Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

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.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, with a sense of pride and honor I rise today to pay special tribute to Floyd Gulbrandson, Al Rickel, Charles Skorpik, Willie Wieland, and the rest of the crew of the U.S.S. South Dakota, one of the most decorated battleships during World War II. Commissioned on March 20, 1942, the U.S.S. South Dakota quickly became the flagship of Admiral Nimitz's 3rd Fleet, and originally was intended to host the Japanese surrender which ultimately was held on the U.S.S. Missouri. Stretching more than 600 feet and displacing more than 43,000 tons of water, the U.S.S. South Dakota defended our Nation in World War II by traveling across 276,000 miles of ocean with massive firepower which included nine 16-inch guns, sixteen 5-inch guns, sixty-eight 40- millimeter guns, and seventy-six 20-millimeter guns. During her years of active service, more than 7,000 brave individuals would serve aboard the South Dakota. Collectively, the crew of the U.S.S. South Dakota endured her many battles and earned several distinguished awards, including the Navy Unit Commendation, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with 13 battles stars, the World War II Victory Medal, and the Navy Occupation Service Medal. Mr. President, I want to highlight some of many moments of naval combat from the many successful battles experienced by the crew of the U.S.S. South Dakota. On October 26, 1942, the U.S.S. South Dakota entered its first battle with a freshman crew on deck and was attacked by 180 enemy bombers in what is now know as the Battle of Santa Cruz Island. Defending both the Enterprise and Hornet aircraft carriers, the U.S.S. South Dakota offered a bold retaliation of gunfire that shot down an unprecedented 30 enemy aircraft and helped render two enemy aircraft carriers inoperative. For their valiant action during the repeated attacks and heavy fire, Captain Gatch was decorated with the Navy Cross, the crew was presented with the Navy Unit Commendation and the U.S.S. South Dakota received its first of 13 battle stars. That was an extraordinary beginning to an extraordinary vessel that symbolized gallantry, honor, and service at sea. Mr. President, on October 25, 1962, the first and only U.S.S. South Dakota, one of the greatest battleships ever to sail during World War II, was sold for scrap metal. Although gone, the U.S.S. South Dakota continues in the memory of those who served on her decks. I am proud of the heritage of the U.S.S. South Dakota. She was instrumental during World War II in fighting successfully for the freedoms we now enjoy. I commend the brave crew of the U.S.S. South Dakota for their courage and commitment to duty. In honor of the crew, their dedicated service, and the memory of this great battleship, I have asked the Secretary of the Navy to name one of the new attack submarines the U.S.S. South Dakota. That would be a fitting tribute--to have one of the next generation's great submarines carry the same name of one of America's truly great battleships.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, today I and Senator Daschle are offering an amendment to correct a problem in South Dakota that has resulted in severe flooding along the shores of Lake Traverse over the last several years. Lake Traverse lies on the far northeast section of South Dakota and in parts of western Minnesota. In fact, the boundary line between South Dakota and Minnesota goes through the middle of the lake. Two out of the last three years, Lake Traverse has faced a major disaster due to high water levels. Shorelines were destroyed. Some small businesses lost money and proprietors were placed in financial jeopardy. Farmland was damaged and homes, cottages and other structures were damaged or destroyed. And if this is not enough, the environment and subsequent erosion wreaked havoc to the local land. Thousands of trees are under water and are dead or dying. Something must be done. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Congressional approval is needed before they can take steps to correct the high water level and erosion problems. The Corps is managing the lake with arcane rules that are half a century old. That is unacceptable. My amendment would give the Corps the necessary authority to better manage water release at Lake Traverse and control erosion. The amendment would direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the needed authority to obtain and maintain an elevation of 977 feet above sea level at Lake Traverse. The amendment also assures that should the Corps take action, such action would not result in flooding at Mud Lake. There is strong public support for this action. I have held two meetings in South Dakota on this issue. At both of these meetings over 250 citizens were in attendance. Such turnout clearly indicates that South Dakotans believe something needs to be done. This amendment achieves their goal. amendment no. 2073 (Purpose: To provide funds for a flood control project) On page 5 insert the following between lines 16 and 17: ``Arkansas City flood control project, Kansas, $700,000, except that for the purposes of the project, section 902 of Public Law 99-662 is waived;''. amendment no. 2074 On page 13, insert the following after line 23: Sec. . Using funds appropriated herein the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to undertake the Coos Bay, Oregon project in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of $14,541,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,777,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $3,764,000. amendment no. 2075 (Purpose: To require the Army Corps of Engineers to take such actions as are necessary to obtain and maintain a specified elevation in Lake Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota) At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of great importance to U.S. passenger and cargo carriers. I refer to aviation relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. The strategic location of the United Kingdom makes it a key crossroad for international traffic. It is a gateway to Europe and an important link in the global aviation market. A liberalized, balanced air service agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom is in the best interest of both countries. Of equal importance, the increased competition resulting from such an agreement would benefit consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, our current bilateral aviation agreement--the Bermuda II Agreement--is anticompetitive, nowhere near balanced, and harms consumers. First, the agreement is terribly restrictive. For example, presently only two U.S. carriers--American Airlines and United Airlines--can serve London Heathrow Airport and they can do so only from specific cities. This is particularly significant since Heathrow is the most important international gateway airport in the world. Also, the number of passengers carried to the United Kingdom by United States airlines is severely constrained by the Bermuda II Agreement. Without question, Bermuda II is our most restrictive bilateral aviation agreement. Second, the air service agreement is grossly imbalanced in favor of the British. Currently, United Kingdom airlines carry approximately 60 percent of the transatlantic passengers between the United States and the United Kingdom. In 1976, U.S. air carriers had around 60 percent of the transatlantic passenger market share. The British found that state of affairs intolerable. In fact, the United Kingdom relied on this inequitable balance as the basis for renouncing the Bermuda I Agreement. The British were right. A 60 percent-40 percent imbalance is intolerable. It must be corrected. U.S. carriers are highly competitive and, but for Bermuda II, the market would not be skewed in this manner. I am willing to put our highly efficient carriers up against any foreign carriers. Given the chance, I am confident they will successfully compete in any market worldwide. Finally, Bermuda II is undesirable for consumers because it limits competition. Consumers on both sides of the Atlantic would benefit greatly from increased competition in the United States-United Kingdom transatlantic market. Bermuda II does not discriminate, it harms British consumers as well as United States travelers. Mr. President, earlier this year the United States began pressing for a liberalized, market oriented aviation agreement with the United Kingdom. This is not the first time we have tried to secure an air service agreement on this basis. In fact, for more than 50 years the United States has repeatedly tried to get the United Kingdom to embrace an air service agreement based on free-market principles. Our current position is not new, nor is it novel. Unfortunately, for more than 50 years, these attempts have consistently been rebuffed by the British who are very concerned about the prospect of unrestrained head-to-head competition with United States carriers. Many aspects of our trade relationship with [[Page S 10925]] the United Kingdom are open and unrestricted. Aviation certainly is not one of them. The current round of negotiations that began earlier this year did, however, start a process which hopefully will ultimately result in a liberalized air service agreement. The phase 1 deal agreed to by the United States and the United Kingdom last month is a step in the right direction, but we have a long, long way to go. Hopefully, the momentum of the phase 1 deal will carry over into phase 2 negotiations which began recently in London. I hope we can secure a phase 2 deal this fall that increases access to Heathrow and Gatwick Airports, and liberalizes cargo services, pricing, and charter flights. Such an agreement would be another significant step. It would be a welcome development. However, even if we reach consensus on a phase 2 agreement, we must not stop there. The United States and the United Kingdom must continue working together to fully liberalize our aviation relations. Mr. President, I wish to briefly discuss two important related issues. First, is the United States' request for additional Heathrow access fair and realistic in light of current capacity limitations at that airport? Second, does the United States have enough leverage in negotiations to obtain a liberalized air service agreement? Several weeks ago I met in London with key United Kingdom transport officials and aviation executives to better evaluate each of these questions. I believe the answer to both questions is ``yes.'' Let me explain my conclusions. Heathrow Airport, like four airports in the United States, is a slot- controlled facility. By this I mean it has a limited number of takeoff and landing slots. I was aware Heathrow handles a substantial amount of passenger and cargo traffic. However, I was surprised to discover Heathrow also is an airport with significant unused capacity. In the short term, operational changes at Heathrow could immediately create much-needed additional runway capacity. For instance, presently Heathrow's two runways function on what is called segregated mode operations. What this means is one runway is used exclusively for takeoffs while the other is used exclusively for landings. Operating runways in this manner is quite inefficient. In the United States, most of our major airports use mixed-mode runway operations. This means landing and departing traffic is sequenced and mixed on the same runway. Mixed-mode operations are very efficient and very safe. They enable an airport to maximize runway capacity. What would result if Heathrow switched its runways to mixed-mode operations? It has been estimated hourly runway capacity would increase by about 18 percent. This would mean potentially an additional 7 arrivals and 7 departures per hour, and more than 100 new arrivals and 100 new departures daily. For an airport which purportedly has no additional capacity, this is very significant indeed. Some adjustments in airspace operations and ground movement management would be needed to capture the full traffic benefits of this switch in runway operations. Let me add that I understand the noise climate around Heathrow has been improving for many years and, due to newer and quieter jets, increased operations should not pose an environmental problem. I wish I could take credit for this excellent idea. The credit, however, goes to British Government and industry projects which have studied the Heathrow capacity problem. It was a conclusion of the British Civil Aviation Authority study on runway capacity that was released in 1993. The source of the statistics to which I refer is the August 1994 report of the Heathrow Airport Runway Capacity Enhancement Study. On June 22, 1995, the House of Commons Transport Committee commenced an inquiry into airport capacity issues in the United Kingdom. Among the issues it will consider is underutilization of airport capacity and, in that regard, methods of runway operations. In the longer term, there is a proposal to add a new terminal at Heathrow that will significantly increase airport capacity. According to a report by BAA plc, the dynamic private company that owns and operates Heathrow, the proposed new terminal 5 would allow Heathrow to handle 30 million more passengers a year. Time and time again United States negotiators are told by their very skilled British counterparts there is no additional capacity at Heathrow. I understand the British sang the same song in negotiations in London earlier this month. We should confront the British negotiators with these facts and supporting studies. Let me turn to the important question of whether we have enough leverage to get the British to agree to a fully liberalized aviation agreement. The Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee considered that issue during a hearing several months ago. Understandably, a number of Senators were concerned the United States has squandered its leverage by giving the British too many aviation rights in the past without obtaining equal benefits. That criticism of negotiations prior to 1995, particularly those which led to the Bermuda II Agreement in 1977, is warranted. We have given, so to speak, with both hands. I disagree, however, that the United States has nothing of value left which will enable us to obtain a liberalized aviation agreement with the British. We still hold the ultimate leverage, the most important bargaining chip of all. We control the substantial economic benefit the United Kingdom presently enjoys as a result of United States carrier business. There was a time when geographic factors and technological limitations made the United Kingdom the international gateway of necessity for United States carriers serving Europe and beyond. The British skillfully played this bargaining chip for all that it was worth. In fact, they continue to operate on this outdated premise. Times have changed. New generation, long-range aircraft have made the option of overflying the United Kingdom to gateway airports on the European Continent an option that is viable from both an operational and economic standpoint. Moreover, open skies agreements with European countries have made clear to the United States and to U.S. carriers that these nations want our business. If the United Kingdom does not promptly revise its thinking, it may well see United States carriers look beyond the United Kingdom to the European Continent for international gateway opportunities. Recent developments in our aviation relations with countries on the European Continent have quite understandably caused our carriers to seriously consider opportunities beyond the United Kingdom. Since the United States and The Netherlands signed an open skies accord in 1992, the resulting growth of international traffic to Amsterdam's Schiphol International Airport has been quite significant. Our very recent open skies agreements with Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland should also create new continental opportunities. An open skies agreement with Belgium that is expected soon will have the same effect. The greatest catalyst for this movement of United States air service business to the European Continent, however, would be an open skies agreement with Germany. I welcome reports that aviation negotiations between the United States and Germany earlier this month went very well. Also, I am pleased German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann came to Washington last week to meet with Secretary Pena. United States-German aviation relations are moving in the right direction. An open skies agreement with Germany would make the airports in Munich and Frankfurt very attractive to United States carriers who are frustrated they cannot obtain sufficient access to Heathrow and Gatwick. I understand a new airport also is planned in Berlin. In combination with international airports in European countries with which we have open skies agreements--particularly Amsterdam's Schiphol International Airport--German airports represent significant competition to United Kingdom airports. BAA plc, which owns and operates Heathrow, makes my point very succinctly. In a recent publication, BAA [[Page S 10926]] perceptively observed: ``Airlines and passengers are free agents. If extra capacity is not developed at Heathrow, the airport will not be able to satisfy demand and airlines will expand their business at continental airports.'' BAA added, ``if airlines are denied the opportunity to grow at Heathrow, many will choose Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam.'' BAA is absolutely right. Before it is too late, I hope the United Kingdom Department of Transport recognizes the United Kingdom no longer has a monopoly as an international air travel gateway for United States carriers. The economic stakes for the United Kingdom are very high. Mr. President, I remain hopeful the British will liberalize their air service agreement with our country. It is in the best interest of both countries to do so. As British negotiators again posture over Heathrow access and other important elements of the phase 2 deal such as liberalization of cargo services, I hope they fully understand the implications of new opportunities for United States carriers in continental Europe. An open skies agreement with Germany would really drive home this point. I ask unanimous consent that a recent article appearing in the Financial Times describing my view of the impact an open skies agreement between the United States and Germany would have on United States-United Kingdom aviation relations be printed in the Record. I further ask unanimous consent that a letter I recently sent to Sir George Young, the new United Kingdom Secretary of State for Transport, which describes my concern about the current state of United States- United Kingdom aviation relations also be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments to share with my Senate colleagues my concerns regarding our current policy in Bosnia. The situation in Bosnia is a tragedy, there is no question. It is a tragedy borne by interventionist policies that have not worked, and will not work if allowed to continue. Most important, unless we reverse current policies, we are inviting for increased U.S. involvement, in the form of air support now and ground troops tomorrow. That must not happen. The conflict between the Moslems and Serbs that reside in Bosnia did not begin with the fall of the former Yugoslavian Government. The conflict has roots of animosity that are far deeper--roots that stretch back for centuries. This is just the latest chapter, the latest reincarnation, of a brutal civil war between ethnic factions. What makes this latest chapter of conflict more tragic is the fact that one side has been prevented from defending its people by governments and organizations that claim to support their interests. Mr. President, I believe we should not send U.S. ground troops to Bosnia for two basic reasons. First, there is no clear objective, no national security interest that justifies deploying American forces into a regional civil war. American lives are sacred. As an army lieutenant who served in Vietnam, I strongly oppose sending our young men and women to Bosnia as a separate force or under U.N. command. It is plain common sense that you do not commit American forces without a clear plan or purpose. To do otherwise would not be fair to our troops. It would not be fair to their families. At this time, no clear plan or purpose exists that would justify U.S. troop deployment. Second, I oppose sending American troops to Bosnia because I believe it would only make matters worse in the region. I am concerned that the insertion of American forces to carry out current policies in Bosnia would only extend the conflict. Again, Mr. President, this is a civil war. Past history suggests that when foreign governments intervene in a civil war, they serves to exacerbate the conflict. We must not forget our own history. We had a civil war of our own-- the bloodiest, costliest conflict in our Nation's history. It was a long, brutal affair. Yet, had England or France entered on the side of the Confederacy at that time--which they considered doing--I believe our civil war would have gone on far longer--meaning more pain, more suffering, more lives lost on both sides. The same is true in Bosnia. We have seen outside parties, mainly the United Nations, intervene in Bosnia already. This intervention included an arms embargo that has prevented a legitimate government from defending itself. It has prevented the citizens of a legitimate government from defending their homes and property. This intervention has done nothing more than allow the conflict to drag on with no end in sight. This policy of intervention has failed. And unless we recognize this now, we will only make matters worse for the people in the region and for our own people at home. So, again, Mr. President, let me state that our current interventionist policy in Bosnia has failed. It is wrong. And if allowed to continue, I fear it will mean U.S. troops in Bosnia. That must not happen. I oppose placing U.S. troops under our own leadership or under the authority of the United Nations in Bosnia in the midst of a Bosnian civil war. There is no commonsense justification for doing so. The Government of Bosnia has not asked for U.S. troops. The people of Bosnia know that U.S. troops will only make the conflict last longer and would claim more lives unnecessarily. They simply want the right to defend themselves. I agree. Let us give them that right, and let us keep our American forces here at home.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am cautiously optimistic that last night in Los Angeles progress was made in the United States-Japan aviation dispute with regard to cargo. Finally, the Government of Japan has agreed to honor the clear terms of the 1952 United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement. Federal Express had been unfairly denied the right to serve numerous Asian cities beyond Japan. Now that the Japanese have authorized these routes, Federal Express can finally open its new Pacific Rim cargo hub at Subic Bay in the Philippines. I am also pleased with the job done by Secretary Pena in this dispute. The Japanese clearly expected us to trade off existing aviation rights in order to get them to acknowledge rights we already had guaranteed under the terms of the United States-Japan aviation agreement. We did not cave in to this blackmail. Had we done so, it would have set a dangerous precedent for all U.S. international agreements. Global aviation opportunities for our carriers are critical to the long-term profitability of the U.S. airline industry. Secretary Pena understands this very important point. Mr. President, yesterday 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. I have been developing the resolution over a period of several weeks and I understand the Government of Japan was monitoring it closely. I believe the resolution, Senate Resolution 155, sent a strong signal to the Japanese that the United States Senate expects international agreements to be honored. We should expect nothing less when a solemn international agreement is in dispute. In my introductory remarks yesterday, I expressed disappointment that the show-cause order the United States issued to the Japanese on June 19 had not seemed to serve as a wakeup call for the Government of Japan. It was my hope that by introducing Senate Resolution 155 simultaneously with the negotiations in Los Angeles it would drive home the point that international agreements are not to be unilaterally disregarded. I hope Senate Resolution 155 played a role in resolving this dispute. Let me say to the cosponsors of this resolution that we still may bring it to the floor. We may seek to pass it because the resolution also addresses an important passenger carrier dispute with Japan that remains unresolved. What is happening is that Japan has denied our passenger and cargo carriers new opportunities to serve countries beyond Japan such as Korea, Malaysia, and so forth. The Japanese refuse to recognize ``beyond rights'' guaranteed by our air service agreement. That is what this dispute is all about. Unfortunately, our aviation dispute with Japan over ``beyond rights'' is not completely behind us. United Airlines has patiently waited while U.S. negotiators focussed on the cargo dispute. Now, the United States must demand the Government of Japan honor the rights of our passenger carriers as well. United Airlines has been wrongly denied the right to start new service between Osaka and Seoul, Korea. This is another clear violation of the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement. It must be redressed promptly. Mr. President, let me also say I am angered by some media reports from Japan declaring victory in the aviation dispute. Let me make this point loud and clear: This was not a victory for Japan. For months the United States has been offering to talk with the Government of Japan about our bilateral aviation agreement. Quite correctly, the United States said it would do so only after Federal Express' beyond rights were honored by the Japanese. These reports are preposterous. The aviation dispute accomplished nothing for Japan beyond temporarily protecting its inefficient carriers from more head-to-head competition with our carriers. The dispute did galvanize Congress to take a tough stand in future aviation relations with Japan. It showed what our Government can accomplish when Congress supports our Secretary of Transportation and permits him to negotiate from a position of political strength. Mr. President, I hope our resolve in the United States-Japan aviation dispute sends a strong signal to nations around the world. if you enter into an agreement with the United States, you will not be allowed to pick and choose those provisions with which you will comply. Agreements between nations are solemn. So, Mr. President, let me summarize by saying that last night I think our Government showed great progress in reaching the cargo aviation agreement with Japan. However, we did agree to give them some things in exchange for the agreement such as new cargo routes between Japan and Chicago. That might appear to some that we gave in. Overall, however, I think we stood firm and the cargo agreement is a step forward. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I called a hearing last week to consider problems our air carriers experience trying to fly beyond Tokyo and beyond Heathrow. There is a system in both directions that prevents our carriers from flying beyond these important international gateways. At times, the system which blocks our carriers can be subtle. For example, sometimes the Japanese and British technically comply with our aviation agreements but they impose certain ``doing business'' problems that prevent our carriers from competing effectively with their national carriers. Among these restrictions on competition are problems loading and unloading aircraft and requiring our carriers to use the old terminal while the host country carrier uses the modern terminal. There are other barriers that prevent our carriers for serving global destinations from Heathrow and beyond Japan. Mr. President, I want to commend Secretary Pena. He has done an excellent job resolving this particular dispute. I have been a critic of his at times in the past. I am very sympathetic to the tough challenge he faces in international aviation negotiations. What happens to the Secretary of Transportation is he is frequently undercut because what our air carriers tend to do is the one that gets the right to serve a foreign country sometimes works with the foreign government to keep other U.S. carriers out. Then the Secretary is presented with a letter from 6 or 8 Senators and 8 or 10 House Members who have a particular airline in their State or district which urges the Secretary to put the interest of the incumbent carrier ahead of the national goal of creating new opportunities for all our carriers. This undermines the Secretary's negotiating position. To help correct this significant problem, I have urged that the economic interests of the United States be the basis for the Secretary of Transportation's international negotiations. Mr. President, I do not see this as the end of our aviation problems with Japan. As I mentioned, a significant passenger issue involving United Airlines remains unresolved. Also, I suspect, having observed Japan's trade habits and protectionist activities, that they are going to keep attempting to block our carriers from serving points beyond Japan. There are many lucrative new air service opportunities in the Pacific rim. The Japanese know this and they likely will try to keep them for their own carriers. We on this floor need to support the Secretary of Transportation in his efforts to open new international opportunities for our carriers and to protect existing aviation rights. We need to let the Secretary put the economic interests of the United States first. I hope someday we will no longer have to get bogged down in a system of bilateral aviation agreements. Instead, I hope one day we will have a multilateral aviation framework, like a GATT worldwide open skies agreement. I congratulate the Secretary of Transportation. But I still think we may need to pass a resolution in the Senate giving the Japanese notice that we consider this a major trade issue. Also, we need to let the Japanese know that we expect the unresolved passenger carrier issue to be resolved promptly. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank you very much for the additional time.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the concern of the United States Senate over the Government of Japan's violation of the bilateral aviation agreement between our two countries and its continued refusal to respect this agreement. I am pleased so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have joined me in submitting this resolution. It speaks volumes about the importance of the issue. In particular, I thank my good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, who has worked very closely with me on this matter for some time. As I said last month when I addressed the Senate at length on the United States/Japan aviation dispute, this issue is extraordinarily straightforward: Should the United States allow Japan to unilaterally deny United States carriers rights guaranteed those carriers by the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement? The clear and unequivocal answer is ``no.'' If we tolerate and accept this breach, it would establish a very dangerous precedent for U.S. international aviation relations. The Chinese among others are very carefully watching how the United States reacts in this dispute. The potential ramifications are much broader than aviation. We would send the nations of the world the message it is okay to pick and choose which provisions of agreements with the United States they want to abide by. That is a very dangerous message. One we must not send. I was pleased when the Department of Transportation issued a show- cause order to the Government of Japan on June 19 in response to its violation of our air service agreement. The administration was absolutely correct in doing so. If anything, the show-cause order could have been issued sooner, but quite correctly, the administration was patient in its good faith talks to try to resolve this dispute. The Government of Japan left us with no other option. A month has passed since the show-cause order was issued. The United States continues to negotiate in good faith with the Government of Japan. Unfortunately, the Government of Japan continues to refuse to honor the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement. I am not surprised because time is on the side of Japan. The longer Japan delays, the longer they prevent our carriers from competing against their inefficient carriers. Time is definitely on their side. Mr. President, for today and the future, the economic stakes of this trade dispute are tremendous and therefore the administration must be prepared to impose strong countermeasures. We cannot negotiate indefinitely while our carriers suffer severe economic damages. I cannot emphasize enough the significance of the economic stakes of the United States/Japan aviation dispute. For example, in 1994 the total revenue value of passenger and freight traffic for United States carriers between the United States and Japan was approximately $6 billion. During that same year, the value of cargo shipped by air between the United States and Japan was roughly $47 billion. This figure increases to approximately $132 billion when one considers the value of cargo shipped by air between the United States and all Asian countries. These figures speak loudly for themselves. These statistics are indeed impressive. Yet they do not tell the whole story. While both the current size and the potential for the future of our aviation market to Japan and beyond to other Asian countries are impressive, the figures cited earlier do not rise to their proper level of significance until one considers the more than $65 billion trade deficit the United States currently has with Japan. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, all too often I see parochial fighting among U.S. air carriers undermine our country's international aviation policy. This infighting sets off a chain reaction on Capitol Hill. The political firestorm that results unfortunately often prevents the Secretary of Transportation from making the strongest possible international aviation agreements. Instead, we accept international agreements that may serve the best political interest of an administration, but that all too often fail to produce the greatest possible economic gain for our country. Foreign nations know this is our Achilles heel in international aviation negotiations. They know it and they exploit it. Mr. President, this resolution puts the Senate on record in clear opposition to the actions of the Japanese Government. It is designed to place the administration in a position of political strength from which it can deal with this vitally important international aviation matter. I had hoped the show-cause order would serve as a wake-up call to the Government of Japan. Apparently it has not. It is my hope this resolution will further drive home the message to the Government of Japan that international agreements are to be honored, not unilaterally disregarded. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it is my intent to offer an amendment to lift the unfair burden of excessive regulatory penalties from the backs of local governments that are working in good faith to comply with the Clean Water Act. Mr. President, the goal of the underlying legislation is to bring common sense to the regulatory process. That is the goal of my amendment. Under current law, civil penalties begin to accumulate the moment a local government violates the Clean Water Act. Once this happens, the law requires that the local government present a municipal compliance plan for approval by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], or the Secretary of the Army in cases of section 404 violations. However, even after a compliance plan has been approved, penalties continue to accumulate. In effect, existing law gives the EPA the authority to continue punishing local governments while they are trying to comply with the law. When I talk with South Dakotans, few topics raise their blood pressure faster than their frustrating dealings with the Federal bureaucracy. Government is supposed to work for us, not against us. Mr. President, this is clearly a case where the Government is working against cities and towns that are trying to comply in good faith with the Clean Water Act. In South Dakota, the city of Watertown's innovative/alternative technology wastewater treatment facility was built as a joint partnership with the EPA, the city, and the State of South Dakota in 1982. The plant was constructed with the understanding that the EPA would provide assistance in the event the new technology failed. The facility was modified and rebuilt in 1991 when it was unable to comply with Clean Water Act discharge requirements. Unfortunately, the newly reconstructed plant still was found to violate Federal regulations. The city now faces a possible lawsuit by the Federal Government and is incurring fines of up to $25,000 per day. The city of Watertown has entered into a municipal compliance plan with the EPA. Under the agreed plan, Watertown should achieve compliance by December 1996. However, that plan does not address the issue of the civil and administrative penalties that continue to accumulate against the city. Under the law, Watertown could accumulate an additional $14 million in penalties before the treatment facility is able to comply with the Clean Water Act requirements. Mr. President, I do not know of any cities in South Dakota that can afford those kinds of penalties. My amendment would offer relief to cities like Watertown. Under my amendment, local governments would stop accumulating civil and administrative penalties once a municipal compliance plan has been negotiated and the locality is acting in good faith to carry out the plan. Further, my amendment would act as an incentive to encourage governments to move quickly to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act. This amendment simply is designed to address an issue of fairness. Local governments must operate with a limited pool of resources. Localities should not have to devote their tax revenue both to penalties and programs designed to comply with the law. It defies common sense for the EPA to be punishing a local government at the same time it is working in good faith to comply with the law. My amendment restores common sense and fairness to local governments. By discontinuing burdensome penalties, local governments can better concentrate their resources to meet the intent of the law in protecting our water resources from pollution. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. I know my colleague is aware of my amendment, and that it would affect the Environmental Protection Agency, which is within the jurisdiction of his committee.

Mr. PRESSLER. The suggestions of the Senator from Rhode Island indeed are satisfactory. I look forward to testifying before his committee on the issue of allowing the waiver of civil and administrative penalties for municipalities working toward compliance with the Clean Water Act. I would like to emphasize that the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources have expressed strong support for my proposed amendment. In addition, my amendment is supported by the Democratic leader and by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife. My chief concern in seeking to enact this measure is to prevent Watertown, SD, from being forced to pay penalties that are accumulating while the city is devoting its limited resources to compliance with the law.

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend from Rhode Island for his willingness to consider this important measure. I look forward to working with him to ensure that local governments are treated fairly under the Clean Water Act.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a dedicated, brave South Dakotan who has made us all proud. Maj. Jim Harder, a native of South Dakota, is an Air Force pilot and a member of the Air Force Thunderbirds--a select group of accomplished aviators who entertain audiences with their aerial performances. Jim is yet another living symbol of the hard working South Dakotan. He graduated from Huron High School and South Dakota State University. After college, Jim decided to use his talents in the service of his country by joining the Air Force. He first sought to become a navigator on an EC-135, but he [[Page S 10183]] so excelled in his duties that he was assigned to flying an F-16C, the most advanced fighter/bomber in the Air Force. As a member of the elite Thunderbirds, Jim performs a variety of roles: pilot, operations officer, show evaluator, and safety observer. For years, I as well as other Americans have enjoyed and marveled at the Thunderbirds. These exceptional aviators do more than just entertain a crowd. They serve to demonstrate individual talents, and collective skills that are second to none. It is no wonder that our Air Force pilots are considered the world's best. I am delighted that Jim is a part of this legacy of excellence. Every summer, Ellsworth Air Force Base holds an annual air show which attracts thousands of spectators. Many South Dakotans come to enjoy an assortment of exhibits and historical information. In addition, the base displays a fantastic array of aircraft on the ground and in the air. At this year's show held on July 9, the Thunderbirds were the featured attraction. So it was a homecoming for Jim Harder, a homecoming that he was able to share with his father, Elwood. I am sure no South Dakotan was more proud of Jim Harder and his fellow Thunderbirds than Elwood Harder. Mr. President, I take great pride in sharing with my colleagues, the visitors in the gallery, and C-SPAN viewers at home the extraordinary achievements of my fellow South Dakotans. Jim Harder is yet another standout South Dakotan who has excelled in his field. His versatile role in the Air Force Thunderbirds is a job that requires dedication and diligent persistence. Most important, Jim's skills and expertise elevates the level of performance of his fellow fliers. Teamwork and individual dedication are why the Thunderbirds are respected throughout the world. And individuals like Jim Harder--a man who chose to devote his talents to the service of his country--are the reasons why our Nation's defense remains strong. Again, on behalf of all South Dakotans, I commend Jim Harder for his extraordinary accomplishments. I wish him continued success with the Air Force Thunderbirds.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I introduced the NASA Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. NASA faces two challenges. The first is maintaining America's leadership in aeronautics and space. The second is accomplishing the leadership goal within the confines of a balanced Federal budget. This authorization is intended to allow NASA to meet both of these challenges. NASA started out this year with a plan to cut $5 billion over 5 years from its budget. Then, the Senate and House developed budget plans which require even deeper cuts. As a result, our bill authorizes a total of $13.8 billion for NASA in fiscal year 1996, a 3-percent decrease from the current funding level of $14.26 billion. Despite the funding cut, the bill manages to support a diverse and forward-looking space program. It authorizes all of NASA's major current programs such as Mission to Planet Earth, Space Station, Space Science, and Aeronautics and, in almost all cases, at their requested funding levels. At the same time, it prepares NASA for the future by authorizing a number of new starts including the new Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Development Program aimed at providing private industry the technology to eventually build a Shuttle replacement, and a new radar satellite program to develop and make use of the latest advances in satellite remote sensing technology. Mr. President, I would now like to make special mention of certain portions of the bill. I believe Mission to Planet Earth may be NASA's most important and relevant program. The satellite data from Mission to Planet Earth will deliver direct benefits to the taxpayer in contrast to the speculative spinoffs promised by other space activities. For this reason, the bill fully funds this activity at the requested level of $1.36 billion. Using the latest satellite technology, Mission to Planet Earth will help researchers understand and predict the global climate trends that affect our lives. As a Senator representing an agricultural State, I have a keen interest in this program's potential to provide detailed data on soil conditions, topography, crops, and other information critical to the farming and ranching community. I also take great pride in the selection of the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD as one of the regional data centers that will collect and distribute this satellite data. I am very concerned that, under the new budget constraints in which we find ourselves, some may seek to sacrifice Mission to Planet Earth, and space science in general, to fund Space Station. that would be a disservice to the Nation and I will oppose any such move strongly. I am pleased with the direction of the baseline plan for the Mission to Planet Earth Program and am concerned about the possibility of NASA taking any imprudent and unnecessary efforts to restructure the program. Accordingly, the bill specifically prohibits NASA from changing the program unless, 60 days before such action, NASA has reported to Congress on the nature and overall impact of the planned changes. The bill also provides the full $2.1 billion requested funding for space station. However, this authorization should not be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of that program. I am a longstanding supporter of the program, but, in recent years, I have become concerned that it has become too expensive, too complex, and too dependent on the contributions of Russia, the latest station partner. 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 almost seven times the entire annual budget for NASA. Given the history of past missions, it is fair to assume that $94 billion price tag for the program will increase over time. If that happens, we may wake up to find the enormous space station budget has crowded out every other NASA program and that space station has become NASA's only mission. Because of my reservations about space station, I may well reconsider my support in the future. The bill also supports several new starts at NASA to extend its vision into the next century. The bill authorizes a reusable launch vehicle program, which will support the X-33 and X-34 activities to pave the way for the later development by private enterprise of a replacement for the shuttle in the next decade. Employing 1970's technologies and costing $400 million per flight, the shuttle may have outlived its usefulness. However, within today's budget constraints, the Government cannot afford to foot the entire bill for a new multibillion spacecraft development program. That is why the reusable launch vehicle program, with its emphasis on sharing financing with industry and its goal of moving our national space transportation system toward privatization, seems a viable concept worth pursuing. Also authorized are the New Millennium initiative to develop new microminiature technologies aimed at reducing the cost and development times for satellites and two infrared astronomy programs--the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy and the Space Infrared Telescope Facility. The bill also authorizes a new Radar Satellite Program we call ``TopSat,'' and a third shuttle flight for the Shuttle Imaging Radar-C satellite. Because radar satellites have the ability to ``see'' through cloud cover, they will dramatically enhance the capability of the Nation's existing optical-based satellite systems such as Landsat. With Japan and Europe already operating radar satellite systems, and with Canada poised to deploy one later this year, the United States cannot afford to be left behind in this critical technology. In my role as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, it has become apparent to me that small-city, rural States like my home State of South Dakota are often forgotten in our vast $70 billion Federal science and technology enterprise. That part of America wants to be part of the technological revolution. More important, it wants to contribute. It is in the national interest to strengthen the scientific talent, resources, and infrastructure in our rural States through appropriate research, education, and outreach activities. The bill attempts to accomplish this in several ways. It increases funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Program [EPSCoR] from its current level of $4.9 million to $6.9 million. NASA's EPSCoR Program, as well as similar programs in six other science agencies, have been instrumental in providing Federal funding for academic research in rural States. Our bill also funds a Rural Teacher Resource Center, a Rural Technology Transfer and Commercialization Center, and a regional science education and outreach center for the Plains States region. Mr. President, I believe NASA is up to the challenge of keeping America preeminent in aeronautics and space despite the intense budget pressure and despite the increasing competition from other spacefaring nations. It is my belief this authorization bill provides NASA with the support it needs to meet that challenge.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support for the substitute regulatory reform amendment currently pending before the Senate. I commend Senator Dole for putting together a measure that is balanced, fair and commands bipartisan support. Certainly, we need Federal regulations to protect the public health and safety. But the rules must be reasonable. They must make sense. That is exactly what the Dole substitute amendment attempts to ensure. Mr. President, when I talk with South Dakotans, few topics raise their blood pressure faster than when they describe their frustrating dealings with the Federal bureaucracy. Government is supposed to work for us, not against us. Yet time after time, I hear horror stories of Washington bureaucrats running amok, imposing complicated, costly and silly rules. Our current regulatory system is too large, too complicated, too burdensome, and too expensive. Worst of all, it is rapidly growing out of control. In the first two years of the Clinton administration, almost 140,000 pages of new Federal regulations were published. This is excessive. There is no way small businesses, local governments, or farmers and ranchers in South Dakota can possibly keep up with the changes. Our current system costs all of us dearly. According to Thomas Hopkins, an economics professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology and the former Deputy Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, every American household spends about $4000 of their hard-earned income annually to comply with Federal regulations. As a nation, we spend between $500 and $800 billion each year. The overwhelming majority of Americans agree the Federal bureaucracy needs an overhaul. Last November's election was a clear indication for smaller, smarter government with less redtape. This legislation takes a big step in that direction. Its main provision simply would require that before major new regulations are enacted, Federal regulators must show that the benefits justify the costs. This is simple common sense. It would force Federal regulations to be reasonable. If a Federal regulator cannot show that the costs of a proposed rule are justified by the benefits, why should we allow it be implemented? Common sense says we should not. This is a sensible hurdle that newly proposed rules should be required to clear. Mr. President, let me give two recent examples of ridiculous Federal regulations that demonstrate the need for this legislation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is charged with enforcing our Nation's safe drinking water laws. In an effort to enforce the law, the EPA zealously over interprets congressional intent. In effect, they rewrite the law ``raising the bar'' for municipalities by requiring excessively burdensome water standards without comparing the costs of their rules to the benefits they hope to achieve. Each year it seems, state and local officials are told last year's water standards are no longer good enough. They are forced by the EPA to perform costly new tests for presences in their water supply. Unfortunately, the EPA [[Page S 10222]] frequently relies on questionable evidence to show why the changes are necessary. For many rural communities in South Dakota, excessive drinking water standards threaten to break their small budgets. Recently, the EPA has proposed yet another standard--one that would require communities to regulate sulfate levels in drinking water supplies. This proposed standard has been made despite the fact there is no valid scientific showing of harm resulting from higher levels of sulfate. Congress instructed the EPA to study this issue. However, instead of evaluating the health risk of sulfate in drinking water, the EPA proposed a sweeping rule to allow no more than 500 milligrams of sulfate per liter of drinking water. When promulgating the proposed rule, the EPA did not consider the costs of compliance. They have not explained or justified the supposed benefits the rule attempts to attain. They also have not given any reliable scientific basis for this rule. The costs of enacting the proposed sulfate regulation would be enormous. It would affect roughly one-quarter of all the water systems in South Dakota--108 of the 483 water systems in the State. The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, DENR, which opposes the EPA's proposed sulfate rule, has estimated the costs of compliance for those water systems would be $40 to $60 million. That is just the initial cost of compliance--not including operation and maintenance costs. Small, rural communities in South Dakota should not be forced to pay such a high price to enforce a regulation that has no valid scientific justification. Let me put these figures in real terms we can all understand. The largest of the 108 affected communities is Madison, SD, with a population of 6,395 people. Currently, the average water bill for each household in Madison is $13.75 per month. According to the South Dakota DENR, if the proposed rule is enacted, the additional cost to each household would be about $10 per month. That would mean an average monthly water bill of $23.75, or a 73 percent increase over current bills. Remember, this figure is for the largest of the affected communities, which presumably would be the most able to absorb the costs of compliance. Let us take Big Stone City, SD, as another example. With a population of 670 people, Big Stone City has the median population of the 108 communities in South Dakota affected by the proposed rule. Currently, the average monthly water bill per household in Big Stone City is $9.80. If the EPA has its way, each household in that community would see its water bill rise $27.50 for a total monthly bill of $37.30. That would be an astonishing 281 percent increase. Again, Big Stone City is the median size of the affected communities. Just imagine the impact the EPA's rule would have on communities smaller than Big Stone City. Mr. President, what would these communities get in return for these shocking rate increases? Nothing. That is right. For years, South Dakotans have been drinking water containing sulfate with no apparent adverse health effects. The EPA has not been able to show scientifically that higher levels of sulfate in drinking water pose a real health threat to humans. The proposed rule would ensure drinking water has less sulfate, but that does not mean it is safer water. However, an EPA bureaucrat thinks the Federal Government should regulate sulfate. These plans are being made regardless of the enormous costs involved on small communities. This situation does not make sense. Mr. President, as I stated earlier, clearly we need to take precautions to ensure the quality of our drinking water. However, common sense says, before spending billions nationwide to comply with a new regulation, we should ensure the benefits are worth the costs. The EPA should be required to demonstrate why it now believes sulfate is dangerous to human health. They should have to show how the benefits of their new rule justify the enormous costs it would impose on small communities like Madison and Big Stone City. That is what the Dole substitute would require of the EPA. Is that too much to ask? Mr. President, let me give another example of a ridiculous Federal regulation that, several months ago, threatened farmers and ranchers in my State. The proposed regulation concerned the Endangered Species Act. Earlier this spring, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered listing prairie dogs under the Endangered Species Act, entitling them to numerous protections under Federal law, despite the fact there are 71 times more prairie dogs than people in South Dakota. Let me repeat that: in South Dakota, there are 71 prairie dogs for every man, woman and child--yet, earlier this year, Federal bureaucrats actually considered listing them as an endangered or threatened species. Once a species has been listed under the act, certain uses of the land inhabited by the species can be prohibited until the condition of the species has improved to the point it can be taken off the list. Virtually, the entire western half of South Dakota potentially could have been affected. Fortunately, there are no longer plans to list the prairie dog as endangered or threatened. However, it still may be listed as a ``candidate species'' entitled to some level of Federal protection. There are millions of prairie dogs in South Dakota digging even more millions of holes. Their holes are a real menace to cattle and horses. Ranchers are forced to destroy livestock which step in the holes and break their legs. Prairie dogs also eat grass and other vegetation, a sparse commodity in the western half of my State. How can anyone believe prairie dogs are a threatened species facing possible extinction? Farmers and ranchers in my home State do not understand this. I do not either. If this absurd rule had been enacted, killing prairie dogs would have been a Federal offense. Their population quickly would have grown far beyond their current numbers-- causing more harm and destruction to South Dakota farmers and ranchers--all with the Federal Government's blessing. If the situation several months ago were not so serious, it would have been laughable. These examples show why people in my home State are fed up with the Federal regulatory process. I am too. Is it any wonder why we believe the Federal bureaucracy is out of control and must be reined in? South Dakotans certainly want safe drinking water, safe food and a clean environment. But they also want Federal rules that are reasonable, understandable and flexible to allow as much compliance as possible. That is why I support the Dole substitute amendment. If it were enacted the EPA could not implement its proposed sulfate rule until it can show that the benefits of the rule justify the enormous costs involved. Again, is that too much to ask? In addition to benefiting consumers, this legislation also would have a positive impact on small businesses in my State. The current level of regulation from Washington puts an incredible burden on small businesses. Over-regulation chokes businesses in paperwork, stifles innovative ideas and undermines the ability of American businesses to compete in international markets. I have talked to many small businessmen and women who believe due to the sheer number of regulations, the complexity of the rules, and the different standards of enforcement between areas of the country and even between different inspectors, it is impossible for them not to be in violation of some regulation at any given time. This situation is not acceptable. We greatly need to move the Federal bureaucracy away from the ``gotcha'' mentality many have toward American business. Regulators should not see themselves exclusively as ``super-cops,'' as many do, waiting to pounce on any business that violates some regulation in the most technical way. Regulators need to develop a cooperative relationship with businesses. Both should work together to find innovative and cost-effective ways to comply with the spirit of the law as intended by Congress, rather than with hyper-technical regulations. American business is not the enemy. The vast majority of small businesses are run by fine, ethical businessmen and women who want to obey the law, not skirt it. They want to be good corporate citizens. They do not seek ways to bend or break the law. They work hard to treat their employees fairly. [[Page S 10223]] They spend considerable amounts of money to provide a safe workplace for them. They do this not because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, or the Department of Labor require such action. They do it because it makes good, sound business sense. After all, satisfied employees are productive employees. Judging from the enormous amounts of new Federal regulations continually being issued, however, you might think each American business spends all its time devising ways to bend or break the law. Every aspect of business life increasingly is being regulated. That has to stop. Mr. President, to conclude, let me again state my support for the Dole substitute. The country needs less regulation from Washington. No one in my home State thinks there are too few Government regulations. No small business has asked me for more Government paperwork to fill out. No farmer or rancher has requested yet more restrictions on how they can use their own land. The country needs less regulation. South Dakotans know Washington cannot regulate away our problems. Too many rules are on the books and not enough common sense is in the system. In short: Federal rulemaking needs an overhaul. The Dole substitute amendment would help reduce the number of rules generated by Washington. It would establish a sensible hurdle for new regulations: the costs must be justified by the benefits. That is simple common sense. The regulatory system cannot continue as it has been promulgating rule after rule with little concern for their practical effect. Is that asking too much? I urge my colleagues to support and vote for this legislation.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we all know that life on a farm is not always easy. Few people know that farming is one of this country's most hazardous industries. Unforeseen accidents often occur, and try as we might to avoid them, they seem to strike when we least expect it. In 1993, one tragic incident took place on a farm in my home State. Russ Hansen, a 39-year-old farmer from Spink County, was killed in a farming accident, leaving behind his wife, Mary, and three children, Joshua, Jeff, and Jill. Words cannot fully console the mind when tragedies such as these happen. We try to pay homage to those who have passed away, but nothing will ever replace loved ones we have lost. Tributes remind us of the person we once knew so well--and in their own special way help ease the pain. It was made known recently that the Hansen family will have a living memorial in honor of their father and husband. Russ was a true steward of the land--a farmer who through his knowledge of the earth sought to make the most of it and for it. Before he died, Russ donated some of his farmland to South Dakota State University [SDSU]. The school used the land to test varieties of wheat. Because of Russ' love of the land and devotion to the SDSU research, the school announced this spring that the tests on his land have yielded a new hard red spring wheat. It is a wheat that is proving to be resistant to disease, pests, and shattering. And in a fitting tribute, the wheat will be called ``Russ.'' It is expected to be on the general market by 1997. Mr. President, no single person in this country has consistently been the source of more innovation than the American farmer. The ritual of farming is not just planting, growing, and harvesting. It is a quest to innovate and challenge the land to produce something it has never produced before. Russ Hansen was that kind of American farmer. I am sure Mary, Joshua, Jeff, and Jill Hansen are proud that Russ' legacy will live on in the hearty new brand of wheat that will bear his name. I am proud of Russ' lifetime of devotion to the land, and the innovators at South Dakota State University who worked with Russ to achieve this new high-quality wheat. It is a great achievement for SDSU and an ever-lasting tribute to Russ Hansen. I ask unanimous consent to have a related article printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, yesterday morning at 6 a.m. I had the pleasure of riding on the first flight between Rapid City and Sioux Falls that provides new air service in our State. As a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I have long been a champion of air service in our smaller cities, the safety of smaller aircraft, and the provision of air services to citizens living in non-hub airport areas. I have also been very concerned about air fares for travel to and from our Nation's smaller cities. For example, can someone living in Humboldt, SD, get a supersaver ticket if they have to fly first into a hub airport? So often the best deal, so to speak, on airline tickets, go to those people who live in bigger cities with hub airports such as New York, Minneapolis, Denver, Los Angeles, et cetera. Frequently, we find that flying into that hub airport from the smaller city is the expensive part of the trip. Citizens living in nonhub cities should not be overlooked. Mr. President, our air transportation system is based on the hub and spoke system. Even in New York, a State with substantial air service, citizens living in upstate New York must fly on a small carrier into a hub to be connected to their next destination. The same is true in Fresno, CA, where my sister lives. This also is the case in my home State of South Dakota. The question is, Do the smaller planes ensure the same level of travel safety? On the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I have been a champion of small aircraft safety. We will continue working to promote safe air travel on all sizes of aircraft. I certainly do not advocate Government regulation, but I am constantly jawboning the big airlines where there is a coded relationship with the smaller airline to treat the smaller airlines fairly. After all, the smaller carriers are the lifeline of many smaller communities and provide the larger carriers with many of their passengers. Yesterday, as I mentioned, I took part in the inaugural flight providing air service between South Dakota's two larger cities, Rapid City and Sioux Falls. I am glad to say that Great Lakes Aviation, which code-shares with United Airlines, initiated that service. It will help our State a great deal. I shall continue to be a champion of airlines in smaller cities, working to ensure we have good air service into the hubs so that citizens living in smaller communities remain linked to the Nation's air transportation system. From air safety to reasonable air fares to air service availability, our nonhub cities deserve equal attention from the airline industry. Mr. President, I would also like to briefly discuss the important issue of international aviation. I, along with a number of my colleagues, am working on a resolution intended to aid our air carriers serving Japan. Currently, Japan is violating the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement by denying our passenger and cargo carriers the right to serve cities throughout the Pacific rim from Japan. Cargo and passenger traffic beyond Japan into Malaysia and China and so forth is very lucrative. The Japanese are attempting to prevent our carriers from serving this traffic since they want to protect these markets for their own carriers which are very inefficient. Federal Express has a new Pacific rim cargo hub they are ready to open at Subic Bay in the Philippines. They cannot open it. The Japanese will not permit Federal Express to serve routes from Japan which are necessary to make this hub operational. The Japanese are violating the bilateral aviation treaty and this is costing the shareholders of Federal Express tens of millions of dollar. Each day that passes causes these substantial damages to increase. We must not tolerate this flagrant violation of an international agreement. The world is watching and we should not set a dangerous precedent for international aviation relations. Our air carriers also have a problem obtaining sufficient access to both Heathrow and Gatwick airports in the United Kingdom. Access to Heathrow is of particular concern since Heathrow is the most important international gateway airport serving points throughout the world. We must continue to work to open these markets for our carriers. The only reason that the Japanese or the British have more traffic on particular routes where they ``compete'' with United States carriers is due to restrictions which distort the market and protect foreign carriers from true head-to-head competition with our more efficient carriers. For example, they use restrictive bilateral agreements, impose so-called ``doing business'' problems on our carriers such as putting them in terminals that are intolerable to passengers, and, in the case of the Japanese, they outright refuse to respect the clear terms of our aviation agreement. I have been working on international aviation issues because international opportunities are critical to the long-term profitability of our carriers. Also, consumers benefit greatly by increased competition in international markets. There is an important relationship between the issues of service to small communities and international aviation policy. I tie the two issues together because increased international opportunities will strengthen the economic health of our airline industry. In turn, this financial strength should translate into better service to all domestic markets, particularly smaller nonhub markets. By working to strengthen our carriers abroad, it is my hope I am improving service for consumers in underserved markets. Therefore, I am urging our major airlines to give fair treatment here at home to people who live in smaller cities and rural areas. The administration, the Congress, and the airline industry should all work together to accomplish these domestic and international aviation goals. For example, I just came from the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve, where we were considering fuel taxes on various modes of transportation. One issue that was discussed which is of particular concern to me is the aviation fuel tax that is scheduled to go into effect later this year. I am concerned the jet fuel tax will make the problem of air service in small communities much worse. I am also concerned this tax will adversely affect the competitiveness of our carriers in international markets. Mr. President, we must never lose sight of the many difficult challenges facing our air carriers. Importantly, we must never forget that it is consumers and communities who have the largest stake of all.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, when I was growing up in Humboldt, SD, professional baseball flourished throughout my State. I remember many games from the now-defunct Basin League. Those contests of skill and team play stirred within me a love and appreciation for America's favorite pastime. During the recent Fourth of July holiday, I was given the honor of throwing out the first pitch for the Sioux Falls Canaries in its game against the Timber Bay Whiskey Jacks. Despite many wonderful plays and an enthusiastic crowd, the Canaries lost. Nevertheless, the evening was entertaining and exciting. It was baseball the way it should be played. The players demonstrated superb individual skills, team dedication, and enjoyment of the game itself. Mr. President, South Dakota professional baseball has a long and colorful history as old as the State itself. It was in Sioux Falls in 1889, the year South Dakota was granted statehood, when a pro baseball team wearing bright yellow uniforms was formed in the city. The team was named the ``Yellow Kids,'' after a comic strip that appeared in the Sioux Falls Press. Upon viewing the team, Guy LaFollette, a local sportswriter for the Press, suggested the nickname ``Canaries.'' LaFollette continued to refer to the team as the Canaries in his sports articles. The label stuck. Eventually, the Canaries became the official name of the team. Despite having a reputation of hiring away the best players from the other teams, the original Sioux Falls Canaries lasted until 1903, when their class D league, the Iowa and South Dakota League, folded. Sioux Falls would be without a pro team until 1920 when the Sioux Falls Soos [Sues] began play in the South Dakota League. The team's manager, Fred Carisch, was a veteran of the 1902 Canaries team. In 1924, the Sioux Falls team changed its name back to the Canaries because the Sioux City Cardinals joined the Canaries as part of a new, expanded, Tri-State League. Apparently, the thought was the two birds-- the Canaries and the Cardinals--sounded better when they played. Unfortunately, the league and the teams were disbanded after only one season. Professional baseball returned again to Sioux Falls in 1930, when Rex Stucker organized a new version of the Canaries, which played in an independent circuit for three seasons. The team [[Page S 10184]] joined the Nebraska State League in 1933, which was renamed the ``Western League'' in 1938, when teams from Colorado, Wyoming, Minnesota, and Iowa joined. In 1942, Rex Stucker upgraded the Sioux Falls Canaries from the Class C Western League to the Class D Northern League. However, World War II stopped league play after the 1942 season, and it would not resume until 1946. At that point, the Canaries was an independent team not affiliated with a major league baseball franchise. That would change in 1947, when Stucker sold the Canaries to Mory Levinger, owner of the Happy Hour bar in Sioux Falls. Soon afterward, Levinger struck an agreement with the Chicago Cubs to make the Canaries one of its farm teams. However, in 1953, Levinger sold the team to Winnipeg and Sioux Falls again was without professional baseball. In 1966, Sioux Falls became the home of a new team, which moved from the semiprofessional Basin League to the Northern League. This team was known as the Packers, however, not the Canaries, and was owned by a group of Sioux Falls businessmen. This team was a farm club for the Cincinnati Reds. In fact, several Packers would become standouts in the big leagues, most notably Ken Griffey, Sr. The Packers stayed in the Northern League until the league folded after the 1971 season. Sioux Falls would be without a pro baseball team for more than 20 years. In the early 1990's, Miles Wolff spent 2 years traveling the Upper Midwest meeting with interested baseball people and examining existing facilities. By this time, the Upper Midwest had been the only area of the Nation without minor league baseball. Mr. Wolff rightly saw it as an area ripe for minor league baseball expansion. In June 1993, the fourth version of the Northern League began with six organizations, including one in Sioux Falls. The organization was honored to bring back the name of the first Sioux Falls pro team, the Canaries. Mr. President, I am proud the Sioux Falls community has given such great support to the Canaries. In the inaugural 1993 season, the Canaries drew 86,187 in attendance. Last year, attendance grew to just shy of 100,000. This season promises to be no less of a banner year for Sioux Falls Canaries' fan support. Currently, each home game is averaging 2,704 fans in attendance. This high level of fan support is prevalent throughout the entire Northern League. All six of the Northern League teams are ranked nationally in the top 11 for average attendance per game for independent baseball leagues. As with any quality sports team, the key to success begins with an effective management team and great support staff. In my opinion, the Canaries has one of the best organizations of any independent league team. I salute team president Harry Stavernos and vice presidents Mark Wilson, Buzz Hardy, and Rick Tracy for their leadership in guiding the Canaries to success. Field leadership of the team is in the capable hands of manager Dick Dietz, hitting instructor Frank Verdi, coach Hiro Shirahata and player-coach Mike Burton. The Sioux Falls Canaries' commitment to winning is not only exemplified by its management but also by the hard work and dedication of the players. The Canaries have amassed a won-loss record of 98-88 over its three seasons. The team holds the Northern League record for most consecutive wins, nine in a row. The high quality of the players is evidenced by the 11 former Canaries now playing for major league affiliates. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the team roster of the 1995 Sioux Falls Canaries at the conclusion of my remarks. Presently, the Canaries are only three games out of first. I have every reason to expect the team will finish on top by the end of the season. Mr. President, Sioux Falls baseball has had a great tradition of exceptional all-around play. I want to congratulate the Sioux Falls Canaries organization on more than living up to this high standard on the field and giving the Sioux Falls community something to cheer about. I wish the team the very best of success in the future.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent during rollcall vote No. 309 on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dole- Johnston substitute amendment to S. 343, the comprehensive regulatory reform bill. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted in the affirmative. I was unable to be here for the vote due to a number of travel problems that occurred on my flights from Sioux Falls to Washington, DC. Specifically, the aircraft that was to have taken me from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis was kept on the ground due to mechanical problems. The delay, in fact, forced me to take a later flight on another plane. I was further delayed at Minneapolis due to weather surveillance. I regret this series of flight delays prevented me from being present during the cloture vote earlier this evening.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, again I congratulate the administrators, teachers, and students of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology for their great work. They have given added meaning to the South Dakota work ethic. I wish them continued success in the future. Exhibit 1 [From the Rapid City Journal, July 5, 1995] A Banner Week for Tech Teams from the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology displayed the quality of the schools's technical expertise and people. Last week, people across America, particularly those in circles of higher education, were finding out something that people in our community already know but sometimes take for granted: South Dakota School of Mines & Technology is an outstanding institution of higher learning that attracts quality students and faculty. On Saturday, Tech won the 8th annual National Concrete Canoe Race put on in Washington, D.C., by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Among the 22 competing schools, Tech was the champion. On Thursday, Tech's Solar Motion team finished 16th in the grueling Sunrayce '95, a solar-powered vehicle race from Indianapolis, Ind., to Golden, Colo. On Friday, Tech's effort in Sunrayce '95 was rewarded with a pair of honors that typify the best of Tech. The quality of the school's engineering expertise was recognized in the awarding of a plaque and a $1,000 cash prize for the best overall use of technology in its Sunrayce vehicle. The quality of the school's people was recognized in a humanitarian award to Ragnar Toennessen, race manager for Solar Motion, for going above and beyond the call of duty. On the race's final leg, Toennessen and communications specialist Zach Spencer left Tech's chase vehicle to help Iowa State team members after their car blew a tire and wrecked. Toennessen was still directing traffic around the wrecked vehicle when Tech's entry crossed the finish line almost an hour later. Tech's efforts in both the concrete canoe race and Sunrayce '95 showed that the school is achieving its mission to prepare students to meet the demands of the coming century-- demands that will require not only a high level of technical expertise but also a sensitivity for human needs. Thanks to the work of these two teams, more people across America now know what people here have known for a long time: Tech is an outstanding school.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today, I would like to commend the recent accomplishments of the innovative students at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, SDSM&T, in Rapid City, SD. On Thursday, June 29, the SDSM&T solar motion team placed 16th in Sunrayce '95, a solar-powered car race from Indianapolis, IN to Golden, CO. Then, on July 1, SDSM&T engineering students captured the national title at the eighth annual National Concrete Canoe Competition here in Washington, DC. Sunrayce '95 was a 10-day, 1,150-mile cross-country race. Despite the cloudy and rainy conditions they experienced, the SDSM&T team still managed to better all other rookie teams with their solar-powered car, the Solar Rolar. On the last day of the meet, the team finished the 53- mile race in seventh place, passing several top-ranked rivals. The teamwork and endurance demonstrated by this first-year team is admirable. They are sure to be contenders in the years to come. Last month, I had the privilege to visit with the SDSM&T concrete canoe team before their competition. The school was represented by a group of hard-working and dedicated individuals. After last year's fourth-place finish in the competition, these engineering students devoted much time to training and fine-tuning their 92 pound canoe, the Predator. Their efforts paid off as they competed in various divisions against 21 other colleges from across the country. Taking the first-place trophy was not all fun and games for the South Dakota team. The recent flooding which took place in Virginia sent debris floating down the Potomac River. The Predator was struck by a log and sustained minor damage, but repairs were made and the canoe remained in the competition. Muscle and boat design were not the only factors that determined the final outcome of the competition. A majority of team points were captured in verbal and written presentations about the canoe. When all was said and done, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology team accumulated the most team points, receiving a $5,000 scholarship for their efforts. Mr. President, I am extremely proud of the students from the School of Mines and Technology. They have proven that South Dakota students can compete--and be front-runners--in the field of civil engineering. A July 5, 1995, Rapid City Journal editorial praised the teams for their accomplishments and I ask that a copy of the editorial be printed at the end of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, during consideration of S. 343, the Regulatory Reform Act, I intend to offer an amendment to waive administrative and civil penalties for local governments when Federal water pollution control compliance plans are in effect. I believe this amendment is a simple issue of fairness to local governments and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be printed in the Record, along with my ``Dear Colleague'' letter.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last Friday, the operatic tenor White Eagle passed away at age 43. My wife, Harriet and I join with countless others from around the world in expressing our condolences to his friends and family. Our Nation has lost an exemplary individual who had an extraordinary voice. White Eagle was a Lakota. His Lakota name was Wanbli ska. He first sang in public in his father's church. He was only 5 years old. It was the voice of the great Mario Lanza that inspired the young White Eagle to become an opera singer. In 1985, he graduated from the Merola Opera Program at the San Francisco Opera. He went on to perform with the Pennsylvania Opera Theater, the Florentine Opera, the Western Opera Theater, the Cleveland Opera, and the Skylight Comic Opera. Many of my friends and colleagues here in Washington should remember well White Eagle's rich tenor voice. In 1989, White Eagle performed the finale at the Inaugural Gala for President George Bush. Two years later, the President and I had the opportunity to hear and appreciate his extraordinary talent at the Golden Anniversary of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial. And in 1993, he debuted in Carnegie Hall, and was inducted into the South Dakota Hall of Fame as Artist of the Year. I am pleased that a scholarship fund has been established in his name. It is a fitting remembrance of his spirit, his leadership, and his legacy as a role model for native American youth. It is said that a man's talents are a mere extension of his soul. That is certainly true of White Eagle. The strength, the beauty, and the richness of his voice were a reflection of his character, and the values of the Lakota Sioux--the values of bravery, integrity, wisdom, determination, and generosity. His voice moved us all. Mr. President, White Eagle exemplified those values yet again when, in 1990, he was diagnosed with AIDS. After he made his illness public, he became a tireless advocate for AIDS awareness. His role as advocate was equal to his role as artist, because through his voice, through his message, he brought people together. His last years are a reminder to each of us of the capacity in ourselves to reach out to family and friends in times of human struggle and suffering. White Eagle left us in the manner he lived among us--with dignity and bravery. He has left us richer for his courage and perseverance. For all the extraordinary gifts he possessed and shared with us, we are grateful. We will miss him.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week marked the 50th Annual Sitting Bull Stampede in Mobridge, SD. People from across the State and Nation joined together in celebrating a long-standing tradition which first began in 1946. The stampede has a long and colorful history, and it serves to remind people of South Dakota's proud heritage. It is appropriate that the Sitting Bull Stampede is named after the famed Sioux leader. The multicultural diversity of the event recognizes the contributions of both native Americans and non-native Americans to South Dakota in the last century. As my colleagues know, Sitting Bull was a famous leader and medicine man of the Lakota people. This native American hero was born in the Mobridge area and lived there for much of his life. His remains are buried on a nearby bluff overlooking the Missouri River. The Sitting Bull Stampede began as a small rodeo organized by a group of cowboys. As the rodeo became more successful, the stampede began to take on a cultural focus. Last week's celebration was one of the biggest thus far, complete with parades, rodeos, a carnival, and many other festivities. More than 400 contestants competed in this year's rodeo. Miss Rodeo America, Jennifer Douglas, was on hand to assist in the crowning of this year's stampede queen, Anne Lopez of Keldron. Mr. President, I am very proud of the accomplishments of the people of the Mobridge area in planning such a tremendous event. The Sitting Bull Stampede brings two cultures of our State together. It reminds us not to forget our past as we progress into the future. I extend my best wishes to the citizens of Mobridge and all who participated in this year's events.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to pay tribute to an outstanding educator, Mr. Milo Winter, of Rapid City, SD. Throughout his career, he made tremendous contributions to our State in music education. For the past 26 years, Milo served as band director at Stevens High School. The community of Rapid City knows him for his commitment to education and his drive for excellence. However, his reputation extends far beyond the borders of our State. He is known across the United States for his work at band festivals and clinics. To see Milo's positive effect on his students and the community, one needs only look at the achievements of the Rapid City Stevens Band. In 1975, the band was selected by the United States Bicentennial Commission to represent the United States at a music festival held in the former Czechoslovakia. This was the first performance by an American high school band behind the Iron Curtain. In 1981 and 1984, the band received first place honors at the Cherry Blossom Band Festival here in Washington, DC. The band's appearance in the 1987 Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, CA, marked the first time a band from South Dakota performed in this world-famous parade. Perhaps the greatest honor the band has earned is the Sudler Flag of Honor. This award, presented in 1987, is one of the most prestigious awards a band can receive. To receive this award, bands must be nominated for their outstanding performance of march music and be approved by a national committee. [[Page S 9604]] Milo's leadership made these achievements possible. He consistently set high expectations for students, then saw them through with his own blend of encouragement and discipline. He demanded much of his students, but gave generously of his talent and effort in return. This drive for excellence has been with Milo throughout his life. After receiving his degree from Augustana and his masters from the University of South Dakota, Milo continued his pursuit of music by serving in the U.S. Army Band for 2 years. Upon leaving the Army, Milo taught music at Beresford High School. After 2 years as the band director at Rapid City Central High, he accepted the position as band director at the newly created Rapid City Stevens High where he continued teaching for the rest of his career. Milo instilled a love of music in many students, but countless students came away from his classroom with much more. The lessons they learned about setting goals, teamwork, attention to detail, and perseverance will stay with students throughout their lives. Many of these students will count Mr. Winter among those leaders who forever shaped their careers and characters. Mr. President, students in South Dakota have been blessed with a tremendous teacher and role model. On behalf of the people of South Dakota, I thank Milo and wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, S. 267 the Fisheries Act of 1995, is a bill I am pleased to bring to the floor for consideration today. It is comprised of a number of measures that would strengthen international fishery conservation and management. I would like to recognize the efforts of Senator Stevens, our Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee chairman, who along with Senators Kerry, Gorton, Murray, and Murkowski introduced the bill. The bill also was cosponsored by Senator Breaux and Senator Packwood. Many of the titles in S. 267, were bills introduced in the 103d Congress but not enacted. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on these matters on July 21, 1994, indicating a strong bipartisan support for these fishery conservation measures. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported the bill by unanimous vote on March 23, 1995. While only technical amendments were adopted, it was noted that Senator Snowe was considering an amendment to restrict directed foreign fishing within the EEZ for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. We have worked with Senator Snowe to incorporate her concerns into the committee substitute before us and we appreciate her efforts in reaching this compromise. We also have incorporated provisions addressing conservation of salmon stocks of the Yukon River and regulations and enforcement actions for migratory species managed under the Atlantic Tunas Convention and the South Pacific Tuna Act. I also want to note that the committee has worked with Senator Packwood, chairman of the Finance Committee and an active member of the Commerce Committee, to address a provision of the bill that deals with amendments to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. We appreciate the cooperation that he and his staff have given us on this provision. I strongly believe that through the proper conservation and management of our Nation's living marine resources, we will enhance economic opportunities for future generations. The bill before us contains a number of provisions important to the conservation of fishery resources in our oceans. It is a noncontroversial bill with bipartisan support. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 267 and ask my colleagues to join me in it's adoption.