Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. In response to the concerns raised by the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, I would note that I made my point in our recent correspondence that it is important to be openminded and innovative in thinking about airport funding at a time of declining Federal resources. Undoubtedly, the privatization issue will be taken up by the conference and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the needs of general aviation airports, such as Allegheny County Airport. If the conferees determine that a privatization pilot program is appropriate for general aviation airports, I am sure that we will accord Allegheny County Airport all due consideration for inclusion in any such program and would hope that the agency would do likewise.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 539, S. 1994, the FAA reauthorization bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1994, the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. Today, I am offering a manager's amendment to the bill as originally considered by the Commerce Committee which includes a variety of critically needed improvements to address important safety and security issues affecting airports, airlines, and the travelling public. This legislation is a comprehensive effort to deal with virtually all aspects of our Nation's air transportation system including: funding issues, security, the replacement of aging air traffic control equipment, and infrastructure development. Mr. President, first and foremost, we must act to reauthorize the programs of the FAA before we leave this year or the FAA will be prohibited from issuing grants to airports for needed security and safety projects. In light of recent air transportation tragedies, we must act now to ensure this vital revenue stream remains available. As I have indicated, there are dozens of important provisions in this legislation, but Mr. President, I would like to focus my remarks on three main areas. First, aviation safety. Air transportation in this country is safe and remains the safest form of travel, however, we can and we must do more. This legislation facilitates the replacement of outdated air traffic control equipment. Importantly, it also puts in place a mechanism to evaluate long-term funding needs at the FAA. Much work has been done by Senator McCain, Hollings, Ford, Stevens, and others, as well as the administration, and I want to congratulate them and thank them for their efforts in this regard. This effort is critically important given the projected growth in air travel over the next several years. Ensuring adequate funding in a time of increasing passenger traffic and diminishing Federal resources is a difficult issue and this legislation takes important steps forward. A second area I want to highlight is aviation security. This legislation contains numerous provisions designed to improve security at our Nation's airlines and airports. Here again, I would like to thank a bipartisan group of Senators for their efforts to develop comprehensive recommendations for the bill. Senators Hutchinson and Lautenberg deserve special thanks for their tireless work in this area over the past several months. The measure before us today incorporates many of the suggestions from the House-passed antiterrorism bill, as well as new recommendations from the Gore Commission of which I am a member. Passage of this bill will improve aviation security by: spending deployment of the latest explosive detection systems; enhancing passenger screening processes; requiring criminal history record checks on screeners; requiring regular joint threat assessments and testing baggage match procedures. The third and final area I wish to highlight Mr. President, is how this legislation will help small community air service and small airports, such as those in my State of South Dakota. The legislation before us today reauthorizes the Essential Air Service Program at the level of $50 million. This program is vital to States such as South Dakota and others. The bill also directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive study on rural air service and fares. For too long, small communities have been forced to endure higher fares as a result of inadequate competition and the Department of Transportation will now look into this issue as a result of this bill. This follows on the important work that I instructed the General Accounting Office to initiate last year. And finally, in this legislation, we have taken steps to protect smaller airports in the event of funding downturns in the appropriations process. The legislation guarantees that if airport funding were to be significantly reduced, smaller airports would not be disadvantaged disappropriately. As my colleagues know, larger facilities have a number of funding options available to them, including access to the bond communities, PFC, rates, and charges and the like. Smaller airports do not have the same options. I am pleased that we have developed a safeguard for smaller airports without significant modifications to the existing allocation formulas, while protecting existing letters of intent for multiyear funding projects at larger airports. In summary, Mr. President, this legislation represents the culmination of over a year's work by the Commerce Committee and other interested Senators. It addresses our most pressing aviation needs-- safety, security, and funding. I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of S. 1994. We cannot adjourn for the year without taking final action on this important legislation. If we fail to act, the FAA's hands will be tied and they will be unable to address needed security and safety issues in every State in the Nation. I should pay special tribute to the chairman and ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senators McCain and Ford, who have done so much fine work on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments on this piece of legislation, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996, which I introduced. I believe it represents a solid legislative accomplishment for this Congress and for air service to small cities, such as those located in my home State of South Dakota. This bill, which I commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle for who have worked on it, must pass the Congress before the end of this session. Otherwise, we will not be able to provide Airport Improvement Program [AIP] grants to our airports across the country. The bill will more than double the size of the Essential Air Service [EAS] program to $50 million per year. That will directly help cities, such as Yankton, Mitchell, and Brookings in my State. The EAS program was the result of an agreement when we deregulated the airline industry and Congress wanted to ensure our smaller cities did not lose air service altogether. It also will protect small airports and the way AIP funds are allocated. Let us remember that we depend heavily on our major airport hubs, but we also depend on a lot of smaller cities to feed passengers into those hubs to make our national air system work. And it is not just in South Dakota, it is also in California--Fresno or Sacramento-- or upstate New York. We must remember that small cities such as Aberdeen, South Dakota, which recently received a grant to repair its main runway, and others depend heavily on AIP funds. This bill has a fairer formula to protect small airports if AIP funds decline. Mr. President, this bill also requires a study be prepared on air fares to rural and small communities. The price of flying to and from some of these small airports are just astronomically high. For example, if you travel from Rapid City to Denver, and then go on to your destination, your flight from Rapid City to Denver may be the most expensive part of your trip. Throughout my State I hear complaints about the cost of airline travel. In some cases, it can cost as much to get to the hub airport as it does to fly from the hub to London. I believe this study will be very helpful in assisting Congress in its understanding of what is going on with the cost of air travel to and from small communities. This bill will also improve aviation security in our small cities without unfairly imposing burdens and expensive requirements on small airports and small airlines. Let me briefly address each of these benefits for small community air service. In 1978, Congress recognized that all cities would not participate equally in the benefits of airline deregulation. In fact, Congress realized some of our smallest cities might lose air service altogether. To address this threat, Congress wisely put in place the EAS program to ensure our smallest cities would continue to have air service. Without such service, communities such as Brookings, Mitchell, and Yankton in my home State, would be virtually cut off from the national air service network. It is very important to these smaller towns that they be a part of the national air service network. With air service as well as telecommunications capability, small communities can grow and be dynamic contributors to our national economy. In fact, with the advances in telecommunications, smaller cities are now on an equal footing with bigger cities in terms of attracting industry. Small hospitals can do as sophisticated procedures as big hospitals by using telecommunications; and smaller universities can share in research projects with larger universities. Telecommunications capability alone, however, is not enough. It is critical that small cities also have reliable and affordable air service. And that is what this is all about. Make no mistake about it, the EAS program--since it ensures air service to our smallest and most underserved cities--is absolutely critical to the economic vitality of many small communities. Mr. President, I am delighted that this bill, S. 1994, will more than double the size of the EAS program. The $50 million EAS program this bill would create will safeguard air service in some small communities and permit an expansion of flights in others. It is a solid legislative accomplishment for economic development in numerous small communities. S. 1994 also will help promote and maintain some of our smallest airports which are critical to adequate air service in small cities. The AIP program has been under significant budget pressure. The amount of AIP appropriations have fallen significantly since 1992, and our small airports have shouldered the unfair, disproportionate burden of these budget cuts. Since AIP funds are often the only source of funding for repairs and safety improvements at small airports, our small airports have suffered significantly as a result. I am pleased that this bill will correct this problem. We worked long and hard on this formula. The bill ensures that if AIP funding declines, our small airports will be protected and will continue to receive their historic share of AIP funds. This is good policy. It is fair policy. And it is very important to small city air service. In addition to expanding the EAS program, and protecting the AIP funding of our small airports, S. 1994 will require a study of air fares to small communities. This is very welcome news for South Dakotans and other small city passengers who unfairly pay exorbitant air fares. We need more air service competition in small city air markets. Hopefully, in addition to highlighting the extent of the high air fare problems in small communities, this study will offer new insights on how air service competition in small communities can be enhanced. Finally, S. 1994 resisted the temptation to impose expensive security measures on our small airports and small communities. In contrast, the House recently passed a provision based on the erroneous premise that one size fits all in aviation security. The Senate, however, correctly recognized there are thoughtful ways to ensure travelers to and from small cities have the same level of safety and security without imposing the identical, expensive security measures required for international airlines and major hub airports. A one size fits all approach to aviation security undoubtedly would lead to a further deterioration of small city air service. I am pleased S. 1994 will improve aviation security for small city travelers without having the unintended consequence of driving air service out of some of our smaller cities. Mr. President, let me make some additional general observations about air service. Somehow all this gets tied together. We have on the international front this past year had great struggles in helping our major airlines fly beyond Tokyo by ensuring the Government of Japan recognizes their beyond rights. Similarly, our major carriers continue to be blocked out of serving London's Heathrow Airport and points beyond the United Kingdom. We did, however, secure a truly historic open skies agreement with Germany which is great news for the United States economy and our carriers. The United States/German open skies agreement will put competitive pressure on the United Kingdom and France and ultimately should help to force both countries to agree to open skies accords in the future. We must continue to put competitive pressure on the British and the French by fully utilizing our liberalized aviation agreement with Germany. Let me underscore my great concern with the current impasse in our aviation relations with Japan. The Japanese continue to wrongly block our carriers from serving the United States/Asia air service market via Japan. This continues to be a significant problem for Jerry Greenwald of United Airlines and Fred Smith of Federal Express. It also is a major problem for Northwest Airlines, the largest carrier in South Dakota. I have led efforts by the Commerce Committee to help correct this totally unacceptable situation. Along with my colleagues, we have sent letters to the President urging that the Administration stand firm in our aviation dispute with the Japanese and accept nothing less than fair treatment for our carriers in the area of aviation trade. I intend to continue pressing for fair aviation trade with the Japanese. The United States/Asia air service market, as well as the intra-Asian air service market, is far too valuable to concede to Japanese carriers. It is vitally important to our balance of trade that our airlines can use Japanese airports to serve countries throughout Asia such as China, Indonesia and Malaysia. Make no mistake about it, international aviation is an important component of U.S. trade. Our negotiators must continue to treat it as nothing less. It is completely unacceptable that our carriers, both passenger and cargo, continue to be blocked out of lucrative air service markets beyond Japan and the United Kingdom by unfair trade practices. Even when our large airlines are operating thousands of miles away from the United States, their ability to successfully compete abroad has an indirect impact on their financial ability to serve some domestic markets. In fact, large and small airlines work synergistically to provide air service through code-sharing agreements. For instance, I have had an excellent experience with Doug Voss of Great Lakes Aviation which is a key regional carrier in my home state of South Dakota. Great Lakes operates as United Express in South Dakota and the success of United abroad has a bearing on the service United Express can provide in small city air service markets such as the route between Sioux Falls and Rapid City in my state. I have had discussions with airline executives where they say, ``Senator Pressler, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, can you help us gain access to Heathrow or assist us with our beyond Tokyo problem?'' And I say, ``Yes, I will try to help but I have problems between Sioux Falls and Rapid City where I would like help, and I have problems between Huron and Denver and problems between Yankton and Minneapolis,'' and so forth. The more successful our carriers are in lucrative international markets, the better able they are to serve less profitable small city air service markets. The international picture is tied into the local picture in our country. As far as the national air service picture in this country is concerned, we have only built one new airport since 1974--Denver International Airport. Even that airport is struggling to complete all of its planned runways. Capacity in many airports is nearly full. Regrettably, a lack of airport capacity is a barrier to entry for new airlines. There are only so many slots and so many gates at our airports. Chicago has tried to build a new airport but because of environmental concerns, neighborhood concerns, and noise concerns it has almost given up. Minneapolis-St. Paul thought about building a new airport but got so much local resistance that they have given up. The point is our airports are crowded. They are pressing up against their capacity. It is true advanced air traffic control technology will help move commercial airliners more efficiently from point to point. However, airplanes need adequate runway capacity. Also, airplanes need adequate access to gates. Without either, the benefit of air traffic control improvements will be lessened. The point is we have to make some decisions in our country about building infrastructure or we will have our airlines in a stalemate and not being able to expand. Significantly, newer competitive entrants will be blocked out of markets and consumers will be deprived of the benefits vigorous air service competition brings. Our airport capacity challenges are not going to go away. In fact, they clearly will escalate as more and more people fly. Currently, more than 1.5 million people board commercial airplanes in the United States each and every day. Within the next four years, the number of daily boardings is forecast to climb to almost 2 million. We cannot ignore our airport infrastructure challenges. We should meet our long-term transportation infrastructure challenges head-on. Airport capacity is but one of many challenges. Aviation is another critically important challenge. Our people expect the finest aviation safety system in the world. I am committed to working to ensure our travelling public receives nothing less than that. Currently, I serve as a representative to the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I have held numerous safety oversight hearings this Congress. In fact, we held a closed hearing on aviation security just this morning which included FAA Administrator David Hinson. In the past, on numerous occasions we have heard testimony from the National Transportation Safety Board, and its Chairman Jim Hall, who is doing an outstanding job. The point I am making is that all these problems of aviation -- international, national, and local--tie together. We have a very challenging situation to meet the aviation needs of our country both locally, nationally and internationally. This bill before the Senate which reauthorizes the FAA is a step forward. It is a good bill. It has been worked out carefully and in a bipartisan manner. It is a key part of that big picture that I covered so briefly here. I am proud to have worked with Senators McCain, Ford, Stevens and many others. I am glad to enthusiastically support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 5364 (Purpose: To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the auditing of employee benefit plans)

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I do not want to cut off anybody, but I am trying to call up a bill that is a major bill. I do not want to block the Senator. Does the Senator have a brief statement he wants to make?

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join in the tribute to Howard Greene. I worked with him here in my 17\1/2\ years in the Senate. He has been very helpful to me. He has been a friend of mine. He has been an outstanding public servant, a man of conviction and honesty and hard work. I do not know if the public realizes how hard some of these staff people work around here to keep this place going. I saw it firsthand, in many cases when we were in session at night. Howard Greene certainly exemplifies hard work and honesty and goodness. I join my colleagues in paying tribute to him here today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that would provide much-needed relief to American-owned companies that are struggling to compete in the world marketplace. This bill is an attempt to simplify the overly complex international tax rules. I wish to thank my fellow cosponsors for their support--Senators Lott, Baucus, Burns, D'Amato, Hatch, Hatfield, Gorton, Murray, and Nickles. America's economy is more and more linked to the success of our businesses in the international economy. That's not a surprise to any of us. As the economies of previously less-developed countries around the world begin to expand, and the economic boundaries between our countries become more blurred, it is increasingly important for our businesses to be able to operate abroad from their most competitive position. Restraining our own companies through redundant and unnecessary complexities in our own Tax Code dampens their ability to compete for foreign business. In the end, it only hurts our own economy. There are many factors that affect U.S. world competitiveness-- factors over which we have little control. I know our international trade negotiators labor hard to change those factors we can control, such as barriers to foreign markets and existing agreements designed to keep trade free and fair. This is an issue of importance to me. I have sought to open markets for many South Dakota products--wheat in Africa, beef in Asia, and pork products in the former Soviet Union. While we have had some successes in opening markets, barriers remain. And I intend to push for open and fair trade among all of our trading partners. However, we can do more than just open barriers. We can reform our tax code in a way that will ensure continued U.S. success in the world economy. If we miss this opportunity, we risk the erosion of U.S. international competitiveness as countries with simple, favorable tax treatment of businesses lure away American businesses. This is a risk that is very real. A recent report by the Financial Executives Research Foundation found some rather shocking declines in U.S. competitiveness. This report found that over the last three decades, the global economy has grown more rapidly than our own economy. This is due, in part, to the recovery of Japan and Europe from the aftermath of World War II, and as a consequence, the United States presence in global markets has become less prominent. Their findings comparing the first half of the 1990's with the 1960's found the U.S. share of world GDP has declined to 26 percent--from 40 percent; the U.S. share of cross-border investment has fallen to 25 percent--from 50 percent; and the U.S. share of world exports has dropped to 12 percent--from 17 percent. In 1960, 18 of the world's 20 largest corporations were headquartered in the U.S. Today, that number is a mere eight. There is a strong correlation between American corporate competitiveness overseas and the ability of those companies to continue to provide jobs at home. A 1991 Council of Economic Advisors Economic Report to the President explained: In most cases, if U.S. multinational corporations did not establish affiliates abroad to produce for the local market, they would be too distant to have an effective presence in that market. In addition, companies from other countries would either establish such facilities or increase exports to that market. In effect, it is not really possible to sustain exports to such markets in the long run. On a net basis, it is highly doubtful that U.S. direct investment abroad reduces U.S. exports or displaces U.S. jobs. Indeed, U.S. direct investment abroad stimulates U.S. companies to be more competitive internationally, which can generate U.S. exports and jobs. Equally important, U.S. direct investment abroad allows U.S. firms to allocate their resources more efficiently, thus creating healthier domestic operations, which, in turn tend to create jobs. Overseas operations are frequently necessary to reduce costs of production and transportation, and locating facilities abroad increases brand familiarity. Within the United States, export related jobs pay on average a significantly higher wage than non-export related jobs. All of these factors combine to strengthen the U.S. parent company and bolster our economy here at home. The compliance costs associated with filing a tax return for overseas business operations of a U.S.-based company are staggering. My state of South Dakota is home to the credit card headquarters of Citibank. In its printed form, the Federal income tax return form for Citibank stands over 9 feet high--taking tens of thousands of hours to complete. The compliance cost burden associated with the foreign source income taxation rules is disproportionate to the amount of tax raised by these sections. For example, a 1989 study by the University of Michigan Office of Tax Policy Research, quoted in recent Financial Executives Research Foundation report, states that 39.2 percent of Federal income tax costs are attributable to foreign source income, while foreign operations represent only 21 percent of assets, 24 percent of sales, and 18 percent of employment. And a 1993 survey of 17 large multinationals indicates an even higher percentage of Federal income tax compliance costs are attributable to foreign source income (51 percent)--indicating that compliance costs associated with foreign source income amount to 8.5 percent of the Federal income tax collected from this source. In comparison, a European Commission report found that among European multinational corporations, there is no evidence that compliance costs are higher for foreign than domestic source income. The bill I am introducing today seeks to simplify and correct various areas in the Code that are unnecessarily restraining U.S. businesses. Some changes are areas in need of repair, and some changes are to take into consideration international business operations that exist today, but which were domestic-only or nonexistent businesses when the 1986 tax reform laws were implemented. One of the most substantive and important changes included in the bill would repeal the so-called 10/50 foreign tax credit basket rules that force U.S. corporations to calculate separate foreign tax credit limitations for each of its foreign joint venture businesses--foreign business operations in which it holds at least 10 percent but no more than 50 percent of the stock. Along with creating administrative nightmares for U.S. companies that may have hundreds of such foreign joint venture operations, these rules impede the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets. Today, United States businesses find it necessary to operate in joint ventures overseas, particularly in emerging markets such as the People's Republic of China and the former Soviet Union. Such joint ventures are necessary often times because U.S. investors face significant local country legal and political obstacles to taking a controlling interest in foreign companies. This is particularly the case for telecommunications companies and other regulated businesses. While such joint ventures are thus necessary for U.S. companies to enter and compete in foreign markets, our current tax law acts to discourage such operations. Our bill would eliminate the needless administrative hassles of current law and put U.S.-backed joint ventures on equal footing with competitors from other countries by replacing the 10-50 separate foreign tax credit limitation. The proposal would provide for so-called look-through treatment. That is, income from such entities would be computed for purposes of the foreign tax credit limitation based on the underlying character of the income earned by such corporations, as is the case for income earned through controlled foreign corporations. Another important correction to current rules relates to Foreign Sales Corporation [FSC] treatment for software. Ten years ago we did not have the level of software exports that we do today, and because the tax laws have not kept up with the changes in the high-technology business world, software exports are currently discriminated against by our own Tax Code. This bill would provide a legislative modification to the FSC statute to provide the same tax benefits for licenses of computer software as are currently available for films, records, and tapes. The United States is currently the world leader in software development, employing approximately 400,000 people in high-paying software development and servicing jobs. Much of the growth experienced by this industry is due to increased exports. The denial of the benefits of the FSC rules to software sold overseas ultimately harms the U.S. economy by constructing an impediment to the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured software. If theses exports are not given FSC benefits, many of these jobs could eventually move to other countries. The potential loss of these jobs would hurt our economy. My bill corrects this inequity. The goal of the international tax simplification for American competitiveness bill is to give fair tax treatment to American companies who operate abroad. This bill is truly a technical correction and simplification bill designed to correct inequities in our Code and to help place U.S. companies on a level playing field with their foreign competitors. Without these corrections, American companies will lose ground vis-a-vis their foreign counterparts, which will weaken their ability to operate successfully at home and harm our Nation's economic potential. Americans are the most creative and competitive workers in the world, and releasing them from unnecessary constraints at home will help us maintain our economic lead in the world marketplace--guaranteeing quality, high-paying jobs at home and a stronger national economy.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that would provide much-needed relief to American-owned companies that are struggling to compete in the world marketplace. This bill is an attempt to simplify the overly complex international tax rules. I wish to thank my fellow cosponsors for their support--Senators Lott, Baucus, Burns, D'Amato, Hatch, Hatfield, Gorton, Murray, and Nickles. America's economy is more and more linked to the success of our businesses in the international economy. That's not a surprise to any of us. As the economies of previously less-developed countries around the world begin to expand, and the economic boundaries between our countries become more blurred, it is increasingly important for our businesses to be able to operate abroad from their most competitive position. Restraining our own companies through redundant and unnecessary complexities in our own Tax Code dampens their ability to compete for foreign business. In the end, it only hurts our own economy. There are many factors that affect U.S. world competitiveness-- factors over which we have little control. I know our international trade negotiators labor hard to change those factors we can control, such as barriers to foreign markets and existing agreements designed to keep trade free and fair. This is an issue of importance to me. I have sought to open markets for many South Dakota products--wheat in Africa, beef in Asia, and pork products in the former Soviet Union. While we have had some successes in opening markets, barriers remain. And I intend to push for open and fair trade among all of our trading partners. However, we can do more than just open barriers. We can reform our tax code in a way that will ensure continued U.S. success in the world economy. If we miss this opportunity, we risk the erosion of U.S. international competitiveness as countries with simple, favorable tax treatment of businesses lure away American businesses. This is a risk that is very real. A recent report by the Financial Executives Research Foundation found some rather shocking declines in U.S. competitiveness. This report found that over the last three decades, the global economy has grown more rapidly than our own economy. This is due, in part, to the recovery of Japan and Europe from the aftermath of World War II, and as a consequence, the United States presence in global markets has become less prominent. Their findings comparing the first half of the 1990's with the 1960's found the U.S. share of world GDP has declined to 26 percent--from 40 percent; the U.S. share of cross-border investment has fallen to 25 percent--from 50 percent; and the U.S. share of world exports has dropped to 12 percent--from 17 percent. In 1960, 18 of the world's 20 largest corporations were headquartered in the U.S. Today, that number is a mere eight. There is a strong correlation between American corporate competitiveness overseas and the ability of those companies to continue to provide jobs at home. A 1991 Council of Economic Advisors Economic Report to the President explained: In most cases, if U.S. multinational corporations did not establish affiliates abroad to produce for the local market, they would be too distant to have an effective presence in that market. In addition, companies from other countries would either establish such facilities or increase exports to that market. In effect, it is not really possible to sustain exports to such markets in the long run. On a net basis, it is highly doubtful that U.S. direct investment abroad reduces U.S. exports or displaces U.S. jobs. Indeed, U.S. direct investment abroad stimulates U.S. companies to be more competitive internationally, which can generate U.S. exports and jobs. Equally important, U.S. direct investment abroad allows U.S. firms to allocate their resources more efficiently, thus creating healthier domestic operations, which, in turn tend to create jobs. Overseas operations are frequently necessary to reduce costs of production and transportation, and locating facilities abroad increases brand familiarity. Within the United States, export related jobs pay on average a significantly higher wage than non-export related jobs. All of these factors combine to strengthen the U.S. parent company and bolster our economy here at home. The compliance costs associated with filing a tax return for overseas business operations of a U.S.-based company are staggering. My state of South Dakota is home to the credit card headquarters of Citibank. In its printed form, the Federal income tax return form for Citibank stands over 9 feet high--taking tens of thousands of hours to complete. The compliance cost burden associated with the foreign source income taxation rules is disproportionate to the amount of tax raised by these sections. For example, a 1989 study by the University of Michigan Office of Tax Policy Research, quoted in recent Financial Executives Research Foundation report, states that 39.2 percent of Federal income tax costs are attributable to foreign source income, while foreign operations represent only 21 percent of assets, 24 percent of sales, and 18 percent of employment. And a 1993 survey of 17 large multinationals indicates an even higher percentage of Federal income tax compliance costs are attributable to foreign source income (51 percent)--indicating that compliance costs associated with foreign source income amount to 8.5 percent of the Federal income tax collected from this source. In comparison, a European Commission report found that among European multinational corporations, there is no evidence that compliance costs are higher for foreign than domestic source income. The bill I am introducing today seeks to simplify and correct various areas in the Code that are unnecessarily restraining U.S. businesses. Some changes are areas in need of repair, and some changes are to take into consideration international business operations that exist today, but which were domestic-only or nonexistent businesses when the 1986 tax reform laws were implemented. One of the most substantive and important changes included in the bill would repeal the so-called 10/50 foreign tax credit basket rules that force U.S. corporations to calculate separate foreign tax credit limitations for each of its foreign joint venture businesses--foreign business operations in which it holds at least 10 percent but no more than 50 percent of the stock. Along with creating administrative nightmares for U.S. companies that may have hundreds of such foreign joint venture operations, these rules impede the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets. Today, United States businesses find it necessary to operate in joint ventures overseas, particularly in emerging markets such as the People's Republic of China and the former Soviet Union. Such joint ventures are necessary often times because U.S. investors face significant local country legal and political obstacles to taking a controlling interest in foreign companies. This is particularly the case for telecommunications companies and other regulated businesses. While such joint ventures are thus necessary for U.S. companies to enter and compete in foreign markets, our current tax law acts to discourage such operations. Our bill would eliminate the needless administrative hassles of current law and put U.S.-backed joint ventures on equal footing with competitors from other countries by replacing the 10-50 separate foreign tax credit limitation. The proposal would provide for so-called look-through treatment. That is, income from such entities would be computed for purposes of the foreign tax credit limitation based on the underlying character of the income earned by such corporations, as is the case for income earned through controlled foreign corporations. Another important correction to current rules relates to Foreign Sales Corporation [FSC] treatment for software. Ten years ago we did not have the level of software exports that we do today, and because the tax laws have not kept up with the changes in the high-technology business world, software exports are currently discriminated against by our own Tax Code. This bill would provide a legislative modification to the FSC statute to provide the same tax benefits for licenses of computer software as are currently available for films, records, and tapes. The United States is currently the world leader in software development, employing approximately 400,000 people in high-paying software development and servicing jobs. Much of the growth experienced by this industry is due to increased exports. The denial of the benefits of the FSC rules to software sold overseas ultimately harms the U.S. economy by constructing an impediment to the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured software. If theses exports are not given FSC benefits, many of these jobs could eventually move to other countries. The potential loss of these jobs would hurt our economy. My bill corrects this inequity. The goal of the international tax simplification for American competitiveness bill is to give fair tax treatment to American companies who operate abroad. This bill is truly a technical correction and simplification bill designed to correct inequities in our Code and to help place U.S. companies on a level playing field with their foreign competitors. Without these corrections, American companies will lose ground vis-a-vis their foreign counterparts, which will weaken their ability to operate successfully at home and harm our Nation's economic potential. Americans are the most creative and competitive workers in the world, and releasing them from unnecessary constraints at home will help us maintain our economic lead in the world marketplace--guaranteeing quality, high-paying jobs at home and a stronger national economy.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President this amendment attempts to address many of the concerns confronting cattle producers in the United States today. The issues of packer concentration, lack of price discovery, retail price spreads and low prices have been foremost on the minds of cattle producers and consumers throughout South Dakota and the Nation. To say these are concerns of my fellow South Dakotans is a gross understatement. Thousands of South Dakotans have written, called, or visited with me on this issue. This is an issue that strikes at the heart of their ability to run their farms and businesses and provide for their families. The time has come for Congress to take action. For the past 2 years, I have been pressing the Clinton administration to address meatpacker concentration and utilize existing antitrust laws to make sure that cattle are sold in an open and competitive market. Though the administration has taken some steps over the past several months, I believe these measures are marginal at best. Stronger action is needed. What is of great concern to producers is the fact that while cattle prices have been at or near record lows, retail prices have not shown any significant drop. In fact, just the opposite is happening. In 1995, at Eich's Meat Market, in Salem, SD, the price of a choice yield grade 2 hind quarter was $1.65 per pound--that is the highest price paid at this locker since it was opened. This past summer it was $1.60 per pound. The same hind quarter was selling for $1.57 per pound in 1993. In contrast, in 1993 live cattle prices were $80 or higher. Yet, in 1995, live prices have been as low as $51.50. This represents a combination punch to South Dakota ranchers--as producers, they are getting fewer dollars for their livestock; yet, as consumers, ranchers--armed with fewer dollars--are forced to pay more both in terms of real dollars and as a portion of their budget to put their own product on the dinner table. The influence of packer concentration on the market cannot be overlooked or dismissed. Fifteen years ago, the top four packers held about 40 percent of the market. Today market share is over 85 percent. Economic studies have shown that this kind of market concentration provides these firms with the kind of power needed to control prices. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing that I chaired on this subject, it was made abundantly clear that all too often cattle producers do not have free, open, or competitive markets in which to sell their cattle. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, [GIPSA] is charged with insuring a free and open marketplace. GIPSA must be more vigilant in assuring this. Only through enforcement of existing antitrust will we be able to ensure the long-term economic viability of the U.S. cattle industry. South Dakota ranchers agree. I have held two Senate hearings on this subject over the past year. I also have introduced several bills to address concerns that cattle producers have told me must be addressed. Other Senators have offered their own proposals. Some are controversial. What I have done with this amendment is incorporate those measures that I believe we can pass this year. Our cattlemen need relief now, not a promise of future action at some point next year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my amendment be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. I do not believe this is a partisan issue. Nor should this amendment be treated as one. Both Republicans and Democrats from cattle-producing States I expect will embrace this amendment. Some may say tougher action is needed. They're right. The goal here is to do what we can now. This amendment I believe is a strong step in the right direct. Again, while my amendment does not include everything I think is needed I believe it is a measure that can pass and provide real teeth to bring real results to the problems that our cattle producers face. We need to keep in mind that old saying ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well the U.S. cattle industry is broke and it needs fixing, now. I would like to commend the South Dakota secretary of agriculture, Dean Anderson, for being a national leader on this issue. Secretary Anderson was responsible for bringing this matter before the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. South Dakota livestock producers are proud of Secretary Anderson's efforts, as I am. As all South Dakotans know Secretary Anderson recently announced his retirement. He will be missed. His efforts to raise this issue to the national level will be a legacy that South Dakota cattle producers will long remember and be proud of. Passing the amendment I have offered would demonstrate that Congress has listened to Secretary Anderson. The Senate needs to carefully review this amendment and other possible amendments that address issues confronting the U.S. cattle industry. Packer concentration, price manipulation, possible price fixing, and captive supply all must be looked at and a definite course of action implemented. I will withhold a detailed discussion of this amendment at this time. I offered the amendment to give my colleagues a chance to review it. I expect others may want to seek amendments to this proposal. I welcome any suggestions from all my colleagues. The goal, again, is to do the right thing for our cattlemen, and to do it as soon as possible. So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me ask my colleagues to take a look at this amendment, to make their suggestions. Our agricultural industry in the United States is in pretty good shape at this moment except for our cattlemen. We need to take a number of steps. We need to work on packer concentration. We need to get more of our beef into Japan, and some of those countries, and China. We need to get some of the tariffs lowered in some of the Asian countries on beef. We also need to take some steps domestically to be sure that we do not overlook the plight of our cattlemen at this time. Mr. President, I offer this amendment and I ask that my colleagues consider it and that we take what action we can to help our cattlemen in the closing days of this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 pressler livestock amendment Section 1. Captive Supply: This section (from S. 1939) addresses producers' concern of captive supplies. A better definition of captive supply and more information regarding captive supplies will bring greater price discovery to producers. The Packers and Stockyards Act would be amended by defining ``captive supply'' as livestock acquired by packers delivered 7 or more days before slaughter under a standing purchase agreement, forward contract, or packer ownership, feeding or financing. This section also requires and annual report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the number and volume of U.S. livestock marketed or slaughtered. This report must include information on transactions involving livestock in regional and local markets. The confidentiality of individual livestock transactions would be maintained. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Agriculture to make available within 24 hours information received concerning captive supply transactions. Section 2. Livestock Dealer Trust: This section (S. 1707, revised) would establish a Livestock Dealer Trust. This provision was part of the Senate-passed version of the new Farm Bill, but was dropped in conference. The section amends the Packers and Stockyards Act and establishes a statutory trust for the benefit of livestock sellers who sell to livestock dealers and market agencies that buy on commission. To ensure prompt payment of livestock sellers, all livestock purchased in cash sales by a dealer or market agency buying livestock on commission shall have all related property (i.e. livestock, receivables or proceeds) held in a ``floating `` trust until the unpaid seller receives full payment. Section 3. Cooperative Bargaining: This section (from S. 1939) ensures that producer cooperatives are fairly treated by handlers of agricultural products. The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 would be amendment to make it unlawful for handlers of agricultural products to fail to engage in good-faith negotiations with producer cooperatives. It would also make it unlawful to unfairly discriminate among producer cooperatives with respect to the purchase, acquisition, or other handling of agricultural products. Section 4. Labeling of Meat and Meat Food Products: This section (from S. 1939) would require country of origin labels on graded meats. Producers and consumers alike have made it abundantly clear that meat needs to be labeled to show country of origin. Under this section, the Federal Meat Inspection Act would be amended to require graded meat that was either imported, or produced from an animal that was located outside the United States for at least 120 days, be labeled showing the country of origin. Section 5. Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry Products: This section (S. 1862) would permit the interstate shipment of state-inspected meat and poultry products. The section would amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to allow states to apply to the Secretary of Agriculture for the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products. The Secretary of Agriculture first must verify that the state's mandatory inspection requirements are equal to or greater than the Federal inspection, reinspection and sanitation requirements. Upon verification by the Secretary, the prohibition on interstate shipment of meat and poultry products inspected soley by the state shall be waived. Once a waiver has been granted, the Secretary of Agriculture may perform random inspections of state-inspected plants to ensure that mandatory state inspection requirements are equal to or greater than Federal requirements. If a state does not maintain its inspection requirements to Federal levels, the Secretary shall reimpose the restriction against the interstate distribution of meat and poultry products. This section was recommended by members of USDA's packer concentration commission and is strongly supported in the agricultural community. Lifting the market restrictions imposed on state-inspected meat and poultry processors would slow the concentration in meat packing by enabling small-and mid-size processors to expand their operations and create more jobs. 400 state-inspected plants have gone out of business since 1993 because of the prohibition. This section would provide the same opportunity for small business owners and operators that exists for large corporations and foreign competitors. Section 6. Review of Federal Agriculture Credit Policies: This section (from S. 1949) establishes an interagency working group to study the extent that Federal lending practices have contributed to concentration in the livestock and dairy markets. This interagency working group would be established by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Chairman of the Board of the Farm Credit Administration. Section 7. International Barriers to Trade: This section (from S. Res. 277) expresses the Sense of the Senate that certain actions be take to address international barriers to trade. Those actions are as follows: (1) the Secretary of Agriculture should continue to identify and seek to eliminate unfair trade barriers and subsidies that affect U.S. beef markets; (2) the U.S. and Canada should expeditiously negotiate the elimination of animal health barriers that are not based on sound science. Many U.S. cattle producers are concerned that Canada requires more stringent veterinary and inspection requirements on U.S. cattle entering their market than what the U.S. requires on Canadian cattle entering our market; (3) the import ban on beef from cattle treated with approved growth hormones imposed by the European Union should be terminated. The European Union's ban on U.S. cattle and beef is not scientifically based, represents an unreasonable barrier to U.S. trade, and has cost U.S. beef producers more than $1 billion in export sales since 1989; and (4) the Secretary of Agriculture should use the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) and the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103) to promote the export of U.S. agricultural commodities to countries of Africa. Section 8. Animal Drug Availability Act: This section (S. 773, revised) contains the Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996. The Act contains recommended changes to new animal drug application approvals to provide the Food and Drug Administration with greater flexibility to determine when animal drugs are effective for their intended uses. The Act would establish streamlined approval requirements for new individual animal drugs or active ingredients sought to be used in combination. Currently separate tests are required for approval of these drugs. This section also would require the Food and Drug Administration to consider legislative and regulatory options for facilitating approvals of animal drugs for minor species and minor uses, and to announce its proposals for legislative or regulatory changes within 18 months of the date of enactment. Currently, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not address animal drug approvals for minor species or uses. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the managers would agree, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the committee amendment to offer an amendment at this point. And perhaps it could be dealt with later, if the managers of the bill would agree. It is an amendment that addresses concerns confronting cattle producers in the United States.

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as a parent myself, I understand the pride and joy we all have in our children. Along with many of my colleagues, I am submitting a resolution today declaring the second Sunday in October, ``National Children's Day.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution for the seventh consecutive year. As it has been for the past 6 years, National Children's Day is about hope--the hopes we have for children and the hope they must have for themselves. The significant contributions children make to our lives should not go unnoticed. National Children's Day gives Americans the opportunity to reflect on what we as parents, community leaders, and policymakers can do for the children of today and tomorrow. The future of today's children looks bright for a number of reasons. Republicans in Congress are serious about balancing the budget. We would like to give America's children a unique gift of freedom--freedom from national debt. By balancing the budget and reducing the debt, children will have a chance to experience as adults a far better quality of life than we enjoy today. A balanced budget means lower interest rates, which would make a college education and a first home more affordable. Positive welfare reform, improved access to health care, and some of the toughest-ever child protection laws have helped to make the United States an even better environment for our children. Technology, too, has opened up an exciting new world of possibilities for young people. Computers are becoming commonplace in classrooms. By utilizing advanced telecommunications, we can expand distance learning opportunities, especially for children in small cities and towns. When I was a kid growing up in Humboldt, SD, library books were my windows to the world. Today's children can sit at their computers, access the internet, and literally see, learn about, and talk to the world. These opportunities are truly remarkable. While the outlook for our children is very positive, we must not lose sight of the challenges that lie ahead. National Children's Day also is about protecting our children from all evil forces, internal or external. Children were the tragic victims in Oklahoma City and, of course, on TWA Flight 800. These and other acts of terror cannot be tolerated. Our children deserve the continued assurance of a childhood full of hope and free from fear. Each day, children from across South Dakota write letters to me asking for my help. Recently, I received a letter from Brandon Rausch, a young boy in South Dakota working toward a Boy Scout award. He wrote urging me to do something about gangs and school violence. South Dakota recently has experienced an increase in juvenile violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and other destructive behavior. Although South Dakota still has one of the lowest crime rates in our Nation, we no longer are immune from the social problems that used to impact only our Nation's largest cities. I would tell Brandon, his friends, his parents, and his teachers that I will do my best to help his community keep the streets safe. Ultimately, we all must work together to defeat crime. Parents, teachers, law enforcement officers, religious and community leaders, and yes, even our kids, must work together. Teamwork is the best work. That is more true today than ever because we live in a world where children are asked to grow up faster than ever. Mr. President, children from across the Nation visit our Senate offices every day. Among those children from South Dakota who have visited my office recently are Karna Lillebo; Jennifer, Kayla, and Jeremy Nebelsick; Travis and Ryan Oorlog; Matt, Nick, and Katie Padron; Robb, TJ, and Tiffany Rolfing; and Michael and Timothy Wrenn. I am pleased they had the great opportunity to visit Washington to experience the splendor and beauty of our Nation's capital. These children and all others deserve the very best we can offer them. My colleagues may be interested to learn that Father Robert Fox from my home State of South Dakota serves as the national chairman of National Children's Day. He has been the chair for some time now. He still keeps in contact with Mary McCusker, who, along with her husband, Dr. Patrick McCusker, began celebrating National Children's Day on the second Sunday in October 47 years ago. Father Fox has been instrumental in gaining worldwide recognition for National Children's Day. In fact, Immaculate Heart Messenger, a publication that Father Fox edits, recently promoted the celebration of children across our Nation and in countries around the globe. Over the past 47 years, the meaning of National Children's Day has remained the same. National Children's Day promises children, as a Nation, that we will stand by them. As a Nation, we adults will strive to provide for them, to look out for them, and to be their friends and their partners. National Children's Day reminds us we live both for today and tomorrow. National Children's Day is a celebration of our Nation's pride and hope in our children now and for the future. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Graham, DeWine, Chafee, Gorton, Kassebaum, Spector, Stevens, Thurmond, Frist, Warner, and Lott for their continued support of this effort. Our bipartisan efforts during this Congress ensure that every day will be National Children's Day, but on the second Sunday in October, we should all pause for a moment and remember those for whom we all work--our children.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, H.R. 3553, the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 1996, would reauthorize the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] for the next 2 fiscal years. The bill would authorize appropriations of $107 million in fiscal year 1997 and $111 million in fiscal year 1998. The expenditures authorized by this bill would be sufficient to permit the FTC to maintain existing staffing levels of 979 full-time equivalent employees. H.R. 3553 is identical to S. 1840 which I introduced along with Senators Gorton, Hollings, Bryan, and Snowe. Before we introduced S. 1840 on June 5, 1996, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on May 7, 1996, to review the FTC's activities. The Commerce Committee ordered the bill favorably reported during executive session on June 6, 1996. Because the House and Senate bills are identical, I am asking the Senate to adopt the House passed version so that we may send the bill to the President without the need for a conference. The FTC was created as an independent regulatory agency in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. The agency is charged with the dual mission of consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. Congress last authorized appropriations for the FTC in 1994. That authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 1996. The 1994 authorization followed a 12-year period in which appropriations to the FTC were not authorized. In that authorization act, significant changes were made to the FTC's authorizing statutes. Mr. President, H.R. 3553, like its identical companion bill S. 1840, makes no further changes in the authorizing statutes. It is a simple authorization of appropriations and S. 1840 was in no way controversial during its committee consideration. I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 3553 as received from the House.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise to submit for the Record an intergovernmental mandates statement, as prepared by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], for the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 (S. 1994). The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S. 1994 reported on June 13, 1996. The CBO already has provided a Federal cost estimate and a private sector mandates statement for this bill on July 16, 1996, and both are included in Senate Report 104-333 on S. 1994. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the CBO statement be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to Senator Howell Heflin, a dear friend and colleague who is retiring from the Senate this year. Senator Heflin and I are classmates, having been elected to the Senate at the same time. During the past 18 years, I have had the opportunity to watch my friend from Alabama establish himself as a distinguished leader and statesman. As a U.S. Senator and Alabama Supreme Court Justice, he has served his country and his State well. Alabamians should be proud of their country judge. Howell Heflin continues a family tradition of public service. As the nephew of U.S. Senator Thomas Heflin, Senator Heflin brought to the Senate a bloodline of conviction to America's foundation and potential. His character and background as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court have shone brightly during his chairmanship of the Ethics Committee and during his service on the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a champion of ethics and an independent thinker, it is no wonder Senator Heflin still is referred to as the judge by his fellow Senators. Mr. President, as a farm State Senator, I salute Howell Heflin's commitment to Alabama agriculture. As chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I commend him for his work on rural electrification. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, he has fought for the interests of Alabama's cotton, peanut, and soybean industries. He also has strived for Federal crop insurance and flood relief for Alabama farmers. Alabama farmers and farm families surely will miss his undying dedication to their industry. Mr. President, one of the toughest jobs for members of Congress occurs when we have to vote on legislation that has sparked strong division within our constituencies. As an infamous storyteller, Senator Heflin often relays metaphors that shed light on the difficulty of this predicament. For example, Howell Heflin once told us a story about a hunter who is caught in a treetop and is being chased by a bobcat. The hunter yells to his friend, ``Hurry up and shoot it!'' Unsure of his aim, his comrade yells back, ``I'm not sure I can hit him. I might hit you!'' In return, the trapped hunter yells, ``Shoot anyway. I need some relief!'' Another account of Howell Heflin's lightheartedness was a speech he delivered during a Senate floor discussion regarding the status of the rose as the official national flower. As the Senate deliberated whether or not to designate the rose as America's flower, Senator Heflin took to the floor with a poem. He remarked that, ``Roses are red, violets are blue, why must I choose between the two?'' Remarks such as this have provided the members of this body--and his Alabama constituents-- with many moments of fond repose over the past 18 years. Senator Heflin's sense of humor will be missed dearly. So soon we will bid farewell to our dear friend from Alabama--Howell Heflin. My wife, Harriet and I wish Senator Heflin and his lovely wife, Elizabeth Ann, the very best. They are a wonderful couple, and we will miss them very much. As the 104th Congress draws to a close, they can look forward to being able to return to their home State of Alabama and enjoy one of their favorite pastimes: spending time with their grandchildren. Mr. President, I again would like to wish Senator Heflin godspeed as he leaves the U.S. Senate. He leaves in his wake a career, character, and reputation marked by excellence.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the vitally important issue of aviation security challenges. Last month, the Commerce Committee which I chair held an open hearing to examine aviation security. Later this month, we will hold a closed hearing to further consider this vitally important issue. At the outset, let me stress that the United States continues to have the best aviation safety record in the world. Every day, 1.5 million people fly commercially in the United States and we have a marvelous record of getting passengers safely to their destinations. Regrettably, however, recent incidents have caused the traveling public great anxiety. It is our responsibility to help reassure the public of our superb air safety record. Impressive as U.S. aviation safety statistics are, we cannot rest on our laurels. Statistics are no comfort to a family which has lost a loved one or friend in an aviation tragedy. On a bipartisan basis, Congress and the administration must constantly strive to do better in the area of aviation safety. In fact, I believe we must rededicate ourselves to the goal of zero aviation accidents, whether caused by safety lapses, security breaches, or other factors. Today, I would like to briefly discuss three points. First, it is imperative that Congress and the administration resist the temptation to rush to embrace any simple solution to the very complex aviation security challenges we face. Rather, an effective aviation security program depends on a number of components working together in a coordinated manner to form a virtual security net protecting the traveling public. These elements include: the collection of intelligence information used to identify potential threats; coordination of efforts by law enforcement agencies to interdict threats; human factors including effective passenger screening; and technology. As is the case with any system, aviation security is only as strong as the weakest link in the security chain. Each of these components needs to be improved. In the areas of technology and human factors, there is vast room for improvement. Simply put, we can do a better job protecting the traveling public. We must do a better job. In recent weeks the aviation security debate has understandably focused on the lack of explosive detection capability in our Nation's airports. This focus is well placed. After all, in 1990 Congress recognized explosive detection systems needed to be installed in our airports and directed FAA to mandate deployment of such systems by November 1993. Yet today--nearly 6 years later and after the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] has spent more than $150 million in taxpayer money on explosive detection research--our airports continue to lack the capability to screen checked baggage for explosives. To make matters worse, our airports stand out as soft targets for aviation terrorism because many airports around the world already have put in place U.S.-manufactured explosive detection devices as part of their heightened security measures. While I am pleased we are finally field testing a FAA-certified explosive detection system, the current absence of explosive detection capability in our airports raises a fundamental policy question: Should Congress require interim deployment of existing explosive detection devices until a FAA-certified explosive detection system successfully completes operational testing and is available in sufficient quantities to be deployed at least in our highest risk airports? I strongly believe the answer is yes. We should take a very hard look at those U.S.-manufactured bulk and trace explosive detection devices which currently are widely used around the world. Tempting as it is, however, I hope the aviation security debate does not continue to be transfixed on technology. For instance, I am equally concerned about the shortcomings in so-called aviation security human factors. Passenger screening personnel are our most visible line of defense at airports. Unfortunately, all too often they are inadequately trained and suffer from a very high rate of turnover. Currently, companies hired by airlines to provide screening services at our Nation's airports are not subject to any certification requirement. Similarly, screening personnel are not required to be certified. We should carefully consider whether such certification requirements would provide the quality control assurance we expect and the traveling public deserves. At the same time, Congress should not overlook measures that should be taken to strengthen the intelligence gathering and enforcement elements of our aviation security system. As the aviation security debate continues, our goal should be nothing less than improving every component of our security system and ensuring we have no weak links. Second, Congress and the administration must be very cautious to avoid a ``one size fits all'' approach to aviation security policy. The security challenges faced by small airlines and small airports are truly unique. They differ markedly from those faced by international carriers and major hub airports. Accordingly, it is critically important these differences are not overlooked in a rush to heighten aviation security standards. Earlier this year, the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] released a study I requested which found that many small communities across the country currently suffer from inadequate air service. Having just returned from my home State of South Dakota where maintaining adequate air service is a day-to-day struggle, I can report from the front lines that GAO is absolutely correct. Even where a small community is lucky enough to have air service, often that service is economically fragile. Even a small economic shock can sever a community's only remaining air service link to our national air service network. Passengers traveling to and from small cities must have the same level of security as those traveling to and from large hub airports. I believe, however, there are thoughtful ways of accomplishing this goal without toppling this fragile economic balance. For instance, is it good policy to force a small community like Mitchell, SD, which had just 34 commercial boardings in July to install at its airport a CTX- 5000 explosive detection machine costing $1 million? How about Brookings, SD, and Yankton, SD, which in July had 104 and 112 boardings respectively? I believe the answer clearly is no, particularly since hand searching of selected luggage at our small airports is a viable, cost-effective and common sense alternative. Unfortunately, this kind of ``one size fits all'' approach was embraced by the House last month when it adopted Section 111 of the Aviation Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1996 which calls for new, costly security measures to be imposed on small airlines. I have no doubt this is a well-intentioned provision. However, it fails to recognize FAA's ongoing assessment of the threat faced by small airlines and the unique security needs of passengers traveling on such carriers. One thing is certain--this expensive, unfunded mandate likely would cause a further erosion of air service in our small cities and that is why I will oppose it in the Senate. Before I move on to my final point, let me reiterate that persons traveling to and from small communities deserve the same level of security as those traveling in larger markets. Due to profound differences in both passenger numbers and in threat levels, however, we can meet this goal without resorting to the identical, very expensive measures called for in our major international hub airports. Continued air service to many small communities depends on an appreciation of this simple, but critically important, point. The final point I wish to discuss today is that the enormous potential cost of security upgrades requires that heightened security measures be based on the philosophy of focussing limited resources on the most threatening passengers and cargo. For that reason, I have advocated the use of passenger profiling as the ideal way to weed out non-threatening passengers and thereby enabling airlines to target security resources more effectively. I stressed this point in the Commerce Committee's aviation security hearing last month and want to reemphasize it today. As in the case of explosive detection systems, the problem in the United States is not developing sophisticated weapons to fight aviation terrorism, the problem is deploying them. Passenger profiling is another case in point. While countries with highly regarded aviation security systems such as Israel and the Netherlands put great emphasis on passenger profiling, thus far we have failed to follow their lead. What makes this so remarkable is U.S. carriers have long recognized the security benefits of passenger profiling and Northwest Airlines, in close cooperation with the FAA, recently developed perhaps the most sophisticated automated profiling system available. I am very pleased that FAA is working closely with Northwest to put the finishing touches on this system and to make it available to other airlines as soon as possible. In my view, using passenger profiling as the bedrock of any aviation security system is good common sense policy. This is especially the case when one considers the cost of explosive detection systems, the limited space available in many of our airports for such systems, and the commercial need for our airlines to avoid unnecessary ground delays. An increased reliance on passenger profiling as the first step in assessing passenger threats makes perfect sense. It can help make an overall aviation security program effective, quick and efficient for the traveling public. At the same time, it can help make heightened security measures cost-effective and operationally viable for our airlines. Is passenger profiling a flawless or foolproof piece to our aviation security puzzle? No. Short of grounding all airplanes, no perfect solution exists. However, automated passenger profiling holds great promise as a key part of an integrated aviation security system. For instance, Northwest's system looks at more than 100 criteria for each passenger and--based on a ranking system and parameters that can be flexibly set based on perceived threats in any market--calculates which passengers should receive special security attention. Although no system can predict human behavior with 100 percent accuracy, this system appears to hold the promise of helping to allocate security resources with a very high probability of certainty. In addition, I am sensitive to the concerns some have raised about the constitutional implications of passenger profiling. While much has been written about potential economic costs of heightened aviation security measures, inevitably there will be civil liberties costs as well. As with economic considerations, we must balance costs and benefits. Considering that passenger profiling looks at an enormous number of varied factors, I believe any civil liberties costs resulting from passenger profiling will be very minimal compared to the significant social benefits resulting from minimizing public anxiety about the security of air travel. Let me conclude by reiterating that we can, and we must, do a better job in aviation security. If Congress, the administration, airlines and airports work cooperatively in the spirit of making every component of our security system as strong as possible, I have no doubt we will meet this challenge.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Bumpers amendment on space station. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which authorizes and oversees the NASA budget, I believe space station will be the foundation of our space program for many years to come. In just 1 year, we will finally begin the assembly of the largest structure ever constructed in space. Space station also is one of the most ambitious international science exports ever undertaken. Space station will bring together the United States and its foreign partners--Japan, Western Europe, Canada, and its newest partner, Russia--in this great challenge to build an orbiting laboratory to conduct important microgravity and biomedical research requiring the unique environment of outer space. The research of space station is expected to eventually lead to new drugs to fight disease, improve our health, and permit the invention of new advanced materials. These benefits will be enjoyed and experienced by the entire world community. In addition, we can expect commercial spinoffs and breakthrough technologies just as past NASA programs have spawned such great advances as communications satellites. Many products we take for granted today were the result of work performed on NASA missions. Laser faxes, pacemakers, advanced water filters, hearing aid testers, and Doppler radar systems all were generated from NASA projects. I am confident space station will usher in a new generation of such advances to benefit the world. Mr. President, after a decade of hard work and planning, NASA is finally prepared to embark on its greatest challenge. Americans in 37 States have contributed their time and talent to brings us to this point. More the $15 billion already has been spent, not including the $6 billion invested by our foreign partners. Next winter, the first element of space station will be launched--a propulsion and navigation system--to begin the assembly of the facility which will conclude in the year 2002. It is in our national interest to move forward, into the future, and begin assembly of the space station. Let me say my support for the space station is not without some reservations. For instance, I continue to be concerned about the program's heavy reliance on Russian contributions of critical hardware and launch services. Since joining the program 3 years ago, our former cold war rival has gone from being a nonparticipant in the program to an indispensable partner. For example, over half of the 73 space missions to assemble and supply the station are Russian launches, compared with about 27 shuttle launches. Moreover, both the navigation and propulsion system as well as its crew rescue vehicles are to be built and launched by the Russians. While NASA assures Congress and the Nation that the space station could still survive even if the Russians were to withdraw, this may be wishful thinking. I am also concerned about the cost of the space station project. NASA estimates the total cost of the program at $30 billion through the year 2000. In a report released last month, GAO indicated space station is experiencing troubling cost overruns which, if left unchecked, could ultimately balloon to $400 million. In addition, there have been recent reports of cost increases which threaten to exhaust much of the reserves budgeted for the project. If this program experiences any significant cost overruns, its huge budget could start to crowd out other worthy space programs like Mission to Planet Earth--which I consider the most important and relevant of all of NASA's activities. Clearly, this result would not be in the public interest. These concerns were addressed at our July 24 hearing on space station and again at a meeting between the subcommittee chairman, Senator Burns, and NASA Administrator Dan Goldin. With regard to the Russian issue, Vice President Gore and Administrator Goldin recently traveled to Russia where they negotiated an agreement in principle regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of Russia in the program. The agreement will be the basis for a formal memorandum of understanding to be finalized later this year. Participants in the United States-Russian talks are confident the Russians will make a firm commitment to provide the support to which they have agreed. However, in the event the Russians do not perform, NASA has viable contingency plans to move forward using United States contractors to replace any lost Russian contribution. As for the space station costs, NASA has assured the Commerce Committee the alarming press accounts are overblown and the program will exceed neither its $2.1 billion annual cap nor its cost estimate of $17.4 billion from October 1993 through assembly completion in the year 2002. NASA is mindful of the potential for cost overruns and the need for better cost control systems. In that connection, the head of the space station program, Wilbur Trafton, testified before our Space Subcommittee that NASA has budgeted $2.9 billion over the program's life to cover unexpected cost overruns. Administrator Goldin is an exceptionally talented administrator so I have great confidence in NASA's assurances the program is on track and within budget. Accordingly, I support the space station, but as chairman, of the Commerce Committee, I continue to monitor its progress closely through our oversight function. The program has come a long way from the early 1980's when the space station was still a dream of President Reagan and existed only as the blueprints of NASA engineers. Space station is now almost a reality. The plans have been finalized, hardware has been built, and the launches have been scheduled. Next year the space station adventure will finally begin with the launches have been scheduled. Next year, the space station adventure will finally begin with the launch of its first piece of hardware. Now is the time to go forward, not backward, and move the country and our technology into the 21st century. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this country's future by opposing the Bumpers amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am pleased we are able to bring to the Senate S. 1645, the Antarctica Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996, a bill introduced by Senator Kerry and cosponsored by Senator Hollings. The bill has been considered by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and was reported June 6, 1996. A similar bill, H.R. 3060, introduced by Congressman Walker of the House of Representatives has been adopted by the House. During consideration of the bill, Senator Stevens had asked that he be allowed to provide an amendment addressing Arctic research programs to the bill prior to floor action. The amendment that has been included does that. S. 1645, amends the Antarctic Conservation Act to make the existing law governing U.S. research activities in Antarctica consistent with the requirements of the Protocol on the Environmental Protection to the Antarctica Treaty. As under current law, the National Science Foundation would remain the lead agency in managing the Antarctic science program, and in issuing regulations and research permits. In addition, the bill would amend the Antarctic Conservation Act to: First, use established procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act to meet the protocol mandate for comprehensive assessment and monitoring of the effects of both governmental and nongovernmental activities on the fragile Antarctic ecosystem; second, prohibit introduction of prohibited products and open burning or disposal of any waste onto ice-free land areas or into fresh water systems in Antarctica; and third, require a permit for any incineration, waste disposal, entry in special areas, and takings or harmful interference. Mr. President, this bill also amends the Antarctic Protection Act to continue indefinitely a ban on Antarctic mineral resource activities. And finally, the bill amends the act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to implement provisions of the protocol relating to protection of marine resources. Mr. President, the amendment that has been added simply requires that the National Science Foundation report to Congress not later than March 1, 1997, on the use and amounts of funding provided for Federal polar research programs. This report will allow Congress to reexamine funding priorities for Arctic and Antarctic research programs.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I was pleased to participate in an event this morning which summarized the events of the 104th Congress up to this date. It has been a very productive Congress. This Congress is near the end of passing a major health reform bill which will provide for portability of insurance. It will also provide that a person with a preexisting condition gets certain considerations. This Congress passed the first major welfare reform legislation since 1963 to initiate ``workfare'' and to help both the taxpayers and truly deserving welfare recipients. This Congress also passed a major telecommunications reform bill--a sweeping bill that will creates jobs and moves us into the wireless age. In addition, this Congress passed the freedom to farm bill which will end some of the bureaucracy and costliness of the farm program, helping both taxpayers and farmers, and will usher us into a new age of deregulated agriculture. The 104th Congress also passed several other bills of great note making the last 18 or 19 months probably the most productive of any 18 or 19 months that I have seen in the recent history of Congress. I think that this fiscally responsible approach this Congress has taken has resulted in a prosperity and a confidence in the business community across the country. The business community knows that there is an effort to balance the budget, and we are moving closer to it. The business community knows that we have a Congress that is deregulatory in its intentions in legislation and that it wants to have a balanced budget and a sound fiscal policy. But there is one more step that this Congress must take, and that is to pass legislation that will fully achieve a balanced budget. I have been very proud to be associated with the Domenici budget here in the Senate. I proudly voted for it last year. It is a fair budget. It saves Medicare and Medicaid for our senior citizens. It move us to a real balanced budget with real numbers by the year 2002. Mr. President, the national debt has spiraled upward to more than $5 trillion. Twenty years ago it was $524 billion--only about one-tenth of what it is today. The annual interest on the debt now exceeds $340 billion. It is unfair to us and especially to the future generations of taxpayers to allow the debt to continue on this course. While the Congressional Budget Office recently revised its deficit estimate for fiscal year 1996 downward to $130 billion, one needs to be careful to note the true sources of this deficit reduction. As pointed out by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, a large part of the decline was a result of greater fiscal restraint by Congress, which blocked a number of White House spending proposals. Further, the deficit is expected to be lower due to revised technical assumptions and revisions in economic forecasts. Though this represents progress, let us not kid ourselves. We certainly do not have a settled fiscal policy that will bring an era of unceasing deficits to an end. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned, . . . the retirement of the baby-boom population starting about 2010 will put severe pressure on the budget. CBO projects that, if spending and revenue policies are not changed, deficits and debt will soar to unprecedented levels in the following 20 years. In response to this situation, Mr. President, I have supported and voted for measures that slow the growth of Government across the board. I also voted for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget and line-item veto authority for the President. I am pleased the line-item veto is now law. Yet the most important vote I cast in this Congress was for the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. This bill would achieve a balanced budget in 7 years, reform the costly welfare program, preserve Medicare for seniors, and reduce the tax burden on American families and small businesses. Regrettably, President Clinton vetoed the Balanced Budget Act. This is unfortunate. Each day we fail to pass a balanced budget, we add the cost of doing so on the next generation. Mr. President, despite last year's veto, I am proud that the Senate continues to move forward in our efforts to achieve a balanced budget. Just a few months ago, we adopted a budget resolution for fiscal year 1997 that maintains our commitment to balance the budget by 2002. If we stick to this plan, we will achieve a $5 billion budget surplus in the year 2002 and, for the first time in decades, bring about a reduction in the national debt. In addition, this resolution calls for much-needed reforms in the areas of welfare and Medicaid while continuing to allow the programs to grow at a fiscally responsible pace. This budget plan would maintain our commitment to low-income families, seniors, college students, and small businesses. I am especially concerned with preserving and strengthening the Medicare Program. My mother is a senior citizen. I will be a senior citizen as well in the not-too-distant future. Under the Senate plan, Medicare would increase at an annual rate of about 6.2 percent--nearly twice the rate of inflation. Spending for each Medicare beneficiary would increase from $5,200 per person today to $7,000 per person in 2002. Just as important, we would preserve Medicare for years to come, and quality health care would continue to be provided to those seniors who need it. Finally, our budget plan calls for tax relief in the form of a permanent, $500-per-child tax credit for families. Millions of middle- class families across the Nation would benefit from this measure. A family with two children, for example, would be given the opportunity to invest or spend as they see fit the $1,000 that otherwise would have been paid to the Federal Government. This is the way it ought to be. This is a true middle-class tax cut. In fact, the tax credit would be phased out for unmarried individuals with incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $110,000. Mr. President, not many days remain in the 104th Congress. I sincerely hope that before we adjourn, this Congress and the President will be able to agree on legislation to assure a balanced budget by 2002. Our Nation's economic future and the quality of life for the next generation depend on a balanced budget. We must not lose sight of this goal and we must not delay. I urge my colleagues to give their full support for legislation to implement this budget and to push forward in our efforts to ensure economic growth, more job opportunities, a higher standard of living, better opportunities for our children, and a country free from ever-increasing debt.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it is with a great sense of pride that I rise to pay special tribute to Capt. Andy Gerlach, Pfc. Jess Berg, Specialist Travis Nelson, Sgt. Alan Kludt, Sgt. Glenn Nordemeyer, Specialist Fred Emmetsberger, Sgt. Jim Aarstad, and my nephew Specialist Steve Pressler. These eight dedicated South Dakotans are members of the South Dakota National Guard 57th Transportation Detachment. Today, they will return to South Dakota after having been the only Guard unit from South Dakota called to serve as part of the peacekeeping mission in and around Bosnia. The 57th Transportation Detachment was called to active duty in December 1995 with the primary responsibility of supporting rail operations in Bamberg, Germany. The 57th coordinated the movement and transportation of military personnel, materials, equipment, and supplies to Bosnia. Mr. President, all South Dakotans are proud of these eight outstanding guardsmen. As a Vietnam veteran, I have deep respect and high admiration for these young men. I am sorry I cannot be in Brookings, SD, personally to welcome them home and see them reunited with family and friends. The men of the 57th have done their duty to their country with professionalism and dedication. South Dakotans always have been ready to answer their country's call to duty. The men of the 57th are a shining example that Americans stand ready to defend the interests of their Nation and their values. I am confident the 57th will continue to serve South Dakota and our Nation in an equally outstanding manner in the future.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3269, a bill to make technical corrections in the law that governs the Impact Aid Program. This bill represents the culmination of months of hard work. I would like to thank the Chair of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum for her diligent work in bringing this extremely important bill to the floor. Her efforts helped to ensure that federally impacted schools will get the financial assistance they deserve and need. Impact Aid is an important program for many schools. Impact Aid is a Federal responsibility. The program reimburses school districts that lost tax base due to a Federal presence, such as a military base or Indian reservation. This program provides funds for day-to-day school operations, such as buying books and paying teachers. These are not special funds for extra projects. This is a program based on the basic principle of fairness. We should fund the basics of education before we spend money on extra programs. The expeditious passage of this bill today would ensure that many Federally impacted schools will have the funds needed to keep their doors open, literally, this fall. School districts depend on Impact Aid for basic operating expenses. This bill would ensure that payments are made in a timely manner. I am particularly concerned about Section 2 of the Impact Aid program as it pertains to two school districts in South Dakota. Specifically, without passage of this critical bill, two South Dakota schools, Bonesteel-Fairfax and Wagner, could stand to lose together almost $1 million. That must not be allowed to happen. Essentially, the bill before us would allow these school districts to claim eligibility under Section 8003. The Bonesteel-Fairfax and Wagner districts were in fact eligible for Impact Aid funds, but were unaware of their eligibility because of a change in the Federal statute. Unfortunately, the Department of Education could not allow these districts to amend their applications. Consequently, they were denied funds that they deserved due to the simple error of not checking the proper eligibility box. This bill would correct this situation and provide these districts the opportunity to reapply for Impact Aid funds. As always, I will fight to see that both these schools and all other federally impacted schools in South Dakota get the funding they need under the Impact Aid program. This is the fair thing to do. It was not the intention of Congress to deny schools funds due to administrative errors or technical oversights. Quite simply, this is a fairness issue. The bill before us would not create new criteria to implement the intent of Congress. These technical corrections permit the Department of Education to administer the Impact Aid program consistent with the intent of Congress. The technical amendments provide recourse for the schools to receive funds to which they are entitled under the intent of the law. I am pleased that we are taking action on this legislation. The schools that would benefit from this bill need and deserve the assistance. The Federal Government has placed these schools in a very difficult position, through no fault of their own. That's why impact aid must remain a top Federal responsibility. Unfortunately, getting this bill through has not been easy, in part because the current administration does not have its priorities straight. For the fourth consecutive year, the Clinton administration's budget called for the Federal Government to lessen its commitment to impact aid. For the next year, the Clinton administration requested only $617 million for impact aid. It recommended the elimination of payments for Federal lands. This means 23 South Dakota school districts would not have been eligible for Federal funds. That is wrong. How can President Clinton claim he is the education President when his budgets would deny the most basic needs to schools in South Dakota? Federally impacted districts and the children they serve cannot withstand further reductions in the program. It is my understanding that the President will not sign this legislation, but allow it to become law. This is yet another indication of the administration's hostility to the Impact Aid Program. Obtaining the appropriate level of funding is a struggle every year. There will be more battles over impact aid funding. I'm ready. I will continue to fight for our Nation's children and federally impacted school districts. This is my commitment to those schools and the familes they serve. Again, I thank the chair of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, its ranking member and their counterparts in the House for their good work to get this bill through Congress and to the President. This bill enjoys widespread, bipartisan support. With the support of my colleagues, we can fulfill our legislative responsibility to federally impacted school districts and pass this impact aid technical corrections.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has approved S. 1735, the United States Tourism Organization Act, legislation I introduced on May 8, 1996. This bill is aimed at promoting the United States as a tourist destination in the increasingly competitive world tourism market. Passage of this bipartisan measure would help to ensure the United States remains a leader in this growing industry. In particular, I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Richard Bryan, and my good friend from Virgina, Senator John Warner, who joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is the second most productive in the world. In the United States, the tourism industry employs more than 6.3 million people--making it the second largest employer in the country. Unfortunately, the United States is no longer the world's No. 1 tourist destination. As other nations have recognized the economic potential of tourism, the United States has allowed itself to fall behind. We must reverse this trend. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Co-chair of the Senate Tourism Caucus, I am committed to increasing tourism--both in my home State of South Dakota and across the nation. S. 1735 is designed to keep the industry vibrant and growing. Most significantly, the legislation would develop a public-private partnership, charged with research, advertising, and marketing our country as a tourism destination. This bill also would establish a U.S. Tourism Organization--a non- profit, private group to promote the United States both in our country and abroad. This is not an expensive new program funded by the hard- earned dollars of America's taxpayers. Instead, the organization would be funded primarily by members of the tourism industry. One source of revenue made possible by this bill is from the sale of U.S. tourism logos, trademarks or emblems, similar to the five adjoining rings used with great financial success by the U.S. Olympic Committee. In addition, American business could pay an annual fee to become an official member of the U.S. Tourism Organization and use the logo for advertising and business promotion. Not only would this boost individual businesses, it also would advance the tourism industry as a whole. Significantly, under this legislation, the structure of the tourism organization would ensure that no member business--big or small--would be left behind. A National Tourism Board would represent all aspects of the tourism industry--from transportation to accommodations, from dining and entertainment to tour guides. This board would put South Dakota's small-business owners on an equal footing with New York City's larger businesses as they compete for potential visitors. This provision would be particularly helpful to small-business owners in South Dakota like Al Johnson who runs the Palmer Gulch Resort near Hill City, or for Alfred Mueller, owner of Al's Oasis in Chamberlain-- the famous home of the buffalo burger. U.S. tourism needs to aim for high-tech promotion. Today's technology has enormous potential to shape positively and promote the tourism industry. Tomorrow's technology will be even more useful. In this area, the travel and tourism industry will benefit significantly from legislation I sponsored earlier in this Congress, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That new law will unleash even more advanced communications technologies and services. South Dakotans, like the Husteads, owners of the famous Wall Drug, in Wall, SD, already are taking advantage of such technologies as the World Wide Web. These evolving technologies can transmit information on U.S. tourism destinations to all corners of the globe. Austrians could learn about the world-class Shrine to Music Museum in Vermillion. Kenyan safari hunters would be able to find out when hunting season is in Redfield, SD--the pheasant capital of the world. Dog-sledders in the Yukon may want to try out the snowmobile trails of the Black Hills National Forest. The use of the latest developments in communications technology could promote places like the city of Deadwood--one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in South Dakota. Across the globe, people could learn that Deadwood's main street is lined with old-fashioned saloons and gaming halls--inspiring memories of the 1890's gold rush. This, in turn, might inspire them to visit Saloon No. 10 where Wild Bill Hickock was shot--making famous his poker hand of aces and eights, the ``Deadman's Hand.'' S. 1735 represents just one more step in a series of actions I've taken to boost tourism in South Dakota and the Nation. For instance, earlier this year, I wrote to foreign Ambassadors and other heads of missions in the United States urging them to promote the virtues of South Dakota as a prime U.S. tourist attraction. I gave them copies of the South Dakota vacation guide to pass along to appropriate officials in their embassies and home governments who are responsible for disseminating tourism information. Not long after receiving my letter, the Ambassador from Austria visited our State. Foreign visitors are our fastest growing tourist population. We welcome them. The U.S. Tourism Organization would partner the Federal Government with the men and women who are the tourism industry. This type of public-private partnership was discussed by South Dakotans like Vince Coyle, of Deadwood, and Julie Jensen, of Rapid City, when they attended the White House conference on tourism last year. The legislation we are considering today was drafted using the recommendations of the White House conference. Working together, we can make tourism the new key to this country's economic success. This is our opportunity to forge ahead. There is no reason the U.S. travel and tourism should be relegated to the back seat any longer. I am pleased that the Senate has given this legislation its unanimous support. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to send this bill to the President before the end of the 104th Congress. The time is now. We must once again make the United States the top tourist destination in the world.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to comment on our nation's continued support with its chief ally in the Middle East, Israel. Last week, the Senate completed action on the Fiscal Year 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. The final legislation soon will be brought before us. This legislation represents the annual opportunity for Congress to demonstrate its clear support for the people of Israel. This year is no exception. Both House and Senate bills would continue last year's investment levels to Israel--$1.2 billion for economic assistance and $1.8 billion in military aid. I commend the House and Senate Chairmen of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee-- Senator McConnell and Congressman Callahan for their efforts to maintain our full commitment to the people of Israel. I have been a strong critique of foreign aid excess. However, I firmly believe that one of the wisest investments we can make is to the economic viability and national security of Israel. Failure to maintain that commitment could pose even greater costs in the future--costs in lost jobs, lost opportunities and far worse, even lost lives. I have been concerned of late with the proliferation of advanced weapons to nations that traditionally have been hostile to Israel's existence. In the past year, Iran has acquired advanced cruise missiles from China, and has engaged in an aggressive campaign to develop a nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. It also recently was reported that Syria may have obtained advanced ballistic missile technology from China. It is no secret that Syria is seeking to develop a far more capable ballistic missile than the Scud missiles that rained down on Israel during the Gulf War. Given these developments, it is crucial that Israel maintains a technological edge in its defense systems. Our continued support of Israel's defense, therefore, is vital. Mr. President, as we all know, just a few weeks ago, a joint session of Congress was held in order to hear an address by the newly elected Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu. We witnessed a stirring speech. Prime Minister Netanyahu deserves our congratulations for articulating a thoughtful vision for the people of his country. Perhaps most important, the people of Israel deserve our congratulations for demonstrating their commitment to democratic values. For nearly a half century, the people of Israel have built and preserved a democracy despite constant hardship and hostility. The recent elections are proof that the people of Israel are determined to withstand pressures from without and within to maintain a democracy, build a vibrant economy and achieve peace and security in the entire region. Prime Minister Netanyahu came to Washington as Israel's first popularly elected Prime Minister. Rather than be the choice of a governing coalition, Prime Minister Netanyahu is the people's choice. The people chose him to lead the Israeli government, rather than the government itself. The Prime Minister's speech to Congress demonstrated his appreciation and understanding of the American-Israeli partnership--a partnership that goes beyond common political and strategic bonds. Both nations share a common set of values --values of freedom, individual responsibility, and hope and opportunity. The Prime Minister noted that it was no coincidence that the birth of Israel coincided with the rise of the United States as the world's preeminent power. He is right. I also was particularly heartened with the Prime Minister's assurances that he is committed to establishing real peace in the region. Indeed, he articulated a clear, commonsense vision of how peace can be established. He called this vision the ``three pillars of peace.'' The pillars being security, reciprocity, and democracy and human rights. Americans should understand and appreciate each one of these pillars. It was Ronald Reagan who popularized the maxim ``peace through strength.'' Actually, as Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded us, that maxim has its origin in Hebrew verse, which when translated, reads as follows: ``God will give strength to His people; God will bless His people with peace.'' We are a nation long blessed with peace because we always made the defense of this nation a high priority. America's combined economic and military power provided the strength needed to secure a peaceful victory in the Cold War. Similarly, we cannot undermine Israel's security in the name of peace. That, in essence, was what the Israeli elections were all about. Therefore, we should not question Israel's commitment to peace if it demands as a prerequisite an end to terrorist aggression, or state- sponsored attacks against Israeli citizens and cities. We should not second guess Israel's desire to move the peace process forward if it demands as a prerequisite that existing peace agreements be respected by all sides. We should embrace these conditions for they have at their core the values of any true democracy--the values of personal freedom and the rule of law. In essence, that is what Israel is seeking from its neighbors. American know peace cannot exist without respect for individual rights and the rule of law. The people of Israel should expect no less. I applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu for being unwilling to believe that Israel will remain the Middle East's one lone democracy. There is no reason that the shared traditions of our two countries--human rights, democracy, free speech, religious tolerance--cannot be the growing traditions in any part of the world. Democracy has seen advances in Asia and Africa. The Middle East should not be immune to its benefits, one of them being a lasting peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu understood and demonstrated to all of us that democracy is the ultimate method to achieve peace. After all, as he correctly pointed out, ``modern democracies do not initiate aggression.'' That being the clear case, and understanding the values inherent in democracies, there should be no question in the minds of those who seek peace, that the Middle East's lone democracy should be the sole sovereign of the city of Jerusalem. I am pleased that Congress took a stand for one, unified city of Jerusalem by voting to move our Embassy there. Is it no surprise that under a unified democratic system, Jerusalem has witnessed peace and protection to members of all nationalities that have come to worship there? Certainly, it is no surprise to Americans. We know, as Prime Minister Netanyahu said, that a city divided is not a city at peace or tolerant of its diversity. Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks with the subject I started with--our continued support for Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu has vowed that he would like to take Israel down the road of less reliance on U.S. economic assistance, and greater reliance on the powerful forces of capitalism and free markets. I commend him for setting his nation on this course of economic independence. This decision demonstrates his confidence with his fellow citizens of Israel to build a vibrant, strong, self-reliant nation. That being the course he has set, the best we in the United States can do is help him and the people of Israel achieve that admirable goal. As a U.S. Senator, I have watched and admired a brave and determined people build a democracy under brutal circumstances that more than tested their resolve. This past year was no exception. It has been a year that witnessed the assassination of Israel's great leader, Yitzhak Rabin, repeated terrorist attacks, and a very contentious election. Through it all, the people of Israel stood strong, holding to its values and its belief that their home, their country, will stand strong, prosperous and at peace. The people of the United States cannot help but admire that determination. The people of the United States stand ready to help the people of Israel as they move down a road of peace, security and economic self-reliance.