Larry Pressler

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.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Farber began his teaching career at USD in 1935 after receiving his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Wisconsin, at Madison. As many of my colleagues know, Wisconsin was-- and continues to be--one of the elite schools in political science. While at Wisconsin, Dr. Farber had the opportunity to study and learn his craft under the best educators in the field. These professors would often host student-initiated debates in their homes. Dr. Farber brought this practice with him to South Dakota. He would invite students to participate in Sunday discussion groups at his house. Here students could deliberate and express their opinions on given topics. Dr. Farber has a long list of notable accomplishments and I would like to mention a few of them. He taught government at the University of South Dakota from 1935 until 1976. Prior to his retirement, he served as chairman of the USD Department of Government for 38 years. During his tenure at the university, he was active in many other public service endeavors as well. In 1964, he served as president of the Midwest Political Science Association. He also was instrumental in establishing the South Dakota Legislative Research Council [SDLRC], serving as its director from 1951 until 1955. To this day, the SDLRC is the principal staff arm of the South Dakota Legislature. Some of Dr. Farber's other achievements include creating the Government Research Bureau and the Indian Institute, both at USD. He advised former U.S. Senator Karl Mundt, and was inducted as an honorary member into the National Academy of Public Administration. Perhaps Dr. Farber's greatest accomplishment is his uncanny ability to motivate students through the vigorous drive he exhibits. He was willing to help students in any way possible. It was through Dr. Farber's advice and encouragement that I sought and became a Rhodes scholar. As I stated before, the classroom lecture was just one tool Dr. Farber used to educate his students. He included students in the various research and other government-focused projects he conducted. Students were invited to accompany him on trips across the country and overseas. Dr. Farber often served on a placement officer, helping students secure internships in South Dakota, Washington, DC, and wherever else a student's interests might be directed. Although he officially retired almost 20 years ago, Dr. Farber has not lost interest in the lives and education of students at the University of South Dakota. After his 1976 retirement, an internship and travel fund was established in his name. Through private donations from former students and colleagues, Dr. Farber uses the fund to [[Page S 9345]] pay for travel and other expenses incurred when students travel to internships and attend political science functions. In fact, this past May, Dr. Farber accompanied 15 students to Washington, DC, for an annual study tour, and once again I had the privilege to meet with him. As long as I will know Bill Farber, I will forever remember the inspiration he has given me and so many others. I dare say the world is a better place because of the advice and inspiration thousands of students have received from Dr. Farber. Certainly, it would be even better if all could benefit from his wisdom. As I conclude my remarks, I would like to convey the attitude Bill Farber has taken toward his career by his quote from a Sioux City Journal article. He stated, ``I am the luckiest person alive to have been able to do what I love to do--I love to read, I love to write, I love to talk. A professor does all this.'' I sincerely hope all Americans will have a safe and happy Fourth of July, especially Bill Farber on his 85th birthday. My wife Harriet joins me in wishing him many more. Exhibit [From the Sioux City Journal, June 20, 1995] Retired Professor Still Serving (By Beverly G. Merrick) Vermillion, S.D.--William O. Farber apparently decided there could be no better life for a Yankee Doodle Dandy born on the Fourth of July than to be a political science professor in public administration. At 84, he has served the University of South Dakota longer than anyone. He has taught about and served in local, state and national government since 1935, when the Phi Beta Kappa from Geneseo, Ill., arrived on campus with a newly minted doctorate. The professor emeritus officially clocked off the job in 1976, just days short of his 66th birthday. However, students past and present continue to make pilgrimages to Farber House, across the street from the office of the university president, in search of knowledge and advice. The octogenarian says he has had the most fortunate of lives as a teacher: ``I am the luckiest person alive to have been able to do what I love to do--I love to read, I love to write, I love to talk. A professor does all this.'' He has worked with Regents, college presidents, faculty and faculty organizations. He has served in many university service posts, including being the chairman of the planning committee of the I.D. Weeks Library. He also played a key role in establishing the Indian Institute on campus. Farber says he has learned the lessons longevity brings, especially having a positive outlook and believing in possibilities. ``If you survive until your 80s, people will forgive you for just about anything,'' he says. ``But I am getting pretty close to the edge of the cliff and wonder when I am going to go over.'' he serves in variety of ways From 1969 to 1976, Farber served on the state's Constitutional Revision Commission, in which 17 articles were revamped and seven were passed by the Legislature. He calls South Dakota a place of reluctant change, primarily because of great distances to travel in a land with a low-density population. Karl Mundt, a former United States senator from South Dakota, used Farber as a consultant on government projects until the end of his career in public service in 1972. In the early 1940s, he was the state pricing administrator for the Office of Price Information, but he was drafted into the Air Corps shortly after that. As for his views on government, he likes home rule. Through working on a local government study commission, he came to believe that small governmental units could operate more efficiently and effectively by simplifying structures and unifying efforts among town, township and county. One of his disappointments was that the populace could not be convinced, he says. ``This effort would have resulted in fewer and larger units of government,'' he says, ``But how does one convince people less is more?'' Speaking again of government, Farber says an understanding of history is one of the differences between managers and true leaders. ``Can a manager lead? We could be raising a generation of managers when we need leadership to guide us through a time of uncertainty,'' the professor says. Farber says that today there are more challenges to public administration than there ever have been because of new technology. ``The political, social and environmental problems are at once local and global, and the solutions need to be interdisciplinary,'' he says. Travel important Farber says he has done as much as he can to encourage students to travel. The Farber Fund for student travel and internships was established at his retirement dinner. ``I think it important for students to travel and see the world, to broaden one's education by extending one's horizons,'' he says. In the late 1950s, Farber went to Korea with a USD group, where he studied the 23 levels of bureaucracy of the governmental system. ``Koreans value history,'' he says. ``While in Korea, I obtained a new perspective on everything that involved values.'' He also viewed programs in public administration in Vietnam, Japan, Thailand and the Philippines. In Saigon, he was entertained at a country club and visited a cathedral. ``It just breaks your heart to know what came later,'' he says. At the end of the study tour, he says, ``At the least, we Americans ought to be very humble. Travel gives one the sense that the world is not the same it has always been. Travel helps one understand what we are to each other on a fundamental level. Travel helps us discover how one can make a difference.'' Farber visited Cuba at a time when Fidel Castro was beginning to come into power. While there, Farber was arrested by a soldier with Castro sympathies when he took a picture at a church in Havana. The magistrate, who was appointed under the old system, took him aside and told him to protest mightily. Farber says that was not difficult for him to do given the prospect of a jail term. ``The magistrate took the film, but left me the Nikon, which satisfied the soldier,'' Farber says. He also has a personally autographed photo of former Yugoslavian President Tito. In 1974, Farber traveled with the Rev. Robert Schuller to the Holy Land. The trip helped him understand the Bible as a historical document. In 1978, he went to China, where auto theft was virtually non-existent because only government officials were allowed vehicles. ``If someone stole a bicycle, the perpetrator had to meet with neighbors and talk about how bad it was,'' he says. ``Communities tried to work out problems at the local level . . .'' He once took a tour of the Nile River, and he saw the Pyramids in Egypt. he stays active Farber says he was brought up to be tolerant, but that the idea of tolerance is not a uniform standard: ``What is right for Bill Farber to do is not what is right for everyone else to do.'' He once asked writer Arnold Toynbee how he could explain the Holocaust in that one of the most civilized of cultures carried out one of the most barbaric acts ever. ``Toynbee says that you must always remember there is a thin veneer on civilization and when it is scratched the man becomes the brute,'' Farber says. He is in his 40th year with the Vermillion's Lion's Club. He is one of the oldest members of the American Associaton of Political Science, having joined the organization in 1939. For five years he served as president of the Midwest Political Science Society. On May 8, 1975, he was honored at a USD retirement dinner called ``The Wide, Wide World of Farber.'' His many students noted his accomplishments. Nearly a score of years has passed since then, yet Farber is still going strong. Recently, he was off to Washington, D.C., with two faculty members to show 18 students government close up. ``Growing old is like a passing dream,'' he says. ``It comes upon us so quickly, the winter of our years. The change is so gradual that the better things become the best things of life. We live on. We are not old.''

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on July 4, 1995, family, friends, colleagues and students past and present will join Dr. William O. Farber of Vermillion, SD, to celebrate his 85th birthday. Dr. Farber, professor emeritus of political science at the University of South Dakota [USD], is a mentor and respected friend of mine. I would like to take this time to pay tribute to a man who has been influential in the lives of thousands of students of public policy. It is fitting that Dr. Farber celebrate his birthday on the same day we celebrate the birth of this great Nation. He exemplifies many of the characteristics upon which our country was founded: hard work and dedication, honesty and compassion, and the love of and commitment to a democratic society. The June 20, 1995 issue of the Sioux City Journal contained an article entitled, ``Retired Professor Still Serving.'' The story highlighted many of Dr. Farber's philosophies and attainments. I ask unanimous consent that the article be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on the Report of the U.S. Commission of Immigration.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, at 11 a.m. to continue mark up of the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, at 9 a.m. to mark up the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, beginning at 9:45 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building on S. 814, a bill to provide for the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and for other purposes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on the perspective of the Governors on Medicaid.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be permitted to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, beginning at 10:40 a.m. to mark up S. 883, the Credit Union Reform Enhancement Act of 1995 and consider pending nominations.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 1995 at 1 p.m. to mark up the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased the President remains open to a possible third party sale. Frankly, I believe that is his only option. Let me state for the record that the Republic of China is open to my proposal. I also received a very positive initial response from representatives of the Philippine Government. This initiative is simple but bold. I hope my colleagues will join with me in urging the administration to make this initiative their own. I stand ready to do my part to reach a solution that serves our national interest--first and foremost being the preservation of a tough, sound nuclear nonproliferation policy. Mr. President, last month, I had the opportunity to testify before the Foreign Relations Committee and present this idea. I am glad that the President has responded favorably. But much remains to be done to work out this agreement. This has been a difficult matter to approach because in regard to the amendment that was passed in the 1980's, one could say that Pakistan purchased these planes with their eyes open, so to speak. They knew, on the one hand, of the existence of our law that said we would not continue aid if they developed a nuclear bomb. And, very frankly, they were not being candid in what they told the then Vice President and President George Bush about their nuclear program. So if you take it from that point of view strictly, when the Pakistanis got into this thing, they had full knowledge of what they were doing back home in terms of developing a nuclear bomb. They knew our law said what it said, and they moved forward with this purchase which would have been in violation. So we could say, ``Well, let us just let them be, that they made a bad deal, and they paid the price.'' On the other hand, there has been a great distinction in Pakistan. The military people have not always told the civilian government what is going on, very frankly. And the civilian government has engaged in some perhaps unwise decisions based on bad information. That is really Pakistan's problem, I suppose. But, as the years have gone by, I see an opportunity to get these F- 16's to Taiwan, which needs them to counterbalance China, and to the Philippines, which is a longtime ally of ours. Exhibit 1 In Defense of the Pressler Amendment What the Pressler Amendment Requires The Pressler Amendment requires Pakistan to satisfy two conditions before it is eligible to receive U.S. foreign assistance, including US military equipment or technology. Aid may be provided in any fiscal year only if the President has certified in that year that Pakistan (a) ``does not possess'' a nuclear explosive device and (b) that the proposed assistance ``will reduce significantly'' the risk of possession. Common Criticisms of the Pressler Amendment Critics of the Pressler Amendment have alleged that this legislation: (1) is unfair and discriminatory; (2) is not effective; (3) is counterproductive; (4) penalizes Pakistan when it has not even assembled, deployed, or tested weapons; (5) is inflexible; (6) inhibits US encouragement of a free market in Pakistan; (7) hurts US economic competitiveness; (8) sets back US human rights initiatives; (9) interferes with US counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics efforts; and (10) fosters anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Not one of these criticisms holds up to responsible analysis. The criticisms reveal more about the critics themselves than about any real shortcomings in the legislation. In particular, these criticisms reflect: (1) a profound misunderstanding of the purposes of the Pressler Amendment, (2) a flagrant case of historical amnesia; (3) a cynical fatalism about the inevitability of proliferation; (4) an ignorance of the regional, global, and US national security consequences of a Pakistani bomb; (5) the susceptibility of the legislative process to special interest lobbying; (6) the triumpth of slogans over analysis as a basis of policy; (7) an utterly bizarre conception of what constitutes a ``friend'' of the United States; (8) a distorted perspective on US national priorities; (9) a preference for the management rather than the prevention of proliferation; and (10) a compulsive desire to channel even more taxpayer dollars into unproductive pursuits. Rebuttals to Specific Criticisms 1. ``Unfair and Discriminatory'' Between 1981 and 1990, Pakistan gave the US government both formal and informal assurances about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, the level of enrichment of its uranium, foreign nuclear procurements, cooperation with China, and other such issues relating to nonproliferation issues--in each case, Pakistan broke its word. It is not unfair for America to defend its interests by punishing those who violate their commitments to us. On eight occasions, Congress authorized special waivers of US nonproliferation laws to permit aid to continue to flow to Pakistan. To this day, Pakistan is the only country ever to have received (or required) a waiver of the Glenn/Symington sanctions in order to qualify for US aid. It is true that America engaged in discrimination, but this was discrimination on behalf of Pakistan and against all other countries that played by the rules. How can Pakistan simultaneously condemn the country- specific discrimination in the Pressler Amendment without also condemning the country-specific discrimination that authorized such aid? Pakistan is not the only country to be mentioned by name in the context of nonproliferation sanctions--for years, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba have been designated for special controls and sanctions. US relations with India also have been affected by a variety of US nonproliferation laws. Because of India's unsafeguarded nuclear program, there is no US/Indian agreement for nuclear cooperation; US military cooperation with India is negligible; and the US will not export certain forms of missile equipment and technology to India and other goods related to weapons of mass destruction. Though sanctions under Glenn/Symington have not been invoked against India, it is because India, unlike Pakistan, has not violated that law. 2. ``Not effective'' US policy throughout the 1980s asserted that US aid was an effective way to lure Pakistan away from the bomb--yet Pakistan made its most significant nuclear achievements precisely when US aid was flowing at its highest levels. The Pressler Amendment sanctions accomplished what $5 billion in US economic and military aid failed to accomplish--it led Pakistan to stop producing highly-enriched uranium. The Pressler Amendment succeeded in enabling the continuation of US efforts to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan while not sacrificing a bottom-line US nuclear nonproliferation objective: nonpossession. If it were not for this compromise, aid could have been terminated in 1985. The Pressler Amendment was then and remains now a statement of the priority that America attaches to nonproliferation as a goal of policy. The Pressler Amendment has unquestionably made Pakistan-- especially its air force, army, and navy--pay for its misguided decisions to pursue the bomb. Indeed, if Pakistan once again qualifies for US aid, it will no doubt be Pakistan's military that will stand to benefit the most from the new aid. This gives Pakistan a tangible incentive to satisfy the certification terms under Pressler. 3. ``Counterproductive'' Though the sanctions have undoubtedly weakened Pakistan's military capabilities, there is no evidence that the sanctions have ``driven'' Pakistan to rely more upon nuclear deterrence as a national defense strategy. Pakistan's decisions to stop producing highly-enriched uranium, not to test, and not to assemble or deploy nuclear weapons hardly suggests a policy of increased reliance on a nuclear deterrent. The US denial of technology and aid has slowed down Pakistan's bomb-making potential, a long-standing goal of US nonproliferation policy. Though Pakistan still has a nuclear weapons-capability and is still cooperating with China on the bomb, these activities were not ``caused by'' the Pressler Amendment. Pakistan was seeking this capability and engaging in this cooperation with China well before the Pressler Amendment came into existence. For a truly counterproductive policy, one must look to the 1980s, when US taxpayers shelled out $5 billion in aid that was supposed to appease Pakistan's nuclear ambitions . . . aid that coincided Pakistan's acquisition of the bomb. Today, critics of the Pressler Amendment are arguing that more US taxpayer money should be channeled down that drain. 4. ``No assembly, deployment, or testing'' Pakistan's decisions not to assemble, deploy, or test have very little to do with the flow of US aid. The US nuclear arsenal in the 1950s was stored in separate components: was the US a non-nuclear-weapon state as a result? Even the State Department concedes that a country can still possess the bomb even if it has not yet actually assembled one. Pakistan's position is that it does not ``possess'' the bomb because it has not assembled the requisite materials. By this logic, Pakistan could acquire a nuclear arsenal with hundreds of weapons simply by not tightening down the last screw on the casing of each bomb. Pakistan's new emphasis on the issue of assembling is just another chapter of Pakistan's long history of dissembling about its bomb. It is widely believed that Pakistan got a pre-tested bomb design from China. Why would Pakistan want to or need to test a pre-tested design? Pakistan has very limited supplies of bomb-usable nuclear material. Why should it waste such precious material on an unnecessary test? Why should Pakistan engage in a test that would only give India an excuse to commence a regional nuclear arms race that Pakistan could never win? If Pakistan's nuclear program is, as its government claims, devoted entirely to peaceful purposes, how can it claim that it has ``kept components separate'' and not ``assembled'' the bomb? What would it have to assemble if its program were peaceful? If its program is so peaceful, why does it refuse to agree to international inspections independent of what India does? 5. ``Inflexible'' Supporters of the Pressler Amendment make no apologies to the charge that the law has been ``inflexible,'' assuming a normal dictionary definition of this term: ``of an unyielding temper, purpose, will, etc.'' The alternative of passive accommodation has little attraction to supporters of nonproliferation. Even with the so-called ``inflexible'' label, the following activities take place: (a) the US still issues licenses to export commercial munitions and spare parts to Pakistan, including spares for Pakistan's nuclear-weapons delivery vehicle, the F-16; (b) US military visits and joint training exercises continue to take place; (c) US aid with respect to agriculture, counter-terrorism, nutrition, population control, literacy, advancement of women, health and medicine, environmental protection, disaster relief, and many other areas can continue to flow to Pakistan via nongovernmental organizations; (d) the Export-Import Bank also has extended loans, grants, and guarantees to Pakistan; (e) PL-480 agricultural aid continues; (f) arms control verification assistance continues (a seismic station); (g) millions of dollars of aid in the ``pipeline'' as of October 1990 was allowed to flow to Pakistan; (h) cooperation on peace keeping is continuing; and (i) Pakistan continues to receive billions of dollars in development assistance via multilateral lending agencies. Pakistan used almost $200 million in FMS credits to fund the purchase of 11 F-16's between FY 1989 and 1993, of which about $150 million were used after the Pressler sanctions were invoked. The US continues to review and approve licenses of dual-use technology to Pakistan. All the above hardly suggest that the Pressler Amendment has been unduly inflexible. 6. ``Free Market'' Pakistan has a long way to go before it has a free market and the Pressler Amendment is hardly to blame. A recent Heritage Foundation worldwide review characterized Pakistan's economy as ``Mostly Not Free.'' The report found that Pakistan has a ``very high level of protectionism.'' The only market that is truly free in Pakistan is its black market. Free markets are an important US interest, but not an end in themselves--they need to be weighed against other US interests, especially national security, defense, and nonproliferation objectives. Encouraging a free market in weapons of mass destruction should not be high on America's list of priorities. 7. ``Hurts US Economic Competitiveness'' The US has exported hundreds of millions of dollars in defense goods to Pakistan since the Pressler Amendment came into effect. In 1994, the Commerce Department approved $96 million in exports of dual-use goods to Pakistan, about triple the amount approved in each of the three previous years. Total US exports to Pakistan still come to less than $1 billion. Even if all of this trade was lost, it would have no effect whatsoever upon the US national trade balance or US economic competitiveness. By comparison, US exports worldwide in 1994 were worth well over a half trillion dollars. 8. ``Sets Back Human Rights Initiatives'' Congress has expressly authorized the transfer of assistance to Pakistan via nongovernmental groups to advance the cause of human rights (as indeed several other non- military causes). Despite some modest improvements since the days of General Zia, the Pakistani government continues to repress the human rights of Pakistani citizens, as most recently documented both by the State Department's annual human rights report and a recent global survey by Amnesty International. The US experience in Iran should have taught us to beware of cultivating cozy relationships with a repressive government. 9. ``Interferes with Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Narcotics Efforts'' Congress has expressly authorized the transfer of assistance to Pakistan via nongovernmental groups to terrorism and narcotics trafficking. Widespread terrorism and narcotics trafficking persists in Pakistan. Pakistan's recent cooperation with the US in apprehending terrorists indicates that the Pressler Amendment is no insuperable obstacle to such cooperation. 10. ``Fosters Anti-Americanism'' Anti-Americanism was not born in Pakistan with the enactment of the Pressler Amendment--it predated the amendment and has causes far beyond a nuclear dispute between the US and Pakistan. America opposes the global spread of nuclear weapons: it should come as no surprise to witness leaders of governments that are secretly building bombs encouraging anti- Americanism. America seeks to defend its national interests, not to win popularity contests. As President Clinton stated on October 18, 1994: ``There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.''

Mr. PRESSLER. In summary, any unilateral attempt to weaken or modify the Pressler amendment for whatever reason--whether it be for economic assistance, or drug or terrorism control--would not be in the best interest of our more critical nuclear non-proliferation goals. I urge my colleagues to study this extended analysis before the Senate considers the foreign aid authorization bill later this year. Today, however, I would like to discuss the initiative I offered to the committee 1 month ago--a new, constructive initiative that will make a significant contribution toward achieving a number of our foreign policy goals. As my colleagues well know, in 1990, President Bush could no longer certify, under the terms of the Pressler amendment, that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. As a result, 28 F-16 aircraft ordered by Pakistan could not be delivered. Today, those planes remain undelivered. Of these 28, 11 were sold on a foreign military sales basis--paid for up-front by the American taxpayer. The remaining 17 were paid for by Pakistan for about $650 million. Let me be clear: I will oppose any attempt to waive the Pressler amendment to allow for Pakistan to take delivery of these aircraft. My rationale is simple: F-16's are capable of carrying a nuclear payload. It would be contrary to the spirit and letter of our Nation's nuclear non-proliferation policy for this Congress to allow Pakistan to take possession of nuclear delivery vehicles under any condition short of current law. Doing so would have grave implications. Delivery of the F-16's could spark an unprecedented, destabilizing arms buildup in South Asia. This is not in the best interests of the people of the region. I would hope that no Member of Congress would want his or her fingerprints on any proposal that would spark such an unfortunate turn of events. I recognize this leaves the United States in a quandary--a quandary that I hope we can eliminate. To do so, Mr. President, please allow me to turn our attention to the South China Sea, where the Communist Chinese military machine is on the march. Taiwan continues to be threatened with an increasing level of intimidating military exercises by Communist China. In addition, the Philippine Government is the victim of Chinese aggression in the Spratley Islands. The Philippines and the other surrounding countries in the region are concerned that this increased activity by the Chinese military is a prelude to an outright attempt to gain control over the South China Sea. Three points about the Philippines are worth mentioning: First, the Philippines is the democratic country in Asia with the weakest military. Its government needs modern planes and naval craft. Second, the Philippines has a security treaty with the United States. The Philippine people are our allies. Third, the U.S. Senate--through the leadership of former Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Lugar and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry--was instrumental in bringing democracy back to the Philippines in 1986. We must not turn our back on them now. My initiative is very simple. First, we arrange for the immediate delivery to the Philippines, on a FMS basis, of 11 F-16's of the 28 held up by the Pressler amendment--the ones already paid for by the American taxpayer. At the same time, I recommended last month that we open negotiations with Taiwan on the immediate delivery of the remaining 17 aircraft. Taiwan already is purchasing 150 of the same model F-16 but the delivery date is not until June 1997. At the time of my announcement, I sent letters to President Clinton, Philippine President Ramos and President Lee of the Republic of China, detailing my initiative. Last week, President Clinton responded to my proposal, stating that he was open to a third-party sale if it met certain areas of concern. First, the President said that a third-party transfer must serve our national interest. I agree. In fact, my initiative produces a number of winners: For Pakistan, the F-16 issue goes away as an irritant in its relations with the United States. For India, 28 nuclear delivery vehicles do not show up on her border, and that is something I feel very concerned about. I think if these F-16's went to Pakistan, it would accelerate the arms race there. I feel strongly we should be friends with both India and Pakistan. Both countries have done a great deal with us and for us. I see in the long range a trading partnership with both countries, and friendship. But also this will help us with Taiwan. Taiwan can, for a price, close its 2-year window of vulnerability to modern Russian aircraft in the hands of Chinese pilots. Finally, the Philippines can get the air defense it needs. By this initiative, a number of American foreign policy goals would be furthered: lower tensions in South Asia, maintenance of a strong nuclear nonproliferation policy, and an enhanced deterrent capability of two democratic, nonnuclear powers in Asia. At home, American aerospace would have new markets, and the American taxpayer would receive a measurable enhancement of our global security for almost no cost. Second, the President stated that we would need to consider the return to Pakistan of the military equipment other than the F-16's for which it has paid. Frankly, I believe we must study this option carefully. I would oppose the return of any military equipment to Pakistan that would serve to undermine our nuclear non- proliferation goals, and add to the current instability in the region. We should not limit the third-party sale option just to the F-16's exclusively. Third, the President noted that a third party sale may not be satisfactory to Pakistan if it does not receive most, if not all, of the funds they originally paid to the United States Government for the aircraft. As I stated last month, if the Congress opts to use any of the funds raised from my initiative to compensate Pakistan for the previously paid F-16's, I would not object. However, I would hope that full compensation is not made a condition by the President for pursuing a third party sale. As it stands right now, I believe it would be difficult to convince Congress to either authorize the delivery of the F-16's to Pakistan, or appropriate the full amount paid by Pakistan. My initiative provides the Government of Pakistan the first real opportunity to gain some compensation in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my letter to President Clinton dated May 23, 1995, and his response dated June 22, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, many years ago I sponsored an amendment dealing with our aid to Pakistan, and it has been a thorn in the side of our relationship with Pakistan. It ultimately involved the delivery of several F-16's. I had recently proposed a solution to that problem, a resolution of that problem, to the President of the United States. As my colleagues know, I have held a special interest in South Asia for a number of years. I have the highest admiration for the character of the South Asian people as they strive to better their conditions. The singular tragedy of South Asia has been war--the reality of conflicts past and the fear of future bloodshed. Pakistan and India have fought three wars since independence in 1947. Tension still remains high. What was once a conventional military standoff has now become more ominous. Both sides can assemble nuclear weapons. Both sides are striving to obtain modern delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles and aircraft. Just last week, the New York Times and Defense News reported that in the past 3 months, Pakistan has received from Communist China key components that could be used in M-11 ballistic missiles. Without question, a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be cataclysmic. The names of the perpetrators, and their accessories, would be cursed for a millennium. To its credit, Mr. President, the U.S. Senate consistently has taken the initiative to promote peace and stability in South Asia--the core of that leadership has been the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A decade ago, the committee--under the chairmanship of the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar]--decided to use the leverage of our aid to Pakistan to try to keep it from going nuclear. Just as important, the committee also decided that should Pakistan choose a nuclear option, we would not condone its action through United States aid. Mr. President, those were the key reasons why the U.S. Congress adopted the so-called Pressler amendment 10 years ago. It was the right thing to do. President Ronald Reagan agreed. So did the Government of Pakistan at that time. I believe the Pressler amendment is needed now more than ever. To the extent that the current administration and this Congress chooses to back away from that standard, the prospects for regional instability and war are increased accordingly. Unfortunately, some have called for a myriad of modifications to the Pressler amendment, ranging from one-time waivers to outright repeal. Mr. President, I have a more in-depth analysis of the Pressler amendment, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on a totally separate subject, I have been concerned about the military buildup by China. I cannot understand who China views as its enemy. I cannot understand why China is not only building up its nuclear arsenal, but also proliferating ballistic missile technology to countries like Iran and Pakistan. China should be concerned about the potential for a nuclear arms race by Islamic nations in South Asia and the Middle East. Indeed, if that does occur, if Iran does join the nuclear club, Israel will certainly react. So the point I am making is I think the President can use my initiative not just to solve one of our foreign policy problems as it relates to Pakistan. He can use it to show our continued friendship with Taiwan. Taiwan is a democracy and a growing economic power in the Pacific. Taiwan usually is on our side 100 percent, even though we do not treat its leaders that way when they come here. Our relationship with Taiwan is one of the ironies of history. My initiative sends a signal to the Chinese that we are going to be tough in that region and we will look after our allies, and that includes the Philippines, which would also get eleven of the F-16's under my initiative. As I said earlier, my initiative is a bold step, but it is a partial solution. It is a step forward. I am glad that President Clinton has apparently begun to embrace this concept, to explore with these countries to see if we can get the F-16's out to Taiwan and the Philippines. Again, it is an initiative that can get some money back to Pakistan, although I would not necessarily guarantee full compensation because frankly, Pakistan had their eyes open when they went into this deal. Further, the Government of Pakistan was not being candid with the President of the United States at that time about what was going on in their nuclear program.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the subject of Medicare. There has been much unjustified criticism of the Republican budget plan by the Democrats. As my colleagues know, we will be voting in this Chamber possibly tomorrow night on the budget of the United States for the next 7 years, the basic outline. And for the first time in nearly three decades, we are moving toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. I am proud of this great achievement. This is the toughest budget since I have been a Member of Congress. It is tough, it is sound and it is right. If we can pass it in the House and in the Senate, it will be the first time in a long time that we have gone in the other direction--the right direction. Finally we will start to pay our bills as they become due. Up to this point, we have been going in the wrong direction--of runaway spending and the build up of a huge Federal debt. Included in the budget plan are reductions in the rate of growth in Medicare. I want all senior citizens to understand this budget. I am a champion of senior citizens. My mother is a senior citizen living in Sioux Falls. In fact, I will be one someday in the not too far future. So I am concerned about this subject. My goal is to save Medicare for our seniors. This budget saves Medicare. This budget will provide senior citizens with stability. The present rate of increase of Medicare is about 10 percent a year. It is growing too fast, and if left alone, it will go bankrupt by the year 2002. This budget slows the rate of increase to about 7.2 percent. Thus, Medicare is still going to grow, but it is not going to grow quite as fast. We are slowing the growth to save the program from overheating and breaking down altogether. How do we get the savings? It comes from streamlining some of the national administration. It comes from certain cost control reforms, and so forth. Americans should not be misled about what we are doing here. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that Medicare is going to go bankrupt unless somebody steps forward with a plan to save it. So I would say to my liberal friends, what is your plan? The Republicans have a solvent plan. The Domenici-Dole plan in the Senate will save Medicare. We have to save Medicare. Let me say a word or two about some of the other areas. This budget takes an across-the-board approach. I know every group that has a stake in the Federal budget will feel it. But I would say to farmers, ranchers, small businessmen, students, and others, that lower interest rates are one of your main concerns. Students, for example, pay back their loans at the going rate of interest after they have graduated from college. To the students of America, I say that one of the greatest threats to your economic security is, the massive Federal debt. That debt keeps interest rates high, forcing students to pay their college loans back at high interest rates. We are going to have high interest rates if we do not do something about the size of our deficit. A third area of concern here is inflation and the soundness of our monetary system internationally. If we continue to build up the huge Federal debt, we also will be building up the specter of high inflation, high interest rates, and a currency that is not respected in the world, a currency that is weak, and a currency that will eventually be overtaken by the German mark or the Japanese yen. So, Mr. President, as we engage in this debate on the budget for the next 2 days and as we vote on it here in the Senate tomorrow evening, let us remember that we are trying to save Medicare. We are trying to save our economy for our children--an economy with lower interest rates, a solvent dollar, and low taxes. We are going to have many eloquent speeches in this Chamber about how the Federal Government is taking away money from here and taking away money from there. But if the Federal Government does not have any money to give, it ultimately has to take that money back either through inflation, high interest rates, and higher taxes, which will lead to all types of economic suffering. So in conclusion, Mr. President, my concern here is to explain why I will be voting for the Dole-Domenici approach. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. We will have to fight off false charges that we are against senior citizens or that we are against farmers or we are against workers. That is not true. We are for them. This is an historic budget plan for all Americans. Everyone agrees the alternative is bankruptcy, the loss of the Medicare Program, and economic chaos. We are going to save our budget. We are going to save Medicare. We are going to save our economy. We are going to save our children's future. I urge my colleagues to join us in voting for the Dole-Domenici budget. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today marks the 20th anniversary of the number of two fine young men who served their country in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams. They were murdered by Leonard Peltier, who is now serving two life terms in Leavenworth Penitentiary. Ron liked living in South Dakota and particularly enjoyed the Black Hills. After coming to my State in 1975, he purchased a home in a quite section of Rapid City, my State's second largest city, Jack was a guest in South Dakota. His home was in Colorado. He was halfway through a 60- day temporary duty assignment in the Rapid City FBI office when he was killed. Special Agents Coler and Williams were law enforcement officers, serving our country, doing a job the Congress of the United States authorized them to do. They were young men--Jack was 28 years old; Ron was 27--at the very beginning of promising careers with a premier Federal law enforcement agency. They performed their duties with a great deal of pride. Mr. President, the current issue of Outdoor magazine features an article by Scott Anderson, entitled ``The Martyrdom of Leonard Peltier.'' Despite the rather sympathetic title, the article does a fairly good job of debunking the myth that has been created over the years by the nonnative American, liberal Eastern establishment and Hollywood elites. When the article does portray Peltier as victim, it is not in the way previously done, ad nauseam, as a victim of some Government conspiracy to frame Peltier for murder. Rather, Peltier is portrayed as a stooge of attorneys, newspaper and book publishers, print and media journalists, and movie moguls who have used Peltier for two decades now to line their own pockets and advance their own liberal agenda and warped view of the world. I particularly liked Mr. Anderson's comments about the book, ``In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,'' by Peter Mattiessen. Mr. Anderson is to be commended for calling Matthiessen to task for writing what essentially is a work of fiction--subjected to two libel suits--not the work of fact he purported it to be. Unfortunately, over the years, Matthiessen's apologia for Peltier has been regarded biblically by those who choose not to rely on the facts and the trial proceedings for what really happened 20 years ago today. Matthiessen's comic book version of reality has been spun into various movies and pseudo- documentaries by the liberal establishment. Mr. President, it seems all too predictable that Oliver Stone is using that book to make a movie about Peltier. Let us not forget that this is the same Oliver Stone who has distorted the collective public memory by foisting upon us the movie ``JFK.'' I suspect that the American people will learn very little about what really happened 20 years ago today on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation if they rely on the Stone version of the case. Regrettably, should this pulp fiction eventually hit the big screen, I am sure we will see a resurgence of calls for a Presidential commutation of Peltier's life sentences. I would hope that President Clinton would hold to the recommendation of the man he appointed to a 10-year term to head the FBI, Louis Freeh, who has said ``There should be no commutation of his [Peltier's] two life terms in prison.'' President Clinton has spoken laudably of his respect for law enforcement during the debate on last year's crime bill and in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. The men and women of law enforcement are more than worthy of his and other's words of praise. I hope he will always remember what a supreme display of disrespect it would be to these fine individuals if he caved in to the calls of the radical left and freed the man who murdered two of law enforcement's finest, 20 years ago today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks there be printed a copy of an open letter to the President, published in the Washington Post on July 15, 1994, which was written by the representatives of more than 15,000 active duty and former FBI agents. It is one of the most concise and accurate accounts of the facts of the murders ever to appear in print. I would recommend its reading to all my colleagues on the 20th anniversary of the deaths of Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams. We should never forget the sacrifice made by these two fine men, nor forgive the man lawfully convicted and justly sentenced to spend the rest of his life behind bars for their murders.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as the former honorary chairman of Ethnic American Day, I have the distinct privilege of entering into the Record the names of the individuals who have been awarded the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations [NECO] 1995 Ellis Island Medal of Honor. NECO's distinguished board chairman is Mr. William Denis Fugazy. NECO, founded in 1984, is the only organization in the United States of America that celebrates the ethnic diversity of the American population. NECO also serves as a watchdog for ethnic, racial, and religious injustice, and has been a constant voice and vigorous advocate for ethnic unity and pride in America. One of its programs is the Ellis Island Medals of Honor. Each year since 1986, NECO has recognized America's ethnic diversity by honoring the achievements and contributions of ethnic Americans in all professions, including government, entertainment, business and industry, sports, health care, and communications. NECO's Ellis Island Medals of Honor embody the true spirit of what makes the United States unique among the world's nations. Many of our country's ethnic groups have no direct connection to Ellis Island. However, NECO rightly views Ellis Island as a landmark and symbol of the shared experiences of all immigrant groups that have landed on our soil. Most have come to our shores because they were the targets of ethnic, racial, and religious hatred, discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice. Many continued to experience this intolerance in America itself. NECO strives to eliminate this hatred. Through the Ellis Island Medals of Honor, NECO celebrates ethnic diversity and the great contributions of immigrants to the American experience. Whether they have entered past Lady Liberty in New York Harbor, John F. Kennedy International Airport, or through San Francisco Bay; whether they are native Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or others who have not entered this country through Ellis Island; NECO's Ellis Island Medals of Honor embrace all ethnic Americans who call this great country home. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations 1995 Ellis Island Medals of Honor recipients. I extend my congratulations to this very distinguished group of Americans. The recipients follow: 1995 Ellis Island Medals of Honor Recipients Dr. Mihran S. Agbabian; Mr. Raul Alarcon, Jr.; Hon. Madeleine Korbel Albright; Mr. George E. Altomare; Mr. Richard T. Anderson; Mr. Marion H. Antonini; Mr. Carlos J. Arboleya; Mr. Robert T. Aspromonte; Mr. Ronald G. Assaf; Mr. Frank Assumma; Mr. William L. Ayers, Jr.; Mr. Alan L. Bain; Dr. Gwendolyn Calvert Baker; Mr. Stephen Bartolin, Jr.; Ms. Barbara W. Bell; Mr. Geza T. Bodnar; Ms. Helen F. Boehm; Mr. Edgar Bronfman, Jr.; Hon. Joseph L. Bruno; Ms. Donna Grucci Butler; Stanley Q. Casey; Hon. Bernadette Castro; Mr. Leon H. Charney; Mr. Muzaffar A. Chishti; Mr. Philip Christopher; Mr. Richard J. Ciecka; Mr. Anthony J. Colavita, Esq.; Hon. Clay Constantinou; Rev. John J. Cremins, Ph.D.; Sr. Camille D'Arienzo; Mr. Vic Damone; Ms. Donna de Varona; Mr. Papken S. Der Torossian; Brig. Gen. Robert C.G. Disney; Ms. Kathleen A. Donovan; Mr. Robert B. Engel; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, MD; Mr. Arthur V. Verrara; Dr. George S. Ferzli, M.D., F.A.C.S.; Mr. Arnold L. Fisher; Mr. George P. Gabriel; Hon. Charles A. Gargano; Mr. Arie Genger; Ms. Kathie Lee Gifford; Mr. David Giladi; Ms. Bozenna Urbanowicz Gilbride; Mr. James F. Gill; Mr. Sandy Ginsberg; Mr. Michael Goodwin; Mr. Per Hellman; Hon. Alan G. Hevesi.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Fred DuBray, an exceptional South Dakotan, who recently was awarded a Newsweek Achievement Award. Fred DuBray was recognized by the weekly magazine Newsweek for his vision and commitment to reviving the bison population in South Dakota and across the country. Mr. DuBray is a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and is founder and president of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative [ITBC]. Bison always have held a special place in the hearts of many Native Americans, and in the history of the American continent. Often referred to as buffalo, bison play a significant role in tribal ceremonies and in other traditional customs of the Native Americans. Knowing what the bison mean to the Native American culture, Fred DuBray came up with the idea of reviving the bison population--and encouraging reservations to reap the economic benefits. The InterTribal Bison Cooperative [ITBC], headquartered in Rapid City, SD, has proven to be a great success. It has brought economic development to Native American tribes across the country, where other economic projects had previously failed. In 1991, when it was founded, the ITBC consisted of only seven Indian tribes. Since then, it has expanded to include 36 tribes from 15 different States across the country. Under Mr. DuBray's leadership, the ITBC has created more than 500 new jobs through the production and distribution of bison meat and bison by-products. The number of consumers purchasing bison products has increased dramatically over the past 4 years. In my home State of South Dakota, rising bison has proven to be a profitable venture for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. In fact, the Cheyenne River Sioux recently received Federal assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the purchase of a mobile meat processor. This state-of-the-art technology will allow the tribe to slaughter bison in a traditional manner, while processing and packaging the meat on the spot. The tribe also intends to allow other nearby tribes and private ranchers to benefit from the use of the mobile bison meat processor. Fred's ingenuity is an inspiration to all Native Americans who, through creativity and hard work, are striving to achieve self- sufficiency, rather than dependency on Federal Government assistance. I am very proud of Fred DuBray's achievements, and I am very happy to see that he is receiving well-earned recognition from Newsweek magazine. My wife, Harriet, and I extend our congratulations to Fred DuBray for his accomplishments thus far, and wish him continued success in his future efforts.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Dr. Foster. He does not represent the family values that my State seeks. Also, I am very concerned about inconsistent statements. As has been stated on this floor, not to paraphrase from others, but the real issue should not be whether or not young people will lose a clean needle when they use drugs. The Surgeon General of the United States should encourage them to say ``No'' to drugs. We really need to take a look at this position of Surgeon General and see whether it even needs to exist in the future. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is supposed to do this function. If we are going to have a Surgeon General he should be a role model for family values, for what our country believes in. He should be a strong opponent of the use of drugs and of teenage pregnancies, stating his opposition to it. Not stating other side issues such as using clean needles, et cetera, et cetera. I am strongly opposed to the nomination and shall vote against cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend will yield.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to discuss briefly the important issue of motorcycle safety. I have been a motorcyclist for many years. I had a motorcycle when I was a second lieutenant in the Army, and have ridden many times over the years. In fact, I am the owner of a Harley-Davidson Heritage Softail Classic. I enjoy riding [[Page S 8752]] it on the weekends when I am home in South Dakota. While much debate has focused on the safety of motorcycle helmets, I do not want us to overlook another very important issue: motorcycle rider training. In my view, proper motorcycle training is even more critical to safety. To update my license, I recently completed one of the motorcycle rider training courses endorsed by the National Motorcycle Safety Foundation. This 2\1/2\-day course--which took place Friday evening, and all day Saturday and Sunday--consisted of both classroom and hands- on instruction. It is a very rigorous course designed to teach even a beginner how to handle a motorcycle safely. I must say, I learned a lot of things about motorcycles that I did not know, and about safety. Mr. President, according to statistics, about 62 percent of all the accidents involving motorcycles involve some sort of use of alcohol. I also want to point out the accident rate is very low in those States where motorcyclists have completed motorcycle safety courses. That is because the training courses strongly emphasize safety. Congress should emphasize safety education too. In South Dakota, motorcyclists are urged to take rider training courses. I think that is a very important. Across the Nation, if we had more people taking motorcycle training courses, we would have more skilled riders. In my judgment, Congress can best promote safety by encouraging motorcyclists to enroll in motorcycle rider training courses. As many of my colleagues know, the Sturgis motorcycle rally is held in my home State every summer. We have thousands of motorcyclists coming to South Dakota for this annual event. Some wear helmets and some do not. We do not have a helmet mandate. It is a matter of individual choice. So I join with my friend from Colorado in the remarks that he has made, and I hope to soon ride my new Harley-Davidson Softail with him. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.