Larry Pressler

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.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I would like to express my continued support for Federal student financial aid programs. I relied on student loans to fund my college education at the University of South Dakota, so I understand the importance of these loans for students and families. Low income levels should not deny young people the opportunity to achieve their dream of a college education. Programs such as Stafford loans, Pell Grants, and work study programs enable young people to fulfill that dream and pursue their ultimate dreams of personal and professional success. One of the great challenges for American families is the rising cost of a college education. For the past two decades, tuition costs have risen twice as fast as inflation. Financial aid has not kept pace with these soaring price increases. The result? More and more students and their families are struggling to pay for college today. In my home State of South Dakota, 83 percent of students attending public colleges receive some type of Federal financial aid. As the number of students receiving loans continues to grow, the overall student aid debt accumulates along with it. Even more of a concern, the rising cost of tuition increases the size of the debt students pay off after college. South Dakota students now graduate with an average debt of more than $10,000. This means that college graduates are forced to divert a higher share of their earnings in order to pay off their student debts. Students struggle to find ways to pay off these huge debts. Increasingly, they work while attending school. This trend tends to deflate the student's educational experience. I am pleased the Republican budget that passed Congress earlier this year would respond to these trends. The budget includes responsible, cost-efficient reforms to student financial aid programs. These programs can be improved without harming the actual aid levels that students depend on. Reform can be achieved by eliminating small, specialized scholarship programs and Federal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, liberal interests have tried to use the issue of student financial aid to their benefit. They have used false propaganda to scare young people and their parents. I urge Americans to look at the facts, not the falsehoods. The Republican plan for student aid would increase the amount of aid available to students, while downsizing inefficient Federal bureaucracy. The Republican budget for student financial aid would do three things. First, it would increase the maximum Pell Grant level to $2,470--the highest level ever. Second, it would maintain current funding levels for the Federal Work-Study Program and the supplemental education opportunity grants. Lastly, it would maintain the in-school interest subsidy and postgraduation grace period for all students. I am proud we were able to maintain this funding during these tough budget times. Student aid is a priority in this Congress. We could provide more for student aid if we abolished the Clinton administration's wasteful, expensive direct lending program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers would save more than $1.5 billion over 7 years if the direct lending program were abolished. Faceless bureaucrats in Washington are not able to provide students and families in South Dakota with the same personal service offered by hometown banks and credit unions. This is just common sense. The people of South Dakota greatly prefer one-on-one consultation with a small bank or credit union in their hometown, not the endless maze of redtape that accompanies the direct-lending program. This is another example of how the Clinton administration believes big government is the answer and should be involved in our daily lives. Frankly the single best way to show our support for student financial aid programs and most importantly, for our children, is to balance the budget and reduce the massive national debt. These issues are entwined. Young people today stand to inherit the responsibility of the national debt, which now totals $5 trillion. Interest payments on the debt alone are a considerable burden--more than $200 billion each year and rising. As the interest grows, it diverts Federal resources from programs like student financial aid. A balanced budget would protect worthwhile Government programs, reduce the debt and the size of interest payments. Just as important, it would lower overall interest rates, and increase more jobs. This means college graduates would have an easier time to find that first job, buy that first home, pay off their student loans, and provide for their children. I believe the continuation of student financial aid programs is vital. These programs not only give students the opportunity to receive an education that is essential in today's society, but they also allow America to keep a competitive edge in competition in our increasingly global economy. It is essential that the U.S. work force be an educated one that is ready to compete with other countries of the world. Providing adequate financial support for students will achieve this essential goal. Young people should have the opportunity to fulfill their potential and achieve their dreams. I will continue fighting for affordable, accessible student financial aid programs and to secure a better future for the young people of South Dakota.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on March 28, 1996, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act. A report on the bill was filed on May 23, 1996. At that time, the committee was unable to provide a cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. On July 8, 1996, the accompanying letter was received from the Congressional Budget Office, and I now make it available to the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today, I had the pleasure of participating in the launch of Cable's High-Speed Education Connection, the cable industry's latest contribution to the American educational system and America's children. At the heart of this initiative is a commitment by the cable industry to offer every elementary and secondary school in the country that is passed by cable, basic high- speed Internet access via cable modems--free of charge. For years, the computer industry has offered greatly discounted pricing on hardware and software to schools, universities, teachers, and students. This same industry is arguably both the most successful and the least regulated in the United States. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, one of my primary goals in authoring the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to apply this competitive formula to the telecommunications industry. I am convinced it is a formula for success. This formula creates a world in which different telecommunications companies can compete with each other in the delivery of new services to American consumers. I was especially interested in breaking up the local exchange monopolies and encouraging new entrants to provide alternative telephone services and television programming. I congratulate the cable industry for rapidly taking the lead in demonstrating how this newly competitive environment accelerates the provision to students and teachers of access to the latest and best educational technologies. What will be the result? Elementary and secondary schools will be wired for cable. They also will be equipped with modems maximizing the delivery of high-speed digital services. These developments very positively impact the future of learning--including the development of distance learning--which particularly helps rural States like South Dakota. In fact, I understand that among the first cable markets targeted for these new services will be Rapid City, SD. These wired schools will expose young generations to some of the best of cable technology. They will create sophisticated users of the next generation of cable information services. They will help create masters of the information age. So, what we witness here is not the result of Government's decision as to which technology should be mandated for low cost delivery to schools. We witness instead the initial stages of a competition for the loyalty and attention of future adult generations in their decisions about which services best accommodate their needs. Mr. President, I am pleased that the cable industry is taking the initiative today to provide American schools--free of charge--with high-speed access to the Internet using cable modems. Cable's High- Speed Education Connection builds on the foundation established by Cable in the Classroom, an ongoing multimillion dollar educational project that provides more than 74,000 schools nationwide with free access to cable systems and more than 6,000 hours of commercial-free educational programming each year. The cable industry is to be commended for being a leader in providing educational benefits and network access to the communities it serves. I encourage other companies and industries to follow the example the cable industry announced today and applaud what likely is only the first step by the cable industry to improve the quality and availability of education technology.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee-- the so-called managers' amendment. I just want to take a moment to comment on a few of the provisions of the amendment that are very important to churches and ministers in my home State of South Dakota. Specifically, there are three provisions in the managers' amendment that are taken from S. 881, the Church Retirement Benefits Simplification Act, introduced by friends and colleagues from Iowa and Arkansas, Senators Grassley and Pryor. This bill already has 34 cosponsors. One of the provisions in S. 881 was included in the House- passed version of the underlying legislation we are considering today. This provision would respond to the Internal Revenue Service retreat from its four-decade-old policy of not taxing parsonage allowances paid to retired clergy. The provision would clarify that all retirement benefits of clergy are not subject to self- employment taxes. The three additional provisions of S. 881 that are included in the managers' amendment address the churches' concerns regarding the treatment of chaplains and foreign missionaries and the application of nondiscrimination rules designed for secular employers to church pension plans. First, the manager's amendment would clarify that chaplains may continue to participate in denominational pension plans. Under current law, chaplains who work outside the church, serving in hospitals, jails, and other secular organizations, are not expressly allowed to participate in their denomination's pension plan. Often, chaplains may leave their church to work in a secular organization for only a brief period of time, and it makes little sense for Congress to force those chaplains to participate in the secular pension plan instead of the denominational one. The managers' amendment simply would clarify that chaplains may participate in their denomination's plan without inadvertently violating pension coverage and related rules. Second, the managers' amendment would facilitate the ability of foreign missionaries to participate in their denominational pension plan. This amendment would promote sound retirement policy while also benefiting the foreign missionaries who are America's humanitarian emissaries abroad. Finally, the managers' amendment would authorize the Secretary to develop a safe harbor from the nondiscrimination rules for those church plans that were left out when Congress exempted most church plans from the same nondiscrimination rules. Although the IRS has issued a self- imposed moratorium on enforcement of these nondiscrimination rules for church plans, that moratorium ends soon. This amendment would give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to develop a safe harbor plan for the pension plans of the Catholic dioceses, the Episcopalian Church, and the Presbyterian Church. These churches simply do not have the infrastructure to prove compliance with the nondiscrimination rules which apply to secular employers. Again, I want to commend the two managers--Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan--for their assistance in addressing the concerns of the churches in this legislation. Thanks to their leadership, we can correct and clarify the laws to ensure that they not unduly burden church retirement plans and the clergy and lay workers who participate in them.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am proud to coauthor this amendment with Senator Ford. This small change in the impact aid formula corrects a large discrepancy in the program. Current law discriminates against small districts, which are often located in rural areas. Districts can be eligible for impact aid based on the number of civilian b kids in the district. These children have parents who either work or live on Federal land. A district is eligible for impact aid if it has at least 2,000 students and 15 percent of the students are civilian b children. The amendment before us today would allow districts to qualify for the program if the district has at least 1,000 children or 10 percent of the students are civilian b children. Changing ``and'' to ``or'' is an important distinction for small districts. Mr. President, few school districts in South Dakota have 2,000 students. Small districts are no less federally impacted than large ones. They are equally deserving of impact aid funds. This amendment would allow additional districts into the program, but it would not decrease payments to current section 8003 schools. This section of the program received an increased appropriation last year, so we are working with a larger-sized pie than in previous years. Additionally, payments to all schools in section 8003 will be reconfigured when the hold harmless provision for this section expires in fiscal year 1997. Many school districts will receive lower payments when the formula agreed to in the 1994 reauthorization is fully phased in. The drop in payments to these schools frees up additional dollars for the small districts gaining eligibility with this amendment. This is a fairness issue. I am pleased that small school districts will now receive equal support. This amendment enjoys widespread, bipartisan support. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting it today.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, in recent months the Government of Japan publicly has indicated its desire to move forward in United States-Japan aviation relations by expanding air service opportunities. Given that Japan is our second largest aviation trading partner overseas and is the gateway to the booming Asia-Pacific market, these statements are encouraging news for consumers on both sides of the Pacific. Regrettably, Japan's actions speak much louder than its words. While Japan certainly talks about progress, it has prevented any real progress from taking place by continuing to prohibit several of our carriers from serving various United States-Asia markets via Japan despite a clear right to do so guaranteed by the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement. In fact, Japanese negotiators seem more intent on protecting intra-Asian air service markets for Japanese carriers by blocking out United States carrier competitors than they are in opening the United States-Japan aviation market. That certainly was evident in air service talks earlier this month in Tokyo. Japanese negotiators must make a choice. They must choose between progress or protectionism. More fundamentally, Japan must choose whether to embrace the future of global air service or unwisely cling to the past. In our ongoing air service talks with the Japanese, the United States is rightly requiring the Japanese to make that choice: Japan must meet its present obligations and stop wrongly protecting its air service markets before a new treaty can be discussed. Other countries faced with that same decision overwhelmingly have chosen progress. Over the past 2 years, over 20 nations have signed more liberal aviation accords with the United States. No wonder. The economic benefits flowing from an opening of air service opportunities can be enormous. Our recent phased-in open skies agreement with Canada dramatically makes this point. Since that signing, the United States- Canada aviation market has generated an additional 1 million passengers and a remarkable $2 billion in economic activity on both sides of the border. In terms of enhanced consumer choice, nearly 50 city-pair markets have received first time scheduled service and another 14 city- pair markets have received additional competition. These benefits will surely grow as the remaining barriers are phased out. In fact, the United States Department of Transportation estimates from 1995 through 2000, the cumulative economic benefits of this accord to both countries will be $15 billion. In contrast, some countries such as France have chosen protectionism thereby foregoing the economic benefits of further liberalization. While air service markets around France have grown significantly in recent years as those countries have opened their markets, the French air service market has been stagnant. In fact, last year combined passenger traffic at the two major Paris airports fell nearly 1 percent. Is it any wonder Air France has accumulated losses totaling $3.3 billion since 1990, and continues to have operating costs among the highest in the world? As the French experience unmistakably shows, in today's global economy a protectionist air service policy is economic folly. Fortunately, most countries are rejecting the protectionist path. For instance, most recently 18 member economies of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] organization voted specifically to add aviation to the list of core industries designated for liberalization, and the European Union has been given a limited mandate by member States to negotiate an open skies agreement with the United States. Nevertheless, there are major United States trading partners in addition to France, such as Japan and the United Kingdom, that continue to resist change. Madam President, in Japan's case the reasons are evident. For nearly two decades cost inefficiency has caused Japanese carriers to become less competitive and to lose their market share even on Asian and Pacific routes that are not open to significant competition. Japan's chief aviation policy makers at the Ministry of Transportation [MOT] have responded to the challenge negatively, creating operational obstacles for U.S. carriers and demanding increasingly restrictive limitations on its originally open 1952 Air Transport Agreement with the United States. And therein lies the heart of the problem confronting the United States delegation in the aviation talks. The issue is both philosophical and economic. Japan is convinced its airlines cannot compete for Asian markets whose annual passenger volume is expected to triple--and account for more than half the world's traffic--by 2010. The United States, on the other hand, has to be concerned that, as the Economic Strategy Institute concluded recently, the loss of its competitive aviation presence in the booming Asia-Pacific market would cost this country $5 billion in trade receipts annually and hundreds of thousands of United States jobs. Incredibly, the MOT's approach--in contradiction to the Japanese Government's stated goal in virtually all other sectors--is to eliminate competition from highly cost-efficient United States airlines. In pursuit of this short-sighted policy, the MOT has threatened sanctions to penalize carriers that are only exercising their rights. Thus, Japan is caught in a trap. The restrictions it has imposed over the years have prevented its airlines from becoming more efficient, and now the MOT believes it has to protect them if they are to compete in Asia. Nonetheless, to the United States, the MOT's intransigence poses a series of inescapable dilemmas. It cannot ignore Japan's refusal to abide by the 1952 agreement without setting a very dangerous precedent for all of our other international agreements. It cannot concede more treaty modifications or restrictions without surrendering the few rights left to United States carriers and accepting Japanese control over the United States presence in many United States/Asian aviation markets. It cannot stand passively by while Japanese carriers expand service in those very same markets to which United States carriers are wrongly denied access. And, ultimately, the United States cannot yield to Japan's protectionist policy without abandoning its long-standing commitment to the principle that open competition in a free market environment is the only way to advance the best interests of consumers, countries, communities, and carriers that together shape a global and interdependent economy. Thus far, United States negotiators are standing firm in defending that critically important principle despite intense pressure exerted by Japan directly and indirectly. As the talks proceed, our representatives deserve our complete support. We can hope only that their efforts will lead to Japan's realization that protectionism is inevitably an obsolete trading weapon capable of serving no one but of causing great harm.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I would like to address a subject that has received much attention during the last several weeks--the future of our children. As a father myself, I share the concerns of the many who recently marched on The Mall this month at the Stand for Children rally. Certainly, parents, families, teachers, and community leaders all agree that children should be protected and nurtured. This is a universal sentiment. We all stand for children. Every child deserves a safe and loving environment, adequate nutrition and a full education. Child poverty and its related problems, such as hunger, certainly deserve our attention. Child poverty is an especially pressing problem in South Dakota, where unemployment in some areas reaches as high as 85 percent. According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 17 percent of all South Dakota children live in poverty, compared to 21 percent nationwide. Federal programs are designed to address these issues and many states like South Dakota are doing an admirable job. Child poverty has dropped 3 percent in my State since 1985. Looking out for the best interests of children is not a partisan issue. The budgets passed in Congress demonstrate that we are protecting children. Child nutrition programs received an increase in this fiscal year-- the National School Lunch program was increased by $173 million, the School Breakfast program by $107 million, the Women, Infants and Children program by $260 million. Head Start also was increased by $36 million. These increases mean that hundreds of additional children in South Dakota will receive the sustenance they need. The increases in school-based nutrition programs are especially beneficial. They allow children to concentrate on what is really important--learning. Clearly, Congress is making good on its commitment to the youngest and most vulnerable in our society. The single greatest issue affecting our children's future though, is the Federal budget. Our $5 trillion debt threatens the quality of life of future generations on many fronts. Skyrocketing interest payments on our national debt will continue to squeeze out funding for other legitimate Federal programs, such as child care or foster care. We must take immediate action to control deficit spending to preserve our school lunch or Title I programs for future generations. Budget deficits darken our children's economic future as well. We need a balanced budget to lower interest rates, spur economic development and create jobs. Lower interest rates will make a college education and a first home more affordable. I was very disappointed that liberals in the Senate once again rejected the Balanced Budget Amendment. This is a moral issue. A balanced budget represents real hope and opportunity for all Americans. I continuously have supported a balanced budget, as well as a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Our $5 trillion debt burden is an albatross that our children will be forced to carry. Having just celebrated Father's Day, I would like to give my daughter, and all other children, the gift of freedom from our national debt. Balancing the budget, preserving programs like school lunch and Head Start, providing real hope and opportunity for future generations-- that's how we can stand for children. All are not mutually exclusive goals. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the months ahead to ensure that we in Congress demonstrate a strong, bipartisan commitment to children.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this fall, the United Nations will select its chief executive, the Secretary General. Under U.N. rules, the U.N. Security Council recommends a candidate who is subject to the approval of the entire General Assembly. As a member of the Security Council, the United States obviously has an important role in this process. It is my understanding that the current Secretary General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has indicated that he may seek reelection to another 5-year term. With all due respect to the Secretary General, I do not believe it is in our Nation's interest, nor the overall interests of the United Nations, that Mr. Boutros-Ghali be given a second term. Indeed, the United States should make clear early on that it will not support Mr. Boutros-Ghali this fall. For the sake of the future credibility of the United Nations, it is in our Nation's best interests for the United States to actively support a candidate for Secretary General who is committed to a major management overhaul of the United Nations. Mr. Boutros-Ghali is not. I often speak of the need for U.N. reform, but I must confess most of my criticism has been of the Boutros-Ghali administration. Most would agree that U.S.-U.N. relations are at an all-time low. The American people's confidence in the United Nations has declined. This is unfortunate. I support the United Nations. I served twice as a Senate delegate to the United Nations. I want to see the United Nations work. The fact is, it doesn't work. The problems with the United Nations are many, but the first and primary solution is sound management reform at the United Nations. I'm speaking of clear, concise, honest budgeting; systems to root out waste, fraud, and abuse; adequate protections for whistleblowers; and more streamlined, efficient operations. Instituting these reforms will require a major change in U.N. philosophy. Since its founding, the United Nations has been run largely by career diplomats. Tough fiscal management is not their style. Diplomats train for the grand world of treaties and receiving lines, not the grubby world of balance sheets and bottom lines. Mr. Boutros-Ghali reflects that basic philosophy. He has demonstrated antipathy at best, hostility at worst, toward reform proposals. One need only ask our former Attorney General, Richard Thornburgh, who served as the United Nations Undersecretary General for Administration and Management in 1992. Mr. Thornburgh took his mission seriously. He sought to institute major management reforms at the United Nations. He encountered no support from the Secretary General. When Mr. Thornburgh submitted a scathing report on U.N. mismanagement, the Secretary General refused to publish it and sought to have all known copies of it shredded. Mr. Boutros-Ghali certainly has tried to take credit for a number of reform initiatives. For the first time, the U.N. has a so-called inspector general--the Office of Internal Oversight Services [OIOS]-- which was established in 1994. He also may claim to have reduced unnecessary staff and produced the first no-growth budget in U.N. history. These are victories of mind, not of substance. Let's give credit where credit is due. The mere existence of the OIOS office and the attempts to achieve budget and management reforms were due largely to a combination of the following: increased media scrutiny of U.N. waste and abuse, strong congressional pressure, and tough reform advocates within the U.S. mission and certain other member nations. A close examination of the so-called reforms instituted at the United Nations show that the Secretary General is engaging more in a public relations embrace of reform, while keeping real reform at arm's length. First, I urge my colleagues to look closely at the OIOS office--the so-called U.N. inspector general. It has no authority to rid waste, fraud, and abuse, which inspectors-general in Federal departments and agencies have. The fact is the OIOS office is weak in terms of authority, and lacks the resources and the support needed from the Secretariat to do its job effectively. It cannot investigate all areas of U.N. operations. Member states do not have full access to IG reports and investigations. The IG can make recommendations for reform, but it's up to the U.N. Secretary General to act on the recommendations. Second, the Secretary General has stated that he has reduced the number of Under Secretaries General and Assistant Secretaries General. However, he has increased the numbers of and the budget for equivalent- level special envoys. Chances are he's playing musical chairs with his senior staff. He's changing the titles on the chairs, when he should be removing the chairs and the people sitting in them. Third, the Secretary-General's claim to have cut U.N. staff by 10 percent, or nearly 1,000 positions, also is smoke and mirrors. About 750 of these slots currently are vacant and will go unfilled on a month-to-month basis. The Secretary General refuses to permanently eliminate these positions. The roughly 200 other positions to be cut are clerical positions that the U.N. already planned to eliminate when it passed its budget last year. What the Secretary General did not point out is that his budget adds 125 professional positions, which typically cost 40 percent more than the clerical positions to be eliminated. Fourth, the United Nations much heralded 2-year, no-growth budget is not living up to its billing. The goal was to cap budget spending at $2.608 billion over 2 years. Any new expenses not anticipated or budgeted would require corresponding offsets in order to stay under the $2.608 cap. The Secretary General already is months behind in submitting a proposal of budget reductions needed to stay under the cap. Most important, the United Nations is not even halfway through its budget cycle and already the Secretary General has indicated that the United Nations may not be able to stay under the budget cap. In fact, the U.S. Representative for Reform and Management appeared before the United Nations Fifth Committee last month and stated the U.S. delegation's concern with the Secretary General's latest budget report: it ``implies an inability to stay within the $2.608 billion budget level * * *'' Finally, I must take issue with statements made by the Secretary General that the United Nations current financial problems are due to the failure of the United States to make good on its U.N. payments. Unfortunately, the Secretary General is confusing the disease's symptoms with its causes. Yes, the United Nations is in a financial crisis. However, it's a crisis of the United Nations own making. For more than a decade, beginning with the great work of the Senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum, the U.S. Congress has made U.N. reform a high priority. U.N. leadership has fought this effort. That leaves Congress little choice but to use our leverage as the single largest U.N. contributor to achieve U.N. reform goals. It's a tough approach. It's not the one I would prefer using, but it is the only means currently available to us, and it has had some success. I want to see the United States make good on our current U.N. debts. That can't happen without a clear, substantive reform agenda in place at the United Nations. It's worth the wait. Frankly, it's far better to hold a portion of our taxpayer dollars here in Washington until reforms are achieved, rather than send them down a black hole of waste, fraud and abuse. Yes, we in Congress have an obligation to support the U.N., but our first obligation is to the American taxpayer. Our taxpayers deserve to know that their money is being managed prudently and effectively by the U.N. leadership. That is not being done. Mr. President, a fresh approach, a fresh perspective on U.N. leadership with an emphasis on responsible management practices is needed. Real reform at the United Nations will not occur without an overall fundamental change in the management philosophy at the United Nations. This fact was noted in the U.N. IG's first report, which noted that ``while the need for * * *. structural reform is widely acknowledged, the energy to bring it about is in short supply.'' What that means is the United Nations needs tough, well-trained administrators at all levels of management. That's particularly true in peacekeeping missions, where waste and abuse traditionally is high. I'm not suggesting more U.N. bureaucracy. The United Nations either should train those currently within the United Nations who have the skills and the desire to be tough administrators, or replace the less effective ones with people with the experience to do the job. In short, what is required is a complete management overhaul at the United Nations. Like any organization, the tone and direction in management starts at the top. I hope the Clinton administration recognizes this. The United States needs to make clear that we seek a real, fundamental change in U.N. leadership. New leadership just may be the sparkplug the United Nations needs to restore its credibility in the eyes of Congress and the American people. Again, I support the United Nations. If managed effectively, the United Nations can be a sound, cost-effective investment in the advancement of global economic development, human rights, and world peace. I hope the intense criticism of management practices in recent years will jar the United Nations members to realize that sound management is vital to the United Nations long-term credibility. Management reform cannot by itself ensure that the United Nations will be both credible and successful, but without it, it does not stand a chance. New leadership is needed.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am submitting a senate concurrent resolution along with an identical concurrent resolution to be submitted in the other body. Yesterday, Wednesday, June 12, the committee I am proud to chair, the Senate Commerce Committee, held a subcommittee hearing on the vital importance of making strong encryption available so that future electronic services will come into being. Indeed, the very future of the Internet hangs in the balance with respect to the availability of strong encryption. But at that hearing, I noted that I'm an industrial age man trying to make sense of the current information age we now find ourselves in. I'm an industrial age legislator making decisions about information age issues. This, of course, describes almost everyone else in the Senate and in the House, so at least I am not alone. But it is this dynamic, where industrial age legislators are making information age decisions, that has caused us to found the Congressional Internet Caucus. We all know that the Internet will change beyond all imagining the way we will all work and play. Already, tens of millions of Americans are using the Internet to communicate and to conduct important business. Cyberspace has even become important in politics, where it is now a vital tool in many areas. Congress has to be computer and Internet literate if we are to be a Congress for the 21st century. This is why we have founded the Congressional Internet Caucus. It is our intention to try to help to provide for our other congressional colleagues navigation tools with which to find their way across the information landscape. And that is why today we, the founding members of the Internet Caucus, are introducing this joint concurrent resolution on the Internet in both the House and the Senate today. This House and Senate concurrent resolution urges our colleagues to get on-line and use the Net. It calls on Members of Congress to develop a better personnel understanding of the Net and how it operates. And, finally, it calls on Congress to start to use the Net in order to better communicate with the voters of this country. The Internet and other information technology issues will only grow in importance as time goes by. Congress will be seeing more and more issues coming before it involving these new information technologies. We'd better be prepared. This concurrent resolution is a good beginning step in that direction.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last year the Clinton administration asked Congress for the authority to allow United States military equipment to be delivered to Pakistan. Since 1990, such deliveries were not allowed because of a 1985 law known as the Pressler amendment, which prohibited any United States Assistance to Pakistan if the President failed to certify Pakistan was not in possession of a nuclear explosive device. My colleagues may recall that we debated this issue quite extensively. It was very controversial. In the end, despite strong opposition from this Senator and many of my colleagues, the Senate approved the so-called Brown amendment, which authorized the transfer of military equipment and repealed the Pressler amendment's prohibitions on nonmilitary aid to Pakistan. The Brown amendment became law earlier this year. To bolster the Clinton administration's request, Under Secretary of State Peter Tarnoff sent a letter to Members of Congress on August 3, 1995, when the Senate first debated the Brown amendment. Secretary Tarnoff attempted to assure Senators that the administration's support of the Brown amendment would be conditional on ``no significant change on nuclear and missile non-proliferation issues of concern to the United States.'' Mr. President, that was then. On February 22, 1996, Dr. John Deutch, the Director of Central Intelligence, testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Director Deutch confirmed earlier reports that Pakistan had taken delivery of sensitive nuclear technology used to develop weapons-grade uranium. He also confirmed that Pakistan had received M- 11 ballistic missiles from China. My colleagues will recall that when we debated the Brown amendment, there was some dispute over whether Pakistan had in fact taken delivery of the M-11 missiles. Director Deutch's testimony was the first time a Clinton administration official publicly confirmed the existence of the M-11s. In my view, this development should have halted the delivery of the military equipment to Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration did not consider the acquisition of this nuclear technology to be, in Secretary Tarnoff's words, a ``significant change on nuclear and missile non- proliferation issues of concern to the United States.'' Mr. President, this morning's Washington Times reveals that Pakistan has done more than just take possession of the M-11's. The Times reported that the M-11 missiles in Pakistan are operational and nuclear capable. If this account is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, Pakistan now has a complete, modern, nuclear weapons delivery system. Mr. President, first of all, in spite of a string of pious promises and written agreements to the United States, China has demonstrated a severe lack of international responsibility. By providing both nuclear technology and the means to deliver nuclear weapons, Chinese Government-owned companies have contributed to a vast escalation of tensions between Pakistan and India. Director Deutch has pointed to the Indian subcontinent as the most worrisome area in the world. He's right. The more immediate question, Mr. President, is what is the United States going to do? At the time the Senate approved the Brown amendment, we were of the belief that Pakistan did not possess both the technology to produce weapons-grade uranium, and an operational nuclear weapons delivery system. That was then. This is now. I do not believe the Senate would have approved the Brown amendment had we known then what we know now. The Washington Times also reported that State Department officials attempted to water down or alter the intelligence reports regarding the M-11's, and also tried to prevent these reports from moving through normal intelligence channels. Apparently this was done to prevent sanctions from being enforced. This is a very serious allegation. In effect, Federal officials are being accused of blocking the law from being enforced. Frankly, Mr. President, the Washington Times story is astounding. It is no secret that I am an outspoken critic of the Clinton administration's nuclear nonproliferation policy, or lack thereof. Before today, I never thought the administration's credibility regarding nonproliferation goals in South Asia could get worse. I was wrong. I have written to President Clinton, asking that he enforce the nonproliferation laws he has sworn to uphold. I also have asked the President to withhold delivery of any military equipment authorized by the Brown amendment. Clearly, the conditions the Clinton administration made to Pakistan for its support of the Brown amendment have been violated to a degree unimaginable. I also intend to contact the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Specter, to request that the committee conduct a full investigation on the allegations raised involving the blocking or altering of intelligence reports by State Department officials. Finally, I intend to continue seeking the support of my colleagues to repeal the Brown amendment, and may offer an amendment to do just that in the near future. I think we have more than enough evidence to demonstrate why the Brown amendment should not have been passed. In my view, Congress was badly misled last year relative to Pakistan's nuclear arms development and delivery capability. My bill, which already has several cosponsors, would restore the supremacy of our nuclear nonproliferation laws. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of today to President Clinton and a Washington Times article by Bill Gertz be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like 5 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to our friend, Bob Dole. It has been my pleasure over the years to hold over 30 joint meetings with him in my State, in my time as a Congressman and as a Senator and when he was running for South Dakota's early primary. There were at least 30 meetings. I learned a great deal from Bob's service, and I learned that his tireless energy was always an inspiration to me. In fact, he would always shake hands with everybody at the end of those meetings, regardless of how long it took. But he offered a great deal of substance when somebody asked him a complicated question. He would give the full Senate answer, so to speak. I believe that he will go down as one of the great Members of this Chamber, in terms of legislative accomplishments and contributions. I was one of the first Senators to commit to him for majority leader or minority leader--whichever was the case, because at the time we did not know for sure. I was one of the first Senators to endorse him for President. I think his career in the Senate represents the best of Senate life. I guess everybody knows about his wit and his determination. I could never believe or comprehend how he had so much energy. He literally went 7 days a week. He would be as energetic on Sunday night when he was coming back to Washington. I also visited at least 15 States with him during the time he was a Presidential candidate or chairman of the party or when I was a Congressman, and he did the same thing there, too. He was not a golfer or a tennis player. He just worked all the time. I have never seen anything like it. He would fill up the whole weekend with work and visits. To him, it was service. I just would not have that much energy because I need a day off now and then. I pay tribute to him because he is one of the great Members of this Chamber that I have served with, and it has been my pleasure to work side by side with him. I have a number of other reminiscences, which I will place in the Record. During this short time, let me also say that I have felt a great deal of friendship and still feel a great deal of friendship with Bob Dole. He is a person with whom I could always talk to if I was struggling in some of my campaigns, or whatever. He would always be there to help. Just recently, he invited me along on four stops in several States with him. His energy is as great as it has ever been. Bob Dole is a great man. He will be a great President, and I will miss him very much here in the Senate. It feels lonely around here without him already, without his quips, and so forth. I came in a little late at lunch today and he said, ``You are late, Pressler. We are going to count you late.'' He was full of quips all the time. I pay tribute to my friend, Bob Dole, a great U.S. Senator, who will be a great President.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the American Legion Auxiliary Unit No. 230 in Aurora, SD, for their actions to encourage democracy. The Pike-Huska Unit provided a forum for voters to meet the candidates for city council and learn more about each candidate's individual platform. As this election year evolves, we are reminded by the Pike-Huska American Legion Auxiliary of the importance of voter education and participation. I believe citizens should closely follow the voting records of their elected officials and keep up on current events. An informed electorate is central to maintaining a truly representative democracy. It is no wonder South Dakotans historically have one of the highest voter participation rates in the Nation--South Dakotans are active believers in democracy. I ask unanimous consent that the information sent to me by the organization's secretary, Margaret Allstot, be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I also report favorably two nomination lists in the Coast Guard, which were printed in full in the Congressional Records on April 19, and May 22, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to buy American beef. The bill would extend this requirement also to the School Breakfast Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP]. This is a simple bill. Further, given the current situation faced by American cattlemen, this bill should command bipartisan support. Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] is bound by the Buy American Act, which requires USDA to purchase American beef for the commodities distribution portion of these programs. However, no similar requirement is placed on schools which purchase their own foodstuffs and then receive Federal reimbursement for the meals they serve students. Schools are encouraged to buy American, but are not bound to do so. My bill would provide consistency throughout these child nutrition programs. Simply put, if schools expect to be reimbursed, we expect schools to buy American beef. Why should this bill be passed? Plain and simple, immediate action must be taken to help our Nation's cattle industry. Cattle prices have plummeted to their lowest level in years. High grain prices and drought also have contributed to the economic crisis facing our ranchers. The result is that South Dakota's cattlemen are facing some very tough times. Some South Dakota producers soon may be forced to leave the cattle business altogether unless markets begin to improve. Their plight is spilling over to affect other businesses in the small towns and cities where they live. We should look at all possible ways to stimulate the American beef market. A requirement that schools purchase American beef will increase demand. This is just one advance in our battle to improve conditions for American cattlemen. As I have advocated, Congress and the administration should work actively on multiple fronts. I plan to introduce legislation that would require all beef sold to consumers be labeled, indicating in what country the beef was produced. This requirement would make it easier for schools and other consumers to buy American beef. I recently requested that the USDA prohibit formula or basis pricing on forward contracted cattle, require that forward contracts be offered in an open, public manner and require that packer-fed cattle be sold in an open, public market. I hope they will take action on this front soon. These are all actions the Clinton administration can take without congressional action. I also urged President Clinton to begin an investigation into cattle imports from Mexico. Many South Dakota producers have serious concerns that recent import surges may be due to Mexico transshipping cattle from other countries into the United States, which is a blatant violation of trade agreements. Again, the President need not wait for congressional action. Finally, and most important, the Clinton administration should begin an anti-trust action on the meatpacking industry. This is very important for our cattlemen. I have called on the administration time and again to enforce fully our anti-trust laws. I am still waiting for action. Mr. President, with a combined effort by Congress and the President, I am confident we can once again make our cattle industry healthy and competitive. I am proud to be an active voice for South Dakota's livestock producers. This issue requires immediate attention and I hope my colleagues will join me in addressing this serious problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments of 1996. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Hollings, ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Lott, chairman of the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee, and Senator Ford, ranking member of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee. This is a bipartisan reauthorization bill and I urge its swift passage. The National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], an independent agency, is charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety. Specifically, the NTSB investigates all forms of transportation accidents, conducts safety studies, and evaluates the effectiveness of other Government agencies' programs for preventing transportation accidents. It also reviews appeals of adverse certificate and civil penalty actions by the administrators of agencies of the Department of Transportation involving airman and seaman licenses. Sadly, its work is never done. Mr. President, the tireless work of the NTSB is too often overlooked. Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 100,000 aviation accidents and thousands of accidents in the other surface modes--rail, highway, marine, and pipeline. NTSB investigators are on call 24 hours a day and work around the world investigating significant transportation accidents in order to obtain facts to enable development of solutions designed to prevent future accidents. Indeed, the NTSB is considered the world's premier accident investigation agency. It has achieved that distinction through its thorough investigations and professional approach to meeting its statutory responsibilities. In total, the NTSB has issued almost 10,000 safety recommendations to improve the safety of the traveling public. Sadly, during the past few months, the NTSB has been extremely busy. We are all aware the NTSB is investigating the devastating crash of ValuJet near Miami, FL. At the same time, major on-going investigations continue for the USAir accident near Pittsburgh, PA, the school bus/ train collision in Fox River Grove, IL, and the MARC commuter train/ Amtrak collision near Silver Spring, MD, to name just a few. I want to point out the NTSB has no authority to regulate the transportation industry. Therefore, its effectiveness depends on its reputation for timely and accurate determinations of accident causation and for issuing realistic and feasible safety recommendations. The NTSB's reputation for impartiality and thoroughness has enabled it to achieve such success in shaping transportation safety improvements that more than 80 percent of its recommendations have been implemented. Examples of implemented recommendations include fire resistant materials and floor-level escape lighting in aircraft cabins, child safety seats in automobiles, improved school bus construction standards, Amtrak passenger car safety improvements, new recreational boating safety and commercial fishing vessel regulations, the development of one-call notification systems in all 50 States and improved regulations for buried pipelines. The NTSB's authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 1996. The bill we are introducing today provides a 3 year authorization for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 at a level of 370 FTE's. Our objective is to establish sufficient funding levels to enable the NTSB to carry out its immense workload. We can meet this goal while at the same time, reducing the currently authorized levels. That is what this bill achieves. The bill also includes a few statutory changes. First, the bill provides for temporary deferral of Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests regarding the release of foreign aviation accident or incident information for 2 years or until the foreign government leading the investigation approves release of information. This would apply to NTSB participation in foreign accident investigations only. This provision would facilitate the NTSB's ability to effectively investigate and participate in foreign accidents without risk of the untimely release of information prior to a foreign governments' approval. However, the NTSB would not be restricted from utilizing foreign accident investigation information in making safety recommendations. Second, the bill would exempt from FOIA aviation data voluntarily supplied to the NTSB. The aviation industry currently collects various kinds of information, but industry does not share it with the NTSB because of concerns that material would be released to the public. Some data, if voluntarily supplied to the Government, is exempted from FOIA requests. This exemption, however, is at the discretion of the agency. The NTSB has requested the exemption be made permanent through statute instead of discretionary, and believes a permanent exemption will encourage the aviation industry to freely share significant safety- related data. Third, when the NTSB conducts training of its employees and others in subjects necessary for the proper performance of accident investigations, the bill would allow the NTSB to charge non-NTSB personnel attending for the costs associated with the course. These reimbursements would be credited to the NTSB as offsetting collections. Mr. President, the NTSB carries out an enormous public service. While it is a small agency, its work product is critical. Seldom, if ever, is this agency the target of criticism. That cannot be said about many Federal governmental agencies. Therefore, I want to commend the NTSB Board members and its employees for their dedication to carrying out such an important public service. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure the NTSB can continue its essential work in an efficient manner.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this year National Small Business Week will be held from June 2 to June 8. This week is a fitting opportunity for us to recognize the contributions of the many entrepreneurs in our country and reassess policies affecting small businesses. It has been said many times over, but small businesses really are the heart of our small towns and cities. A full 99.9 percent of businesses in South Dakota are small businesses. In fact, we have only 25 businesses in the State that employ more than 500 people. Entrepreneurs in the local cafe, gas station, hardware store, and pharmacy provide essential services and cohesion for our communities. Farmers and small business people too, contribute to the community. Together, these leaders are the key to our economic strength. Small businesses operate against overwhelming odds. Burdensome regulations and paperwork, onerous taxes, inadequate access to capital, and excessive litigation all are barriers to success. Congress made good progress earlier this year by passing the Small Business Regulatory Relief Enforcement Fairness Act, which instituted judicial review of regulations. This is a step in the right direction. We should continue on this track and enact workplace safety and Fair Labor Standards Act reforms. I recently spoke with Clark Sinclair, who owns a furniture store in Madison, SD, about the need for flexibility in awarding either earn comp time or overtime. This flexibility would be beneficial for both employees and business owners. Business men and women should be free to operate without fear that their livelihood is in jeopardy due to unreasonable Government regulation and enforcement. Karla and Richard Hauk are prime examples of the obstacles small business owners face today. The Hauks recently constructed a Days Inn in Wall, SD, believing they complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Department of Justice filed suit against them even as the Hauks made goodfaith efforts to negotiate and comply with the law. Government should work constructively with law- abiding business owners like the Hauks and help them meet legal requirements. Our tax policy also consistently works against small firms. The current estate tax system is a good example. I am proud to have worked with Senator Dole on a reform proposal that would alleviate the heavy burden of estate taxes on small family-owned businesses. Currently, estate taxes are so onerous that the inheritors are frequently forced to sell all or part of a family business simply to pay off the taxes. This tax can reach as high as an overwhelming 55 percent of the total value of the business. Many families must sell off all or part of their business or farm just to pay the estate tax. That is wrong. Congress also should increase the deductibility of health care insurance for the self-employed, increase expensing, and reduce the overall tax burden on small businesses. Many small business owners file personal tax returns for their businesses. Thus, thanks to the Clinton budget plan, many sole proprietorships pay a higher tax rate than the largest corporations in the Nation. Take a business like Malloy Electric in Sioux Falls. Gary Jacobsen employs 65 people but cannot hire more employees because of the high tax burden. This is a business that has been a cornerstone of the community for 25 years, and yet the Government continues to tie their hands. Despite these obstacles, entrepreneurs strike out on their own--and succeed. I would like to recognize the 1996 South Dakota Small Business Persons of the Year, DeLon and Janice Buttolph, of Labelcrafters Inc. in Sioux Falls. The Buttolph's custom label printing business started in 1987 with just one employee and one small contract. Now, Labelcrafters runs two shifts with 24 employees and continues to grow. The company has received national recognition for producing environmentally friendly labels. As partners in life, as well as partners in business, DeLon and Janice have shown that good small businesses come from families. I also would like to recognize several other South Dakota small business persons who have made a difference in our State: Shelly A. Knuths, Roscoe Manufacturing Co., Madison--South Dakota Women in Business Advocate; Kenneth E. Yager, K.O. Lee Co., Aberdeen--South Dakota Small Business Exporter; Terry L. Fredericks, attorney for Whiting, Hagg & Hagg, Rapid City--South Dakota Veteran Small Business Advocate; Richard B. Vallie, Native American Herbal Tea, Aberdeen-- South Dakota Minority Small Business Advocate; and Mark W. Benson, First Bank of South Dakota, Rapid City--South Dakota Financial Services Advocate. In addition, Doug O'Bryan Contracting, Inc. of Martin, and C&W Enterprises of Sioux Falls, have received the Administrator's Award for Excellence for their outstanding performance as prime contractors under Federal contract. These individuals are today's real heroes. They are creating jobs and prosperity in South Dakota small cities and towns. They are overlooked too often. This week we should take time to recognize their leadership and accomplishments. My congratulations to these and all other South Dakota entrepreneurs who daily make a difference.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the budget that this body enacted last evening. I voted with pride for the Domenici-Dole budget because it places our budget in balance by the year 2002. This budget is the first real budget, with real numbers in it that will lead us to a balanced budget, that has been passed since I came to the Congress in 1974. We finally have passed a real budget with real numbers in it that will lead us to a balanced budget. Also, this budget contains welfare reform, real welfare reform, that will lead us to workfare following the Wisconsin plan. We passed the same thing last year. It was vetoed twice by the President. But even he now says he has endorsed most parts of the Wisconsin plan. So even though our budget last year was not enacted, it has had some dramatic results. Even the liberal Democrats are now talking about a balanced budget for the first time. They are at least pretending to be interested. The President gave his radio address on the need for welfare reform following the Wisconsin plan which, under Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, has become a model to get people onto workfare. So this is very, very important for our country. In fact, a balanced budget is the most important thing we can do because it will provide for low interest rates and a stable dollar, and that will help us export more. A balanced budget will help college students who have student loans because it keeps interest rates down and the payments can be less. It helps homeowners who have home mortgages in terms of their interest. It helps small business people because of lower interest rates and a stable dollar for exports. It helps agriculture. In fact, it may be the most important farm bill. I supported the freedom-to-farm bill with pride, and I was a part of the leadership team that brought us the freedom to farm bill. But if we can export, commodity prices will take care of themselves. In fact, we have some of the highest commodity prices in history. Mr. President, we have a serious problem with cattle prices at this time. I just finished a conversation about the need for the Clinton administration to enforce the antitrust actions and the price-fixing actions if American consumers are not getting the advantages of lower beef prices--and they are not. Some people say we need more investigations and studies. We do not need more investigations and studies. We need action by the Clinton administration and the Justice Department to enforce the antitrust laws and the price-fixing laws that we have in this country. That will help beef prices. That will help our cattle. Mr. President, I grew up on a farm, and I used to raise cattle. We would go out to western South Dakota and buy 400-pound feeder calves and bring them back to eastern South Dakota, feed them for a year, and sell them. I kept records on my 4-H beef cattle, and I know how tough it is to make a profit on feeder cattle. I know that a lot of our cattlemen today are losing money and are losing their farms because of low cattle prices. There have been a number of steps taken. But they have all been on the edge. The real issue is price. I feel strongly that the great packer concentration is causing price-fixing, and we need antitrust action by the Clinton administration. They have the authority. The law is on the books. We should do it now. So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that I voted with pride for the Dole budget that passed the Senate because it has welfare reform in it that will lead to workfare. It will fundamentally change the welfare system in our country to workfare. It will save taxpayers' money. It will mean that actual welfare recipients will do even better. This is a good budget that will lead us to $1 billion in 2002. I hope the House of Representatives and the White House accept the budget this year. I thank the Chair, and I yield back my time. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, a truly historic moment occurred in Milwaukee today when the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany formally signed an open skies agreement which will liberalize air service between our two countries. To underscore the importance of this agreement, I was pleased both President Clinton and Chancellor Kohl were on hand to sign it. As I have said before, the U.S./German open skies agreement is a great economic victory for both countries and a very welcome development for consumers. Under the agreement, airlines of both countries will be free to operate to any points in either country, as well as third countries, without limitation. It also liberalizes pricing, charter services and further liberalizes the open skies cargo regime already in place. In short, it allows market demand, not the heavy hands of governments, to decide air service between the United States and Germany. In addition to direct benefits, I have long said such an agreement would serve as a catalyst for liberalizing air service markets throughout Europe. Recent news reports indicate the competitive impact of the U.S./German open skies agreement is already being felt. For instance, since last October the British government, which is highly protective of the restrictive U.S./U.K. bilateral aviation agreement, expressed no willingness to seek to improve air service opportunities between the United States and the United Kingdom. This week, however, British negotiators came to Washington whistling a very different tune. The competitive impact of the U.S./German open skies agreement also is being felt in U.S./France aviation relations. Since the French renounced our bilateral aviation agreement in 1992, the French government had shown no interest in negotiating a new air service agreement with the United States. Like the British, the French too are whistling a different tune as a result of the U.S./German open skies agreement. I welcome reports the Government of France finally has expressed an interest in discussing a liberal bilateral aviation agreement. No doubt this abrupt change in course is due to the competitive reality that France is now virtually surrounded by countries enjoying open skies agreements with the United States. Like a huge magnet, these countries with open skies regimes are drawing passenger traffic away from French airports. For instance, last year combined traffic at the two major Paris airports, Orly and Charles de Gaulle, fell nearly 1 percent. What makes this statistic remarkable is elsewhere in Europe--particularly in countries with open skies relations with the United States--passenger traffic growth has been robust at major airports. For instance, passenger traffic rose 8.7 percent at Frankfurt Main Airport, 7.6 percent at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, and 11 percent at Brussels Zaventem Airport. Clearly, the French realize the U.S./German open skies agreement is only going to make the problem of passenger traffic diversion much worse. As I have said repeatedly, competition will be our best ally in opening the remaining restrictive air service markets in Europe. At great cost to its economy, the French are learning this lesson firsthand. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues an article describing the competitive impact of the U.S./German open skies agreement which appeared today in the Aviation Daily. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Let me conclude by saying the U.S./German open skies agreement is unquestionably our most important liberalized air service agreement to date. I again praise the bold and steadfast leadership of Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena and German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann in securing this agreement. Both the United States and Germany will benefit greatly from their leadership which turned an excellent opportunity into a truly historic trade agreement between our two countries. Exhibit 1 [From Aviation Daily, May 23, 1996] New Carrier Alliances Fuel Hopes For U.S.-U.K., Europe Open Skies The emergence of powerful, antitrust-immunized alliances and increasingly open aviation regimes in fueling expectations of breakthroughs in U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-European Union relations. In a Senate floor speech Tuesday, Commerce Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) said ``a truly historic opportunity may be at hand to finally force the British to join us on the field of free and fair air service competition.'' The chief catalyst for this opportunity is the potential alliance between American and British Airways. With published reports saying BA and American are close to announcing ``a major business alliance,'' British officials ``came to Washington [Monday] to assess the price tag for the regulatory relief the new alliance would require,'' said Pressler. ``I am pleased initial reports indicate [DOT] reaffirmed its longstanding position: Nothing short of full liberalization of the U.S./U.K. air service market would be acceptable,'' he said. ``If the administration stands firm, as I believe it must, the current restrictive U.S.-U.K. bilateral aviation agreement will be cast into the great trash heap of protectionist trade policy, where it belongs.'' Pressler traced the potential for a U.K. breakthrough to the U.S.-Germany open skies agreement, struck early this year. ``Simply put, the possible British Airways/American Airlines alliance is a competitive response to the U.S./ Germany open skies agreement and the grant of antitrust immunity to the United Airlines/Lufthansa alliance,'' he said. Pressler was active in developing the U.S.-Germany pact, a point underscored on the Senate floor by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who said Pressler's ``steadfast leadership was instrumental in securing'' the open skies agreement. Lott made public letters from DOT Secretary Federico Pena, who praised Pressler's ``bipartisan leadership role'' on the issue, and German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann, who called Pressler ``a cornerstone in this development.'' In his speech, Pressler said, ``If the Delta alliance with three smaller European carriers is granted a final antitrust immunity order later this month, that alliance--in combination with the United and Northwest alliances--will mean nearly 50% of the passenger traffic between the United States and Europe will be carried on fully integrated alliances.'' This will leave BA ``with no choice but to respond. It now appears to be doing so by seeking to ally itself with the strongest U.S. carrier available and ultimately, to seek antitrust [immunity] for its new alliance.'' The price tag for the regulatory relief for such an alliance ``must be nothing less than immediate open skies,'' said Pressler. Industry observers are looking toward next week's European Transport Ministers Conference and a meeting of the European Union Council of Ministers in mid-June for possible progress in EU-U.S. aviation relations. Delta Chairman, President and Chief Executive Ronald Allen urged the EU to move ``boldly and swiftly'' toward an open skies relationship with the U.S. as ``the next necessary step forward for world aviation. It is important that we take the step soon.'' In a speech yesterday before the European Aviation Club in Brussels, Allen praised EU Transport Commissioner Neil Kinnock's proposal that the European Commission be given a mandate to negotiate EU-wide open skies with the U.S. ``He is trying to open the door to meaningful transatlantic competition and integration,'' Allen said. Some observers believe Kinnock will gain at least limited authority at the Council of Ministers Meeting. Allen said Delta backed a number of proposals that may help the talks, including an increase in permissible foreign ownership of U.S. carriers from 25% to 49%. He said the carrier will work for changes in U.S. bankruptcy laws that allow airlines to continue operating while avoiding financial responsibilities, but the EU must also change its policy allowing state subsidies for troubled carriers. ``Both these assistance measures distort marketplace competition and penalize carriers that have made the difficult choices necessary to make their companies competitive and financially sound,'' said Allen. He added that the EU also must resist moves to hamper competition through ``safety net'' regulations.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to honor and recognize Floyd Gulbrandson, Al Rickel, Charles Skorpik, Willie Wieland, and the rest of the dedicated crew of the famous World War II battleship BB-57, the South Dakota, by introducing a resolution to name the first of the next generation of new attack submarines (NSSN) the South Dakota. Following naval tradition, naming the first vessel in a new fleet christens the entire fleet as the class of the first vessel named. Hence by naming the first submarine South Dakota, the entire NSSN fleet of four would be classified as the South Dakota class. This honor, naming a class of submarines after the BB-57 is truly an appropriate tribute. For my colleagues familiar with U.S. naval history, the name South Dakota should recall a tradition of great battleships and great service. As history records, two separate classes of battleships have borne the name South Dakota. Both were marked by innovative design, artillery power, and sea strength. Commissioned in 1908 and authorized on August 19, 1916, BB-49, the first of a class of South Dakota battleships was to include six potent vessels. However, after the United States signed the Washington Arms Naval Limitation Treaty on February 6, 1922, construction of BB-49 and the entire South Dakota class was canceled due to a 10-year prohibition on warship construction. The first South Dakota, BB-49, would never participate in sea combat as she was scrapped before completion. Naval combat for a South Dakota class of warships would have to wait until World War II. The next class of South Dakota battleships, this time composed of four vessels, was commissioned 33 years later in 1941, the first being BB-57. The four South Dakota class battleships were faster, stronger, and more resistant to damage than any other vessels constructed at that time. In particular, stretching more than 600 feet and displacing more than 43,000 tons of water, BB-57 was equipped with massive firepower, which included 9 16-inch guns, 16 5-inch guns, 68 40-millimeter guns, and 76 20-millimeter guns. Both classes of South Dakota battleships represented the ingenious technological and planning expertise of America's battleship designers. These ships were carefully designed to ensure that our strategic interests and our defense needs were met. Particularly in the case of BB-57, the planning and design of the battleship were truly remarkable naval achievements, considering treaty limitations prior to World War II. South Dakota represented future U.S. domination as a world naval power. Of course, a well-designed battleship is useless without a well- trained, dedicated crew. I would like to share with my colleagues an excerpt from a letter I received from a crewmember of the South Dakota. Mr. Elmer Pry's words represent the zeal, loyalty, and teamwork of those who served on this ship. This ship was the most fightingest hard hitting machine of war that man has ever seen. We took it and by joe we dished it out. I was a very proud person to have the honor to have been aboard her and I know all my shipmates felt the same. She took us through hell and back. We were mostly a green crew but with the help of the old salts we learned how to do the job and we sure did it as the record shows but I guess you have to give the credit to our beloved skipper, Captain Thomas L. Gatch. He is the one that made us a fighting crew. He trained us the day he came aboard to shoot and shoot straight. . . . Because of him the ship became a fighting machine. Mr. President, Mr. Pry's words reflect that no resource we commit to the defense of our country is more valued and more precious than the brave individuals who sacrifice and serve. Admiral Nimitz once said, ``We [cannot] relax our readiness to defend ourselves. Our armament must be adequate to the needs, but our faith is not primarily in these machines of defense but in ourselves''. This was especially true of the brave crew of the South Dakota. To the American people, BB-57 became known as the famed ``Battleship X'', the flagship of Adm. Chester W. Nimitz's Third Fleet during World War II. When the call to duty went out following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the crew of the South Dakota answered with valiant service. The South Dakota became the most decorated battleship of World War II. She participated in 9 major shore bombardments and shot down 64 enemy aircraft. Collectively, the crew of the South Dakota endured many battles and earned several distinguished awards, including the Navy Unit Commendation, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with 13 battle stars, the World War II Victory Medal, and the Navy Occupation Service Medal. On October 26, 1942, the South Dakota entered its first major battle with a green crew on deck. She was attacked by 180 enemy bombers in what is now known as the Battle of Santa Cruz Island. Defending both the Enterprise and Hornet aircraft carriers, the South Dakota boldly exchanged gunfire and shot down an unprecedented 30 enemy aircraft, rendering 2 enemy aircraft carriers inoperative. Through repeated bombardments and heavy fire, only 1 bomb out of 23 struck the South Dakota. For their valiant actions and enduring perseverance, Captain Gatch was decorated with the Navy Cross, the crew was presented with the Navy Unit Commendation, and the South Dakota received the first of 13 battle stars. There is no question that BB-57 was instrumental in our winning the naval war in the Pacific, thus protecting many of the freedoms we and countless others around the world enjoy today. The name South Dakota is important in the history of World War II, not just in terms of naval heroism, but also heroism by South Dakotans on the homefront and the front lines. The State of South Dakota has a long history of strong support for the protection of our national security interests. Ten percent of the population of South Dakota, 74,100 individuals, are veterans. Of those, 20,100 served our country during World War II. Our veterans are representative of South Dakota's ardent commitment to serving our Nation in times of peace and war. However, families who stayed at home also contributed to and supported the war effort. South Dakotans young and old dug deep into their pockets and piggy banks to keep American troops armed, fed, and clothed. During eight national fundraising campaigns, South Dakota exceeded its quotas. South Dakota consistently ranked first or second in the per capita sale of the Series ``E'' war bonds, known as the people's bonds. South Dakota raised $111.5 million from the sale of people's bonds--that is $173 for every South Dakota man, woman, and child. I am proud to hail from a State that stands for such sacrifice and service. Mr. President, On January 31, 1947, the South Dakota was decommissioned and sold as scrap metal for $466,425. The mainmast and stubs of the 16-inch gun were saved from salvage and stand as a memorial in Sioux Falls to commemorate those who served aboard BB-57. The crew of the South Dakota and their descendants gather in Sioux Falls every 2 years to reminisce and offer their respects to those who served our country in war. It would be appropriate for the first of our next generation of attack submarines--the latest example of naval technological innovation--to carry the name of America's most decorated battleship, the South Dakota. NSSN will represent the next generation of undersea superiority. NSSN will have increased flexibility, maneuverability and armaments. If the NSSN is named South Dakota, it will carry the history of days ago. My resolution honors the memory of those associated with the name South Dakota, whether it be the designers of the previous South Dakota class ships, the veterans who served aboard the BB-57, or the thousands of South Dakotans who unfailingly have answered the call to serve our country. I hope my colleagues will join me in furthering the tradition of the South Dakota by joining as sponsors of this resolution.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss significant recent developments in our aviation relations with the United Kingdom. If handled properly by the administration, these developments could finally lead to full liberalization of United States/United Kingdom air service, our largest international aviation market. Last week I spoke at some length in this body regarding my great frustration with the current state of aviation relations between our two nations. In those remarks I predicted a time would come when the British truly would want some significant aviation rights or regulatory relief from the United States. When that time came, I said I fully expect the administration to demand a very high price. I welcome reports that time may be at hand. Mr. President, I am referring to published reports that British Airways, which presently controls a greater share of the United States/ United Kingdom air service market than all United States passenger carriers combined, is close to announcing a major business alliance with American Airlines. In anticipation of that announcement, British negotiators came to Washington yesterday to assess the price tag for the regulatory relief the new alliance would require. I am pleased initial reports indicate the Department of Transportation [DOT] reaffirmed its longstanding position: Nothing short of full liberalization of the United States/United Kingdom air service market would be acceptable. Let me emphasize a critically important point. If the administration stands firm, as I believe it must, the current restrictive United States/United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement will be cast into the great trash heap of protectionist trade policy where it belongs. This would be very welcome news for the U.S. economy, all U.S. air carriers and consumers. If the situation is handled poorly, however, we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered our best opportunity in decades to liberalize the United States/United Kingdom air service market. Since my remarks last week, I have been asked several questions I wish to address. First, am I surprised my prediction has come to pass so quickly? No, not in the least. For nearly a year I touted an open skies agreement with Germany as the ideal competitive tool to pry open Britain's significantly restrictive air service market. In combination with open skies agreements already in place with 10 other European countries, the United States/German open skies agreement--which goes into full effect later this week--is having precisely that effect. Simply put, the possible British Airways/American Airlines alliance is a competitive response to the United States/German open skies agreement and the grant of antitrust immunity to the United Airlines/ Lufthansa alliance. If the Delta Air Lines alliance with three smaller European carriers is granted a final antitrust immunity order later this month, that alliance--in combination with the United and Northwest alliances--will mean nearly 50 percent of passenger traffic between the United States and the Europe will be carried on fully integrated alliances. I have predicted for some time British Airways would have no choice but to respond. It now appears to be doing so by seeking to ally itself with the strongest U.S. carrier available and, ultimately, to seek antitrust immunity for its new alliance. Second, to what am I referring when I say the British should be required to pay a high price for the regulatory relief British Airways' new alliance would require? I believe the price tag must be nothing less than immediate open skies. In the past, the British have been prone to redefine the term ``full liberalization'' to mean ``a balanced exchange of opportunities.'' Therefore, let me make clear what I mean when I say open skies. To avoid any misunderstanding, I believe the administration should make very clear to the British we expect at a minimum open third, fourth and fifth freedom rights for all our passenger and cargo carriers. Of course, this means that nothing less than open access to London's Heathrow Airport be included in the package. Is this price too high? No, based on the recent history of United States/United Kingdom aviation relations, I believe it is just about right. For instance, I remember all too well how the British Government treated the United States in late 1990 and early 1991 when Pan Am was on the brink of shutting down operations and needed immediately to sell its Heathrow routes to survive. The British government showed not one iota of sympathy. Instead, at the urging of British Airways, for months the British Government squeezed our government for maximum compensation in exchange for approving that transaction as well as the sale of TWA's Heathrow routes. I hope we remember well the lessons of the so-called Heathrow succession agreement. Is it realistic to demand the British Government open Heathrow airport to our carriers? Absolutely. The British always seem able to find space at Heathrow for non-U.S. carriers who pose less of a competitive challenge to British carriers. For instance, according to DOT, 24 of the airlines operating at Heathrow in July 1995 did not have any services there in July 1990. In addition, British Airways controls 37 percent of the slots at Heathrow. It clearly is in a position to help resolve the access to Heathrow challenge. In short, British Airways controls its own destiny if it truly wants DOT approval for its proposed new alliance. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying a truly historic opportunity may be at hand to finally force the British to join us on the field of free and fair air service competition. The Administration must stand firm and make clear to the British Government that nothing short of an open skies agreement is the price tag for any regulatory relief British Airways might seek in connection with its possible new alliance. A fully liberalized United States/United Kingdom air service agreement is critical to our economy, United States airlines and consumers and I fully expect we will not squander this opportunity.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would correct a mistake made during the drafting of the implementing legislation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] Uruguay round. That law has had the effect of unintentionally more than doubling the tariff rates on display fireworks that are imported into the United States. Unintended or not, this provision has had real consequences. The most obvious has been a dramatic increase in the price of display fireworks, the vast majority of which are purchased by our State and local governments for use in municipal celebrations. While we are struggling here in Congress to reduce the deficit and balance the Federal budget under tight economic constraints, State and local governments are required by law to balance their budgets every year--with far less flexibility and far fewer resources than what is available to the Federal Government. The higher cost of display fireworks imposes major strain on municipalities that wish to sponsor Memorial Day or Fourth of July celebrations. Many towns simply are unable to afford the higher fireworks prices and some may forego these celebrations altogether. It's a sad fact that one unfortunate consequence leads to others. These problems are especially troublesome for rural areas. Small cities and towns do not have a wide variety of options for purchasing their fireworks. A dramatic increase in the cost of fireworks leaves these towns with very few alternatives. The ripple effect of this is that the small companies that serve as fireworks distributors suffer sales losses. This is not just mere speculation. There is a family-owned business in my State of South Dakota called Rich Bros. Fireworks. Michael Rich and his family serve the small towns across our State. The Rich family does it because they enjoy the service they provide. Mr. President, this is not a highly profitable business to begin with, and the higher prices resulting from the GATT implementing legislation have caused demand to decline. Michael Rich has informed me that unless corrective action is taken, they may be forced to close their business by the end of the year. The name Rich Bros. is synonymous with July 4th in South Dakota, and kids across the State--young kids, and grown-up kids alike--look forward to the celebration of the birth of our country with all the fanfare and excitement fireworks provide. Family-owned businesses, such as Rich Bros., are the foundation of towns across South Dakota. These people are committed to their neighbors and to their communities. They should not suffer from unintended consequences of the law. That is why we are here--to look out for them and to correct problems like these as soon as possible. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is really a minor change that would make a major difference--perhaps the difference between life and death--for small businesses like Rich Bros. I ask my collea- gues for their support in passing this legislation which restores the 2.4-percent tariff rate for display fireworks that existed prior to the implementation of the Uruguay round legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.