Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I object.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to commend our former majority leader on his great remarks about David Pryor. His remarks have inspired me to say a few words about David. I have been trying to say a few words about each retiring Senator. But David Pryor has been a friend of mine. In fact, I have been down to Arkansas to his charitable event that he has to raise money in Texarkana several times. I have also been down to Little Rock to speak at college events. I feel that I have gotten to know David and Barbara Pryor quite well. He is a legendary figure in this body because he is, I think, one of the President's best friends, and David Pryor can go straight to the President with certain information or projects. That is an unusual responsibility for a Senator to have. But he is sort of a legendary U.S. Senator in that he came here as a page, I believe. He was in the House of Representatives when I was over in the House. I have followed his career for a number of years with great admiration. I shall miss David Pryor a great deal. He has done a lot of legislation. I serve with him on the Senate Finance Committee. I serve with him on the Senate Committee on Aging. But more than that, he is my friend. I shall miss David Pryor. We all come and go. David Pryor is leaving a little early, in my opinion, and I shall miss him very much. I join in those wonderful remarks paying tribute to Senator David Pryor of Arkansas. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jim Sartucci, a Coast Guard Fellow with the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be granted floor privileges today and during Senate consideration of H.R. 1350, an act to amend the Merchant Marine Act.

Mr. PRESSLER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join that request for a quorum call, but I just would like to join in those remarks 100 percent. I might also take this opportunity to say that I am in the process of placing a statement in the Congressional Record relative to what a great Senator Senator Exon has been in the Senate and what a great colleague he has been to work with. I share his frustration at this moment. He is a lucky man in that he is retiring from this body, so he will not have these frustrations in the future. I do not think they are going to change very much, but I am equally frustrated. We are ready to pass this bill on this side of the aisle. Whenever you give me the nod, we will go.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send modifications to the committee substitute to the desk and ask that the committee substitute, as modified, be considered as original text for purpose of further amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased we are considering S. 1505, the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996. This is needed and important legislation, and I urge my colleagues' full and enthusiastic support. On June 6, 1996, S. 1505 was amended by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and ordered to be reported without objection. I also have one technical amendment that I believe has been cleared by the majority and the minority. S. 1505 reauthorizes appropriations for Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Programs and seeks to reduce the risks and enhance environmental protection associated with pipeline transportation. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I want to take a moment to highlight some of the most important provisions of S. 1505. But first, Mr. President, I want to share some brief background on how S. 1505 reached this point. It was a long, but fruitful journey. Last December, our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, introduced S. 1505. Mr. Lott's original bill was cosponsored by Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Exon, Mr. Burns, Mr. Ford, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Frist, Mr. Inhofe, and myself. S. 1505 was based on a bill (H.R. 1323) pending in the House. The House legislation had been approved by two panels, but it has not been debated on the House floor. Because of the majority leader's initiative, emphasis shifted to our Chamber. On April 16, my committee held a hearing on pipeline transportation safety and S. 1505. At the hearing, pipeline owners and operators, as well as Federal and State safety regulators, voiced their individual views on how to reauthorize and enhance pipeline safety. At the hearing, I stated my view that with a little give and take, we could reach agreement on how best to improve pipeline safety. I am pleased that our efforts succeeded. The text of S. 1505 reflects an agreement reached over several months. The negotiators in this process represented two offices in the Department of Transportation DOT--one of which was the Office of Pipeline Safety OPS--natural gas pipeline operators, hazardous liquid pipeline operators, and majority and minority committee staff. Valuable input was also received from the dedicated staff of the Congressional Research Service and groups like the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives and the Natural Resources Defense Council. I commend the work of all those involved. Mr. President, I have been involved with pipeline safety issues for several years. A vast network of underground pipes safely transports fuel to our homes and businesses. National Transportation Safety Board statistics show pipelines to be one of the safest modes of transportation. Among all modes--highway, rail, aviation, marine, and pipeline--fatalities from pipeline accidents represent less than 3/1000 of 1 percent of the total number of transportation fatalities on an annual basis. At the same time, we must do everything possible to prevent natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline transportation accidents. A few years ago, a pipeline leak occurred near Sioux Falls in my home State of South Dakota. I met with Federal, state and local officials at the time to discuss many public health and safety aspects of pipeline transportation. I also initiated efforts to improve hazardous liquid pipeline inspection programs and to add inspectors to focus on States like South Dakota that did not have their own hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs. Through this experience, I came to realize that pipeline transportation is one of the United States' most unique transportation modes. There are individual product characteristics and product- specific types of piping materials. A subterranean network of underground pipelines runs under farms, rural communities, suburbs, metropolitan regions, rivers, and environmentally sensitive areas. Given this unique transportation environment, it became clear that a single uniform set of safety standards cannot effectively address all risks. S. 1505 responds to this unique pipeline operating environment by applying a simple, flexible, commonsense risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis for new pipeline safety standards. The legislation moves pipeline safety away from prescriptive, command-and-control approaches and focuses future standards on actions that address assessed safety risks. S. 1505 also provides statutory authority for the Office of Pipeline Safety to initiate the risk management demonstration project it has had under development for 2 years. Under the demonstration program, pipeline operators would be given more flexibility in applying their resources to solutions that best fit their unique pipeline operation problems. As I mentioned earlier, the technical provision at the desk to be added to S. 1505 has been cleared by both the majority and the minority. The language in the provision provides for the opportunity for public comment in a demonstration project's approval process. The Office of Pipeline Safety testified that there ``are too many variations'' in pipeline operations to think ``we in Washington are in a position to mandate solutions to fit all problems.'' I wholeheartedly agree. One-size-fits-all regulations do not and cannot address the thousands of differences between pipeline operations nationwide. S. 1505 is a responsible bill and it represents sound public policy. The risk assessment and risk management provisions of the legislation rest on the foundation already built by the Office of Pipeline Safety. The bill also builds on initiatives undertaken at OPS to focus its regulatory and programmatic agenda on the most important public safety and environmental protection standards. Aside from the risk assessment and risk management provisions, S. 1505 contains many other noteworthy provisions. Although I cannot mention each one individually, I do want to touch on one particular issue. States currently represent more than 90 percent of the State/Federal inspector work force that oversees pipelines nationwide. For more than two decades, OPS has leveraged its resources, thereby increasing its pipeline inspection capabilities, by reimbursing States for up to fifty percent of their program costs. This leverage is a key link in the pipeline safety network. I am pleased that despite severe budget pressures, S. 1505 maintains this important State/Federal cost-sharing partnership. Mr. President, I again want to thank all those involved in bringing S. 1505 to the floor today. I want to again acknowledge the role the majority leader played. S. 1505's development and evolution was difficult, but the end result is a bill worthy of enactment. Also, I would like to cite the staff who did a great deal of work: Charlotte Casey, Tom Hohenthaner, and Paddy Link of the majority staff of the Commerce Committee; Carl Biersack with Senator Lott; Clyde Hart, Carl Bentzel and Jim Drewry of the minority staff of the Commerce Committee; and Chris McLean with Senator Exon. Mr. President, I have completed my statement. On this side of the aisle, we are ready to proceed. At this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased we have been able to bring to the Senate S. 39, a bill to amend and reauthorize the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. This bill, introduced by Senator Stevens and cosponsored by Senators Kerry, Murkowski, Hollings, Lott, Inouye, Simpson, and myself, is crucial to continuing the sound management of our Nation's fishery resources. On March 28, 1996, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this legislation. The report was filed on May 23, 1996, and a cost estimate for the bill as prepared by the Congressional Budget Office was printed in the Congressional Record on July 10, 1996. Under the leadership of Senator Stevens, chairman of our Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, seven field hearings were conducted last year gathering testimony from fishermen, industry representatives, Federal and State managers, and environmental organizations, throughout the Nation. While this legislation may not be perfect, the language we have before us today is an attempt to address the concerns raised at those hearings as well as issues brought to our attention by many of our colleagues in the Senate. This has been no small feat and I commend Senator Stevens for his efforts. Commercial fisheries are very important to many States and the Nation as a whole. In 1995, commercial landings by U.S. fishermen were over 9.9 billion pounds and valued at $3.8 billion. The State of Alaska led the Nation in value of landings with $1.4 billion. Other regions of the country have a similar dependency on commercial fisheries, some are strong and robust, others have not fared as well--their fish stocks have declined and communities in those regions are feeling that economic impact. Hopefully, provisions in this bill that call for reductions in bycatch, measures to prevent overfishing, and requirements for the protection of habitat, will again bring about healthy fisheries and healthy fishing communities. Twenty years ago the Magnuson Act was enacted in direct response to the depletion of U.S. fishery resources by foreign vessels. The Magnuson Act secured U.S. jurisdiction and management authority over the fisheries out to 200 miles from our shores. It was intended that this action would provide long-term stability and sustainable fisheries, though today in many areas we are again overcapitalized and the stocks face a crisis similar to that of the 1970's. The Magnuson Act is administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service and eight Regional Fishery Management Councils that manage the fisheries in their geographic areas through specific fishery management plans. Their actions provide the rules under which the fishing industry operates. They determine the harvest quotas, season length, gear restrictions, and license limitations. This is where tough management decisions need to be made. One of the overall goals of the Magnuson Act is to provide a mechanism to determine the appropriate level of harvest to maximize the benefit to the Nation while still protecting the long-term sustainability of the fisheries. It is a balancing act among competing interests of commercial and recreational fishermen and even competing gear groups within the commercial industry. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Stevens, Senator Gorton, and others have been able to resolve any differences they may have had with the bill as reported. A manager's amendment that I fully support has been developed that addresses these issues. The amendment shortens the authorization period through fiscal year 1999, thereby reducing the time that a moratorium will be in effect concerning individual fishing quotas [IFQ's]; it requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the value of IFQ's and community development quotas or CDQ's; it includes consideration for the sustained participation of fishing communities, and it also addresses the issue of State jurisdiction into Federal waters absent any applicable fishery management plan. Mr. President, many of the provisions in this bill will strengthen the administration of the Magnuson Act and, in turn, the conservation and management of our fishery resources. I say to my Senate colleagues that this bill is a bipartisan effort to accommodate the interests of fishermen throughout the Nation. I again commend the leadership efforts of Senator Stevens as well as many other members of the Commerce Committee in moving this legislation.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in hearing room SD-406 on S. 1660, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and to solicit testimony on efforts to reduce the threat posed by nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed conference on the fiscal year 1997 intelligence authorization bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 10 a.m., to hold an executive business meeting.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on S. 1724, Freedom from Government Competition Act of 1996.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate at 10:30 am on Thursday, September 19, 1996, and that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate S. 1831, the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments of 1996. This bill is sponsored by myself, along with Senators Hollings, Lott, Ford, and Stevens. As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I urge swift passage of this bipartisan reauthorization bill. Mr. President, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] is one of our government's most important independent agencies. Its statutory mission is to determine the probable cause of transportation accidents and to promote transportation safety. The NTSB is world renown for its timely and expert determinations of accident causation and for issuing realistic and feasible safety recommendations. The NTSB investigates all types of transportation accidents and incidents. It also conducts transportation safety studies and evaluates the effectiveness of other government agencies' programs for preventing transportation accidents. Indeed, its work product is critical. As my colleagues are acutely aware, the NTSB is faced with an extremely heavy workload. In addition to investigating the two most recent major aviation accidents, TWA flight 800 and ValuJet flight 592, the NTSB continues its work on several other major on-going investigations, including the USAir accident near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the school bus/train collision in Fox River Grove, Illinois, and the MARC commuter Train/Amtrak collision near Silver Spring, MD. Many other investigations also are underway. Mr. President, the NTSB's authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 1996--the end of this month. Earlier this year, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on issues relating to reauthorization of the NTSB. On June 4, 1996, S. 1831 was introduced. It was ordered reported by a unanimous vote of the Commerce Committee on June 6, 1996. S. 1831 provides a three year authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 at a level of 370 FTEs. It establishes sufficient funding levels to enable the NTSB to carry out its immense workload, yet does so in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill also includes a few minor statutory changes as requested by the NTSB. First, the bill provides a temporary deferral of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the release of foreign aviation accident or incident information for 2 years or until the foreign government leading the investigation approves the release of the information. This would apply to NTSB participation in foreign accident investigations only. Additionally, the NTSB would not be restricted from utilizing foreign accident investigation information in making safety recommendations. Mr. President, the December 1995 American Airlines accident in Colombia is a good example of the kind of problem this provision seeks to remedy. Because of the location of the accident, the Colombian government is leading the investigation and the NTSB is participating. As a participant, NTSB has complete access to accident information, but the Government of Colombia--as lead investigator--determines when any information can be released. Since NTSB is covered by FOIA, any information in the Board's possession could be requested under FOIA. To avoid releasing information prior to the Colombian government's approval, I am told the NTSB avoids bringing any accident information into its actual possession and control. This hampers NTSB's ability to effectively assist in the investigation of this type of accident. Second, the legislation creates a statutory exemption from FOIA for aviation data voluntarily supplied to the NTSB. The aviation industry currently generates a wealth of information not required to be collected by the government. While this data could be extremely useful to the NTSB, the industry is reluctant to share it because of concerns it will be released to the public through FOIA requests. This provision is designed to encourage the aviation industry to more freely share significant safety-related data with the Board. Finally, S. 1831 grants authority to the Board to charge non-NTSB personnel attending its training courses for the costs associated with their attendance. The NTSB carries out an enormously important public service. They do admirable work and deserve our full support. This legislation will ensure the NTSB can continue its essential work in an efficient manner. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering to S. 1831 is almost identical to S. 1957, the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Amendments Act of 1996, which I introduced on July 16, 1996. It is designed to give motor carriers the information necessary to prevent the carriage of overweight intermodal containers. S. 1957, cosponsored by Senators Lott, Inouye and Breaux, is a bipartisan technical corrections bill to the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act of 1992. To address legitimate concerns raised by shippers and carriers about implementation of the 1992 Act, including timely compliance and the need for world-wide education, this amendment would help streamline the implementation process. It would reduce unnecessary paperwork requirements that otherwise would be imposed and allow greater use of electronic interchange technology to expedite the transfer of information. It also would eliminate needless compliance burdens on smaller shipments, yet ensure the intent of the 1992 Act is not jeopardized. Mr. President, overweight vehicles impair safety and cause severe damage to our nation's highway infrastructure. The purpose of the 1992 Act was to help prevent the operation of overweight vehicles on our nation's roads and highways. This amendment would help ensure the purpose of the 1992 Act is carried out by allowing the law to be implemented in a reasonable manner. Mr. President, this amendment is critical to the future of intermodal transportation. I urge its adoption and passage of S. 1831.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business and Farm Transportation Regulatory Relief Act of 1996. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Harkin. This legislation is designed to address transportation and economic concerns raised recently by the agriculture community and small business owners and operators. These concerns stem from a U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT] proposal to apply Federal hazardous materials regulations to intrastate commerce. Let me explain. Since 1987, a rulemaking has been underway at DOT to fully impose Federal hazardous materials regulations on intrastate commerce. The intent is to achieve compatibility between Federal and State hazardous materials transportation regulations. If implemented as currently planned, however, farmers and agriculture retailers could face new costs and regulatory burdens. Mr. President, I understand the rationale behind DOT's push for uniformity in hazardous materials regulations. Indeed, the Congress has a lengthy record promoting Federal and State compatibility of motor carrier and hazardous materials transportation regulations. However, the legitimate need for exceptions to these regulations should not be ignored. States have already achieved general compatibility with Federal hazardous materials regulations. In doing so, some agricultural States have also provided limited regulatory exemptions in this area to farmers and retailers. These exceptions are due to the seasonal nature of the planting and harvesting seasons associated with a farmer's work and the minimal risk associated with the transport of agricultural production materials. For example, the very nature of a farmer's work requires the use of fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides. These products are transported from retail sites to farm and from farm to field, primarily on sparsely traveled roads. Have these exceptions from stringent hazardous materials regulations jeopardized safety? No. The record is clear. Public safety has not been adversely affected by farmers doing their jobs free of regulatory burdens. Mr. President, the agriculture industry has worked to explain its position to DOT throughout the public comment periods. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure to what extent DOT will address these concerns until the rule is final. Waiting until then could be too late. Congressional action is necessary to prevent unnecessary regulations and economic burdens on our farmers. The legislation we are introducing today would ensure States are allowed to maintain existing exceptions for farmers and agribusinesses. It also ensures States can continue to grant targeted exceptions for farmers in the future, as long as such exceptions will not adversely impact public safety. In addition to addressing farm-related transportation concerns, this legislation would also streamline regulatory requirements for small business operators. It is based on a DOT supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. HM 200, issued March 20, 1996. The DOT proposal would, in part, exempt certain quantities and types of hazardous materials from regulations concerning their transport. These so-called materials of trade are often the types of products used by small businesses across our country. Because transporting these small quantities of materials pose minimal risks to public safety and property, DOT is correctly proposing to lift the stringent hazardous materials transportation regulations currently imposed on operators. In my view, and the view of many others, DOT is on the right track. However, Congress should ensure DOT stays on that track. According to DOT officials, the rulemaking is expected to be completed by the end of this year. But there is no firm deadline. Given this issue has been part of the rulemaking under consideration for the past 10 years, many small business owners are skeptical about DOT meeting its target date. Indeed, there is no legal assurance that DOT will finish what it has started. After all, Federal agencies are known to miss target dates for completing rulemakings or implementing regulations. DOT is no exception. Small business owners have no way of knowing when or if the proposed materials of trade regulatory exceptions will be a reality. Therefore, we are introducing legislation today to address this uncertainty and impose a needed congressional directive. This bill would establish a deadline for DOT and help ensure unnecessary regulatory burdens on small business owners are lifted in a timely manner. The deadline for DOT to complete the small business exception final rule would be December 31, 1996. That is the same date DOT announced as its target. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the efforts going on in the other body to address the concerns I have just outlined. Representatives DeLay, Ewing, Buyer, and Poshard have been working on legislative measures very similar to the proposal Senator Harkin and I are introducing. We share a common goal. Sound transportation and policy cannot be achieved by a one-size-fits-all approach. I urge my colleagues to join in sponsoring this very important and necessary legislation and urge its swift passage.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business and Farm Transportation Regulatory Relief Act of 1996. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Harkin. This legislation is designed to address transportation and economic concerns raised recently by the agriculture community and small business owners and operators. These concerns stem from a U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT] proposal to apply Federal hazardous materials regulations to intrastate commerce. Let me explain. Since 1987, a rulemaking has been underway at DOT to fully impose Federal hazardous materials regulations on intrastate commerce. The intent is to achieve compatibility between Federal and State hazardous materials transportation regulations. If implemented as currently planned, however, farmers and agriculture retailers could face new costs and regulatory burdens. Mr. President, I understand the rationale behind DOT's push for uniformity in hazardous materials regulations. Indeed, the Congress has a lengthy record promoting Federal and State compatibility of motor carrier and hazardous materials transportation regulations. However, the legitimate need for exceptions to these regulations should not be ignored. States have already achieved general compatibility with Federal hazardous materials regulations. In doing so, some agricultural States have also provided limited regulatory exemptions in this area to farmers and retailers. These exceptions are due to the seasonal nature of the planting and harvesting seasons associated with a farmer's work and the minimal risk associated with the transport of agricultural production materials. For example, the very nature of a farmer's work requires the use of fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides. These products are transported from retail sites to farm and from farm to field, primarily on sparsely traveled roads. Have these exceptions from stringent hazardous materials regulations jeopardized safety? No. The record is clear. Public safety has not been adversely affected by farmers doing their jobs free of regulatory burdens. Mr. President, the agriculture industry has worked to explain its position to DOT throughout the public comment periods. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure to what extent DOT will address these concerns until the rule is final. Waiting until then could be too late. Congressional action is necessary to prevent unnecessary regulations and economic burdens on our farmers. The legislation we are introducing today would ensure States are allowed to maintain existing exceptions for farmers and agribusinesses. It also ensures States can continue to grant targeted exceptions for farmers in the future, as long as such exceptions will not adversely impact public safety. In addition to addressing farm-related transportation concerns, this legislation would also streamline regulatory requirements for small business operators. It is based on a DOT supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. HM 200, issued March 20, 1996. The DOT proposal would, in part, exempt certain quantities and types of hazardous materials from regulations concerning their transport. These so-called materials of trade are often the types of products used by small businesses across our country. Because transporting these small quantities of materials pose minimal risks to public safety and property, DOT is correctly proposing to lift the stringent hazardous materials transportation regulations currently imposed on operators. In my view, and the view of many others, DOT is on the right track. However, Congress should ensure DOT stays on that track. According to DOT officials, the rulemaking is expected to be completed by the end of this year. But there is no firm deadline. Given this issue has been part of the rulemaking under consideration for the past 10 years, many small business owners are skeptical about DOT meeting its target date. Indeed, there is no legal assurance that DOT will finish what it has started. After all, Federal agencies are known to miss target dates for completing rulemakings or implementing regulations. DOT is no exception. Small business owners have no way of knowing when or if the proposed materials of trade regulatory exceptions will be a reality. Therefore, we are introducing legislation today to address this uncertainty and impose a needed congressional directive. This bill would establish a deadline for DOT and help ensure unnecessary regulatory burdens on small business owners are lifted in a timely manner. The deadline for DOT to complete the small business exception final rule would be December 31, 1996. That is the same date DOT announced as its target. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the efforts going on in the other body to address the concerns I have just outlined. Representatives DeLay, Ewing, Buyer, and Poshard have been working on legislative measures very similar to the proposal Senator Harkin and I are introducing. We share a common goal. Sound transportation and policy cannot be achieved by a one-size-fits-all approach. I urge my colleagues to join in sponsoring this very important and necessary legislation and urge its swift passage.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning child passenger vehicle occupant protection. Earlier this year, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on the safety and effectiveness of driver side and passenger side air bags. At the hearing, we learned that generally air bags are safe. They are credited with saving approximately 900 lives since 1987 and with reducing the severity of injury in many more instances. So it is abundantly clear that air bags are an important automotive safety device. Unfortunately, there is a downside to air bag use. While usually minor in nature, in some cases they cause injuries. In the worst cases, they have caused death. This is especially true in the case of children with some data showing two children die because of a passenger side air bag deployment for every one saved by the deployment. The Committee's oversight hearing highlighted issues like this and also explored actions underway at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve child passenger safety. At the hearing, I stressed the need to publicize the importance of putting child safety seats in the back seat and not in a passenger seat equipped with an air bag. Subsequent to our hearing, I was pleased that a coalition was formed to alert the public of passenger side air bag dangers to infants and children. I also have followed closely the initiatives at NHTSA to change federal air bag requirements, encourage the introduction of new air bag technology, and improve child restraint system performance. These steps are needed and they hold promise for child passenger safety improvements. However, more comprehensive action is needed. Yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the findings of its 2-year child occupant safety study. Pointing to the dangers and risks to children posed by passenger-side air bags and improperly used child restraint systems, the NTSB called on NHTSA, State Governors, and automobile manufacturers to take steps to address continuing safety problems. For instance, the NTSB study found inadequacies in NHTSA's proposed rulemaking on smart air bags and air bag warning labels. On August 1, 1996, NHTSA proposed changes to federal air bag requirements to encourage the introduction of new air bag technology. If automobile manufacturers do not provide the so-called smart air bags, the NHTSA proposal would require manufacturers to post new and more prominent air bag warning labels inside the vehicle. The safety study, however, concluded that the NHTSA proposal will not accelerate the development of more intelligent systems. As a result of its review of the proposed rulemaking, the NTSB called on NHTSA to do more to encourage automobile manufacturers to install intelligent air bag systems and specifically recommended that NHTSA establish an implementation timetable. In another area, the NTSB safety study investigated air bag deployment rates and recommended that NHTSA's technical air bag deployment threshold standards be reevaluated. The recommendation urges the consideration of technical standards for less aggressive air bag deployment, particularly for those on the passenger side of motor vehicles. Its my recollection that NHTSA has said the technology for less aggressive air bag deployment currently is not available. However, technically it can be done. Canada, as I understand it, is on the verge of requiring less aggressive deployment standards for air bags in any car sold in Canada. Until ``smart'' air bags are available, this may be the best interim solution and NHTSA should carefully investigate this possibility. The NTSB recommendations make clear the lack of testing that was done prior to putting passenger side air bags into the automotive fleet. The NTSB also asked NHTSA to revise several motor vehicle safety standards governing air bags and passenger restraint systems. As revisions are made, testing and performance standards that reflect an actual accident environment must be developed. Quick action on these recommendations is required because there are nearly 22 million vehicles currently on the road with passenger-side air bags. NHTSA's proposed rulemaking will not affect these vehicles. Also, an estimated 13 million additional vehicles will be sold yearly before the new standards take effect. Something must be done to protect children in vehicles like these. Changes in air bag deployment rates and the installation of on-off deployment switches are two of the options that could be evaluated. The NTSB's safety study also explores in detail the difficulties parents and care givers have in securing a child restraint system properly in vehicles. Inadequacies in the design of child restraint systems themselves and the need to improve seatbelt fit for children were singled out by the NTSB as an area in which safety improvements can be made. These problems warrant action and I encourage NHTSA to act swiftly on the NTSB recommendations. I will continue to follow this safety issue closely and plan on holding a hearing early in the next Congress to examine the NTSB's safety study. Mr. President, finally we need to get a simple message to parents. We must tell parents that until less aggressive passenger side air bags or ``smart'' air bags are available there is something they can do to protect their children. Specifically, they should consider placing all children under 12 in the back seat of their vehicles whenever the vehicle is in motion. Studies have shown the back seat to be the safest place for children in passenger vehicles. In fact, Germany already requires this by law. I want to applaud the NTSB's call for educational campaigns emphasizing the importance of transporting children in the back seat of passenger vehicles. I know of one car manufacturer that recently developed an advertising campaign urging this safety measure as part of its efforts to raise public awareness on the dangers of passenger side air bags to children. We must improve vehicle occupant protection and initiatives like these offer significant safety benefits.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct--that is the intent of this bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct. This legislation requires the FAA to begin immediate deployment of commercially available explosive detection equipment. This deployment will occur as an interim measure to address airport and air carrier security vulnerabilities while the FAA continues to undertake research and operational testing of equipment such as the CTX.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to assure him that it is my intention that the committee work closely with him on this issue.