA that provide an excellent leverage of our limited Federal dollars. The 511 railroad guarantee program is permanently authorized at $1 billion, of which approximately $980 million currently is available for commitment. The Credit Reform Act rules require appropriation for the 511 program to cover the anticipated loss to the Government over the life of each loan. Based on a fiscal year 1994 appropriation for a 511 project in New York State--the first 511 application processed under the rules of the Credit Reform Act--5 percent of the total loan obligation must be appropriated. Several regional and short-line railroads are ready to submit loan applications as soon as the program is appropriated funding. My amendment provides $10 million to enable up to $100 million in loans. Mr. President, I wish to be up front regarding the offsets I have proposed. A portion of this funding is taken from the Department of Transportation's working capital fund. Another portion is being off set by reducing the next generation high speed rail account for planning and design. However, more than one-half of that account will still remain. Let me be clear. I am not opposed to the high-speed rail program. However, we are still waiting for two reports from the administration on high-speed rail. One is on the commercial feasibility of high-speed ground transportation. It will be submitted to Congress by the end of the year. The other report due next year is to provide the administration policy directions and a perspective on high-speed rail. They are two very important reports. They will lay out the technological feasibility of where we should go in the next 20 years with high-speed rail. Certainly we can delay some funding for this until we have a firm foundation and vision on high-speed rail. Of course, I am willing to entertain any other suggestions for offsets and invite my colleagues to provide an alternative. So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that I stand here as a Senator from a State where we do not have passenger rail service. We are, I believe, one of two States in the United States that do not have Amtrak. We have no prospect of getting high-speed rail. But I have been a supporter and a helper in those areas on the authorizing committee. Just the other day I assisted Senator Lott in working out the package that involved Amtrak. And I rise in good faith. I would ask that my amendment be considered. And I would ask unanimous consent that it be considered, and that we have a vote on it.

Mr. PRESSLER. The staff are rewriting so that the offsets will be pleasing to the various Members. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have a matter I would like to discuss with the Members, with the manager of the bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRESSLER. OK. Amendment No. 2340

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to a resolution I introduced several weeks ago. It is simple and straightforward. It calls on the Government of Japan to abide by the terms of the United States/Japan aviation agreement. This amendment has a number of cosponsors. It has been floating around for some time while we negotiated with the Japanese so we tried to contact all cosponsors to reconfirm their support. We were unable to contact all of the cosponsors to notify them of this amendment so we have taken some of the cosponsors' names off of it. At this time, the amendment is for myself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mr. Pell, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lautenberg. Mr. President, Let me say that for some time we have had an aviation dispute with Japan regarding the refusal of Japan to respect the right of several of our carriers to fly beyond Japan to countries throughout Asia. Several of our carriers--United Airlines, Federal Express, and Northwest Airlines--are guaranteed this right by the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement. Nonetheless, the Government of Japan refuses to recognize our carriers' right to initiate new service beyond Japan. On June 20, the Government of Japan agreed to honor the United State/ Japan bilateral aviation agreement with respect to the cargo dispute. This favorable development was due in large part to the leadership of Fred Smith, the chairman of Federal Express. Mr. Smith made the point, and I agree with him, that it is time that we get tough with the Japanese in terms of enforcing our bilateral aviation agreement. Let me add that I think our Secretary of Transportation, Secretary Pena, has done a good job in this and other international aviation matters. He has done the best job he can despite tremendous political pressure to put the interests of individual carriers before the interests of our country. Aviation relations between the United States and Japan are an important trade issue. The Japanese recognize the significant and growing air service market in the Pacific rim and they want to control all the air passenger service beyond Tokyo into China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and so forth. They also have a system of trying to control most of the air cargo transportation beyond Tokyo. The travel distances are so great on transpacific routes between the United States and Japan that it very difficult for our carriers to overfly Japan. The Japanese know this and they are trying through protectionist tactics to prevent our carriers from serving the rapidly expanding Asian market. Resolution of our cargo dispute several weeks ago was welcome news. Unfortunately, as I said at the time, the agreement on cargo issues did not put our aviation dispute with Japan over ``beyond rights'' completely behind us. The passenger carrier portion of the United States/Japan aviation dispute remains unresolved. The Government of Japan continues to deny United Airlines the right to fly between Osaka and Seoul, Korea. As our Department of Transportation has said, this route is clearly authorized by the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement. United Airlines has patiently waited while United States negotiators focused on the cargo dispute. Now, it is imperative that the United States demand the Government of Japan honor the rights of our passenger carriers as well. The passenger carrier issue must be redressed promptly. By failing to do so, we are sending the wrong message to countries around the world. Our silence on the passenger carrier dispute sends the dangerous signal that it is okay for foreign nations to pick and choose which, if any, provisions of an international aviation agreement with the United States with which they will comply. This is the wrong message. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent. On June 20, I, along with 20 colleagues from both sides of the aisle, introduced a resolution calling on the Government of Japan to immediately honor the terms of the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement, On the floor the next day I told my colleagues I would press this issue if the Government of Japan continued to refuse to resolve the passenger carrier issue. Several weeks have passed. The passenger carrier dispute remains unresolved. This is why I today offer that same resolution as an amendment to the pending bill. By passing this amendment, we will send the Government of Japan a strong and clear signal that the United States Senate expects it to immediately honor the terms of the United States/Japan aviation agreement. This is the purpose of my amendment. Simply put, selective compliance with international agreements must not be tolerated. The Government of Japan must honor the beyond rights of our passenger carriers. I urge adoption of this amendment on behalf of myself and my cosponsors.

Mr. PRESSLER. Some names have been crossed off. We are trying to contact those offices. We wanted to be sure, since we drafted the resolution a couple of months ago, that we did not list any cosponsors without their permission. But I think we will have close to 25 cosponsors. I urge the Senators--whose offices are listening--to become cosponsors of this amendment because it is a signal to Japan that we are tired of their behavior under our bilateral air agreement. We are abiding by the terms of the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement. It is time the Government of Japan also honors that solemn agreement.

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Domenici. I am proud of the native American heritage which is so much a part of South Dakota's history. However, the Domenici amendment would inadvertently threaten the future of the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, which will carry South Dakota into the 21st century and will bring new jobs to our state. South Dakota can trace its native ancestry back more than 9,000 years. Today, South Dakota is home to nine Sioux or Lakota Indian tribes: the Cheyenne River Sioux, the Crow Creek Sioux, the Flandreau Santee Sioux, the Lower Brule Sioux, the Oglala Sioux, the Rosebud Sioux, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, the Standing Rock Sioux and the Yankton Sioux. South Dakota's Indian reservations are the very poorest areas in the Nation. Mr. President, I recognize the importance of Federal funds to the survival and growth of the Indian tribes. These funds also are part of the longstanding Federal policy of self-governance. During my 20 years in Congress--both in the House and the Senate--I have strongly supported legislation to authorize and fund programs for native Americans. In fact, I recently coauthored a proposal which would allow tribes to run their own welfare programs. Though, I support the intent and the goal of the Domenici amendment, I must object to the means used to fund the goal. The funding offsets could result in the elimination of the EROS Data Center--which in many ways, represents the future of technology in South Dakota. The Earth Resources Observation Center, commonly known as EROS, was established in Sioux Falls, SD in the early 1970's. South Dakotans are justifiably proud of the EROS Data Center. For 20 years, it has been the Nation's primary center for managing and distributing land remote sensing data. Its excellent track record for making this information available has made EROS famous among scientists throughout the world. The National Satellite Archive houses the world's largest collection of space- and aircraft-acquired imagery. It currently holds more than 8 million aerial photos and over 2 million satellite images of the Earth. EROS facilities house the scientists, researchers, and technicians, as well as the high performance computer systems and advanced telecommunications networks, needed to process and distribute the data. Researchers use the data to better understand the Earth, determine the extent and distribution of natural resources, monitor land surface changes, and evaluate environmental conditions. What makes EROS unique is the availability of its information. The images collected at EROS provide very important information for agriculture, mining, urban planning, and other global change research. In fact, in South Dakota, many native Americans are utilizing Landsat data provided by EROS to manage land and resources on their reservations. EROS enjoys an internationally renowned reputation--a reputation that is well-deserved. The economic future of South Dakota depends upon the advanced technologies of facilities such as EROS. Balancing the budget requires that we make difficult choices. This certainly is one such choice. But a balanced budget is the key to growth for both the native American and scientific communities. Without balanced budgets, interest on the Federal debt will continue to skyrocket, squeezing out funds for legitimate programs, such as the tribal priority allocation. I would be pleased to work with my colleagues during the upcoming House-Senate conference to find a way to fund Indian programs without unnecessarily cutting other programs which are vital to South Dakota. It is my hope that we can work to this end. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which states that as the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps [JROTC] programs expands in the future, the Department of Defense will seek to expand JROTC opportunities in schools on Indian reservations that seek to participate in the JROTC program. Unfortunately, only six of the Nation's 3,500 schools currently participating in the JROTC program are located on Indian reservations. The JROTC program helps our young people acquire the skills that will serve them the remainder of their lives. To achieve this goal, the JROTC curriculum includes such topics as American citizenship, history, self-discipline, goal-setting, ethics, responsibility, and integrity. In short, the JROTC program helps motivate young men and women to become better American citizens. I believe the JROTC program is a valuable addition to any high school's educational curriculum. Many challenges face native American youth today. Too many Indian children grow up without having the opportunities or options available to help them achieve their full potential. Native American youth too often enter adulthood without the necessary skills to contribute to their local communities. As a result, they are unable to reap the benefits or meet all the responsibilities of parenthood, citizenship, and employment. Today's native American youth hold within them the key to the future of native American communities. In their heads, hands, and hearts are the tools to a better life for them, their family, and their community. As their elected representatives, we can help prepare these young people for more productive lives by expanding the learning opportunities available to them. The JROTC program is one option that if made more available on native American reservations, could make a big contribution to young people seeking to make a difference for themselves. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their cooperation with this amendment. I intend to work with Secretary Perry and the other leaders of our Armed Forces in determining how we can achieve the goal of a greater JROTC presence on native American reservations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on Tuesday the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 1225, the Court Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of 1995. The bill has since been received in the Senate. I rise to strongly support this much needed legislation, modeled after a bill, S. 190, I introduced last Congress and reintroduced again this January. This legislation would correct a situation caused last year by a Labor Department interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [FLSA] as it relates to State and local court reporters. The bill would exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA the time official court reporters spend outside of work preparing transcripts of court proceedings for a private fee. Mr. President, for purposes of legislative history, let me take a moment to explain the background of this issue and why this legislation is so necessary. Traditionally, court reporters have enjoyed a somewhat unique position of being treated as both public employees and independent contractors, depending on the nature of their work. While performing their primary duties of recording and reading back court proceedings, reporters have been considered employees of the court entitled to appropriate compensation and benefits. In addition to these in-court duties, however, official court reporters also are required by most jurisdictions to prepare and certify transcripts of their stenographic records. Transcripts are typically requested by a wide range of persons--including attorneys for indigent and nonindigent criminal defendants, civil litigants, and judges. In return, reporters are paid a per-page fee by the party requesting the transcript. When preparing transcripts for outside parties, not including judges, reporters have been considered independent contractors, not court employees. This makes sense because the court receives no benefit from the preparation of the transcript. The work is performed after normal working hours, on weekends, or when all their other court duties have been completed. Quite often, court reporters produce these transcripts at home using computer-aided transcription equipment, which they have personally purchased, without any supervision by the court. For taxation purposes, the fee income received for the work is treated as separate and apart from reporters' court wages. In fact, court reporters in my home State of South Dakota are required to collect and pay sales tax on this income. They also file self- employment income forms with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Mr. President, the situation I have described, typical of almost all State and local court reporters in the country, was thrown into turmoil last year by the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department. In a series of letters, the Division took the position that official court reporters in Oregon, Indiana, and North Carolina were still acting as court employees, for purposes of the FLSA, when they prepare transcripts of their stenographic records for private litigants, regardless of when or where the work is completed. Court reporters in most other States operate in circumstances similar to these three States. None of the groups affected are pleased by the Labor Department's position. Many view the Labor Department as unnecessarily intruding into a situation with which everyone concerned was happy. If allowed to stand, court employers would be forced to pay overtime for transcription work that is not supervised by the court and from which the court does not receive a benefit. As a result, many more hours of overtime would be accumulated by reporters. At one and one- half times the regular rate of pay, these additional overtime hours would severely strain the limited salary budgets of the courts. In response, courts would be forced to drastically cut back the number of hours allowed for transcription work, or cut back the number of court reporter positions. State and local court reporters also are not happy with the Labor Department's interpretation. Though they purportedly would be the beneficiaries of the ``protections'' of the FLSA, reporters are worried their ability to earn outside income would be drastically reduced, that they would be subjected to court supervision when preparing transcripts, and that many reporter positions could be eliminated. Finally, attorneys and others who request transcripts do not wish to see the current system changed. Under the traditional situation, they receive transcripts quickly and accurately at a reasonable price. Mr. President, this legislation fixes the problem. It would allow State and local court reporters to continue to prepare transcripts for attorneys and others in their off hours for a per-page fee. During these hours, court reporters would be considered independent contractors, not employees of the court. These hours would not count toward the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Courts would not be required to pay reporters for these hours. The effect of the bill would be to preserve the system as it has existed for years. It is strongly supported by the National Court Reporters Association. I also have heard strong support from many judges and attorneys in South Dakota for preserving the present system. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. As it progressed through the House, this legislation enjoyed broad support on both sides of the aisle. During a hearing held several weeks ago in the House Worker Protections Subcommittee of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, no witness testified in opposition. After consultations with members of both parties and the Labor Department, the House bill was modified to clarify its intent. The modified version was then offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Representative Owens, the ranking member of the subcommittee, with the approval of the sponsor, Mr. Fawell. Essentially, two conditions must be met for the exemption to apply. First, when performing transcript preparation duties, reporters must be paid at a per-page rate that is fair. To ensure reporters are not exploited, the rate must not be less than the maximum rate set by State law or local ordinance or otherwise established by a judicial or administrative officer, or a fair market rate as negotiated by the reporter and the party requesting the transcript. Second, transcription work must be performed during hours when reporters are not otherwise required by their court employer to be at work. Reporters are clearly acting as employees subject to compensation when they are required by the court to be working, or to be on call during a period of down time in a trial, for instance. However, when court reporters no longer are required to be at work, when they are free to go home or spend their time as they wish, and they choose to prepare transcripts for a private fee, then court employers are under no obligation to compensate them or count those hours toward the overtime provisions of the FLSA. This is common sense. Mr. President, as I mentioned, no opposition to this legislation appeared in the House. I do not expect any opposition in this chamber either. S. 190, the bill I introduced, has been cosponsored by Senator Kassebaum, chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, as well as Senators Exon, Helms, Jeffords, Cochran, Coats and Brown. I thank them for their support and am confident they also will find the House- passed legislation satisfactory. H.R. 1225 is being held at the Senate desk pursuant to my request. It is my intention to seek unanimous consent to move this bill at the appropriate time. I understand from the staff of the ranking member of the Labor Committee, Senator Kennedy, that he does not plan to object to moving this legislation. I also have checked with other members of the Labor Committee from the other party and have not heard of any opposition. Nor did I expect any. To conclude, Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues for their support and look forward to moving this bill quickly.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment that reflects my growing frustration with the Treasury Department's unwarranted unwillingness to grant the State of South Dakota's application to obtain official designation as a U.S. Customs port of entry. Specifically, the amendment would have required the U.S. Customs Service to state for the record to the Congress that the State of South Dakota in fact qualifies for the designation as a port of entry under existing laws and regulations. Mr. President, South Dakota is the only State without a Customs port of entry. The State has been working with Customs and Treasury officials for more than a year on this matter. There is no disputing the fact that South Dakota has met all the necessary criteria set forth by the U.S. Customs Service for port of entry designation: The Greater Sioux Falls area has a population in excess of 300,000 within the immediate service area. The Greater Sioux Falls area is serviced by three major modes of transportation--air, rail, and highway. The potential Customs workload will exceed the requirement of 2,500 consumption entries per year with no more than half of this number derived from any one business. The State of South Dakota and the city of Sioux Falls have committed to optimal use of electronic data input. Facilities for Customs--provided without cost to the Federal Government--will be provided and meet the specifications of the U.S. Customs Service. Unfortunately, even though South Dakota has met all the baseline requirements needed to be designated full port status, Customs initially proposed that the State accept a lesser user fee status. This recommendation is unacceptable. First, as I have just stated, South Dakota more than meets all necessary requirements for port of entry designation. In fact, our population base and number of potential customs entries actually exceeds the standards set by the U.S. Customs Bureau. Therefore, I am convinced anything short of full port designation would unnecessarily and unfairly hinder international trade opportunities for South Dakota businesses. Second, the Customs Service has been inconsistent in applying its own criteria when making port designation determinations. The U.S. Customs Commissioner admitted that 35 to 40 percent of the existing 301 ports of entry do not meet the workload measurement criteria that Customs requires for a new port of entry applicant. The amendment I intended to offer would have required the Customs Service to report the exact number of existing ports which do not meet minimal designation requirements. I also have learned that because of budgetary constraints, Customs will not approve any new port applications this year, regardless of the merits of the applicant, and the fact that the added costs for the new port are minimal. Mr. President, we have more than 100 ports that have a status that they could not qualify for if they applied today. Allowing these ports to retain their status while denying South Dakota its rightful designation defies common sense. It is a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. It is wrong, plain and simple. Not only is it highly inefficient for the Federal Government to continue funding over 100 inefficient ports, but it is also highly unfair and counterproductive to a State's plans for economic development if the Federal Government denies a port of entry designation even if the State qualifies for it. Clearly this issue is one of fairness--fairness to the taxpayers and business men and women of South Dakota. The administration advocated the passage of GATT and NAFTA as a way to increase international trade opportunities. South Dakota, the only State in the country without a Customs presence, is precluded from capitalizing on new trade opportunities because a port designation is required before the State can become a Foreign Trade Zone [FTZ]. South Dakota businesses are moving out of the State because of a lack of an FTZ. The refusal to grant South Dakota's port of entry application denies a major agricultural exporter and burgeoning economy the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the Nation. Mr. President, the State of South Dakota is right now working with me and my colleagues of the South Dakota delegation to try to convince the Customs Service and the Treasury Department to grant the status our State rightly deserves. It is my understanding a positive resolution is imminent. I certainly hope so because my patience is being put to the test. In the hope of reaching a renegotiated solution soon, I will not offer this amendment--an amendment that is more a reflection of my clear and growing frustration with this blatant unfairness being dealt to the people of South Dakota. I certainly hope I will not have to pursue this option in the near future. South Dakota deserves its rightful place on the world economic stage. South Dakota deserves a port of entry. We qualify for it. We have earned it. It is long overdue.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend would yield for a question, he is stating it exactly correctly. I might say, with some sense of humor, when this was working in the 1980's, it was known as the Reagan-Bush amendment; it was only when it became controversial that they started calling it the Pressler amendment, I point out.

Mr. PRESSLER. I will yield to the Senator for a question.

Mr. PRESSLER. Well, there is another question.

Mr. PRESSLER. I think we can get a solution if we sought the assistance of the Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, and his Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. I believe we can work on this through him. Again, I am opposed to it because it is unconditional. We are getting no concessions.

Mr. PRESSLER. It says, ``The President may return to the Government of Pakistan military equipment paid for and delivered to Pakistan and subsequently transferred for repair or upgrade.'' So we are getting into a whole host of things here.

Mr. PRESSLER. No, of course not. Once again, we are getting no concessions from Pakistan in the area of nuclear non-proliferation. I am basically opposed to this because it is unconditional. We are getting no concessions on nonproliferation. Indeed, according to what is happening, we are getting less cooperation lately. You can go through each of the lines, but the larger, fundamental problem remains.

Mr. PRESSLER. Facilitating military-to-military contact, training-- including chapter 5 of par II of this act--and humanitarian and civic assistance projects. I think that has to go into Senator Mitch McConnell's appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Ooperations. I believe if we have the time to study this and the other proposal we discussed in private, we could resolve this issue.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I reluctantly must rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me say that in 1985, when we adopted the Pressler amendment, it was supported by Pakistan. Frankly, it was the Reagan administration's amendment to settle the dispute. At the time, Pakistan said they had no nuclear program, and the Foreign Relations Committee was considering the Cranston amendment to shut off aid. My colleagues will recall the Carter administration had previously shut off aid. Our former colleague from California had sought a complete cut-off. This amendment, which conditioned aid on an annual certification, was a compromise put forth by the Reagan administration. George Bush was very much involved in it, and Pakistan supported the original so-called Pressler amendment. At that point, they began buying planes and other military equipment knowing that they, at the same time, were developing nuclear weapons. But they were telling George Bush in his trips over there just the opposite. George Bush was very disturbed about this matter. When he became President in 1990, the United States CIA had certified that Pakistan, in fact, had been lying and had a nuclear weapon. I know Pakistan has done a lot of things for us. I have been in there many times and want to be friends with the Pakistanis. But the fact of the matter is we acted in good faith. We adopted an amendment they asked us to adopt, and it was Reagan administration policy. Then at that point in time, in 1990, we could no longer deliver a previous order of military equipment under an agreement that they sought with us. And that is how the now infamous fleet of F-16's came to be parked on the tarmac. Those planes were part of a $1.4 billion contract of military equipment that was made prior to the Pressler amendment, but could not be delivered after Pressler was invoked. Recently, I proposed a plan so that the Pakistanis could be paid back their money. I proposed that the President of the United States could offer for sale these planes to Taiwan or to the Philippines or to another third party, and the President has done this. That is a positive step. That is moving forward. The rationale for not seeking their delivery is obvious: F-16's are nuclear delivery vehicles. We would be more than waiving the Pressler amendment if the F-16's were delivered. We would be striking at the very heart of our Nation's nonproliferation policy. I have been critical of both India and Pakistan in the nuclear area. In recent weeks, we have received more disturbing news: The New York Times and Defense News reported last month that Pakistan received from Communist China key components that could be used in M-11 ballistic missiles. Without question, a nuclear war between India and Pakistan 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 has taken the initiative to promote peace and stability in South Asia, and the core of that is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A decade ago, under the chairmanship of the Senator from Indiana [Senator Lugar], we voted to adopt an amendment that allowed United States aid to Pakistan to continue as long as the President can certify that Pakistan was not in possession of a nuclear device. That is how this came about. Why did the committee, and ultimately the Congress, take this action? Pakistan was the third-largest recipient of United States foreign assistance, receiving as much as $600 million annually. Pakistan was, and is today, an ally of the United States. The brave people of Pakistan were instrumental in channeling resources to Afghan refugees and rebels as they sought to repel Soviet invaders. United States officials rightly were concerned that the Government in Islamabad was interested in developing a nuclear weapon, a course of action not in our national interest. Therefore, given the vast amounts of United States aid made available to Pakistan, we believe that the threat could be used to further two policy goals: First, to give Pakistan an incentive to ensure that the nuclear program serves a peaceful purpose, or the American people will stop subsidizing Pakistan. In short, the so-called Pressler amendment was designed to send one message: Nuclear proliferation has a price. In addition, I urge my colleagues to look at some of the recent intelligence reports. I might say that there is available a transcript in this building of a recent briefing for Senators on Pakistan by the CIA. Obviously, I cannot state what that said. But I will say what the New York Times and Defense News reported last month--that Pakistan has been receiving from Communist China key components that can be used in making M-11 ballistic missiles. To conclude my argument, it is this. This was an amendment that Pakistan asked for in good faith. George Bush went over and met with them when he was Vice President. He was very involved in this amendment. This was a Reagan-Bush amendment. And the truth has not been told and is still not being told today. That is the problem we have here. I wish it were otherwise because I want to have good relations with both Pakistan and India. I have traveled to Pakistan and India several times. This problem will go on and on until the Pakistanis are willing to be honest with us in our dealings and to say what our intelligence people say and has been published in the New York Times and Defense News, and so I must very reluctantly oppose this amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER. I have no problem with that, but the larger problem is that we are not seeking any concessions from Pakistan on the nonproliferation front.