Larry Pressler

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.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a great tradition in the law enforcement community in my home State of South Dakota. On November 15, 1995, for the 14th year in a row, South Dakota held its Law Enforcement Appreciation Dinner and Charity Fundraiser. Under the leadership of a great South Dakotan, Gene Abdallah, the law enforcement appreciation dinner has grown from a small, informal gathering to one of the largest annual events in South Dakota. The Law Enforcement Appreciation Dinner and Charity Fundraiser began in 1982. It has raised more than a quarter of a million dollars for South Dakota charities. The purpose of this annual event is to recognize law enforcement agencies and officers for their dedication and service to the public. It also gives South Dakota law enforcement the unique opportunity to gather together. Widely known in South Dakota as ``Gene's Annual Game Feed,'' this event originally was the idea of former United States Marshal Gene Abdallah, who served South Dakota pheasant and other wild game to show his appreciation to his fellow law enforcement officers. At that first gathering, there were 53 people in attendance. Through the years, this event has grown to a remarkable size today. In 1994, more than 600 business and civic leaders attended as special guests, along with more than 800 law enforcement personnel. This event has become one of the largest gatherings of Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel in the Nation. The appreciation dinner also is dedicated to raising funds for needy organizations. In 1994, contributions from the event went to the Ronald McDonald House of Sioux Falls, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, the Children's Miracle Network, the South Dakota Special Olympics Torch Run, and $10,000 for food baskets for the less fortunate. Funds in 1995 were designated to the young victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, Food for the Less Fortunate of South Dakota, the Muscular Dystrophy Summer Camp, and the Spurs Therapeutic Academy. This event would not be possible without the generous support of many South Dakotans who contribute through the purchase of VIP tables and sponsorship donations. Mr. President, with great pride I salute all my friends in South Dakota who work so hard to make this tremendous event possible. I look forward to helping make this year's Law Enforcement Appreciation Dinner and Charity Fundraiser the most successful one ever.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise today to express my great frustration with the current state of aviation relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. At a great cost to the United States economy, the highly restrictive United States/United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement continues to be an enormous barrier to free and fair trade between our countries. It is a barrier British negotiators have carefully crafted over the years that, as intended, quite effectively limits competition in the United States/United Kingdom air service market. Simply put, it is an agreement which artificially manages air service trade in a way that significantly benefits British carriers. For U.S. passenger carriers serving the transatlantic air service market, these are both the best of times and the worst of times. On the bright side, the historic open skies agreement the United States recently signed with the Federal Republic of Germany, combined with existing open skies agreements with other European countries, means that nearly half of all passengers traveling between the United States and Europe will be flying to or from European countries with open skies regimes. That truly is a remarkable statistic and great news for consumers. Our aviation relations with the British, however, stand in disturbingly stark contrast. Although the British Government extols the virtues of transatlantic free trade, its words ring hollow with respect to the United States/United Kingdom air service market. United States carriers have proven themselves to be highly competitive in every international market they serve yet, all United States passenger carriers combined have a smaller share of the United States/United Kingdom air service market than just one British carrier, British Airways. Overall, two British carriers currently control nearly 50 percent more of the passenger traffic in that market than United States carriers. As I have said before, I do not believe market forces are responsible for this imbalance. What adverse impacts does the highly restrictive United States/United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement have on the United States economy? First, each year our economy is losing hundreds of millions of dollars of export revenue United States carriers might otherwise capture if the United States/United Kingdom air service market truly was competitive. Second, it is costing Americans new jobs which otherwise might be created if United States carriers could expand their services to the United Kingdom. Finally, consumer choice is badly restricted and consumers are denied the most competitive air fares. Several months ago I announced an initiative I hoped might jump start stalled air service negotiations with the British and remedy these adverse economic impacts. Regrettably, the British spurned that attempt and other good faith efforts by the administration to restart talks. For that reason, I have decided to delay indefinitely my plans to introduce legislation increasing the permissible level of foreign ownership in the voting stock of U.S. carriers to 49 percent. That legislation was the cornerstone of my initiative. If the British exhibit a genuine willingness to seriously address our air service concerns, I will reconsider my decision. Quite frankly, I am frustrated with the British intransigence in addressing this serious trade issue. They have long blamed a lack of reciprocal investment opportunities in the voting stock of U.S. carriers as a stumbling block to progress in our air service relationship. Finding some merit in that concern, I offered to introduce legislation to address it and help clear the way for further liberalization of our aviation relationship. The British Government's reaction, however, calls into question whether reciprocal foreign investment opportunities ever were the concern the British have long played them up to be. To underscore that skepticism, I noticed in recent months British carriers have now moved onto criticizing United States policy on the grounds of additional wish list rights such as cabotage and direct participation in the Fly America Program. Madam President, it has become even more apparent in recent months that British aviation policy is not driven by the goal of expanding rights for its carriers and moving forward in our aviation relationship. Instead, the overarching goal of that policy seems to be nothing less than continuing to protect British carriers from vigorous competition with United States carriers. In particular, the British Government wants to keep in place the current system which blocks United States carriers from serving London's most popular airport, Heathrow, from most major passenger feed hubs in the United States. After all, under the current managed competition agreement, the British have totally blocked United States passenger feed to Heathrow from major United States hub airports including those located in Atlanta, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Minneapolis, Newark and St. Louis. No wonder United States carriers do not use larger aircraft as the British often chide. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying I hope the British Government will decide to get in step with the rest of Europe by finally agreeing to take meaningful steps to liberalize the United States/United Kingdom bilateral aviation agreement. The time for such liberalization is long past due. Let me also add that I for one believe there will come a time when the British truly want some significant aviation rights or regulatory relief from the United States. When that time comes, I fully expect the administration will use that leverage to the fullest extent possible and demand a very high price.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that represents the first of several steps I am taking to get action on problems facing our domestic cattle industry. For the past year, I have been pressing the Clinton administration to address meatpacker concentration and utilize existing antitrust laws to make sure that cattle are sold in an open and competitive market. We have seen some action on the part of the administration to solve this problem. Frankly, its proposals offer nothing new. My bill is a necessary first step to pry open the market. Another step in the process is to get the Senate more engaged on the issue. As part of that effort, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will hold a series of hearings on this subject next month. Cattle producers are facing the worst economic times in recent memory. The President has the authority to order immediate Justice Department action. Antitrust laws should be enforced now. I have been saying that for months, but my words have fallen on deaf ears. Only by taking action to enforce antitrust laws already on the books can we ensure the long-term economic viability of the U.S. cattle industry. South Dakota ranchers know that any real solution to beef prices must include antitrust action. It took only a few days and a 14 percent increase in the price of gasoline for the President to ask the Justice Department to establish a five-person task force to investigate possible antitrust violations. The facts are these: first, cattle prices are at their lowest levels in years; second, only a handful of the top packers control nearly 85 percent the market; and third, retail prices do not reflect the dramatically reduced price paid for cattle. Something is not right. The bill I am introducing accomplishes three things that South Dakota cattlemen have told me must be done. First, the bill would establish a livestock dealer trust. This would protect sellers from any losses when cattle are sold on commission to a dealer or market agency that goes bankrupt. This was part of the Senate-passed farm bill, but was not in the final version that was signed into law. Second, the bill would require the Packers and Stockyards Administration to include formula- priced cattle in the definition of captive supplies. During the Senate Commerce Committee hearing I held last year in Huron, SD, producers made it loud and clear that this needed to be done. Finally, the bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to make timely reports on the numbers of livestock and livestock products that are exported and imported, and also require the reporting of prices paid for livestock. The Senate needs to carefully review this bill and other issues confronting the U.S. cattle industry. Packer concentration, price manipulation, possible price fixing and captive supply all must be looked at and a definite course of action implemented. The introduction of this bill today is the first step in this process. We need to keep in mind that old saying ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well the U.S. cattle industry is broke and it needs fixing, now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that represents the first of several steps I am taking to get action on problems facing our domestic cattle industry. For the past year, I have been pressing the Clinton administration to address meatpacker concentration and utilize existing antitrust laws to make sure that cattle are sold in an open and competitive market. We have seen some action on the part of the administration to solve this problem. Frankly, its proposals offer nothing new. My bill is a necessary first step to pry open the market. Another step in the process is to get the Senate more engaged on the issue. As part of that effort, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will hold a series of hearings on this subject next month. Cattle producers are facing the worst economic times in recent memory. The President has the authority to order immediate Justice Department action. Antitrust laws should be enforced now. I have been saying that for months, but my words have fallen on deaf ears. Only by taking action to enforce antitrust laws already on the books can we ensure the long-term economic viability of the U.S. cattle industry. South Dakota ranchers know that any real solution to beef prices must include antitrust action. It took only a few days and a 14 percent increase in the price of gasoline for the President to ask the Justice Department to establish a five-person task force to investigate possible antitrust violations. The facts are these: first, cattle prices are at their lowest levels in years; second, only a handful of the top packers control nearly 85 percent the market; and third, retail prices do not reflect the dramatically reduced price paid for cattle. Something is not right. The bill I am introducing accomplishes three things that South Dakota cattlemen have told me must be done. First, the bill would establish a livestock dealer trust. This would protect sellers from any losses when cattle are sold on commission to a dealer or market agency that goes bankrupt. This was part of the Senate-passed farm bill, but was not in the final version that was signed into law. Second, the bill would require the Packers and Stockyards Administration to include formula- priced cattle in the definition of captive supplies. During the Senate Commerce Committee hearing I held last year in Huron, SD, producers made it loud and clear that this needed to be done. Finally, the bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to make timely reports on the numbers of livestock and livestock products that are exported and imported, and also require the reporting of prices paid for livestock. The Senate needs to carefully review this bill and other issues confronting the U.S. cattle industry. Packer concentration, price manipulation, possible price fixing and captive supply all must be looked at and a definite course of action implemented. The introduction of this bill today is the first step in this process. We need to keep in mind that old saying ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well the U.S. cattle industry is broke and it needs fixing, now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I also am pleased to release today draft legislation to reauthorize the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. The draft would provide a simple reauthorization of $250 million each year for the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. It is my hope that by then, public broadcasting would no longer need a reauthorization, but would have the resources to thrive on its own. Last year we began a very worthwhile debate about the future direction of public broadcasting. Survival was never a real issue. I believe public broadcasting will do more than just survive--it will thrive. Public broadcasting is a success story still being written. I am confident of this. Public broadcasting offers a quality product supported by quality individuals who care about what people, especially young people, see or hear on television and radio. It was in part due to my confidence in public broadcasting that I proposed last year to put public broadcasting on a glide path to independence from Washington--independent from Congress and independent from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I support public broadcasting. Yet, I've never quite understood the logic of the funding process. There has to be a better way to fund public broadcasting than through CPB, which soaks up a large share of funding before it ever gets to the 350 public television stations and 629 public radio stations. A large chunk comes right back here to D.C. to buy programming disproportionately produced in the largest media markets. There just has to be a better way--especially for small city broadcasters. Last year's debate produced some much-needed innovations. Public broadcasting has improved as a result. I called on public broadcasting to take advantage of the popularity and value of its wonderful programming. They're doing so now. Last year, new ancillary agreements were reached that will see a larger portion of merchandise revenue from public broadcasting products go right back to public broadcasting. Media alliances have been formed with MCI and Turner to distribute public broadcasting programs on video and CD-ROM's. Even PBS has discovered that its logo generates revenue. Foreign markets are an untapped source for programming and products. Even the Internet offers enormous potential for public broadcasting, both as a conduit for classroom-based, interactive educational programming and as a base to market its products. In short, we really haven't begun to tap the enormous funding potential of public broadcasting in the worldwide marketplace. I also believe we must continue to push for greater efficiencies within CPB--reforms that also can free up revenues. Will all these potential funding sources and markets allow public broadcasting to achieve financial independence? It's a question that we should explore. So today I am circulating a discussion draft that would not only reauthorize public broadcasting, but also explore and chart a path toward independence. The first way is to give public broadcasting tools to generate more revenue. My draft legislation would give public broadcasting enhanced underwriting authority--enough to draw in new corporate sponsors but not too far to undermine the noncommercial integrity of public broadcasting. The draft also would allow public broadcasting stations to use overlapping station capacity to generate revenue. These proposals would allow some stations to benefit. However, if all of public broadcasting is to thrive, especially smaller stations such as in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana, we need to bring the best people in finance, government and broadcasting together to chart a course for independence. To do this, the draft proposes creation of a Commission on Public Broadcasting Empowerment. This commission would have 2 years to submit recommendations to Congress that would: foster long-term funding for public broadcasting that would not compromise its essential noncommercial nature; improve economic efficiencies within public broadcasting; guarantee universal access to public broadcasting, particularly in rural, under served areas; and stimulate the development of regional programming centers in order to increase geographic diversity in the origination of programming. Finally, the draft would authorize the creation of a trust fund to be used to generate sufficient capital for public broadcasting to achieve financial independence. This trust fund approach was first proposed by the public broadcasters late last year. The public broadcasters proposed a more far-reaching approach that would enable a private trust to generate funds through the management of advanced spectrum and the leasing of unused spectrum for commercial purposes. This thoughtful proposal has merit. I support the creation of a trust fund. I believe that the draft spectrum legislation I have proposed today would provide public broadcasters with the resources needed to capitalize a trust fund in a way that would benefit the entire public broadcasting community--radio and television, in markets large and small. Because this proposal would bring major change to public broadcasting, it deserves careful review. I'm already beginning that review. Clearly, financial independence will be a key issue. However, other reforms are needed, particularly in the distribution of funds for broadcasting and programming. I am particularly interested in reforms that will enhance the capabilities and creativity of small city and rural broadcasters. In small cities and towns, public broadcasting is vital. South Dakota Public Radio [SDPR], for example, provides pool coverage to commercial stations around the State for legislative reporting, because it has the only radio news reporter on duty during the legislative session. In some markets, SDPR is the sole radio provider of local news, and the exclusive source of Emergency Broadcast System announcements. For SDPR and similar radio and television stations, continued oversight by Congress is important to ensure they receive their fair share of the public broadcasting dollar. I would like to see public broadcasting be a self-sustaining operation, but I will not forego congressional oversight responsibilities, nor support a disbursement of funds from any trust fund until I am satisfied that there are legal and contractual safeguards in place that will protect the financial and programming interests of small city and rural broadcasters. What kind of safeguards? First and foremost, there should be service requirements that public broadcasting should follow. As you know, telephone companies are required to provide universal service to its customers, regardless of their location. Public broadcasting should be required to fulfill a similar standard--universal access for all Americans. Second, any future trust fund should have a formula that recognizes the unique roles of small city broadcasters and the need to achieve universal access goals. Third, I support giving small broadcasters a share of any revenue generated through enhanced underwriting. A similar arrangement exists with major networks and their affiliates--large and small. It makes sense. It's simple fairness. Large and small stations that broadcast underwritten programming contribute to the exposure of the corporate sponsor to the viewing public. They should benefit. Fourth, we should be encouraging the development of regional programming outlets. At present, there is a disproportionate concentration of program development in the large cities. Regional programming will not only further the diversity of public broadcasting, but improve viewership in these areas. So, in conclusion, there are a number of issues worth discussing. Funding sources and funding distribution are the two key issues. I am hopeful that the proposed Commission on Public Broadcasting Empowerment will help lay the groundwork for both financial independence and distribution fairness. The funding sources may change, new technologies may emerge, but the central mission of public broadcasting--to be a dependable source of educational, community-based programming--is strong and growing stronger. That's a credit to the people in the communities that make it all happen. This draft is a starting point. I look forward to working with the public broadcasting community and my colleagues on both sides of aisle to improve this draft and pass a bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this draft be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to speak about a matter that affects my State of South Dakota, but also several States, including California. We are part of a compact under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. Governor Wilson of California, and Governor Janklow of my State, have had a very difficult time with the Secretary of the Interior on this matter. The original Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act gave the States the responsibility of developing permanent repositories for this Nation's low-level nuclear waste. Now the Clinton administration wants to take away that authority. For 8 years, South Dakota, as a member of the Southwestern Compact, along with North Dakota, Arizona, and California, has worked to fulfill its duties to license a storage site. It did the job. Ward Valley, CA, is the first low-level waste site to be licensed in the Nation. After countless scientific and environmental studies and tests, the State of California and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Ward Valley as a safe and effective place to store the Southwestern Compact's low-level radioactive waste. However, there is one problem. Ward Valley is Federal land. It is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Southwestern Compact has requested that Ward Valley be transferred to the State of California. The Clinton administration refuses to take action. Instead, it has stalled again and again and again. I spoke with the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, about this matter. He has introduced legislation to resolve the matter. But this is a tragic example of where the Secretary of the Interior for some reason is thwarting the intent of Congress and the intent of Governors of the States in the Southwestern Compact. Mr. President, the reason behind all this is that the extreme environmentalists do not want to store radioactive waste anywhere because of their antinuclear agenda. But strangely enough, this type of low-level radioactive waste has been used in medical treatments and other areas to benefit humanity. I find this a very tragic situation. The Secretary of the Interior is cooperating with the extreme environmentalists against the public interest. Nobody seems to know what is going on. What has the Secretary of the Interior done? He has stalled. First, he has ordered a supplemental environmental impact statement. Then he ordered the National Academy of Sciences to perform a special report on the suitability of Ward Valley for waste storage. Each study presented the Southwestern Compact with a clean bill of health for Ward Valley, yet the administration still delays. Now the administration has ordered additional studies on the effects of tritium, studies the State of California already intended to perform, but not until a land transfer was complete. Also, I should note the National Academy of Sciences made no mention that such a study should be a prerequisite to this land transfer. Instead, the Academy believes this type of study should be ongoing, conducted in conjunction with the operation of the waste storage facility. Unfortunately, I suspect that even if California gives in to demands and performs these tests, the administration will think of new demands--anything to keep the Ward Valley waste site from becoming a reality. Who really benefits from these delays? No one. This is yet one more example of the Clinton administration's pandering to the environmental extremists, extremists intent on waging a war on the West and on the American people. Scientific evidence shows that Ward Valley is a safe location for low-level radioactive waste storage. Neither public health nor the environment will be at risk. In fact, most of the waste to be stored at Ward Valley is nothing more than hospital gloves and other supplies which may have come into contact with radioactive elements used by health care providers. By contrast, continued delays create risks both to public health and the environment. Currently, low-level waste is simply stored on site at hospitals, industries, or research institutions. In the four States of the Southwestern Compact, there are over 800 low-level radioactive waste sites. These sites were not meant to be permanent facilities. Thus, there have been no environmental studies, no long-term monitoring systems, nothing to guarantee safe storage of the waste. With no regional low-level radioactive waste sites available, South Dakota would be forced to transport its low-level radioactive waste across the country to a disposal facility in Barnwell, SC. Clearly, the costs of transporting this waste across the country would be great, from the monetary cost to the waste generators, to the legal ramifications, to transporting hazardous waste, to the potential Superfund liability incurred by the State and the generators. This is far too costly a price, one my State cannot continue to bear. That is why, Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of legislation pending in the Senate to convey Ward Valley to the State of California and to allow the construction of the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste site to continue unimpeded. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted in favor of this bill. This legislation is ready for Senate action. This legislation is necessary only because politics got in the way of good science. Transferring lands such as Ward Valley is a common procedure for the administration. However, because of a political fight waged by environmental extremists, this conveyance has been held up for more than 2 years. This fight, this continued delay, will continue unless Congress acts. We have the opportunity to institute a rational approach to this process. By approving this legislation, we can allow the Southwestern Compact and the rest of the States to comply with the law we created. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to allow good science to prevail rather than politics. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that correspondence between Gov. Pete Wilson of California and South Dakota Governor Janklow regarding the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste storage site be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on yet another subject, I hope that the Federal Communications Commission follows the intent of Congress regarding the recently passed Telecommunications Act. I was privileged to be able to author and chair the Joint House-Senate conference committee on telecommunications. But I fear that some of the deregulation and some of the good things in that bill are being taken away by regulators who are now writing the regulations for that bill. I have asked in our committee that we hold a hearing and bring those Commissioners before the Commerce Committee. I know many Members of the Senate have written to me urging such a hearing because they are concerned that the intent of Congress is not being followed. The telecommunications bill was a very well-written bill. We had a checklist for the entry of companies into the regional, local telephone business and also for entering into the long-distance telephone business. Those rules are set. Also, the whole issue of the States' power and participation with the States' public utilities commissions was clearly written out in that bill. I was just this morning told by one of our good public utilities commissioners that the States' powers are being undercut by the Federal Communications Commission. So we must be vigilant in trying to remind the Federal Communications Commission that their No. 1 guideline in the implementation of regulations is supposed to be intent of Congress. I remember in Clark Weiss' law class the importance of ``intent of Congress'' for administrative law. That is the key that these agencies are supposed to follow. But that has been abandoned in this Government because now the agencies are more powerful in some cases than Congress. That is unfortunate. But the Federal agencies, when they write the regulations, the foremost thing in their mind is supposed to be intent of Congress and not going off and starting to legislate all over. If they want to be legislators, they can go out and run, as I am running this year, and submit their name to the public. But they are not legislators. They are regulators. They are a regulatory agency, not the legislative branch of Government. I will plead with the FCC to remember that as they write those regulations. Mr. President, I yield floor.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on a separate subject, let me say I strongly support the efforts of the majority leader to repeal the President's Clinton 4.3-cent-per-gallon fuel tax. I also believe strongly that the efforts of the majority leader in this area will result in some relief to the consumers of America. In my State of South Dakota, agriculture and tourism are the two most important industries. This is just the time of the year that farmers are driving their tractors, truckers are hauling agricultural supplies and produce and seeds, and tourists are beginning to come to see Mt. Rushmore and the attractions in southwestern South Dakota. They need immediate relief from high fuel prices. I also support the Justice Department's antitrust probe into the recent price increases. Certainly, we need to know if price fixing is occurring. However, past antitrust investigations have failed to produce conclusive evidence of illegal activity. We need to take action now. I hope the Congress can avoid procedural delays and give immediate relief to millions of Americans at the gas pumps. Let us remember that this Senate has been stalled by filibusters throughout this session. I know that the national media has stopped using the word ``filibuster,'' but that is what is happening. The Senate is tied up in knots. The approach of the opposition in this Chamber has been nothing more than gridlock and filibuster. Therefore, I hope we repeal the fuel tax very quickly. We are ready to do it. Members of the Senate Finance Committee have discussed this. We are prepared to act.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to take another step in my overall telecommunications and information policy reform agenda. As I have stated many times, the historic enactment earlier this year of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was only the first step in a new national telecommunications policy for 21st Century America. Today, I am putting out for public comment a discussion draft of spectrum reform legislation to institute comprehensive reforms in how the Federal Government uses--and fails to use--our most important valuable national resource, the radio frequency spectrum. The Spectrum and Its Uses The radio spectrum is to the information age what oil and steel where to the Industrial Age. Like any resource, it is finite. Therefore it must be managed responsibly. This valuable resource is one of the principle building blocks for tomorrow's ``Information Economy.'' It also is critical to delivering new and valuable services to the American public. All of us have seen the contribution traditional radio-based services--such as public and commercial broadcasting--have made to our national life. We have seen the benefits of low-cost satellite communications, which have enormously expanded the range of news, information, and entertainment choices. We have seen the proven value of cellular radiotelephones. In addition, there are an array of other critical radio-based communications services--everything from the radar systems so important to air traffic control, to the radios policemen, firemen, and ambulances use, to communications networks central to maintaining a strong national defense. From its very beginning, wireless communication has played a vital role in protecting lives and property. Through the development of radio and television broadcasting, it has delivered information and entertainment programming to the public at large. More recently, wireless, spectrum-based telecommunications services, products and technologies have proven indispensable enablers and drivers of productivity and economic growth, as well as international competitiveness. Wireless technology can deliver telecommunications and information services directly to individuals on the move. No longer is being away from the office desk or factory floor an impediment to doing business. Fixed locations that cannot be served economically by wireline facilities because of physical infeasibility or prohibitively high costs are made accessible. Wireless services also are critically important in bringing competition to the wireline telephone network-- one of the key goals of the Telecommunications Act. Today, there is an almost limitless demand for the use of this spectrum. In other words, the spectrum is an enormously valuable, yet finite natural resource. This is the crux of the problem with our current spectrum policy structure. Unless a reformation plan is developed to create a more effective and efficient use of the spectrum, a vast array of new spectrum-based products, services, and technologies will go unrealized for the American people. The Future We are on the cusp of great change. Over the past couple of years, we in the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] have accelerated the deployment of a whole new generation of pocket phones-- so-called ``Personal Communications Services.'' Just this spring, the FCC authorized a new generation of wireless computers--radio-based systems that may make it possible for us to interconnect our schools and provide our students with access to the Internet on a low-cost, highly, effective basis. America has pioneered the development of digital television. Later this year, actual digital broadcast operations may begin. By the turn of the century--less than 4 years from now--we could have the equivalent of a digital overlay network in the United States, relying on a new electronic infrastructure broadcasters hope to put in place. These and other accomplishments have been achieved despite a regulatory framework that dates to the days of Marconi. It is a policy designed for an environment characterized by stable technology and stable, predictable demand for very basic communications. Under this antiquated model, the Government--not consumers--largely decides who uses frequencies, what they are used for, and how they are used--a government-sponsored electronic industrial policy. This system is slow. It is anticompetitive. It is antifree speech. Inefficiencies in the Current Policy As with other systems of central planning, the spectrum management system currently utilized in the United States tends to result in inefficient use of the spectrum resource. Federal regulators --rather than consumers--decide whether taxis, telephone service, broadcasters, or foresters are in greatest need of spectrum. Not surprisingly it is a highly politicized process. Most important, new services, products and technologies are delayed or, worse yet, denied. This obviously harms consumers. Consider cellular phones, the lengthy delay in making cellular telephone service available imposed tremendous cost on the economy. One study estimated the delay cost the economy $86 billion. As important, American consumers were denied a new productivity and security tool for many years. Equally troubling, the system constrains competition. One of the most important qualities of a competitive industry is the ability of new firms to enter the business. Yet, the bureaucratic allocation process typically provides for a set number of licenses for each service. This precludes additional competitors. Only two cellular franchises, for instance, are allowed in each market. Delays associated with the allocation and assignment processes, while perhaps acceptable in a slow changing world, are seriously out of step with the fast-changing, high-technology world of today. Pressures on the traditional radio frequency management structure are increasing. Demand for channels is outstripping supply. The current environment hobbles progress. It makes it hard for innovators to gain access to the radio spectrum resources they need to deliver technology's promise to the American people. Another problem with current policy is that the Federal Government alone claims nearly one-third of this critical resource for itself. Since 1992, there has been a bipartisan commitment to privatize some of the spectrum the Government has warehoused. Among the benefits of that bipartisan effort has been a series of spectrum auctions. Those auctions have produced more than $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Although spectrum auctions have provided significant revenues for the U.S. Treasury, the overriding policy reason for adopting a spectrum auction policy is not--I repeat not--to provide more money for the Government. Much more important, spectrum auctions have accelerated access to the resource by private sector entrepreneurs. The key policy goal achieved with auctions is placing the spectrum resource in the hands of those who value it most highly. Those who will put it to its best, highest valued use. The FCC's current auction authority expires in 1998. We need to address these issues before then. We then ought to make the FCC's auction authority permanent. But as I stated here on the Senate floor on March 13 much more definitely needs to be done. Under the comprehensive discussion draft of spectrum reform legislation I am unveiling today, a far reaching series of reforms would be initiated. Spectrum Auction Authority and Exhaustive Licensing The spectrum reform discussion draft would expand the FCC's spectrum auction authority. This change would, once and for all, place the spectrum issue outside of the budget context and squarely in the arena of communications policy. The FCC also would be required to exhaustively license all available spectrum by selecting bands of unallocated and unassigned frequencies to be auctioned. Any existing licensees in these bands would be protected and grandfathered. Indeed, they would gain flexibility in use within their actual or implied service area and spectrum block. The FCC is directed to maximize the value of spectrum licenses by selecting broad, low frequency bands of contiguous spectrum that are not fully assigned. The spectrum licensee seeking flexibility in use also may apply for any adjacent or cochannel spectrum contiguous to its existing license that is allocated but unassigned. Spectrum Flexibility The key reform contained in this discussion draft is freedom in spectrum use. While important, auctions are not the most important reform contained in this legislation. Much more important is replacing the current Government mandated industrial policy system with a market- based approach. Auctions only tell you who gets a license. We now need to discuss what the license allows you to do. Like land, the Government shouldn't tell people what they can do with frequencies. So long as they don't interfere with their neighbors, they should be able to use it for whatever consumers want. Like newspapers, the Government shouldn't tell broadcasters what they say or how they say it. That should be up to viewers. Simply put, frequencies should be treated more like private property. However, in making these policy changes we should build on the current system. Many licensees already have a great deal of flexibility in what they can do. Let's build on that and give them more freedoms. Mr. President, at the core of the spectrum reform I am today proposing is the concept of spectrum flexibility. Flexibility for a changing world. For instance, radio frequency management historically has limited the permissible uses of allocated bands and assigned channels. This, in part, has been a function of technology, as well as the characteristics associated with particular frequencies. For example, channels allocated to the Forest Products Service traditionally have been quite low frequencies. This is because those frequencies have been shown to have the greatest ability to penetrate underbrush, leaves, and other obstructions naturally occurring in a forest. New digital communications technologies have gone a long way toward changing this reality. Today's digital technology includes error correction and other features which lessen interference. Another good example of why today's technology requires increased spectrum flexibility occurs in spread spectrum and digital overlay. These techniques make it possible for multiple communications pathways to be established within the same radio frequency channel. In other words, using this technology, broadcasters could transmit communications in addition to video and sound signals. Radio broadcast channels today, for example, already provide local links for paging operations. Government policy must allow multiple, more intensive use of radio frequency resources where there is no perceptible adverse technical impact. Allowing radio frequency licensees greater flexibility also could facilitate equipment and systems modernization and upgrading in the public sector. This would enhance public safety. For example, many public communications systems today are in need of modernization, to meet the demand for more cost-effective and responsive law enforcement, fire safety, and emergency medical services. At the same time, the financial resources available to many public safety communications organizations are quite limited. If local police forces were permitted greater flexibility in use of their channels, however, this challenge would be less severe. Switching to new digital communications techniques typically achieves a significant increase in the total number of channels available--in some cases, by a factor of four or more. Thus, a local police department could increase the number of channels available to support its operations and, at the same time, have capacity available which it could lease or barter with private communications organizations. Such arrangements could generate the funds needed to finance modernization. Greater flexibility is a public interest win-win situation--an option that benefits all involved and affords the general public both better service and more communications options. The FCC already has taken steps to allow some radio licensees more flexible use. The Commission's cellular radiotelephone rules, for example, place few constraints on permissible communications. The same is true in the case of the new PCS services. What is needed, however, is far greater application of this fundamental principle of flexible spectrum use. My bill does just that. Under this discussion draft, each existing and future licensee would have increased flexibility in use including: The right to use assigned spectrum for any service, under any regulatory classification, and under any technical parameters. In addition, the licenses would have the right to freely transfer the license to others. The flexible use would have to be within the licensee's existing or implied service area and spectrum block and could not be inconsistent with international treaty obligations of the United States. The spectrum licensee also would bear the burden of showing any new use was within the existing or implied service area and spectrum block. Spectrum Privatization Another major feature of the draft legislation is spectrum privatization. Simply put, under the discussion draft, the Federal Government would be obliged to relinquish one-quarter of its spectrum stockpile. Spectrum auctions would be held to place that spectrum into the hands of the public as quickly as possible. In addition, Government agencies would be required to rely, to the maximum extent possible, on the private sector to meet their radiocommunications needs. Taking into account the taxes paid, if nothing else, this would definitely help the public and strengthen the American information technology economy. Spectrum Management Consolidation The discussion draft would place the responsibility for managing the spectrum in the United States solely with the FCC. The Commission would be required to factor in critical national defense, law enforcement, and national policy priorities. However, the current regime divides responsibility between the FCC and the Department of Commerce, would be streamlined. This would improve the overall management process. It also would increase accountability. Self-Managed Regulation One of the more promising options for radio frequency management reform is expanded use of self-managed regulation--the use of private sector radio frequency coordinator groups to handle routine engineering, frequency coordination, and other functions which, in the past, typically had been undertaken by FCC staff. At present, the FCC relies on frequency coordinators to handle many of the routine chores associated with private mobile radio systems. Organizations such as the National Association of Business & Educational Radio [NABER], the Associated Public-Safety Communications Officers [APCO], and the Special Industrial Radio Service Association [SIRSA] process applications, conduct engineering surveys, and otherwise facilitate licensing and channel usage in these specific private radio services. The FCC does not generally rely on frequency coordinators, however, with regard to broadcast services, satellite communications, and other large frequency using services. The task of being a frequency coordinator depends, in large part, upon two things: Access to computerized data bases; and some expertise in radio frequency engineering. Access to data bases today, of course, is routine. At the same time the number of individuals with substantial radio frequency management expertise is growing. This is due in part to Federal Government and defense agency downsizing. There is, in short, no good reason to assume that multiple frequency coordinators could not be sanctioned by the FCC. This would have the effect of broadening users' options. Competition among frequency coordinator groups, moreover, should have the effect of ensuring efficient charges and effective, responsive operations. That has been true in virtually every market in which competition has been introduced. It should prove true in this case as well. That is why the discussion draft directs the FCC to expand substantially the agency's use of private sector frequency coordinator groups. Public Safety Spectrum The draft legislation also directs the FCC to make spectrum block grants to States for public safety spectrum needs. In lieu of processing, issuing, and renewing tens of thousands of public safety communications licenses--at significant cost to licensees, as well as the FCC--the agency would issue 55 block grants to the chief executive officer of each State, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. It would then be the responsibility of State Governors to determine eligibility, to ensure compliance with standard FCC--and other--operating rules, and to resolve disputes among public safety licensees within their jurisdiction. This reform would reduce delays and heighten responsiveness to actual user requirements. It would lessen substantially the burdens of traditional regulation now borne by the FCC. Most important, it would tend to ensure more and better public safety communications for State residents. Broadcast Television Spectrum Mr. President, this draft legislation also would resolve the controversy that has surrounded the digital--or high-definition-- television issue. It would speed up the migration of broadcast television to digital channels. At the same time, it would firm up the plans which have been announced regarding the retrocession of one 6 Mhz channel--assets which could be used for many purposes in addition to straight broadcast television. Spectrum in the VHF and UHF television bands has the potential of being extremely valuable for a variety of uses. Current licensing policy, however, keeps this spectrum locked up in a single, narrowly defined use. The fundamental thrust of this alternative broadcast TV spectrum policy is to allow markets to guide the spectrum to its highest valued use, while preserving the current level of free television service, noncompetitively assigning an additional 6 MHz to each existing NTSC licensee, and ensuring the public is fairly compensated for the use of spectrum. This alternative proposal recognizes the equities of incumbent full power broadcast licensees in the band to fully and fairly compete in the digital era, most especially their desire to convert to digital technology. At the same time--and let me be very clear on this point--it will maintain the current level of free television service for American consumers. The Need for Reform Mr. President, we enacted comprehensive telecommunications legislation earlier this year for one very simple reason. It became more and more apparent to all of us that the traditional, highly bureaucratized telecommunications regulatory system no longer served the public's best interest. There were unexplainable delays. New services were not being offered. New investment and job opportunities were not materializing fast enough. The oldtime telecommunications regulatory system, in short, had become the classical regulatory bottleneck. It was stalling forward progress. As a result--after nearly two decades of struggling with these issues--this Congress developed and enacted comprehensive reform legislation. The discussion draft I am unveiling today is very much the other side of that fundamental regulatory reform equation. It addresses issues and choices that Congress, the FCC, and the executive branch have wrestled with for years. The approach is fair and balanced--and, balanced very much in terms of helping the American public while strengthening national competitiveness. I believe it could usher in a dynamic, vibrant ``Wireless Era'' in which American entrepreneurial capitalism leads the world into a robust high-technology future that will benefit all Americans. Congress has spent years examining the way we manage other natural resources--from water, grazing, and timber issues so critical to my part of the country, to the fisheries vitally important to the Northeast, the Northwest, and, of course, Alaska. The natural resource this draft legislation focuses upon is just as important to America. This discussion draft was crafted in consultation with a wide range of engineering, economic, and public policy experts. It is based, in large part, upon the extensive open hearings which the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has conducted over the past few years. This is a worthy regulatory reform initiative. It could pay enormous public policy dividends. Let me stress, however, that the unveiling of this discussion draft is merely the beginning of what I hope will be a spirited, robust debate. I look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with all of my colleagues in the Senate and the House to develop sound, consensus legislation that can be introduced in the near future. I also want to encourage all affected parties to provide comments to the committee regarding this proposal. Mr. President, the radio frequency management and use reforms contained in this spectrum reform discussion draft hold significant promise. They would reduce regulatory burdens. They would foster important public policies including advances in technology and innovation, greater choice and more customer options, and more effective, efficient, and responsive use of this valuable national resource. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the discussion draft together with the draft legislative language itself be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pressler, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Bryan pertaining to the introduction of S. 1735 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is the second most productive in the world. In the United States, the tourism industry employs more than 6.3 million people--making it the second largest employer in the country. Unfortunately, the United States is no longer the No. 1 tourist destination. As other nations have recognized the economic potential of tourism, the United States has allowed itself to fall behind. We must reverse this trend. This week we celebrate National Tourism Week. To commemorate the important contributions of this great industry, I am introducing a bill to stimulate U.S. tourism. I plan to make it a major priority, as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation--and as cochair of the Senate Tourism Caucus--and as the Senator from one of the finest tourist destinations on Earth. My bill gives Federal charter to a new U.S. Tourism Organization--a nonprofit, nongovernmental group to promote U.S. tourism, both in this country and abroad. Mr. President, this organization would be put together entirely through private-sector initiatives. It is designed as a public-private partnership--not an expensive new Government program. My bill would allow the U.S. Tourism Organization to raise funds through the development and sale of a tourism logo or emblem--much as is done today by the U.S. Olympic Committee. In addition, for an annual fee, American businesses could become members of the U.S. Tourism Organization. Membership would allow use of the logo for advertising and promotional efforts. Not only would this boost individual businesses, it also would advance the tourism industry as a whole. My bill also would implement a national tourism strategy so that the United States can once again be the No. 1 tourist destination in the world. This is of critical importance to places like my home State of South Dakota. In South Dakota, we depend upon our average tourism revenues of $1.24 billion. In fact, tourism is second only to agriculture as the most lucrative industry in South Dakota. Ask anyone in Washington and they will tell you I am South Dakota's No. 1 travel agent. Whether it is Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, where I enjoy riding my Harley Davidson Softtail, a trip to Laura Ingalls Wilder's home in DeSmet, or the Prairie Dog Hunt in Winner--I am always looking for ways to promote South Dakota as a tourist destination. Incidentally, I was able to ride my Harley in the beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota this weekend. I am leading a group of 600 motorcyclists there in 2 weeks. The Sturgis bike rally is one of the major events in the Nation--South Dakota really is a major tourist destination. Visitors to my Washington office frequently ask about the beautiful panorama of Mount Rushmore which hangs in my reception area. Set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest, the memorial is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, Father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years after its conception, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America's democracy. In my office, I also have a sign letting guests know that the infamous Wall Drug in Wall, SD is only 1,523 miles away. The store survived the Great Depression by serving free ice water to travelers. Today, Wall Drug boasts a restaurant, art gallery, gift shops, and of course, the drug store that started it all. I might add, the ice water is still free. As part of my more official efforts, I recently wrote to every foreign ambassador in Washington encouraging them to promote South Dakota as a tourist destination. Not long after receiving my letter, the Ambassador from Austria visited South Dakota. I understand he enjoyed his visit very much. Foreign visitors are becoming our fastest growing tourist population. We welcome them. The bill I am introducing today is designed to make it easier for foreign visitors to plan a trip to South Dakota. Among the many duties of the U.S. Tourist Organization is the development of a national travel and tourism strategy aimed at increasing foreign tourism in the United States. I want the organization to aim at high technology. Earlier this year we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This new law will unleash whole generations of communications technology. When I introduced the bill that became that law, I said the technology it would spur would benefit a wide variety of industries. This is a prime example. With technologies such as the World Wide Web, information on U.S. tourism can be made available to all corners of the globe. Austrians could learn about the world-class Shrine to Music Museum in Vermillion. Kenyan safari hunters would be able find out when hunting season is in Redfield--the Pheasant Capital of the world. Dogsledders in the Yukon may want to try out the snowmobile trails of the Black Hills National Forest. The use of the latest developments in communications technology could promote destinations like the city of Deadwood--one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in South Dakota. Deadwood's Main Street is lined with old-fashioned saloons and gaming halls--inspiring memories of the 1890's gold rush. You can still visit Saloon No. 10 where Wild Bill Hickock was shot--making famous his poker hand of aces and eights, the Deadman's hand. Other legendary sites in South Dakota also would benefit. Near Garretson, SD lies Devil's Gulch--a deep rocky chasm, made famous by Jesse James. As you stand and look across Devil's Gulch, you can almost imagine Jesse's cry when, being chased by the law, he spurred his horse to leap across the 20-foot wide, 50-foot deep chasm and rode to freedom. Of course, once the destination is decided, visitors would want to book accommodations, and arrange transportation and tour guides. However, in South Dakota, we have many small businesses which might not have the advertising budgets of the larger tours and resorts. My bill is designed to promote all U.S. tourism interests--including both large and small business operations. To ensure this, the U.S. Tourism Organization would have a National Tourism Board, with 45 members, each representing a different aspect of the travel and tourism industry--from transportation, to accommodations, from dining and entertainment, to tour guides. This provision would be particularly helpful to small business owners in South Dakota like Al Johnson who runs the Palmer Gulch Resort near Hill City. Or for Alfred Mueller, owner of Al's Oasis in Chamberlain-- the famous home of the buffaloburger. The U.S. Tourism Organization would partner the Federal Government with the men and women who are the tourism industry. This type of public-private partnership was discussed by South Dakotans like Vince Coyle, of Deadwood, and Julie Jensen, of Rapid City, when they attended the White House conference on tourism. Working together, we can make tourism the new key to this country's economic success. This is our opportunity to forge ahead. There is no reason the U.S. travel and tourism should be relegated to the backseat any longer. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to once again make the United States the top tourist destination in the world. With that, Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill to establish the U.S. Tourism Organization as a nongovernmental entity for the purpose of promoting tourism in the United States. Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Warner of Virginia, on the floor. He is a champion of tourism. He has been a leader in the tourism industry since we came to the Senate together in 1978. I am proud he is joining in this effort to lead the charge to work for this bill's passage. We know that in the Department of Commerce and especially in the Undersecretary for Tourism's office there have been cutbacks. But this provides us with a vehicle to accomplish our goal to promote tourism, a vehicle of using public-private partnership. This is the spirit and the genius of free enterprise in our country. Senator Warner has been at the forefront of that legislation, and I salute him, and I welcome him to help lead this charge. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. PRESSLER. I again commend my friend from Virginia for his great leadership. I think he found, in getting cosponsors for his original bill, there is bipartisan support for this. And I see our friend, Senator Dick Bryan, who has done such an outstanding job on tourism and travel matters on his side of the aisle. He also has led the charge on tourism and supports this bill. Is it not true that my friend found great bipartisan support?

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is the second most productive in the world. In the United States, the tourism industry employs more than 6.3 million people--making it the second largest employer in the country. Unfortunately, the United States is no longer the No. 1 tourist destination. As other nations have recognized the economic potential of tourism, the United States has allowed itself to fall behind. We must reverse this trend. This week we celebrate National Tourism Week. To commemorate the important contributions of this great industry, I am introducing a bill to stimulate U.S. tourism. I plan to make it a major priority, as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation--and as cochair of the Senate Tourism Caucus--and as the Senator from one of the finest tourist destinations on Earth. My bill gives Federal charter to a new U.S. Tourism Organization--a nonprofit, nongovernmental group to promote U.S. tourism, both in this country and abroad. Mr. President, this organization would be put together entirely through private-sector initiatives. It is designed as a public-private partnership--not an expensive new Government program. My bill would allow the U.S. Tourism Organization to raise funds through the development and sale of a tourism logo or emblem--much as is done today by the U.S. Olympic Committee. In addition, for an annual fee, American businesses could become members of the U.S. Tourism Organization. Membership would allow use of the logo for advertising and promotional efforts. Not only would this boost individual businesses, it also would advance the tourism industry as a whole. My bill also would implement a national tourism strategy so that the United States can once again be the No. 1 tourist destination in the world. This is of critical importance to places like my home State of South Dakota. In South Dakota, we depend upon our average tourism revenues of $1.24 billion. In fact, tourism is second only to agriculture as the most lucrative industry in South Dakota. Ask anyone in Washington and they will tell you I am South Dakota's No. 1 travel agent. Whether it is Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, where I enjoy riding my Harley Davidson Softtail, a trip to Laura Ingalls Wilder's home in DeSmet, or the Prairie Dog Hunt in Winner--I am always looking for ways to promote South Dakota as a tourist destination. Incidentally, I was able to ride my Harley in the beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota this weekend. I am leading a group of 600 motorcyclists there in 2 weeks. The Sturgis bike rally is one of the major events in the Nation--South Dakota really is a major tourist destination. Visitors to my Washington office frequently ask about the beautiful panorama of Mount Rushmore which hangs in my reception area. Set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest, the memorial is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, Father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years after its conception, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America's democracy. In my office, I also have a sign letting guests know that the infamous Wall Drug in Wall, SD is only 1,523 miles away. The store survived the Great Depression by serving free ice water to travelers. Today, Wall Drug boasts a restaurant, art gallery, gift shops, and of course, the drug store that started it all. I might add, the ice water is still free. As part of my more official efforts, I recently wrote to every foreign ambassador in Washington encouraging them to promote South Dakota as a tourist destination. Not long after receiving my letter, the Ambassador from Austria visited South Dakota. I understand he enjoyed his visit very much. Foreign visitors are becoming our fastest growing tourist population. We welcome them. The bill I am introducing today is designed to make it easier for foreign visitors to plan a trip to South Dakota. Among the many duties of the U.S. Tourist Organization is the development of a national travel and tourism strategy aimed at increasing foreign tourism in the United States. I want the organization to aim at high technology. Earlier this year we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This new law will unleash whole generations of communications technology. When I introduced the bill that became that law, I said the technology it would spur would benefit a wide variety of industries. This is a prime example. With technologies such as the World Wide Web, information on U.S. tourism can be made available to all corners of the globe. Austrians could learn about the world-class Shrine to Music Museum in Vermillion. Kenyan safari hunters would be able find out when hunting season is in Redfield--the Pheasant Capital of the world. Dogsledders in the Yukon may want to try out the snowmobile trails of the Black Hills National Forest. The use of the latest developments in communications technology could promote destinations like the city of Deadwood--one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in South Dakota. Deadwood's Main Street is lined with old-fashioned saloons and gaming halls--inspiring memories of the 1890's gold rush. You can still visit Saloon No. 10 where Wild Bill Hickock was shot--making famous his poker hand of aces and eights, the Deadman's hand. Other legendary sites in South Dakota also would benefit. Near Garretson, SD lies Devil's Gulch--a deep rocky chasm, made famous by Jesse James. As you stand and look across Devil's Gulch, you can almost imagine Jesse's cry when, being chased by the law, he spurred his horse to leap across the 20-foot wide, 50-foot deep chasm and rode to freedom. Of course, once the destination is decided, visitors would want to book accommodations, and arrange transportation and tour guides. However, in South Dakota, we have many small businesses which might not have the advertising budgets of the larger tours and resorts. My bill is designed to promote all U.S. tourism interests--including both large and small business operations. To ensure this, the U.S. Tourism Organization would have a National Tourism Board, with 45 members, each representing a different aspect of the travel and tourism industry--from transportation, to accommodations, from dining and entertainment, to tour guides. This provision would be particularly helpful to small business owners in South Dakota like Al Johnson who runs the Palmer Gulch Resort near Hill City. Or for Alfred Mueller, owner of Al's Oasis in Chamberlain-- the famous home of the buffaloburger. The U.S. Tourism Organization would partner the Federal Government with the men and women who are the tourism industry. This type of public-private partnership was discussed by South Dakotans like Vince Coyle, of Deadwood, and Julie Jensen, of Rapid City, when they attended the White House conference on tourism. Working together, we can make tourism the new key to this country's economic success. This is our opportunity to forge ahead. There is no reason the U.S. travel and tourism should be relegated to the backseat any longer. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to once again make the United States the top tourist destination in the world. With that, Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill to establish the U.S. Tourism Organization as a nongovernmental entity for the purpose of promoting tourism in the United States. Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Warner of Virginia, on the floor. He is a champion of tourism. He has been a leader in the tourism industry since we came to the Senate together in 1978. I am proud he is joining in this effort to lead the charge to work for this bill's passage. We know that in the Department of Commerce and especially in the Undersecretary for Tourism's office there have been cutbacks. But this provides us with a vehicle to accomplish our goal to promote tourism, a vehicle of using public-private partnership. This is the spirit and the genius of free enterprise in our country. Senator Warner has been at the forefront of that legislation, and I salute him, and I welcome him to help lead this charge. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. PRESSLER. I again commend my friend from Virginia for his great leadership. I think he found, in getting cosponsors for his original bill, there is bipartisan support for this. And I see our friend, Senator Dick Bryan, who has done such an outstanding job on tourism and travel matters on his side of the aisle. He also has led the charge on tourism and supports this bill. Is it not true that my friend found great bipartisan support?

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to commend my friend from Minnesota, who speaks so eloquently on the issue of taxes. I follow his leadership and depend on it in this area. I want to continue on the theme he has raised so eloquently here. We must repeal the gas tax. It is hurting farmers, truckers, tourists, airlines. It seems that every time Washington wants to solve a problem it passes an additional tax. It is with the belief that this will somehow solve problems. But we can actually get more revenue into the Federal Treasury by restraining certain types of taxes on production. For example, in my State of South Dakota, if we could repeal the gas tax and make sure it went to consumers, we would be in the position that our truckers would be better off who haul agricultural commodities to markets. It costs us about 50 cents a bushel to move our agricultural commodities to market. Our airlines would be better off, especially with the tourism season. Tourism is our No. 2 industry in South Dakota. I have in my hand an article from today's USA Today, Friday, May 3, ``Rising Jet Fuel Tab May Lead to Fare Hikes.'' If there are fare hikes, they will perhaps be the highest in perhaps some of the nonhub airports. That will hit at the heart of South Dakota's tourism season. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article ``Rising Jet Fuel Tab May Lead to Fare Hikes'' printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we speak a great deal about families and people who are struggling to make a living. In the Midwest everybody who produces things uses fuel. Our farmers get on a tractor and drive it all day using fuel all day. A trucker runs a truck and uses fuel all day. A builder uses fuel all day. There are some who believe in taxing the means of production. I say we should lessen the tax on the means of production and let us discover, as we know that will stimulate the economy and we will have more revenue in the Federal Treasury, because we will have more economic activity. Now, some have said that we do not want to pass this cut in the gas tax, this repeal, because the benefits will go to the companies and not the consumers. That is not true. This will be structured in such a way that the consumers and the users will get this. Others have said the high gas prices are caused in part by a need for more antitrust action. I say fine. I am an advocate of vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws under Scott-Hart-Rodino antitrust or under Clayton or under the Sherman Antitrust Acts. Also, the price- fixing aspects of those, if there is evidence thereof. All those steps are necessary and good but as a member of the Senate Finance Committee we have a chance to repeal the gas tax. We should do so. It will help consumers. It will help families. It will help agriculture. It will help tourism. It will help all the aspects of our economy as we enter this summer after this long, difficult winter. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that it is time to repeal the gas tax. It is time to give to consumers that break. It is time to create more economic activity in agriculture and tourism and trucking so that our economy can grow instead of being restricted by taxation. This is a rare opportunity at the beginning of this spring and summer season, after this long, hard winter. Our people are bursting forth with energy to do things. To repeal this tax now would be another boost to them. I am proud to join in this effort to repeal the gas tax. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleagues today to introduce the Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era Act [Pro-CODE]. This bill will eliminate outdated, useless rules, and regulations so that American companies can compete effectively throughout the world in the global information technology industry. It will strengthen our economy, create jobs, and maintain the U.S. lead in telecommunications and information technology into the 21st century. The high-technology industry is the crown jewel of the American economy--growing exponentially each year and constantly creating new jobs. This is the future of our country's economic security. We are the world leaders in the technology revolution. Whether in hardware, software, browsers, semiconductors, cryptography, or other segments of the industry, we have the talent and capability to retain this lead indefinitely. The private sector is doing everything possible to expand this industry. Unfortunately, they frequently are held back by unnecessary or antiquated Government rules and regulations. Government should help, or at the very least, get out of the way. Outdated Government policy must change and it must change immediately. The future of this industry, its employees and our country's economy depends on this change. This is why I am an original sponsor of Pro-CODE. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which I chair, will have jurisdiction over this bill, that basically, would allow unlimited export of commercially available encrypted software. I am committed to moving this legislation forward immediately and I am joined by others on the committee who fell the same way. The health of our national economy, and my home State of South Dakota's economy in particular, is heavily dependent upon exports. We must focus on expanding our present foreign markets and opening new ones in order to strengthen our businesses and maintain our economic hegemony. It is undisputed that American business can compete evenly with their foreign counterparts when operating on a level playing field. However, they are not always given fair treatment. When U.S. companies are treated unfairly vis-a-vis their foreign competitors, they lose contracts and their market share suffers. This leads to lower profits and less repatriation of those profits to the United States. We must do all we can to eliminate foreign trade barriers that restrict U.S. companies operating abroad. At the same time, we also must eliminate our own Government's discrimination against our American multinationals. To this end, the bill assists U.S. multinational companies, and high-technology companies in particular, by eliminating unnecessary restrictions on their operations. The Pro-CODE bill enjoys widespread bipartisan support. I believe this change in policy is vital if the United States is to maintain its worldwide lead in the development and sale of software technology. This is an industry key to the continued strength of our economy, however, export controls--true relics of the cold war--are hurting American companies' ability to sell their products overseas. We won the cold war. We must now disarm the weapons used to win that war before they are used against us. It is simply logical to allow U.S. companies to sell overseas some of the technology they currently are allowed only to sell within the United States. As you know, certain software readily available around the world and on the Internet is not allowed to be exported from the United States. Rules that once made sense are obsolete and harmful-- only to us--in today's rapidly changing world. Encrypted software, which serves to secure communications, is the future of the industry. If we fail to loosen our export laws, American companies face two unpleasant choices. First, they can simply stand by and watch their products be replaced by foreign competitors. This means losing this industry the way we lost consumer electronics, steel, and the auto industry in the past. In the more likely alternative, these companies will be forced to move their production and research facilities offshore. If this happens, not only will our economy suffer, but we will lose high-paying, high-technology jobs. We cannot afford either alternative. That is why I am fighting to correct this problem. We must do so--before it is too late. When I led the effort to enact the sweeping Telecommunications Reform Act my goal was to open up all aspects of the telecommunications industry to widespread competition. Without changes in other laws this goal cannot be fully achieved. Indeed, without such changes we risk the loss of markets such as software to foreign competitors because our own Government restricts the U.S. companies. The issue is a simple one--with the globalization of our information systems we must have secured transmissions. Those transactions should be protected by the best encrypted software available. That means American products. As the Federal Communications Commission proceeds with implementation of the Telecommunications Act it is important for Congress to keep a watchful eye on their deliberations. For example, some at the FCC support a mandated high-definition television [HDTV] standard. Not me. I will fight any FCC attempt to set mandated equipment standards. To establish such mandates would set a dangerous precedent which could chill competitive gains the United States has made throughout the world. The computer industry has grown and flourished because the Government did not set standards or impose mandates. The Government should not get into mandating standards. I also am working to bolster our competitiveness through the enactment of the international tax simplification for American competitiveness bill. The purpose of this legislation is to make technical corrections and simplification changes to the U.S. Tax Code-- eliminating some of the discriminatory and redundant application of rules of our companies. This bill likely will include a provision eliminating the discrimination against software under the foreign sales corporation rules. This too will help U.S. software exporters. This bill contains commonsense changes to the Tax Code designed to put United States companies on more equal footing with their key competitors in Japan and Germany. I intend to introduce this bill in the next few weeks. Here too, I expect widespread bipartisan support. I want to use my role as chairman of the Commerce Committee--with its jurisdiction over international trade and the Commerce Department--in combination with my membership on the Finance Committee--which has jurisdiction over trade and tax policy--to help strengthen American competitiveness overseas. Our economic future depends upon diligent efforts to ensure our companies are treated equitably not only by foreign countries, but by our own as well. We can compete with anyone given a fair chance. It is my goal to put America first.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on February 8, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which proposed to fundamentally change the way in which paging systems are licensed. The FCC adopted a freeze on the filing of paging applications, which immediately brought about many harmful effects. I promptly expressed my concerns to the FCC about its actions and asked Chairman Hundt to do something about the freeze in a letter dated March, 15, 1996. I am glad to say that on April 23, 1996, the FCC issued an order demonstrating it had listened to my concerns and the concerns of the industry with regard to the paging freeze. The FCC has modified the freeze so that existing paging carriers can apply to expand their systems by putting transmitters within 40 miles of stations they already are operating, so long as these stations were licensed before the freeze. The FCC also has decided against retroactively applying the freeze and will now process all applications which were filed before the February 8 freeze date. These are two very important steps towards mitigating the harmful impact of the freeze, and I wish to congratulate the FCC on its response. However, it has come to my attention there are some significant shortcomings in the mechanics of the new rules. With minor clarifications, the FCC could eliminate these shortcomings. In particular, the industry believes--and several Members of Congress agree--75 miles would be a more appropriate zone of expansion as opposed to 40 miles. The increased distance would allow existing paging businesses to accommodate their customers' immediate needs and respond to new requests for paging service as factories, hospitals, and neighborhoods are constructed and the need for paging coverage expands. Paging companies should be allowed to apply for new transmitters within 75 miles of any transmitter which has been licensed or which will be licensed based on an application filed before the freeze. The point is, many expansion proposals were filed by paging companies more than 1 year ago, and have been delayed at the FCC. These applications reflect expansions that were needed months ago. Indeed, these carriers now are receiving requests for further expansions. If we limit paging companies to a zone 40 miles from transmitters already licensed and operating, the only expansion they may be able to achieve would be adding those locations for which they applied last year. Additional coverage needs in the coming months will go unmet. Another problem is created by the FCC's proposal to allow anyone to file a competing application against the expansion proposals of existing carriers. The FCC has defended the freeze as a mechanism to prevent filing by speculators and application mills, many of which use the application process to defraud consumers out of their life savings. This is a worthy goal. However, the new rule contains an ironic twist. If anyone can file a competing application against an existing paging carrier's expansion, speculation and fraudulent filings will be encouraged. The application mills that currently are not able to file applications will now target each and every expansion proposal, because it will be their only opportunity to practice their unholy trade. This will allow continued consumer fraud. It also will prevent bona fide paging companies from expanding their coverage, since any expansion proposal which is filed against will be held in abeyance and probably dismissed. This result would nullify the good work of the FCC in modifying the freeze. I strongly suspect it is an unintended result. To prevent this anomalous result, the FCC can make minor adjustments to its freeze modification order: First, allowing a 75-mile expansion zone; second, allowing the expansion sites to be established within 75 miles of any transmitter granted from an application filed before the freeze; and third, limiting competing applicants to other carriers. It is vital the FCC take steps to mitigate the harmful effects of the freeze. The paging industry provides service to over 34 million subscribers. Industry members have been encouraged to make considerable investments to improve their services, and have relied in good faith on the FCC's published regulations. Paging services are designed to serve the needs of increasingly mobile customers. To be competitive, these businesses need to provide their service to the customers where and when they need it. If a paging service cannot respond to the needs of its existing and potential customers, it will not survive in this extremely competitive industry. This competition has spurred technological advances in what can be communicated over a pager. No longer is a pager some simple little box that beeps to let you know you should call your office. Today's pagers are vehicles for communicating written messages. For example, news organizations like Reuters now offer periodic summaries of breaking news stories through pagers. Pagers also provide cost-efficient means of communicating within large factory complexes. Additionally, we must not forget the lifesaving contribution these services make when used by doctors, ambulance crews, and critically ill patients, to summon assistance in the event of an emergency. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that this technology must be allowed to grow. That was the basis for my letter in March. At the same time, the process must not be so full of loopholes as to allow the unscrupulous to benefit at the expense of consumers. That is the challenge faced by the FCC. It has begun meeting the challenge by modifying its freeze on the filing of paging applicants. The flaws in its initial proposal should prove easy to address. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I stand ready to help this process in any reasonable manner.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, 16 years ago, we in Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. This bill gave the States the responsibility of developing permanent repositories for this Nation's low-level nuclear waste. Now the Clinton administration wants to take away that authority. For 8 years, South Dakota, as a member of the Southwestern Compact, along with North Dakota, Arizona and California, has worked to fulfill its duty to license a storage site. It did the job. Ward Valley, CA is the first low-level waste site to be licensed in the Nation. After countless scientific and environmental studies and tests, the State of California and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Ward Valley as a safe and effective place to store the Southwestern Compact's low-level radioactive waste. However, there is one problem. Ward Valley is Federal land. It is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Southwestern Compact has requested that Ward Valley be transferred to the State of California. The Clinton administration refuses to take action. Instead, it has stalled--again, and again, and again. First, the Secretary of the Interior ordered a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Then, he ordered the National Academy of Sciences to perform a special report on the suitability of Ward Valley for waste storage. Each study presented the Southwestern Compact with a clean bill of health for Ward Valley. Yet, the administration still delays. Now, the administration has ordered additional studies on the effects of tritium--studies the State of California already intended to perform, but not until the land transfer was complete. Also, I would note, the National Academy of Sciences made no mention that such studies should be a prerequisite to the land transfer. Instead, the Academy believes that this type of study should be ongoing--conducted in conjunction with operation of the waste storage facility. Unfortunately, I suspect that even if California gives in to demands and performs these tests, the administration will just think up new demands--anything to keep the Ward Valley waste site from becoming reality. So who benefits from these delays? No one. This is yet one more example of the Clinton administration's pandering to the environmental extremists--extremists intent on waging a war on the West. Scientific evidence shows that Ward Valley is a safe location for low-level radioactive waste storage. Neither public health nor the environment will be at risk. In fact, most of the waste to be stored at Ward Valley is nothing more than hospital gloves and other supplies which may have come in contact with radioactive elements used by healthcare providers. By contrast, continued delays creates risks--both to public health and the environment. Currently, low-level waste is simply stored on site--at hospitals, industries, or research institutions. In the four States of the Southwestern Compact, there are over 800 low-level radioactive waste sites. These sites were not meant to be permanent facilities. Thus, there have been no environmental studies, no long- term monitoring systems, nothing to guarantee safe storage of the waste. With no regional low-level radioactive waste storage sites available, South Dakota is forced to transport its low-level radioactive waste across the country to a disposal facility in Barnwell, S.C. Clearly, the costs of transporting this waste across the country are great--from the monetary cost to the waste generators, to the legal ramifications of transporting hazardous waste, to the potential Superfund liability incurred by the State and the generators. This is far too costly a price--one my State can't continue to bear. That is why, Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of legislation pending in the Senate to convey Ward Valley to the State of California, and to allow the construction of the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste storage site to continue unimpeded. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted in favor of this bill. This legislation is ready for Senate action. This legislation is necessary only because politics got in the way of good science. Transferring land such as Ward Valley is a common procedure for the administration. However, because of a political fight waged by environmental extremists, this conveyance has been held up for more than 2 years. This fight, this continued delay, will continue unless Congress acts. We have the opportunity to institute a rational approach to the process. By approving this legislation, we can allow the Southwestern Compact--and the rest of the States--to comply with the law we created. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to allow good science to prevail, rather than politics. Mr. President, I ask that correspondence between South Dakota Governor Janklow and Gov. Pete Wilson of California regarding the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste storage site be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the most recent in what seems to be a never ending list of crises we have had in the past year with the Government of Japan regarding international aviation relations. The root of the current problem, and a number of those which have preceded it, is the Government of Japan's continued refusal to fully comply with the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement. The Government of Japan incorrectly believes selective compliance with our bilateral aviation agreement is acceptable. The Japanese are badly mistaken. Nothing short of full compliance with the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement is acceptable. Let me explain. The United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement guarantees three United States-carriers--United Airlines, Northwest Airlines, and Federal Express--``beyond rights'' which authorize them to fly to Japan, take on additional passengers and cargo, and then fly to another country. That agreement requires the Government of Japan to authorize new beyond routes no more than 45 days after one of these three carriers files notice of an intention to initiate new beyond service. If this sounds like a relatively straightforward procedure, it is. Regrettably, the Government of Japan has made the procedure of initiating new beyond service anything but straightforward and predictable. Instead, contrary to the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement, they have turned a ``notice and fly'' provision into an approval process where the litmus test seems to be whether competition from a new route operated by a United States carrier threatens less competitive incumbent Japanese carriers. In fact, the overriding goal seems to be nothing less than imposing a de facto freeze on new air service by United States carriers beyond Japan. This violates the letter as well as the spirit of the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement and is intolerable. Mr. President, I have spoken about the problem at hand numerous times in this body. Unfortunately, it remains unresolved. More than a year ago, United Airlines notified the Government of Japan of its intention to start new beyond service between Osaka and Seoul, Korea. Although United Airlines is clearly authorized to operate this new service, the Japanese continue to refuse to permit it to do so. Unquestionably, United Airlines and its employee-owners have, and are continuing to, pay a very steep financial price for Japan's decision to wrongly deny it this valuable economic opportunity. The Japanese, unfortunately, have repeatedly rebuffed attempts by the administration to redress this violation. In fact, the most recent attempt was met by a threat from the Japanese that they may impose limits on new service by United States carriers between Los Angeles and Tokyo, even though the service in question is guaranteed by the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement without the threatened limitations. Make no mistake about it, whenever United States carriers are denied opportunities, the U.S. economy loses and tourism-related jobs in the United States are lost. Consistent with an amendment I offered last year on United States- Japan aviation relations that is now part of Public Law 104-50, the administration has finally drawn a line in the sand to hopefully resolve this violation. Namely, the administration has put on hold Japan Airlines' request for service between Tokyo and Kona, Hawaii until the Japanese respect United Airlines' right to provide new service beyond Japan. Even though I regret temporarily depriving Hawaii of a new tourism opportunity, we simply should not agree to expand commercial opportunities for a Japanese carrier in the United States at the same time the Government of Japan is wrongly denying a United States carrier opportunities in the Asia-Pacific market. Although the words of the Government of Japan suggest it wants to move forward in United States-Japan aviation relations, Japan's actions are preventing us from doing so. Moreover, the Government of Japan's continued failure to fully comply with the existing agreement is eroding the trust needed to secure a broader agreement that will create new air service opportunities for all United States and Japanese carriers between and beyond our two countries. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying I hope the Government of Japan resolves the Tokyo-Kona problem it created by immediately complying with the United States-Japan bilateral aviation agreement. Also, I hope the Japanese will not compound the current problem by following through on its threat to impose countermeasures against United Airlines and Northwest Airlines if the Tokyo-Kona problem is not resolved to its satisfaction. Clearly, that would further undermine Japan's stated goal of moving forward in our aviation relationship.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, due to a last second shot at the buzzer, South Dakota is home to the newest champions of professional basketball. Last night, the Sioux Falls Skyforce were crowned Champions of the Continental Basketball Association (CBA). The Skyforce dramatically defeated the Fort Wayne (Indiana) Fury, 118-117, after overcoming a 16-point deficit. That is my kind of deficit reduction. In honor of this event, I am introducing a Senate resolution congratulating the Skyforce, and their fans, for this victory. I am pleased that Senator Daschle has also agreed to cosponsor the measure. At this time, I want to personally extend my congratulations to the owners of the Skyforce, Greg Heineman, Robert J. Correa, and Roger Larson, General Manager Tommy Smith, and the Skyforce staff, for guiding the Skyforce to its first CBA Championship in the team's 7-year history. I also congratulate Head Coach Morris ``Mo'' McHone, Assistant Coach Paul Woolpert, and the talented Skyforce players, especially Playoff MVP Henry James. Their hard work, sweat, and determination really paid off when it counted. The Skyforce won the championship convincingly, beating Fort Wayne four games to one. Most of all, I congratulate the people of Sioux Falls and the surrounding area. They have enthusiastically embraced the Skyforce and provided loyal support over the years. The success of the Skyforce, and the CBA as a league, prove that professional basketball can survive and prosper in smaller cities across the Nation. I have been to many Skyforce games. Their games are always very fun and exciting. It is family-orientated entertainment at its best. Sioux Falls is rapidly becoming a sports mecca in the Midwest. The city's current professional baseball team, the Sioux Falls Canaries, have been playing in the northern league since 1993. But the city has been home to a number of professional baseball teams since the beginning of the century. Professional teams from other sports would do well to take note of the city's enthusiasm for sports and consider moving to Sioux Falls. Finally, Mr. President, let me state that I was thrilled to learn of the Skyforce victory for personal reasons. Before the final series began for the CBA Championship, I made a small wager with the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats. I gambled 12 pounds of South Dakota's finest steak, while my colleague risked 12 gallons of Edy's Grand Ice Cream, made in Fort Wayne. This afternoon, my good friend from Indiana graciously paid off. I will gladly take a scoop or two, but I will be sharing the fruits of this victory with several children's charities in Sioux Falls. Mr. President, I ask consent that a roster of the Skyforce players and staff, along with a news article about the Skyforce victory, be printed in the Record. I yield the floor.