Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, in 1935 Franklin Roosevelt had the foresight to realize that a welfare system that replaces real work with handouts was doomed to fail the very individuals it was intended to assist. In FDR's own words, The lessons of history * * * show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. I am pleased that America's long, costly drug addiction to the easy, insidious welfare drug may be beginning to end today. Destructive generational dependency, illegitimacy, fraud, waste, abuse, and neglect soon will be replaced with greater self-sufficiency, responsibility and pride. The bill before us would change the welfare system and the lives of many Americans for the better. Welfare was meant to be a safety net, not a way of life. This bill would restore the values of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency by making work, not Government benefits, the centerpiece of public welfare policy. I am proud to be a part of the team that has brought this historic legislation to the Senate and, soon, to the President's desk. Why did the welfare system fail? The value of work was replaced with a handout, instead of a hand-up. The welfare system eroded the American work ethic. In many cases, welfare recipients today can sit at home and make double the minimum wage. Work, as my colleagues and staff know all too well, is a character building process. For generations, South Dakotans demonstrated this principle, that a hard-work ethic provides for themselves and their families. Imagine how they must feel when their tax dollars are used to support Americans who need not work. I can tell you how they feel--upset. That is why we needed workfare. Workfare may seem innovative here in Washington, but it's not a new idea. Fifteen years ago, South Dakotans sought to develop new solutions for their welfare system. South Dakota wanted workfare, not welfare. With the reforms it has implemented, South Dakota has succeeded in decreasing its welfare caseload by 17 percent and saved taxpayers $5.6 million. Those reforms, considered radical at that time, will the vision of the future for the rest of the country when the bill before us become law. Governor Janklow first pursued workfare in the early 1980's, and former Governor Miller and our late Governor Mickleson continued with further reforms. I also want to acknowledge and commend Deputy Secretary Mike Vogel, Social Services Secretary, Jim Ellenbecker, Denny Pelkofer, Donna Keller, Judy Heinz, Julie Osnes, and the rest of the staff at the South Dakota Department of Social Services for their efforts to make welfare reform a reality in South Dakota. When today's bill becomes law, these innovators will have even greater freedom to succeed where the Federal Government has failed. I am pleased that the final bill includes workfare amendments I had included during the Finance Committee's markup of welfare reform. These amendments ensure that welfare recipients will put in a full workweek, just as other Americans do, in order to receive benefits. My amendments also increase the number of welfare recipients who must work and tighten liberal loopholes that have allowed people to avoid real work. This historic legislation is a dramatic turn to decentralization of government. We are putting greater faith and trust in the states to operate their own welfare programs. I am confident South Dakotans will do better than Washington bureaucrats. No longer will the Federal Government apply a one-size-fits-all welfare system run by bureaucrats. Indeed, the Federal agencies responsible for welfare will be drastically reduced. States will have the flexibility to seek solutions and alternatives to welfare problems. This bill also would do something very revolutionary for the native American community-- it would give them the opportunity to run their own welfare programs. This is a great opportunity for them to seek innovative solutions as well. This bill is not just about changing the welfare culture, but also the big Government culture. We change both for the better. Workfare is not just about restoring responsibility at the individual and State level, it is about protecting children in need. This workfare bill would ensure that children have quality food and shelter. This bill would increase our investment in child care by $4.5 billion and increase federal child protection and neglect funding by $200 million over current law. What this bill eliminates is cumbersome bureaucracy and needless regulations. We also strengthen child support enforcement and give States new tools to crack down on deadbeat parents. These reforms represent the toughest child support laws ever passed by Congress. The past welfare system fostered illegitimacy and discouraged marriage and parental responsibility. This welfare reform would promote the basic family unit, and crack down on those who deliberately walk away from meeting the needs of their children. More and more children are growing up without the moral guidance and financial support of parents, especially fathers. This is a tragedy of our time. I am also pleased the final bill includes provisions I authored to crack down on food stamp fraud and prisoner fraud. Last year, I was shocked to learn the extent to which prisoners are able to continue receiving welfare benefits. The workfare bill before us once and for all puts an end to cash payments to alcohol and drug addicts in prison. It also would, reward States that crack down on food stamp recipients who abuse the welfare system. Although my home State's food stamp program is ranked first in the Nation, each year $1.7 billion is lost nationally through food stamp fraud, waste, and abuse. My provision would give additional incentive to crack down on those who abuse the welfare system. I want to extend my thanks to the staff at the South Dakota Office of Recovery and Investigations, specifically Marty Armstrong, for their diligent and effective work on this matter. Several years ago, President Clinton promised America he would change welfare as we know it. Our former colleague and majority leader, Bob Dole, made the same promise. Last year Congress delivered on that promise. We passed workfare. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that workfare bill. The President vetoed workfare again as part of our balanced budget plan. Thanks to Chairman Roth, Senator Domenici, and so many others we didn't quit. We produced another workfare bill. I am pleased the President has said he will do the right thing this time and support this workfare legislation. I want to thank the conferees for their quick action in approving the welfare bill. Again, I am proud to have played a significant role in this effort to enact workfare legislation. The workfare bill before us will end welfare dependency by requiring work and placing a time limit on benefits. Tomorrow's welfare system would encourage people to become more self-sufficient and productive members of society, as was intended many years ago. Americans deserve more than a handout for today, they deserve the hope and happiness that come through personal financial independence and the self-realization of work. Welfare reform ensures a better future for all Americans.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and to congratulate my colleagues Senator Frank Murkowski, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Senator Larry Craig, vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development, for all their hard work on this bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I have a particular interest in the transportation aspect of this legislation. Clearly, we will need a special transportation system to safely transfer nuclear waste to a centralized storage facility as mandated by S. 1936. Already, there are some tough laws in place. Shipments of spent nuclear fuel and other commercial or defense-related high level radioactive waste must adhere to very strict standards before the waste can move on America's highways or railroads. S. 1936 will strengthen these standards. It's important to point out that under the current regulation monitoring process, the Federal Government and the nuclear industry have transported thousands of shipments of nuclear waste without any release of radioactive material. That's an impeccable safety record. This legislation takes additional steps to maintain an already safe environment for the transportation and storage of spent nuclear fuel. Let me set the record straight even further. As part of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department of Energy promised to begin transporting commercial spent fuel to a Federal management facility in 1998. To solidify this promise, contracts were signed between the Federal Government and utilities that own the Nation's nuclear power plants. S. 1936 reaffirms that commitment. S. 1936 would not weaken current law--it improves it. Spent fuel shipments would still be regulated by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and other transportation regulations that have protected us for the past 30 years. To ensure safety in every step of the transportation network, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] already has established demanding regulations on the packaging and transportation of radioactive materials. Spent nuclear fuel rods are transported in heavy steel containers. Before these can be approved by the NRC, manufacturers must demonstrate that each container design can withstand a number of hypothetical accident conditions, including being dropped from 30 feet onto a flat, unyielding surface; falling onto a vertical steel spike; being engulfed in a 1,475 degree Fahrenheit fire for 30 minutes; and being submerged under 3 feet of water for 8 hours. The same container also must withstand a separate immersion test in 50 feet of water for 8 hours. Mr. President, I challenge any other transportation container to measure up to these rigorous tests. Again, these are the tests required under existing law. The containers that meet these tests are some of the most rugged on Earth, and rightfully so. The Department of Transportation also has responsibility for regulating many aspects of radioactive waste shipments. Shippers are required to file a written route plan that includes the origin and destination of each shipment, preapproved routes to be used, estimated arrival times and emergency telephone numbers in each State a shipment will enter. The principal intent of DOT routing guidelines is to reduce the time in transit. The agency requires tractor-trailer shipments to use preferred highway routes, such as interstate highways and bypasses that divert them away from highly populated areas. States also may propose alternate routes to the interstate highway system. In fact, at least 10 States already have established alternate routes. Potentially affected States and localities must be consulted in the process of designating alternate routes. The Transportation Department also requires that shippers notify the Governor 7 days in advance of material being transported through the State. To ensure the safety of these shipments, the Department of Energy has developed a satellite-based system that allows continuous tracking and communications with all DOE shipments. Mr. President, recent shipments of foreign research reactor fuel from Sunny Point, NC to the Savannah River site in South Carolina provide a perfect example of the safeguards which are in place for spent fuel transportation. In moving this fuel, the Energy Department worked closely with State and local officials on training and planning. They practiced everything--from preparing routine shipping procedures to testing emergency response systems. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act would require DOE to provide similar funding and technical assistance for State, tribal and local training and planning activities in advance of any actual commercial spent fuel shipments. Mr. President, there is no disputing that transportation is one of the most important issues in our consideration of S. 1936. It is an essential component of an integrated nuclear waste management program. Clearly, as I have outlined today, nuclear waste can be transported safely and efficiently. A comprehensive plan already is in place to ensure this. To maximize safety, the plan directs shipments away from metropolitan areas whenever possible. It allows for the selection of the most direct and safest routes. It provides training to national, State and local officials so that they are ready to respond in the event of an emergency. We know that accidents happen, Mr. President. That is why S. 1936 builds on the existing regulatory framework that, to date, has protected this Nation during more than 2,400 shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this program. Many of my constituents have expressed their interest in nuclear waste transportation. Fortunately, there is good news to report to them. We have a safe, well-coordinated system. It ensures the safety of nuclear waste transportation by relying on the expertise of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy, as well as the State and local governments. S. 1936 builds on the system to enhance protection of our citizens and our environment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. By passing S. 1936, we can take the final steps towards ensuring that nuclear waste is managed in the safest possible manner. Section 203 Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the floor. My colleague has been very helpful in addressing a concern I had with certain provisions in Section 203 of S. 1936. I appreciate Chairman Murkowski's attention to this matter.

Mr. PRESSLER. I would like to further question my colleague regarding the transportation training standards addressed in this bill. In particular, section 203 (g) would require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations establishing training standards applicable to workers directly involved in the removal and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. New language, as proposed by the chairman on my behalf, would also require that an employer possess evidence of satisfaction of these training standards before an individual could be employed in such activity. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I believe this provision is consistent with existing law, as set forth in Section 5107 of title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 5107), which details requirements for the training of employees engaged in hazardous materials transportation. I would ask the chairman if this interpretation is correct?

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator from Alaska for clarifying this matter for me. Again, I greatly appreciate his willingness to work with me to resolve this matter. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of S. 1936.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple and straight forward. It would provide funding for the section 511 railroad loan guarantee program to enable needed rail infrastructure and safety improvements. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Lott, Snowe, Exon, and Wyden. Over the years, Congress has often recognized the importance of Federal funding assistance for rail infrastructure projects. Federal appropriations through such programs as the section 511 program and the Local Rail Freight Assistance [LRFA] Program have enabled the continuation of rail service for many communities that have been on the brink of losing service. I strongly support initiatives to promote rail infrastructure rehabilitation. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which I chair, has reported legislation to permanently authorize the LRFA Program. To date, this authorizing legislation, S. 1318, the Amtrak and Local Rail Revitalization Act, has not been considered by the full Senate. Because I recognize the concerns of some of my colleagues about funding certain expired programs, my amendment only proposes funding for the permanently authorized section 511 program. However, I will continue to support LRFA reauthorization and funding in future years. Mr. President, I want to point out the House-passed Department of Transportation appropriations bill includes $58.86 million for title V--section 505--railroad loans. At first glance, I am pleased the House recognizes the importance of funding assistance for freight rail infrastructure. Yet, I am concerned because the entire amount has been earmarked for only one project in California. Many equally important projects would be shut out of the process by the House-passed bill. This clearly ignores the national need for rail rehabilitation on light density rail projects throughout our country. It also is important to note the House approved funding has been allocated to an expired Federal loan program. My amendment would provide $4.158 million for section 511 loan guarantees. This would permit a loan level of up to $75 million for many legitimate rail projects across our Nation. Further, my amendment includes offsets for this funding from certain administrative functions. I believe basic infrastructure investment would be a better use of scarce Federal dollars. Mr. President, Federal involvement, while limited, would advance track and bridge projects planned in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, and South Dakota, just to name a few. In turn, rail safety and economic opportunity for these and hundreds of other communities would be promoted. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, earlier this year Congress passed the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. That measure which became Public Law 104-55 was long overdue. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act addresses how Federal agencies regulate the shipment of edible oils, as compared with toxic oils. They require that agencies make a distinction between these two kinds of oils. This is extremely important to U.S. agricultural exports. Without Public Law 104-55, farmers faced a potential loss in agricultural exports and diminished farm income. The law is simple and very straight-forward. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard continues to issue regulations that do not comply with Public Law 104-55. The Coast Guard has issued regulations that do not provide relief to the oilseed industry due to the differentiation between shipments of edible oilseeds and shipments of toxic oils, such as petroleum. Mr. President, the kind of enforcement found in the Coast Guard regulations was never congressional intent. The amendment that I, and Senators Harkin, Grassley, Lott, and Bond are offering today would prevent the Coast Guard from using funds to issue, implement, or enforce regulations or establish an interpretation or guideline that do not differentiate animal fats and vegetable oils from toxic oils. This amendment does not change the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as it relates to toxic oils. Without action, the Coast Guard regulations could inadvertently diminish U.S. agricultural exports. In addition, existing regulations could have a chilling effect on the development of new crops and new uses of crop production. Farm exports are at all time highs. Future exports are expected to stay at record levels. The future for oilseeds is equally bright. However, current Coast Guard regulations could work against this progress. It has become clearly evident that existing regulations would seriously impact exports of U.S. agricultural commodities, especially vegetable oils and animal fats. Unless we pass this amendment, U.S. animal fat and vegetable oil industries would be faced with lost export sales. Public Law 104-55 put common sense into Federal regulations regarding the shipment of animal fats and vegetable oils. The winners out of all this are our farmers and ranchers. Unfortunately, we have to pass this amendment to make sure that the Coast Guard abides by Federal law and congressional intent on this matter. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the bill, if I may, for 3 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to commend the managers of this bill and the staff for the energy and water development appropriations bill which I have in my hand which has a provision for the Mid-Dakota Rural Water System for $7.5 million. I hope in conference, or possibly in future developments, that the funding level for mid-Dakota can be raised to $11.5 million, which is the House level. I was disappointed with the administration only recommended $2.5 million. While we need to change that, we can actually save money on a contractual basis by accelerating this project and going to the $11.5 million level. Let me say a word or two about the mid-Dakota project. It will bring water into eastern South Dakota to 24 communities, and it will run from Pierre to Huron, SD, along Highway 14 and surrounding areas. In the State of South Dakota in eastern South Dakota we have a problem with water. On my farm we have a rural water system hooked up where water is brought from a central source as opposed to farms in this area that depend on wells. In this case, it takes the mid-Dakota project. This project will bring water from the Missouri River eastward. We have the great resource of the Missouri River in our State. It is almost unused. But this is using Missouri River water for our people. I have had a number of meetings on this project over the past several years. I met with Kurt Pfeifle yesterday, the general manager of mid- Dakota project to discuss ways to get a higher funding level. I have met with him and other South Dakotans who traveled here to propose this important project for 30,000 people in eastern South Dakota--Tom Edgar from Orient, Susan Hargens from Miller, Johnny Gross from Onida, Eugene Warner from Blundt, Mory Simon from Gettysburg, to name a few. So, Mr. President, let me say in conclusion that I thank the managers of the bill for the $7.5 million that has been included for mid-Dakota. It is a very important water project in our State. I hope that the level can be increased to $11.5 million. I note that the administration included only $2.5 million in their recommendations. So it has been a struggle. But it is very, very important to the people of South Dakota. To have clean drinking water for livestock and people is very, very important to the farmers and the people of eastern South Dakota. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 5093

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, July 25, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on S. 1726, the Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the digital Era [Pro-Code] Act of 1996.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last November, Vice Admiral Scott Redd, Commander of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, revealed that Iran had begun developing an integrated ship, submarine, missile, and mine capability in the Persian Gulf. The missile component was to be a new type of Chinese-made cruise missile--known as the C-802 missile. It is an anti-ship cruise missile. It is about 20 feet long, has a range of 75 miles and carries a 350 pound warhead. This is a low flying, turbojet-powered, cruise missile. This is a highly advanced conventional weapon in every sense. It can evade radar and will make any missile offensive launched by the Iranian Navy difficult to track. At that time, it was reported that these missiles would be deployed on patrol boats, also provided by China. In addition, news reports indicated that Iran was seeking a land-based version of the C-802 from China. In January, Admiral Redd reported that Iran had test fired a C-802 missile. The Admiral noted that this new weapon, in the hands of the Iranians represented a ``new threat dimension'' to the many tankers and ships that use the Persian Gulf as a commercial shipping lane, and of course, to the 15,000 Americans--sailors, marines, and airmen--in the Persian Gulf. Last February 22nd Dr. John Deutch, the Director of Central Intelligence, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the intelligence community ``continues to get accurate and timely information'' on ``cruise missiles to iran.'' And, on June 19 Undersecretary of State Lynn Davis--the State Department's senior non- proliferation official--told the House International Relations Committee that the federal government has ``evidence" that Chinese cruise missiles are in Iran. So, Mr. President, there is no doubt that Chinese cruise missiles are in Iran. Further, I do not expect anyone would disagree with Admiral Redd's assessment that these advanced weapons represent an immediate and real threat to our interests and most important, to our fellow Americans in the Gulf. Mr. President, in 1992 Congress passed the Iran-Iraq Arms Non- proliferation Act of 1992. It is commonly known as the Gore-McCain act--for the honorable former Senator from Tennessee, now Vice President of the United States; and the distinguished senior senator from Arizona. Their legislation calls for very severe sanctions against companies and countries that knowingly transfer advanced conventional weapons to Iran. ``Knowingly'' is not at issue here; nor is there a question of whether a cruise missile is an advanced conventional weapon. The Sense of the Senate amendment I have offered along with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, is very simple. It merely calls on the Chinese authorities to cease deliveries of cruise missiles to Iran. Second, it calls on the President to enforce the law. Nothing more. Frankly, action from the Administration is long overdue. After Admiral Redd reported the test firing last January, I and three of my colleagues--the distinguished Chair of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato; the distinguished Senator from Florida, Senator Mack; and the distinguished Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Specter-- sent a letter to the President, urging that the Gore-McCain law be enforced. Simply put, we urged the President to impose sanctions, or waive them if he deemed that necessary. That letter was dated January 31, 1996--nearly 6 months ago. The President has not taken any action in response to this letter. I will ask unanimous consent later that a copy of this letter to President Clinton appear in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. Our letter apparently was not the first call for action. According to a story that appeared in the Washington Times on February 10, 1996, the Pentagon recommended to Undersecretary of State Davis that the Clinton Administration declare China in violation of Federal law for exporting advanced cruise missiles to Iran. When was that recommendation made? Last September--10 months ago. I have been quite outspoken about Chinese weapons proliferation activities this past year. Sadly, there has been too much to talk about. I referred earlier to the testimony by Director Deutch last February. In his testimony, Director Deutch noted that the People's Republic of China also had transferred nuclear technology and M-11 missiles to Pakistan--both sanctionable offenses under Federal law. The M-11 transfer, in particular, is quite disturbing because the Clinton administration obtained a written agreement from China in September 1994, which stated that China would cease transferring ballistic missiles and related technology to Pakistan. Finally, this week, it was reported that China may have transferred ballistic missile guidance systems to Syria, which if true would be sanctionable under Federal law as well. This is quite a track record of proliferation, Mr. President. It is a track record that is fostering instability in South Asia and the Middle East. It is a track record that has put the lives of our troops in the region in even greater danger. Congress has provided the tools for the Executive Branch to punish weapons proliferators. Our Nation's non- proliferation policy is based on a simple premise: proliferation carries a heavy price. Yet, even with this track record, the administration has yet to take any action, or impose any price against a nation that is providing cruise missiles to a terrorist nation. Mr. President, recently Congress sent to President Clinton the Iran oil sanctions act. I know my good friend from New York, Senator D'Amato, has worked very hard on this legislation. He is to be commended for his efforts. I hope the President will sign it. Clearly, if we are going to get tough on those who buy Iranian oil, we should get even tougher on those who sell advanced cruise missiles to the Iranians. We owe that to our friends and allies who utilize the Persian Gulf to further their commercial interests. Most important, we owe that to Admiral Redd and all of our fine men and women serving our country in the Persian Gulf. That's why we should pass this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I mentioned earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered along with my friend and colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, is very simple. I offer it in response to recent reports that China has shipped ballistic missile technology to Syria. This was first reported in the July 23rd edition of the Washington Times. I'm sure all my colleagues agree that this is a very serious allegation. It is the latest dark chapter in what certainly is a troublesome year for nonproliferation advocates. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Times story just mentioned be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Specifically, our intelligence sources noted that last month a defense industrial trading company--the China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp.--delivered military cargo to the Scientific Studies and Research Center in Syria. China Precision Machinery is to missile production what McDonald's is to burger production. In fact, the United States had imposed sanctions twice against China Precision Machinery--in 1991 and 1993. In 1993, the firm shipped M-11 ballistic missile technology to Pakistan--a violation of the so-called Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR. The MTCR sanctions were lifted 1 year later after China promised the United States it would not export M-11's or related technology. If the Syrian missile deal proves to be true, it would represent a clear violation of both the MTCR and the 1994 agreement. The Syrian firm that was reported to have received the cargo is the heart of Syria's efforts to produce ballistic missiles, and other advanced conventional arms. The firm is reported to be building a version of the Scud C ballistic missile. If Syria has received M-11 related technology, that would represent a significant technological upgrade in Syria's ballistic missile capability. No doubt, it would destabilize a region struggling to achieve peace. Our weapons proliferation laws are based on a simple premise -- proliferation carries a price. Traditionally, sanctions under the MTCR are imposed only after a clear determination has been made that a specific violation has taken place. However, in 1994 Congress passed legislation I sponsored that would lower the standard of proof when a suspected transfer goes to a nation that supports international terrorism. Clearly, any MTCR violation is very troublesome--to the United States and the other 30 nations that are co-signers of the agreement. However, our law is clear--when missiles or missile technology are being sent to a terrorist country, far more swift action is necessary. In that case, the President need not wait for conclusive evidence--he can impose sanctions and compel the sanctioned country to come forward to prove it has not violated the MTCR. The reason for this lower standard is obvious--we need to be far more aggressive to ensure ballistic missiles and related technology do not fall into the hands of terrorist elements. Let me make clear that the amendment I have offered today does not make any firm conclusions about the reported transfer from China to Syria. It simply makes three key points: First, it is in our Nation's national security interest to prevent the spread of ballistic missiles and related technology to Syria; second, it calls on China to honor its 1994 agreement not to export missiles or related technology that would violate the MTCR; and third, it calls on the President to exercise all legal authority to prevent the spread of ballistic missiles and related technology to Syria. That's all my amendment calls for, Mr. President. I'm sure all of my colleagues would agree with each of those points. I'm sure my colleagues will agree that the MTCR agreement and the laws we pass to enforce it mean nothing unless enforced vigorously. I'm sure my colleagues also would agree that any effort by Syria to expand its ballistic missile capability represents a direct and clear threat to our friend and ally, Israel. Just as important, it could threaten current efforts to achieve a lasting, secure peace in the region. The people of Israel know all too well what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a ballistic missile attack. The people of Israel looked to us to stand by them during the Gulf War to withstand the Scud assaults on their country. We did stand by them. The Gulf War is now a memory, but the threat and reality of a ballistic missile attack remains. We should still stand by Israel. The best way we can do so is to enforce the MTCR agreement--to ensure that those who engage in missile proliferation will pay a heavy price. That's what my amendment calls for. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, Feb. 10, 1996] CIA Suspects Chinese Firm of Syria Missile Aid (By Bill Gertz) The Chinese manufacturer of M-11 missiles sent a shipment of military cargo to Syria last month that the CIA believes may have contained missile-related components, agency sources said. The CIA detected the delivery to Syria early in June from the China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp., described as ``China's premier missile sales firm.'' The suspect military delivery raises questions about China's pledge to the United States in 1994 not to export missiles or missile components that would violate the Missile Technology Control Regime. It also follows China's recent export of nuclear-weapons technology to Pakistan in violation of U.S. anti- proliferation laws, which was disclosed by The Washington Times in February. The Syrian company that received the Chinese cargo was identified as the Scientific Studies and Research Center, which conducts work on Syria's ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional arms programs, the CIA said in a classified report circulated to senior U.S. officials. The Syrian center is in charge of programs to build Scud C ballistic missiles and a program to upgrade anti-ship missiles. U.S. intelligence agencies said the Syrian center has received help from the China Precision Machinery Import- Export Corp. in recent years for both missile programs. ``The involvement of CPMIEC and the Syrian end user suggests the shipments [last month] are missile-related,'' one source said. The exact nature of the equipment was not identified, but it was described as ``special and dangerous,'' the source said. CIA and State Department spokesmen declined to comment. Chinese officials promised the State Department in 1994 not to export M-11s or their technology in exchange for a U.S. agreement to lift sanctions against Chinese Precision Machinery and the Pakistani Defense Ministry, which were involved in M-11-related transfers. The missile-control agreement bars transfers of missiles and technology for systems that travel farther than 186 miles and carry warheads heavier than 1,100 pounds. Transfers of both the Chinese M-11 and Syria's Scud C are banned under the accord. Syria has purchased Scud C missiles in the past from North Korea and is working on developing production capabilities for them, according to U.S. officials. The delivery of Chinese missiles or components to Syria, if confirmed, would trigger sanctions against China because Syria is classified by the State Department as a state sponsor of international terrorism. William C. Triplett, a China specialist and former Republican counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration does not need hard evidence to impose sanctions because the sales involved Syria. A 1994 amendment to the Arms Export Control Act, sponsored by Sen. Larry Pressler, South Dakota Republican, says the president may presume a transfer violates the 31-nation missile-control agreement if it goes to a nation that supports terrorism. ``If it goes to a terrorist country, we consider that a much more significant event than if it goes some other place,'' Mr. Triplett said. China Precision Machinery already is under intense scrutiny within the U.S. government over the earlier M-11 sales to Pakistan. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded earlier this year that Chinese M-11s are operational in Pakistan, but the State Department is challenging the intelligence conclusion to avoid having to impose sanctions on China. U.S.-China relations have been strained over Beijing's proliferation activities, as well as disputes concerning human rights and widespread copyright infringement. In May, the Clinton administration decided not to impose sanctions on China for violating U.S. anti-proliferation laws with sales of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan because Chinese officials claimed they did not know the sale took place. China Precision Machinery has been slapped with U.S. economic sanctions twice in the past. The Bush administration in 1991 sanctioned the company, which is part of the official Chinese government defense-industrial complex, for selling missile technology to Pakistan. Sanctions also were imposed in 1993, again for the transfer of M-11 technology. Kenneth Timmerman, director of the consulting firm Middle East Data Project, said the Syrian center that received the June shipments from China is a major agency involved in weapons research, procurement and production. Mr. Timmerman said that North Korea and China have helped to build two missile-production centers in Syria and that Syrian missile technicians have been trained in China. Israel's government said in 1993 that Chinese technicians were working in Syria to develop production facilities for missile-guidance systems, according to Mr. Timmerman. Amendment No. 5064 (Purpose: To treat adult children of former internees of Vietnamese reeducation camps as refugees for purposes of the Orderly Departure Program) At the appropriate place, insert the following: Refugee status for adult children of former vietnamese reeducation camp internees resettled under the orderly departure program Sec. . (a) Eligibility for Orderly Departure Program.--For purposes of eligibility for the Orderly Departure Program for Nations of Vietnam, an alien described in subsection (b) shall be considered to be a refugee of special humanitarian concern to the United States within the meaning of section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) and shall be admitted to the United States for resettlement if the alien would be admissible as an immigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act (except as provided in section 207(c)(3) of that Act). (b) Aliens Covered.--An alien described in this subsection is an alien who-- (1) is the son or daughter of a national of Vietnam who-- (A) was formerly interned in a reeducation camp in Vietnam by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; and (B) has been accepted for resettlement as a refugee under the Orderly Departure Program on or after April 1, 1995; (2) is 21 years of age or older; and (3) was unmarried as of the date of acceptance of the alien's parent for resettlement under the Orderly Departure Program. (c) Supersedes Existing Law.--This section supersedes any other provision of law.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I had intended today to offer a series of amendments regarding economic assistance to Turkey. These amendments would have been similar to the provisions included in the version of H.R. 3540 that was approved by the House of Representatives on May 22. Specifically, these provisions would cap economic support funds [ESF] at $25 million, and would lower that amount to $22 million if the Government of Turkey failed to acknowledge the tragic Armenian genocide that occurred from 1915 to 1923. The House also approved a provision that would restrict the President's authority to waive aid restrictions against those countries found violating the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. I support all these provisions. I know a number of my colleagues in the Senate support them as well. However, the bill before us on the floor does not contain any restrictions on economic aid to Turkey. I would note that the bill would make the Humanitarian Corridor Act permanent, and I commend the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, for doing so. As my colleagues well know, what we have before us today is a replay of last year's appropriations process. Last year, the House capped economic aid to Turkey at $21 million, and the Senate bill did not restrict economic assistance. The final bill capped economic aid to Turkey at $33.5 million. I believe that was a fair compromise. Mr. President, the reasons why Congress felt compelled to cap aid to one of our allies are several. I will not go into detail on these reasons because the record, most recently updated in the rigorous House debate on these issues, is quite substantive. There are four key concerns: Repeated human rights violations, its refusal to comply with the Humanitarian Corridor Act and allow aid shipments to Armenia, its continued military occupation of Cyprus, and its abuse of the Kurdish minority. On the last point, I am concerned particularly with the use of American military equipment against the Kurds. It's common practice for Congress to use foreign aid as leverage to achieve foreign policy and human rights goals. I have long advocated tougher restrictions on aid to Turkey to achieve a peaceful, free and united Cyprus. I have called on the President to suspend military sales to Turkey until it improves its human rights record. And I was a cosponsor of the Humanitarian Corridor Act. I believe we sent a very strong signal to Turkey last year when we agreed to cap economic assistance and passed the Humanitarian Corridor Act. To retreat from that strong stand would send the wrong signal and remove a vital piece of leverage we need to make progress on the key issues I have raised. As I said, I had intended to offer amendments to restrict economic assistance to Turkey. However, I believe that, if past is prologue, the best course of action to pursue is to work with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and their counterparts in the House. I see the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the floor. I would just urge that he take my concerns, the concerns of my colleagues and clearly, the concerns of the strong majority of our counterparts in the House into consideration as he moves to conference on this legislation.

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend from Kentucky. Development Fund For Africa

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, South Dakota farmers and ranchers are looking to value-added products as one way to better market their commodities and products. By adding value to the basic commodity, farmers and ranchers can realize higher prices and improved income. This is being witnessed for all of agriculture, from grain farmers to livestock producers. South Dakota is a leading State in finding innovative ways to add value to agricultural products. For example, South Dakota is a leader in the production of ethanol and more ethanol facilities are being planned to be built in South Dakota. By the end of the year a new soybean processing plant will begin production in a new facility in Volga, SD. Currently there are serious negotiations underway for a new beef packing plant which would service South Dakota and regional livestock producers. Another venture in western South Dakota is a plan for the Nation's first lamb packing facility that would combine slaughtering, breaking, packing, and shipping under one roof. The facility would provide fresh lamb products to wholesalers and distributors within the food industry. The facility would be called Monument Meats and be located in Belle Fourche, SD. This effort would be a producer cooperative where producers would be contracted to provide lambs. The facility, when completed, would include and incorporate the suppliers of lamb with the distributors of the final product into the overall process of the proposed facility. One area where Federal taxpayer dollars are efficiently spent is the Rural Business Enterprise Grants Program. These grants can be used to finance and facilitate development of small and emerging business enterprises. Promotion and support of a viable U.S. lamb industry by establishing the proposed facility would certainly meet the objectives of these grants. The proposed lamb processing facility for Belle Fourche, SD, certainly meets the test of a promising breakthrough in promoting U.S. lamb production. A key role of the Federal Government is to promote innovative and new business opportunities. A $50,000 grant for a feasibility study of the proposed lamb processing plant would be helpful to demonstrate to producers and distributors the benefits that could be accrued from such a facility. Supporters of this facility are only looking for assistance from the Federal Government just for the feasibility study. Once completed, there are no intentions of further requests for Federal funding. This seems to me to be a worthwhile investment. If I could, I would like to ask a few questions to my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. I recognize that the bill currently under consideration does not contain funding for a feasibility study for the lamb processing plant conceived to be built in Belle Fourche, SD. However, is it the chairman's belief that this is the type of venture where rural business enterprise grants could come into play?

Mr. PRESSLER. Is it also correct to say that the U.S. Department of Agriculture could utilize this type of grant to establish value-added processing plants in the United States, like the one planned for in Belle Fourche, SD?

Mr. PRESSLER. Finally, I would like to ask the chairman if he would work with me to secure future funding for a feasibility study to be done for a lamb processing facility in Belle Fourche, SD.

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleague and friend. Again, Mr. President, the proposed lamb processing plant can bring higher prices to lamb producers. The facility can bring economic growth and jobs to the community of Belle Fourche, SD. Finally, the facility can go a long way to promote the entire U.S. lamb industry. I will continue working to secure $50,000 for a Federal feasibility study for this much needed project.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as the Senate once again nears final action on a workfare bill, I am reminded of an old commonsense saying, ``Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime''. This sums up the clear, fundamental difference between today's failed liberal welfare system and the commonsense reform bill before us. The current welfare system has failed. We all know it. Instead of assisting needy Americans, the current system holds Americans down, perpetuates a cycle of dependency, increases moral decay, and cripples self-respect. Welfare was meant to be a safety net, not a way of life. The bill before us would change the system and the lives of many Americans for the better. This bill would restore the values of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency by making work, not Government benefits, the centerpiece of welfare. I am proud to be a part of the team that has brought this historic legislation to the floor. Why does the current system not work? Generations of able-bodied families have stayed on the dole rather than work. The rationale is simple: Welfare recipients today can sit at home and make more each week than individuals working full time on the minimum wage. This disincentive to work is an insult to hardworking Americans. In essence, we have a Government program that challenges the American work ethic. South Dakotans demonstrate that a hard work ethic provides for themselves and their families. Many work long hours, seek overtime, or have two, even three jobs to make ends meet. Imagine how they must feel when their tax dollars are used to support Americans who need not work. I can tell you how they feel--upset. If we work for our wages, welfare recipients should work for benefits. That is why we need workfare. I am pleased Chairman Roth included my workfare amendments during the Finance Committee's markup consideration of welfare reform. These amendments would ensure that welfare recipients put in a full work week, just as other Americans do, in order to receive benefits. These entitlements would increase the number of welfare recipients who must work and avoid a liberal loophole to avoid real work. Workfare is not a new idea. Fifteen years ago, South Dakotans wanted to address their own special needs and develop real solutions for their welfare system. South Dakota wanted workfare, not welfare. The problem is, Federal law makes it difficult to experiment with workfare, especially since the current administration has sought to protect the current, failed system. For example, in August 1993, South Dakota sought a Federal waiver to operate a workfare program. That waiver took nearly a year to approve. Today, South Dakota has a system that requires recipients to sign a social contract and imposes a tough 2- year time limit on benefits. This approach has worked. South Dakota has successfully decreased its welfare caseload by 17 percent since January 1993 and saved more than $5.6 million. South Dakota's experience is proof that workfare works. Just as important are the success stories behind the statistics--the South Dakotans who have moved from welfare to work. Let me share two such stories about two very special ladies with unique circumstances: Marilou Manguson of Rapid City and Belinda Mayer of Sioux Falls. They deserve our praise. Marilou and her 10-year-old son were receiving AFDC and food stamps. When she applied for welfare, she was informed she would have to get a job. For 4 months, Marilou attended computer and accounting courses, and prepared every day for interviews with the South Dakota Job Service Job Club. Two weeks later she found a full time job with a government sales agency. In contrast, 20 years ago, when Marilou was on welfare, she says all one needed to do is show up to get a check. Marilou now knows the old system didn't help her. She said, ``You can't just sit at home and do nothing. You have to get out and do something for yourself.'' She's absolutely right. Today, Marilou is not receiving any welfare assistance. When Belinda Mayer's ex-husband quit paying child support, she was left to care for a child, but was only earning $6 per hour. Belinda applied for welfare benefits so she could obtain a 2-year accounting degree from Western Dakota Technical Institute [WDTI] and, hopefully, find a better job. She continued to receive benefits while she went to school and was able to obtain child support. This May, Belinda graduated and found a job right away as a commercial service specialist with Norwest Bank in Sioux Falls. For Belinda, welfare reform is a very important issue. As she says, help should be there, ``but it should not become a crutch'' for people. Both of these women can look forward to a very stable, solid future for themselves and their families. I am very proud of their hard work and applaud their efforts. Their success is South Dakota's success. South Dakota has reached out to enable those in times of difficulty to regain control of their lives. These examples demonstrate that workfare is achieving success at the local level. South Dakota was fortunate to get its waiver approved to run a workfare program. Other States are still waiting for waiver approval. This waiver process reflects a basic problem: a one-size- fits-all system run by Federal bureaucrats. Welfare cannot be solved one waiver at a time. Federal bureaucrats have worked to preserve the current, failed system by being slow to approve State waivers. That must change. States should be given the flexibility to seek solutions and alternatives to welfare problems. I have more faith in South Dakotans' dedication to welfare reform than I do in Washington bureaucrats. Clearly, we need greater State flexibility also because there is not a grand, ``one-size'' solution to ending welfare dependency. Welfare reform programs in Oglala, Fort Thompson, or Rapid City, SD may not necessarily work in Los Angeles or New Orleans. South Dakota's welfare problems are unique, and even differ greatly from our nearest neighbors. My State has three of the five poorest counties in the country. We have some of the lowest wages in the country. We also have the highest percentage of welfare recipients who are Native Americans. In some reservation areas, unemployment runs higher than 80 percent. Long distances between towns and a lack of public transportation and quality child care are further barriers to gainful employment. To promote greater State flexibility, the bill before us would provide welfare assistance in the form of block grants to the States. Block grants would give States the freedom to craft solutions that best serve local needs. It has been proven time and again that Washington bureaucrats cannot understand unique local needs from thousands of miles away. The distance, both literally and figuratively, that separates Washington from our cities and towns prevents the most appropriate solutions from being tailored to our problems. Workfare is not just about restoring responsibility at the individual and State level, it is about protecting children in need. The workfare bill before us would ensure that children have quality food and shelter. This bill would increase our investment in child care by $4.5 billion and increase child protection and neglect funds by $200 million over current law. What this bill eliminates is cumbersome bureaucracy and needless regulations. The bill also would strengthen child support enforcement and give States new tools to crack down on deadbeat parents. These reforms represent the toughest child support laws ever passed by Congress. One woman in South Dakota has informed me that her ex-husband owes her thousands of dollars in overdue child support. For her and many other parents in the same difficult situation, this bill would help. The current system fosters illegitimacy and discourages marriage and parental responsibility. Real welfare reform should promote the basic family unit, and crack down on those who deliberately walk away from meeting the needs of their children. The disincentives to a sound family structure also must be changed. More and more children are growing up without the moral guidance and financial support of parents, especially fathers. This is a tragedy of our time. We also no longer can tolerate the blatant abuses of the system. Last year, I was shocked to learn the extent to which prisoners are able to continue to receiving welfare benefits. The workfare bill we passed last year included my amendment to crack down on prisoner welfare fraud. I am pleased this provision is in the current bill. It would put an end to cash payments to alcohol and drug addicts, which only subsidizes their habits. Several years ago, President Clinton promised America he would change welfare as we know it. Two years ago, Congress made the same promise. Last year Congress delivered on that promise and passed workfare. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that workfare bill. I hope the President will do the right thing this time and support our workfare legislation. Again, I am proud to be part of this effort to enact workfare legislation. The workfare bill before us would end welfare dependency by requiring work and placing a time limit on benefits. We can change the welfare system and encourage people to become self-sufficient and productive members of society, once again. We can provide more protection for children. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will show the same support for workfare that we demonstrated last year. Americans deserve more than a handout for today, they deserve the hope and happiness that come through personal financial independence and the self-realization of work.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am very concerned as to how the current airport safety situation may affect smaller airports. We certainly want our citizens who must fly in smaller airplanes with smaller companies to be safe. On the other hand, we do not want such an expensive layer of regulations that these smaller planes and smaller companies cannot operate because of prohibitive costs. As we go forward with improving safety, I think of the smaller airports in South Dakota where people must fly in smaller aircraft and with smaller companies. We must keep those safe. We must meet the same standards applying to larger aircraft and larger companies. But let us remember that one size does not fit all. In achieving these safety goals, let us be certain we keep in mind the smaller airports of our country. This is a concern not only in South Dakota but also in Fresno, CA, for example, where I have relatives. People must fly in smaller aircraft if they are going to travel from Los Angeles to Fresno. Upstate New York has the same situation. If you are going to fly to Martha's Vineyard, you probably fly on a smaller aircraft. So the point is that as we move forward quickly in possibly implementing new regulations, let us be certain we keep in mind the fact that at least half of Americans must originate their flights in what we call smaller airports. I certainly want them to be considered in this process.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention the outstanding efforts of a young man from my home State. Ryan Maher is a senior from Isabel High School in Isabel, SD. Recently, Ryan placed second in his region and first in the State competitions to advance to the national competition for National History Day. National History Day is a 5-day event held in June at the University of Maryland in College Park. The annual competition is now entering its third decade. Today, 400,000 students and 50,000 teachers and media specialists participate. National History Day is an excellent way to encourage students to be more active in learning United States history. Every year National History Day is centered around a specific theme. The theme of this year's competition was ``Taking a Stand.'' There are two levels of competition, the junior level is 6th through 8th grades and the senior division includes grades 9 through 12. Categories include research paper, group or individual presentation, display presentation, or performance. Ryan competed in the senior division with a display presentation entitled, ``Dakota Farmer: Battling the Elements.'' Like other students who were a part of the competition, he spent countless hours researching and developing his project. He incorporated interviews with his grandfather and other farmers from the area, together with old photographs, to tell the history of working South Dakota land. Ryan became interested in the subject after he had written a paper on farming and the dust bowl years of the thirties. This was the second time Ryan participated in the nationwide competition. Ryan won the honor of having his project displayed in the Smithsonian Museum of American History on Wednesday, June 12, 1996. Projects were judged on several criteria, including relation to annual theme, analysis of information, and historical perspective. The honor of having one's work displayed in the Smithsonian Museum of American History and earning the trip to our Nation's Capital are great rewards to students such as Ryan. I highly commend Ryan Maher for his outstanding academic efforts.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, July 18, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on S. 1043, the Natural Disaster Protection and Insurance Act.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to take another step in my overall maritime reform agenda, the International Ocean Shipping Act of 1996. Last October, I introduced S. 1356, a companion bill to H.R. 2149. I did so to begin Senate discussion of this important reform proposal. In November, I chaired a Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on the bill. The hearing revealed numerous issues affecting all segments of the liner ocean shipping industry that required further consideration. Today, I am submitting an amendment (No. 4904) to S. 1356. By so doing, I am putting out for public comment a proposed refined version of the bill which would institute comprehensive reforms in how the Federal Government regulates the liner trade in the foreign commerce of the United States. This amendment addresses the concerns raised in the November hearing. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gorton, Lott, Hutchison, Inouye, Exon, and Breaux as cosponsors in this amendment. This bipartisan approach demonstrates just how serious we are about achieving meaningful reform. The House has passed its version of ocean shipping reform legislation. The Senate does not have much time left in this Congress to make its mark on this issue. I intend to hold a hearing on this legislation in the near future. With the support of my fellow Commerce Committee members and other Senators, we can pass ocean shipping reform legislation this year. Mr. President, 95 percent of U.S. foreign commerce is transported via ocean shipping. Approximately half of this amount is shipped in bulk form, e.g., oil, grain, chemicals, etc., on an unregulated vessel charter basis. The remainder is shipped by container on liner vessels-- regularly scheduled service--under the Shipping Act of 1984, as regulated by the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC]. As the international liner shipping trade has evolved since 1984, many industry segments have requested changes in the Shipping Act of 1984 to keep pace with this evolution. My amendment, the International Ocean Shipping Act of 1996, would improve the Shipping Act of 1984 in several key areas. First, it would eliminate the filing of common carrier tariffs with the Federal Government. Instead of requiring Government approval, tariffs would become effective upon publication through private systems. My amendment also would increase tariff rate flexibility by easing restrictions on tariff rate changes and independent action by conference carriers. Second, it would allow for greater flexibility in service contracting by shippers and ocean common carriers. The amendment would allow individual ocean common carriers and shippers to negotiate confidential service contracts. It also would allow shippers' associations and ocean freight forwarders to negotiate service contracts as shippers. Third, responsibility for enforcing U.S. ocean shipping laws would be shifted to the Surface Transportation Board, which would be renamed the Intermodal Transportation Board. The Federal Maritime Commission would be terminated at the end of fiscal year 1997. A single independent agency would then administer domestic surface, rail, and water transportation and international ocean transportation regulations. The Government would catch up to the carriers and shippers, who are already thinking intermodally. Finally, the Intermodal Transportation Board would be given new tools to address predatory pricing ocean common carriers while ensuring increased competition in the industry.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Wednesday, July 17, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on Federal Aviation Administration safety oversight.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Amendments Act of 1996. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lott and Inouye, chairman and ranking member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. This is a bipartisan technical corrections bill and I urge its swift passage. Before I explain the purpose of this legislation, I want to provide some history on intermodal container shipments in order for my colleagues to better understand the time-sensitive nature of the bill we are introducing today. Let me explain. Intermodal containers are used throughout the world to transport cargo by ship, rail, and highway. These containers facilitate the timely movement of imports and exports. More often than not, they pose no overweight concerns while transported by ship or rail. However, if a container is too heavy, it can cause problems when transferred to a truck. In some cases, trucks carrying heavy containers end up on our Nation's highways operating in violation of vehicle weight regulations. This can damage our highway infrastructure and reduce highway safety for the traveling public. In an effort to mitigate these problems, Congress enacted the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act of 1992. The purpose of that law was to require shippers to provide a carrier involved in intermodal transportation with a certification of the gross cargo weight of the intermodal container prior to accepting the shipment. This information, including weight and a general cargo description, should assist the operator in determining whether transporting a particular container could result in violations of highway gross weight or axle weight regulations. Without the communication of this information, the trucker has no way of knowing whether he or she may be operating an overweight vehicle. In short, the act let the trucker beware. Mr. President, the 1992 act has yet to be implemented. Final Regulations were issued by the Department of Transportation [DOT] in December 1994. However, significant concerns about implementation were raised by shippers and carriers, causing DOT to reassess its final rule and implementation was delayed until September 1, 1996. Unfortunately, the implementation as currently proposed could have devastating consequences on intermodal transportation. At best, shipments of intermodal cargo will be late in reaching their destination. At worst, a complete backlog of shipments and severe gridlock at our Nation's ports will result. Many of these operational concerns could be alleviated by administrative action. Yet, DOT informs us that some of the issues can only be resolved by legislation. That is why we are introducing this bill today. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I want to assure my colleagues that the sponsors of today's technical corrections proposal are very concerned about the lengthy delay in implementing the 1992 law. As I said earlier, overweight vehicles negate safety and cause severe damage to our Nation's highway infrastructure. We need to help our motor carrier operators receive information to prevent overweight carriage. That is the intent of the 1992 act. That congressional intent must be carried forward during implementation. Indeed, we are all frustrated over the delays. We also are frustrated that the various industry concerns have not been brought to our attention far earlier to facilitate a timely legislative resolution. However, in the past few weeks, we worked with representatives from all of the affected groups, including shippers, motor carriers, rail carriers, and ocean carriers. We also requested and received input from the administration and safety advocates. After many meetings and lengthy discussions, we have developed what I consider to be a very sound and reasonable technical amendments bill. Of course, we also are willing to consider further refinements and other suggestions. Nonetheless, our goal is to ensure the long overdue implementation of the 1992 1ct can be responsibly carried out as soon as possible. This technical corrections bill also is designed to reduce unnecessary paperwork by allowing greater use of electronic interchange technology to expedite the transfer of information. Moreover, it provides incentives to encourage the private sector to comply with overweight container regulations. Our bill raises the intermodal container weight threshold requiring certification from 10,000 to 29,000 pounds. Studies have concluded the new threshold weight will still prevent gross vehicle weight violations while eliminating unnecessary compliance burdens that would otherwise be imposed on smaller shipments. Because the 1992 enacted trigger was not based on any conclusive data concerning gross vehicle weight or axle weight limitations, we feel it is appropriate to institute a more appropriate level for certification. In fact, Federal Highway Administration officials have confirmed the new trigger provision would be quite sufficient to effectively meet the intent of the 1992 act. Finally, the bill would clarify liability for failing to provide the certification or transferring the information during the intermodal movement. It ensures the party responsible for the failure is the party liable for the costs incurred for overweight violations. Clearly, it is important for my colleagues to understand the technical changes proposed by this bill. It is equally important, however, for my colleagues to understand what this bill does not do. Given the limited time left in this legislative session, we simply cannot afford to fall victim to misconceptions or misrepresentations of this measure. This bill does not make any changes to regulations or enforcement of laws concerning the carriage, documentation, placarding, or handling of hazardous materials transportation. It does not allow for an increase in Federal truck gross vehicle weights nor affect State enforcement of such regulations in any way. And, the bill does not affect truck axle weight regulations either. The bill meets the objectives of the 1992 act, but reduces unnecessary compliance burdens and service disruptions. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to recognize the urgency for moving this measure forward expeditiously. I also urge the administration to work diligently to address those problematic areas which do not need legislative action. Working together, we can advance the safety of our Nation's roads and highways. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.