Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on April 10, 1996, the New York Yankees baseball organization held its annual homecoming dinner. This year's dinner raised money for the Yankee Foundation, and paid special tribute to one of the Yankees' and indeed one of pro baseball's great players, the late Mickey Mantle. Former and current Yankees along with their friends and family will be on hand. The Yankee Foundation raises money for youth programs and youth organizations throughout the Greater New York City area. The Yankees' principal owner George Steinbrenner presented the traditional ``Pride of the Yankees'' award to Mr. James M. Benson, president and chief operating officer of the Equitable Life Insurance Society. Mr. Benson received this honor for his tireless work on behalf of the numerous philanthropic causes the Yankees are involved in. Mr. William Denis Fugazy of Fugazy International also deserves mention. I know Bill Fugazy. He has been the general chairman of this dinner since its inception. Through Bill Fugazy's leadership, many young people have been given a chance to participate in some of the youth programs supported by the Yankees. The opportunity to participate in these programs helps young people develop skills which they can carry with them always. It is good to see sports franchises like the New York Yankees offer their communities more than just baseball games, and associate themselves with quality people like Bill Fugazy. This year's dinner also honored the late great Mickey Mantle. All of us know of his well chronicled, storied career. Many of us followed his achievements on the field when we were kids. From his exciting rookie year through his triple crown, and MVP years, all of the World Series in which he participated, to his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame, Mantle provided many exciting memories for young and old fans alike. Few would disagree that he will remain the Pride of the Yankees, and all of baseball.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, having written two books myself, I appreciate the great time and energy involved in preparing, researching, and writing a book, especially one recounting a complex series of historical events. As an enthusiast and lifelong student of history, I am pleased to bring to my colleagues' attention ``Legislating the Revolution,'' by James G. Gimpel. Jim is a native of western South Dakota. His thorough recounting of the Contract With America during the first 100 days of this Congress so impressed me that I hope my colleagues will take the opportunity to read it. The book is fair, factual, and comprehensive. Appealing to a spectrum of readers ranging from the social scientist to the concerned citizen, Jim's book already is being used in college classrooms across the country as a resource and reference book. After countless interviews with Members of Congress, congressional staff, interest group representatives, pollsters and party leadership, the product is a detailed, thoughtful chronological record of the events which shaped the so-called Contract With America. The book examines the many individuals who, behind the scenes, created the Contract itself and the campaign that played such a significant part in the Republican takeover of Congress in November 1994. The first 100 days of the 104th Congress may have been history in the making, but the period prior to the Contract With America was a new and equally historic era. Republicans had not controlled both Houses of Congress simultaneously for more than 40 years. The late House Speaker Tip O'Neil coined the famous phrase, ``All politics is local.'' The Contract With America challenged that notion by nationalizing the congressional elections and unifying the Republican Party around common goals. Jim Gimpel's examination of Republican and Democratic National Committee fundraising and campaigning, party and committee leadership, Southern Democratic influence and the mass electoral revolution, presents readers with a cornucopia of information and an understanding of the historic scope of the 1994 Congressional Revolution. He offers an overview of the efforts to pass the Contract in Congress, examining voting records and providing political analysis. The detailed accounts of the voting and the behind-the-scenes efforts made on both sides of the aisle paint a dramatic picture of the grueling give-and-take that produced unprecedented legislation. Through a series of theory testing, graphical representation, voting distributions, and the Perot factor, Gimpel thoroughly explains the background and the planks of the Contract With America, and forecasts the implications of these efforts on future elections and legislation. Although Jim Gimpel covers each plank in the Contract with America, I would like to highlight several areas of personal interest, first, the Fiscal Responsibility Act and second, the Personal Responsibility Act. Jim's analysis of the balanced budget amendment and term limits--the Fiscal Responsibility Act--was outstanding. Jim offers a truly compelling and easy to grasp explanation of the importance of a balanced budget for the United States. As more and more Americans are beginning to realize, if the Federal Government continues to spend beyond our means, more and more of our taxes must finance debt repayment, instead of important programs such as agriculture, education, Social Security, and veterans programs. Jim brings this vital point home clearly and effectively. He is equally clear and effective in his coverage of the welfare reform debate. As we all know, the original intent of the welfare system was to provide a simple safety net for the needy. The reality is the opposite: The current system acts as a harness holding down the recipients from taking personal responsibility for their own lives. Jim's tracking of the history, legislation, debates, and votes that produced the House welfare reform bill--Personal Responsibility Act--is precise and accurate. I know my constituents would find this chapter of particular interest, if not shocking. South Dakotans work hard every day to provide for their families without Government assistance. They pride themselves on hard work, but as the book points out, the failed welfare system promotes costly dependency. Jim offers more than just a legislative history of this sensitive issue. He demonstrates the basic social need that requires Congress to act on this problem. The importance of history cannot adequately be underscored. History-- the understanding of history--is our map of not only our past, but also our future. ``Legislating the Revolution'' is a compelling map of an exciting past and an extraordinary future for policy-makers and voters. It is a must read for every American.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today, I join with many of our colleagues in commemorating the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Today marks the exact day when 200 of the Armenia's academic, political, and religious leaders were taken from the city of Istanbul in 1915. The ability of Armenians to free themselves from the Ottoman Empire rested heavily on the plans and ideas of those who vanished. It was an ominous beginning to one of this century's darkest tragedies. This Senate should recognize and all Americans should remember, what occurred over there 81 years ago. That is why I stand here with my colleagues to urge an accurate remembrance of the past, of those who were slain by the Ottoman Turks, and plead that such hateful crimes against humanity never happen again. We stand in honor of those who were unable to take a stand 81 years ago today. We must try to heal the wounds of the past by remembering and recording the historical truths. The Ottoman Empire's actions--deliberate, planned, and deceitful actions--against the Armenian people should be remembered for what it actually was--genocide. The Armenian genocide was a hateful act whose objective was focused on the systematic annihilation of a people, their heritage, their culture, their identity, and their future. It is unfortunate that in recent years historians and politicians alike have tried to soften the terms used to describe this heinous crime against humanity. What occurred involves deportation, slavery, the loss of basic human rights, and wholesale murder--all targeted deliberately and methodically against one ethnic group. The record is clear. Genocide is genocide. To shy away from recognizing the Armenian genocide is to ignore and deny the historic truth, and that would put at risk the harsh lessons that must be learned if we are to avoid repeating that tragic history. The Armenians remember, but all must recognize and embrace the past, painful as it may be. It is said that the bitter pills of the past are the better tonics of a brighter future. About 600,000 Americans who consider themselves to be Armenians live in the United States. Many are survivors of the genocide, or are the children of survivors. About 1.5 million Armenians were killed or died during the mass deportation which began in 1915 and continued for many years. Two-thirds of all Armenians in Turkey were killed. In the region of Anatolia and western Armenia, the entire community of Armenians was extinguished or deported. It has been 81 years since that awful tragedy. Turkey has not apologized to the Armenians. That is unfortunate. Armenians are a strong, resilient people, struggling to heal the wounds of the past. But the wounds cannot be sealed until the story is complete. Until the Armenian genocide is officially acknowledged, the wounds will remain unhealed and the lessons will not be firmly learned. We do not deny the brutal nature of the Holocaust to the Jewish- American community. We are coming to grips with the severe violence against the people of Bosnia. We should not deny the Armenian people a similar place in history. To do so would dishonor ourselves, and spoil accurate understanding of the past. It is in the best interest of the American people and the entire global community to remember the past accurately. That is why we commemorate and honor those who were affected by the Armenian genocide.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, now that the farm bill is in place, farmers are doing their spring planting for the 1996 crops, or soon will begin. However, an unintended glitch has been discovered in the implementation of the new farm bill. Certain sections of the credit title of the new farm bill are being implemented to the detriment of farmers who have had any debts forgiven by the Government in the past. This has come as quite a surprise to many farmers in South Dakota and other parts of the Nation. I have heard from several farmers who had applied for operating or emergency disaster loans who are now being told they are ineligible because of past debt forgiveness. That is not right. That is not what Congress intended. Most important, this is the last thing a farmer needs to hear, especially when he needs a loan to get this year's crop in. In some cases, Mr. President, I have learned that farmers who had approved loans that had not been disbursed by April 4, are also now being told they are no longer eligible. Again, this is not what Congress intended. You can imagine how a farmer would feel when, after having his loan approved and a date set for disbursement, he's told the check's no longer in the mail. Mr. President, already Members of Congress are seeking to correct his unintended development. The chairmen of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees have written to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, to express their concerns about this implementation. It is clear we need legislation to ensure pending and future loans can go through. Therefore, today we are introducing a bill that would delay the implementation of section 373 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, until July 5, 1996. This would provide the time for USDA to disburse loans to farmers for this year's spring planting. I am pleased to undertake this corrective effort along with Senator Grassley and others. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives and I urge congressional adoption of these measures as soon as possible. Time is running out and we must act.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, now that the farm bill is in place, farmers are doing their spring planting for the 1996 crops, or soon will begin. However, an unintended glitch has been discovered in the implementation of the new farm bill. Certain sections of the credit title of the new farm bill are being implemented to the detriment of farmers who have had any debts forgiven by the Government in the past. This has come as quite a surprise to many farmers in South Dakota and other parts of the Nation. I have heard from several farmers who had applied for operating or emergency disaster loans who are now being told they are ineligible because of past debt forgiveness. That is not right. That is not what Congress intended. Most important, this is the last thing a farmer needs to hear, especially when he needs a loan to get this year's crop in. In some cases, Mr. President, I have learned that farmers who had approved loans that had not been disbursed by April 4, are also now being told they are no longer eligible. Again, this is not what Congress intended. You can imagine how a farmer would feel when, after having his loan approved and a date set for disbursement, he's told the check's no longer in the mail. Mr. President, already Members of Congress are seeking to correct his unintended development. The chairmen of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees have written to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, to express their concerns about this implementation. It is clear we need legislation to ensure pending and future loans can go through. Therefore, today we are introducing a bill that would delay the implementation of section 373 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, until July 5, 1996. This would provide the time for USDA to disburse loans to farmers for this year's spring planting. I am pleased to undertake this corrective effort along with Senator Grassley and others. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives and I urge congressional adoption of these measures as soon as possible. Time is running out and we must act.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, every morning, millions of parents kiss their children goodbye as they trade the hat of parent for the hat of teacher, police officer, waitress or doctor. When they leave home to work, they must leave their precious young ones in the care of someone else. Sometimes, parents find a relative. More often, they rely on strangers. As a parent myself, I know how difficult it can be to trust someone else with the well being of your child. Fortunately, most parents have reliable child care providers to depend on. We hear occasional horror stories of abuse and mistreatment by child care providers, but the majority of child care workers always have the best interests of the child at heart. April 21-28 will be the Week of the Young Child. During this important week, South Dakota will recognize Child Care Provider's Day on April 22. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize these hard working child care providers who support millions of American families each day. My State has a claim to fame that most Americans would not guess. According to the most recent census data, 71 percent of mothers with children under the age of six are working moms. The national average is less than 60 percent. This means that reliable, quality child care is an issue not just for parents in urban areas. Families in rural States must search for adequate child care, too. For families who live in remote areas of South Dakota, this may mean driving to the next town to find day care services. Child care providers do not have an easy task. A child's formative years are crucial. Caretakers must provide a stimulating environment for growth and learning. They do not merely babysit. Each child must be reached individually to develop language, reasoning and motor skills. Only a secure and nurturing environment can allow this to happen. In creating a home away from home, child care workers are providing American families with a very valuable service. For most families, success at work and stable home relationships hinge on professional child care. Congress has been working hard over the last year to reform the Federal child care system. I wholeheartedly support efforts to end overlap of programs and needless bureaucracy. Child care should be affordable, accessible, and reliable. I will continue working in Washington to ensure quality child care for all American families. Many thanks to the child care workers who daily provide for our children. They keep our families and workplaces on track. They should receive special recognition during the Week of the Young Child.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, earlier this year the U.S. Custom Harvesters held their annual meeting in Sioux Falls, SD. South Dakotans put out the welcome mat for custom harvesters throughout the country, and the annual meeting was a resounding success. During that meeting it was brought to my attention that custom harvesters were not granted equal treatment as farmers and farm workers under Federal laws requiring commercial driving licenses [CDL]. Presently, States can grant waivers to the Federal CDL requirement to farmers and farm workers. Those same waiver requirements are not afforded to custom harvesters. In many parts of the country, including South Dakota, custom harvesters are a crucial component in agricultural production. The bill I am introducing today simply grants States the right to waive CDL requirements for custom harvesters similar to those waivers currently afforded farmers and farm-related businesses. Joining me in this effort are Senators Burns, Inhofe, Daschle, and Baucus. Mr. President, customer harvesters normally drive less than 5,000 miles per year. They drive mostly on roads leading to and from farms and to the local grain elevator. Little time is spent on highways. Generally, custom harvesters drive less that 500 miles annually on interstate highways. It is a simple matter of fairness that they be treated equally. My bill would provide relief to custom harvesters from onerous and costly CDL requirements. Under the waivers, family members can take an active role in custom harvesting and drivers with experience and trust can be hired to drive custom harvesting vehicles. Custom harvesting involves many small, family owned companies. Custom operators account for nearly 40 percent of the total wheat acreage harvested annually. Their equipment must be utilized properly, kept in tip-top working conditions and safe in order to provide quality services. These harvesters go the extra mile to maintain equipment, train employees, and operate in the safest way possible. In 1988, States were provided the authority to waive CDL requirements for farmers. In 1991, the Senate passed a bill to provide the authority to individual States to provide the same exemption to custom harvesters. Unfortunately, that bill never passed and custom harvesters are still burdened with CDL requirements. My bill is similar to the measure passed in 1991. Given past Senate support for this measure, I am hopeful adoption of this bill will occur soon. I thank those Senators who have joined me in this effort and urge the Senate to adopt this bill.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, earlier this year the U.S. Custom Harvesters held their annual meeting in Sioux Falls, SD. South Dakotans put out the welcome mat for custom harvesters throughout the country, and the annual meeting was a resounding success. During that meeting it was brought to my attention that custom harvesters were not granted equal treatment as farmers and farm workers under Federal laws requiring commercial driving licenses [CDL]. Presently, States can grant waivers to the Federal CDL requirement to farmers and farm workers. Those same waiver requirements are not afforded to custom harvesters. In many parts of the country, including South Dakota, custom harvesters are a crucial component in agricultural production. The bill I am introducing today simply grants States the right to waive CDL requirements for custom harvesters similar to those waivers currently afforded farmers and farm-related businesses. Joining me in this effort are Senators Burns, Inhofe, Daschle, and Baucus. Mr. President, customer harvesters normally drive less than 5,000 miles per year. They drive mostly on roads leading to and from farms and to the local grain elevator. Little time is spent on highways. Generally, custom harvesters drive less that 500 miles annually on interstate highways. It is a simple matter of fairness that they be treated equally. My bill would provide relief to custom harvesters from onerous and costly CDL requirements. Under the waivers, family members can take an active role in custom harvesting and drivers with experience and trust can be hired to drive custom harvesting vehicles. Custom harvesting involves many small, family owned companies. Custom operators account for nearly 40 percent of the total wheat acreage harvested annually. Their equipment must be utilized properly, kept in tip-top working conditions and safe in order to provide quality services. These harvesters go the extra mile to maintain equipment, train employees, and operate in the safest way possible. In 1988, States were provided the authority to waive CDL requirements for farmers. In 1991, the Senate passed a bill to provide the authority to individual States to provide the same exemption to custom harvesters. Unfortunately, that bill never passed and custom harvesters are still burdened with CDL requirements. My bill is similar to the measure passed in 1991. Given past Senate support for this measure, I am hopeful adoption of this bill will occur soon. I thank those Senators who have joined me in this effort and urge the Senate to adopt this bill.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I also report favorably six nomination lists in the Coast Guard, which were printed in full in the Congressional Record on November 28, 1995, January 22, 1996, February 9, 1996, February 20, 1996, March 5, 1996, and March 11, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to bring some common sense to the judicial review of land management activities. In 1995, every single proposed timber sale in the Black Hills National Forest was challenged by extreme environmental groups. Was this necessary? No. My legislation would prevent environmental activists from ``court shopping'' when they challenge Federal timber sales and other land management activities. Is this necessary? Yes. The Black Hills National Forest in western South Dakota, famous for its enormous stands of ponderosa pine, is an essential part of South Dakota's economy. The Black Hills forest products industry includes 18 sawmills and 12 secondary manufacturers producing a full spectrum of lumber products, from housing quality lumber to particleboard and wood pellets. The list is endless. The industry sustains nearly 2,000 jobs. Preserving these South Dakota jobs and the future health of the forest requires careful management--both by the Forest Service and by the timber industry. Mayor Drue Vitter, of Hill City, SD, said it best: Good management of the forest by the Forest Service helps sustain a good cut for the timber industry. If we groom the forest well and keep it healthy, then we will have a healthy economy. Mr. President, the very first Federal timber sale in the Nation took place in the Black Hills near Nemo, SD, in 1899. That same area has been harvested twice since then. Today, a new generation of healthy ponderosa pine stands tall and strong--a testament to the proper stewardship of our national forests. Recently, however, proper forest management has been hindered by lengthy court challenges of Forest Service timber sales. Environmental extremists challenge almost every proposed Federal timber sale--not just in South Dakota but across the country. In the past 10 years, the number of Federal timber sales has decreased dramatically. In 1990, the Forest Service issued nine timber sale decisions in the Black Hills National Forest. In 1994, the Forest Service issued only four timber sale decisions on the Black Hills. Why the decline? Mainly it is due to the never-ending court challenges. These reductions threaten the health of the forest, cause sawmills to go out of business, and cause loggers and other workers to lose their jobs. This is bad for the forests. This is worse for South Dakotans. Angie Many, founder of the Black Hills Women in Timber organization, described the situation in a poignant letter to the editor of the Rapid City Journal newspaper. ``When less timber is harvested, the dangers of losing major portions of the Black Hills National Forest to wildlife or insect infestations are increased . . . local mills shut down or decrease shifts, disemploying real people with effects that trickle down to many other businesses . . . families like mine are torn apart as loggers and mill workers travel to other areas to find work . . .'' Sadly, Angie's description is accurate. Often, when environmental extremists contest a Federal timber sale, they shop around for courts that will be most sympathetic to their environmental concerns and where they can get the longest delays. They seek court action in metropolitan areas--courts that frequently are busier and tend to be more liberal. Is this fair to loggers? Of course not. Court-shopping is a sad fact of life right now in South Dakota. Here's an example: Two years ago, the Forest Service prepared the so- called Needles timber sale--a sale 6.77 million board feet in the Norbeck Wildlife Reserve. The Needles sale was aimed at thinning the stands of ponderosa pine which had become so dense from lack of management that wildlife no longer could survive there. This presented the Forest Service with an opportunity--an opportunity to achieve a balanced approach to forest management. By thinning the forest, the Forest Service intends to create new habitat areas that would encourage the return of wildlife to the area. That's good sense-- a plan that would result in both economic and environmental benefits. The Needles sale also was needed to ensure the long-term health of the forest within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The Preserve is deteriorating rapidly and poses a severe fire risk. A fire in this area would be devastating. It could destroy the forest and could cause permanent damage to the faces of the Mount Rushmore National Monument which lies within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The Needles timber sale would reduce drastically the risk of fire and insect destruction. Like almost every Federal timber sale in the Black Hills, the Needles timber sale was challenged almost immediately by a coalition of environmental extremists. For the past 2 years, this case has been pending in the Denver court system--with no hope of receiving any further attention. This just is not right. As many of my colleagues know, the Denver court system is currently one of the busiest in the Nation. The Needles timber sale is not a high priority for this court, particularly now that the Oklahoma bombing trial has been moved to Denver. But, this is what environmental extremists want. They wanted a delay. They got a delay. My bill would put an end to that. My legislation would require that Federal land management activities--including timber sales--be subject to initial judicial review only in the U.S. District Court in which the affected Federal lands are located. Under my bill, the Needles timber sale could have been heard in South Dakota--where there is no caseload logjam, so to speak. That means no more court shopping. No more court backlog. No unnecessary delays. No lost timber revenue. And most important, no lost jobs. A court in South Dakota will understand the needs of South Dakota's forest and rangelands better than a remote big city, Federal court with a clear liberal bias. Maurice Williams, the General Manager of Continental Lumber in Hill City, SD, agrees that South Dakotans are best equipped to determine how to manage the Black Hills: The proof is on the ground. The Black Hills National Forest represents more than a hundred years of solid management. A judge who never has seen the Black Hills just isn't qualified to decide how the forest should or should not be managed. Mr. President, I agree with Maurice. I believe it is time to give States and conscientious timber harvesters the home court advantage. Already this legislation has been cosponsored by several of my colleagues, including Senators Craig, Lott, Bennett, Simpson, Stevens, Murkowski, Inhofe, Kyl and Thomas. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the Black Hills Forest Resource Association be printed in the Record. I hope all my colleagues will take a close look at this bill and support its eventual passage. 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 am introducing legislation to bring some common sense to the judicial review of land management activities. In 1995, every single proposed timber sale in the Black Hills National Forest was challenged by extreme environmental groups. Was this necessary? No. My legislation would prevent environmental activists from ``court shopping'' when they challenge Federal timber sales and other land management activities. Is this necessary? Yes. The Black Hills National Forest in western South Dakota, famous for its enormous stands of ponderosa pine, is an essential part of South Dakota's economy. The Black Hills forest products industry includes 18 sawmills and 12 secondary manufacturers producing a full spectrum of lumber products, from housing quality lumber to particleboard and wood pellets. The list is endless. The industry sustains nearly 2,000 jobs. Preserving these South Dakota jobs and the future health of the forest requires careful management--both by the Forest Service and by the timber industry. Mayor Drue Vitter, of Hill City, SD, said it best: Good management of the forest by the Forest Service helps sustain a good cut for the timber industry. If we groom the forest well and keep it healthy, then we will have a healthy economy. Mr. President, the very first Federal timber sale in the Nation took place in the Black Hills near Nemo, SD, in 1899. That same area has been harvested twice since then. Today, a new generation of healthy ponderosa pine stands tall and strong--a testament to the proper stewardship of our national forests. Recently, however, proper forest management has been hindered by lengthy court challenges of Forest Service timber sales. Environmental extremists challenge almost every proposed Federal timber sale--not just in South Dakota but across the country. In the past 10 years, the number of Federal timber sales has decreased dramatically. In 1990, the Forest Service issued nine timber sale decisions in the Black Hills National Forest. In 1994, the Forest Service issued only four timber sale decisions on the Black Hills. Why the decline? Mainly it is due to the never-ending court challenges. These reductions threaten the health of the forest, cause sawmills to go out of business, and cause loggers and other workers to lose their jobs. This is bad for the forests. This is worse for South Dakotans. Angie Many, founder of the Black Hills Women in Timber organization, described the situation in a poignant letter to the editor of the Rapid City Journal newspaper. ``When less timber is harvested, the dangers of losing major portions of the Black Hills National Forest to wildlife or insect infestations are increased . . . local mills shut down or decrease shifts, disemploying real people with effects that trickle down to many other businesses . . . families like mine are torn apart as loggers and mill workers travel to other areas to find work . . .'' Sadly, Angie's description is accurate. Often, when environmental extremists contest a Federal timber sale, they shop around for courts that will be most sympathetic to their environmental concerns and where they can get the longest delays. They seek court action in metropolitan areas--courts that frequently are busier and tend to be more liberal. Is this fair to loggers? Of course not. Court-shopping is a sad fact of life right now in South Dakota. Here's an example: Two years ago, the Forest Service prepared the so- called Needles timber sale--a sale 6.77 million board feet in the Norbeck Wildlife Reserve. The Needles sale was aimed at thinning the stands of ponderosa pine which had become so dense from lack of management that wildlife no longer could survive there. This presented the Forest Service with an opportunity--an opportunity to achieve a balanced approach to forest management. By thinning the forest, the Forest Service intends to create new habitat areas that would encourage the return of wildlife to the area. That's good sense-- a plan that would result in both economic and environmental benefits. The Needles sale also was needed to ensure the long-term health of the forest within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The Preserve is deteriorating rapidly and poses a severe fire risk. A fire in this area would be devastating. It could destroy the forest and could cause permanent damage to the faces of the Mount Rushmore National Monument which lies within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The Needles timber sale would reduce drastically the risk of fire and insect destruction. Like almost every Federal timber sale in the Black Hills, the Needles timber sale was challenged almost immediately by a coalition of environmental extremists. For the past 2 years, this case has been pending in the Denver court system--with no hope of receiving any further attention. This just is not right. As many of my colleagues know, the Denver court system is currently one of the busiest in the Nation. The Needles timber sale is not a high priority for this court, particularly now that the Oklahoma bombing trial has been moved to Denver. But, this is what environmental extremists want. They wanted a delay. They got a delay. My bill would put an end to that. My legislation would require that Federal land management activities--including timber sales--be subject to initial judicial review only in the U.S. District Court in which the affected Federal lands are located. Under my bill, the Needles timber sale could have been heard in South Dakota--where there is no caseload logjam, so to speak. That means no more court shopping. No more court backlog. No unnecessary delays. No lost timber revenue. And most important, no lost jobs. A court in South Dakota will understand the needs of South Dakota's forest and rangelands better than a remote big city, Federal court with a clear liberal bias. Maurice Williams, the General Manager of Continental Lumber in Hill City, SD, agrees that South Dakotans are best equipped to determine how to manage the Black Hills: The proof is on the ground. The Black Hills National Forest represents more than a hundred years of solid management. A judge who never has seen the Black Hills just isn't qualified to decide how the forest should or should not be managed. Mr. President, I agree with Maurice. I believe it is time to give States and conscientious timber harvesters the home court advantage. Already this legislation has been cosponsored by several of my colleagues, including Senators Craig, Lott, Bennett, Simpson, Stevens, Murkowski, Inhofe, Kyl and Thomas. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the Black Hills Forest Resource Association be printed in the Record. I hope all my colleagues will take a close look at this bill and support its eventual passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chair. Let me say that my intention is to speak briefly on the farm bill, and then I want to introduce a piece of legislation, if I can do that as in morning business. The total time I will consume will be about 5 minutes.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important issue of United States aviation relations with the Government of France. Although the immediate crisis concerning the upcoming schedule for the summer season apparently has been resolved, I remain very concerned about the state of U.S./French aviation relations. As a result of France's decision in 1992 to renounce the bilateral aviation agreement that existed between our two countries, France currently is our only major aviation trading partner with whom we do not have an air service agreement. In the absence of such an agreement, U.S. and French carriers continue to fly between our two countries, but they do so solely at the pleasure of each government and without the necessary flexibility to increase or change service when market demand warrants. Essentially, U.S./French air service is frozen as if the clock stopped in 1992. In a speech before the International Aviation Club of Washington last month, I spoke at some length about the fires of air service liberalization burning brightly on the European continent. In hailing the enormously important U.S./German open skies agreement signed several weeks ago, I noted that nearly 40 percent of U.S. travel to Europe will now go to or connect through open skies markets. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the speech to which I referred be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Although this wave of air service liberalization touches France on three of its borders, France stands seemingly oblivious to the competitive air service forces besieging it. The fact of the matter is while its European neighbors are reaching out to embrace the future of global aviation with the enlightened view that the economic benefits of an open skies relationship with the United States are a two-way street, France continues to cling to the past. This choice is not without significant adverse consequences for France's economy. So what precisely is France's air service policy with respect to the United States? It appears that policy can be best described as ``managed stagnation.'' In an attempt to rebalance the market share of state-owned Air France vis-a-vis the highly competitive U.S. carriers, France has made the unfortunate decision to forego the tremendous air service growth other European countries are experiencing in their air service relationships with the United States. Ironically, some of the lucrative new air service opportunities European countries now enjoy are the direct result of traffic that France's restrictive air service policy has driven away to other countries. According to a recent statement by Anne-Marie Idrac, the French State Secretary for Transport, France ``is not any worse off'' for its decision to renounce the U.S./French air service agreement. Economic analysis, however, paints a far different--and quite sobering--picture. In fact, this analysis shows France's policy of managed stagnation is a recipe with a very bad aftertaste for the French economy. Let me explain. First, the adverse economic consequences of France's air service policy is best illustrated by a comparison with the recent experiences of the Netherlands. In 1991, both the U.S./French and U.S./Dutch air service markets experienced tremendous growth. Scheduled passenger traffic grew 21 percent and 14 percent respectively. In 1992, however, aviation relations with France and the Netherlands turned abruptly in opposite directions. Around the same time France renounced the U.S./French bilateral aviation agreement, the Netherlands opted to enter into an open skies agreement with the United States. What has resulted from these decisions? The U.S./Netherlands passenger market has grown at a rate over 10 times faster than the U.S./French market. Between 1992 and 1994, scheduled passenger service between the United States and the Netherlands grew 38 percent. In stark contrast, France's decision to renounce the U.S. air service agreement caused passenger growth in the U.S./French market to abruptly halt. Scheduled passenger traffic in the U.S./French market grew a measly 3 percent during that period, compared to 21 percent in 1991 the year immediately prior to renunciation. The net effect of these vastly different policies also is illustrated dramatically by the aggregate size of both country's passenger market with the United States. In 1991, the U.S./French passenger market was 100 percent larger than the U.S./Dutch market. By 1994, it was just 60 percent larger. What a difference two air service policies with the United States can make! Importantly, this trend of France foregoing tremendous air service opportunities is reflected elsewhere in Europe as well. For instance, between 1992 and 1994 scheduled passenger traffic between the United States and Switzerland grew 30 percent--ten times faster than it did in the French market. Amazingly, this tremendous growth does not reflect the U.S./Switzerland open skies accord signed last year. As was the case in the Netherlands, the U.S./Switzerland open skies agreement will likely cause that rate of growth to accelerate. The more mature U.S./ British air service market also experienced strong growth--10 percent-- during this same period. Unquestionably, France has succeeded at stagnating the U.S./French passenger service market at a time when new transatlantic air service opportunities for European countries with the United States abound. Second, at a time when revenue from connecting passenger traffic is increasingly important, France's air service policy is drying up U.S. connecting traffic at Paris' two key international gateway airports, Paris-Charles de Gaulle and Orly. Between 1992 and 1994, connecting traffic carried on U.S. airlines fell 55 percent at the Paris airports. Let me repeat this astonishing fact. Connecting traffic carried on U.S. airlines fell 55 percent at the Paris airports between 1992 and 1994. Where did this connecting traffic go? One need look no further than competing airports on the European continent. During the same period, U.S. airline connecting traffic grew 24 percent at Frankfurt and an astounding 329 percent at Amsterdam's Schipol Airport! The recent U.S./ German open skies agreement, as well as open skies agreements the United States signed last year with neighboring countries including Belgium and Switzerland, will surely cause the rate of ongoing connecting passenger traffic diversion away from Paris airports to accelerate. In particular, I fully expect German airports will press France hard in this competition for connecting passenger traffic. Third, Air France, the intended beneficiary of France's decision to renounce the U.S./French air service agreement, has on-balance suffered as a result of France's policy of managed stagnation. It is true that state-owned Air France has increased its share of the U.S./French market from 29 percent in 1992 to 37 percent in late 1995. However, this rebalancing of market share, which in large part resulted from U.S. carriers routing connecting passengers to international gateway airports in other continental European countries, has come at an inordinately high price. As a direct result of France's decision to tear up its air service agreement with the United States, Air France is isolated as the only major European carrier that does not have an alliance with a U.S. carrier. Quite correctly in my view, our Department of Transportation has indicated it will not approve any code-sharing alliance between Air France and a U.S. carrier until France agrees to enter into a sufficiently liberal air service agreement with the United States. What is the practical consequence for Air France? Every major European carrier has access to feed traffic from the very lucrative U.S. domestic market except Air France. To make matters worse for Air France, if the United Airlines and Delta Air Lines alliances with European carriers are granted antitrust immunity, in combination with the Northwest/KLM alliance, nearly 50 percent of passenger traffic between the United States and Europe will be carried on fully integrated alliances. Without a doubt, France's air service policy with the United States has placed Air France at a severe competitive disadvantage in the transatlantic and connecting service markets. A recent paper by the Commission of the European Communities on U.S./ E.C. aviation relations made this point well. According to the E.C., ``the commercial advantages of strategic alliances are such that it will be difficult for a major European carrier with the ambition to become (or remain) a global player, not to enter into an alliance with a U.S. partner.'' The E.C. is absolutely correct. France's decision to continue to forgo an air service agreement with the United States is threatening Air France's long-term future as a global player. Mr. President, France's aviation policy with the United States is not only inconsistent with the trend of air service liberalization sweeping Europe, it also is badly out of step with France's own domestic air service policy. Earlier this year, France opened its skies to domestic competition thereby ending the virtual monopoly of Air Inter, the domestic wing of Air France. This forward looking domestic policy came about because France realized it needed to better position Air Inter to compete next year in the deregulated intra-European air service market. Unfortunately, France has failed to apply this same vision to its air service policy with the United States. In marked contrast, France continues to cling to the past and it uses government restrictions to protect Air France from competition in the increasingly liberalized transatlantic market. The huge economic costs the French economy is bearing as a direct result of France's misguided air service policy with the United States reminds me of an editorial I read earlier this year shortly after Thailand abandoned its economically disastrous experiment with renunciation of its air service agreement with the United States. That January 26, 1996, editorial from the Bangkok Post astutely called Thailand's decision to renew formal aviation relations with the United States ``a victory for common sense.'' Let me add Thailand's decision was also a victory for forward looking economic policy. In condemning the economic folly of Thailand's failed experiment, the Bangkok Post added ``every airline that comes here or increases its frequency is investing more in the country, providing more jobs, bringing more tourists. Restricting those operations necessarily has the reverse effect.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the editorial from the Bangkok Post to which I have referred be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying I hope France will recognize its air service policy with the United States is an economic failure that is exacting a very high cost in terms of lost jobs and other commercial opportunities. To remedy this situation, I hope France will renew its formal aviation relations with the United States by agreeing to a liberal air service agreement. As the Commission of the European Communities recent study on EC/US aviation relations recently warned, countries such as France with a restrictive air service policy place themselves at great economic risk as the wave of air service liberalization continues to sweep across Europe. Exhibit 1 Remarks of Senator Larry Pressler, Before the International Aviation Club of Washington, DC, February 14, 1996 Bruce, thank you for your kind introduction. I am pleased to join the long list of outstanding speakers who have been privileged to share their views on international aviation policy with this distinguished group. Let me also thank the distinguished individuals who graciously accepted invitations to join me at the head table today. My friend Ambassador Chrobog and I met through our mutual love of opera. We also share a belief that the economic benefits of liberalized trade between nations is a two-way street. Mr. Ambassador, I am pleased that our two nations are on the brink of signing an open skies agreement of truly historic magnitude. Such an agreement will be momentous for both nations and will be a catalyst for fully liberalizing the enormous U.S./E.U. air service market. In pursuing this initiative, I believe Germany is providing outstanding leadership for all of its European Union partners. Carol and Charlie, I am also pleased you are able to be here today. Carol and I share a common challenge. We each are trying to make U.S. air carriers realize that good things can happen to them when they work together as an industry. Robust competition and long-term economic vision need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue they can, and indeed should, go hand-in-hand. Charlie, as you will unfortunately experience firsthand, much work remains to be done in this regard. For Valentines Day I had considered making sugar-coated remarks extolling the numerous benefits of a U.S./German open skies agreement. I decided, however, to save that speech for another day. The bitter sweet reality of U.S. international aviation policy is that every step taken--even major leaps forward such as a possible U.S./Germany open skies agreement--is met by parochial infighting among our carriers. Regrettably, I fully expect efforts to finalize the U.S./ German open skies agreement will not escape this plague. Let me say that I firmly believe pernicious infighting among our carriers is the single greatest barrier to the United States' efforts to open and expand global air service markets for U.S. carriers. It is a sad story which is played out time and time again. As leaders in the aviation community, I come to you today with a challenge. I challenge you to broaden your vision of the significance of new international air service opportunities for our carriers. To me, these opportunities conjure up images of tremendous trade benefits which buoy the U.S. economy. I see significant economic benefits derived by our airline industry and aircraft manufacturers. I think of consumers benefiting by enhanced choice and competitive prices. I also see new jobs for American workers and new commercial opportunities for our States and communities. I urge you to have the vision to look beyond which carrier has positioned itself to benefit most from new international air service opportunities. Simply put, I challenge you to make your focus the American flag on the tail of airplanes providing new service opportunities, not the name on the side of the plane. With that challenge in mind, let me now turn to my specific remarks. Today I want to focus on exciting developments and old challenges in Europe. Of course, I speak of Germany and the United Kingdom respectively. However, since your last three speakers discussed U.S./Japan aviation relations--a subject in which I have a very keen interest--I cannot resist making a few points. First, I am deeply troubled the Government of Japan continues to refuse to respect the beyond rights of our so- called 1952 carriers. Those rights are guaranteed by the U.S./Japan air service agreement. International agreements between countries are sacred trusts and nothing short of full compliance is acceptable. Second, I am also very concerned about the Kyoto Forum which the Japanese organized recently. By excluding the United States and other Western country members of APEC, I believe the Government of Japan acted contrary to the spirit and intent of the Bogor Declaration. Third, the Government of Japan's appeal for the United States to ``equalize'' aviation opportunities between our countries is misdirected. Market forces, not the U.S./Japan air service agreement, has tilted transpacific market share advantage in favor of U.S. carriers. As I have said in the Senate numerous times, the disparity in transpacific market share is due to the fact that Japanese carriers--which labor under heavy government regulation-- cannot compete with our more efficient carriers whose operating costs are substantially lower than their Japanese counterparts. If equality of transpacific market share is what the Government of Japan seeks, it should look no further than to itself to take steps which will enable Japanese carriers to compete more effectively with U.S. carriers. It is critical we not forget that just 10 years ago, under the very same bilateral agreement that the Government of Japan now criticizes, Japanese carriers had a larger market share on transpacific routes than U.S. competitors. Fourth, complaints by the Government of Japan regarding the limited Fifth Freedom opportunities of our carriers must be put in proper context by considering the enormous offsetting Sixth Freedom opportunities Japanese carriers are exploiting between the Asia-Pacific market and the United States. Viewed from this perspective, Japan's criticism is without merit. In fact, I regard it as somewhat remarkable when one considers it comes from a major trading partner with whom the United States has a trade deficit of more than $65 billion! Finally, in a floor speech on October 27th, I called on our so-called MOU carriers to come forward with economic analysis supporting their position that the cornerstone of our negotiating strategy with Japan should be to trade away the beyond rights of our 1952 carriers. Having seen no such study, today I renew my call for the MOU carriers to make their case with numbers, not rhetoric. I find it a bit odd that MOU carriers who criticize DOT for not doing adequate prenegotiation economic analysis are now pushing DOT to rush into passenger talks, even though these carriers have yet to provide economic analysis which supports their position. Turning to Europe, let me first say that if the identity of the author of Primary Colors is the best kept secret in Washington, my support for an open skies agreement with Germany is one of the worst. I am delighted Secretary Pena and German Transport Minister Wissmann have agreed on the framework for an open skies agreement between our countries. I am also pleased a formal round of talks will be held in Washington next week to iron out textual details. I enthusiastically support swift completion of a formal U.S./ German open skies agreement. How is it that a U.S./German open skies agreement is within reach? Secretary Pena had the vision to recognize that competition is always the best ally to open restrictive markets. He built on the vision that President Bush and the Dutch government both showed when the United States and the Netherlands signed an open skies agreement in 1992. At that time, it was a very bold move, one for which Jeff Shane, who is here today, should be commended. Jeff created a model on the European continent by which all neighboring countries could see firsthand the tremendous economic benefits that are produced by a liberalized aviation relationship with the United States. Last year, Secretary Pena built on that foundation with the nine European country open skies initiative. Then, he reached out to our excellent friend and great trading partner, Germany. The timing could not have been better. Minister Wissmann-- himself a man of great vision--recognized the time was right to secure for the German economy and German consumers the great benefits that unquestionably would result from an open skies agreement with the United States. As I said earlier, in pursuing this initiative, Germany has provided outstanding leadership for its partners in the European Union. Before I discuss why I believe this tide of liberalization will reach the shores of the United Kingdom, let me address an issue that has come to my attention recently regarding the framework of the U.S./German open skies agreement. I understand a question has been raised about the timing of when the U.S./German open skies agreement would take full force relative to a final decision on an application for antitrust immunity which is expected to be filed by the United Airlines/Lufthansa alliance. I do not consider this to be a problem. I have total confidence in Secretary Pena's ability to fully and fairly discharge his statutory duty in considering that application when it is filed, regardless of when the agreement goes into effect. I feel compelled to add I am somewhat mystified that some of our carriers continue to sell Secretary Pena so short, at the same time they reap the benefits from his excellent leadership in international aviation policy. Last week in London, Malcolm Rifkind, the U.K. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, gave a very important speech in which he advocated nothing less than transatlantic free trade. He called for ``political will and vision'' to bring this goal about. Pledging that ``Britain will be a champion of greater economic liberalization across the Atlantic,'' Minister Rifkind noted the United Kingdom has been leading the way and said Britain would continue to do so. The United Kingdom deserves great credit as a shining beacon for liberalizing trade in the U.S./E.U. market generally. However, its policy in the area of transatlantic air services is far out of step with the principles of free trade. Let me share two truly remarkable facts which dramatically make my point. Last year, British Airways had a larger share of the U.S./U.K. passenger market than all U.S. carriers combined! Also, data shows that in terms of U.S./U.K. market share, two of the top three carriers are British airlines! Without question, market forces are not controlling the distribution of air service opportunities between the United States and Britain. How will competitive forces unleashed by a U.S./German open skies agreement pressure Britain to reassess its outdated aviation policy which tarnishes an otherwise very impressive record on liberalizing transatlantic trade? The answer lies at two levels: heightened competition by continental European airports for connecting passenger traffic and enhanced competition by U.S. carrier alliances against British airlines. London always will be a popular destination for passengers originating in the United States. That is not to say, however, that in this era of global networks, connecting passengers will continue to feel a compelling need to use Heathrow rather than airports such as Amsterdam's Schipol, Frankfurt or the new one planned at Berlin-Brandenburg. Connecting passengers look for convenient schedules and competitive fares. Due to the lack of European gateway opportunities, Heathrow once was the connecting airport of necessity, not choice, for passengers originating in the United States. Times have changed. Liberalization of air service markets on the European continent have created new connecting service options. Evidence already clearly shows connecting traffic is being diverted away from London. Statistics dramatically illustrate this point. Between 1992 and 1994, connecting traffic carried on U.S. airlines grew just 3 percent at Heathrow. During the same period, U.S. connecting traffic grew 24 percent at Frankfurt and an astounding 329 percent at Schipol! An open skies agreement with Germany will greatly accelerate the rate of this connecting passenger diversion. These statistics are very interesting but should they matter to a British policymaker? Absolutely. This trend should raise serious concerns considering that last year alone connecting traffic accounted for more than 1 billion pounds of export earnings for the United Kingdom. A U.S./German open skies agreement will also make U.S. alliances with European carriers even more formidable competitors in the U.S./Europe air service market. This will not be a welcome development for British carriers. If the United and Delta alliances are granted antitrust immunity, in combination with the Northwest alliance, nearly 50 percent of passenger traffic between the United States and Europe will be carried on fully integrated alliances. Will this pose a competitive challenge for British carriers? Investors in British Airways sure thought so. According to a Financial Times article last week, despite a quarterly pre-tax profit of 30 percent, British Airways shares fell on the news of the ``preliminary `open skies' deal struck between Germany and the U.S.'' British Airways' public attack on antitrust immunity last month at an ABA conference also is very telling on this point. Privately, British Airways has made no secret they very much covet antitrust immunity for their alliance with USAir. So where do we go from here? I think U.S./U.K. negotiations should resume, but not on the terms of the October offer which was highly conditioned and essentially allowed the British to pick which U.S. carriers competed against British carriers in what markets. Instead, I encourage the British to come to the table with a ``bigger, bolder and braver'' approach like Sir Colin Marshall, Chairman of British Airways, called for last November. First, to help clear the way for more ambitious negotiations, I am announcing today that I plan to introduce legislation to increase to 49 percent the level of permissible foreign investment in U.S. airlines. I am already working with the Administration to determine a formulation to maximize the benefits of this tool. One thing is certain, the limited, highly conditioned October offer would not trigger the benefits of the bill I intend to introduce. Second, I am also calling today for U.S. carriers to stop being ``pennywise and pound foolish'' with respect to Fly America traffic. As a taxpayer, I want the U.S. government to pay the most competitive price for government travel. As a policymaker, I find nothing in the legislative history of the Fly America statute even suggesting Congress intended to guarantee U.S. carriers a monopoly profit for government travel. I see no good reason the opportunity for British carriers to competitively bid through their U.S. carrier partners for Fly America traffic should not be on the table if British negotiators pursue a ``bigger, bolder and braver'' approach. Third, as far as Heathrow access is concerned, I call on the British to muster up the ``political will and vision'' Minister Rifkind spoke of to change the runway operations at Heathrow. On this side of the Atlantic, we are constantly told by the British Ministry of Transport that additional Heathrow access is impossible because there are no additional take-off and landing slots. What the British fail to tell us is a number of U.K. airport capacity studies, including one issued as recently as August 1994, have concluded the British could potentially create an additional 100 daily takeoff slots and an additional 100 daily departure slots at Heathrow if they switched its runways to more efficient mixed-mode operations. I am keenly aware this is a sensitive political issue for the British government. Not long after I suggested this last July in London, I received a letter from the Heathrow Noise Coalition politely telling me to mind my own business. One thing is clear, however, the British do not have a monopoly on political problems relating to Heathrow. I need not tell this audience that Heathrow access is a hot button political issue in the United States and, quite frankly, an issue that is straining relations between our two countries. Let me close by saying an open skies agreement with Germany unquestionably would be the product of vision by both countries. I hope the same long-term economic vision will prevail in our aviation relations with the Japanese and the British. Again, thank you for the opportunity to join you today. Exhibit 2 [From the Bangkok Post, Fri, Jan. 26, 1996] U.S.-Thai Aviation Deal a Victory for Common Sense After five years of going eyeball to eyeball, the US and Thailand finally concluded an aviation agreement last January 19. Who blinked first? By all indications, Thailand. It had to, the policy of getting US airlines to reduce their frequencies between Northeast Asia and Thailand was working so brilliantly that it had to be scrapped and reversed. After all, Delta had pulled out of Thailand, both Northwest and United Airlines had reduced their frequencies. Lest anyone forget, that was the original intention for scrapping the agreement in November 1990. When the impact of that hit the tourism industry between the eyes, the backlash was instantaneous. In barely four rounds of informal and formal talks, an agreement materialized where about seven previous rounds had all failed. There are many reasons for this agreement, and the speed at which it was pursued. But most important among them is that it risked becoming a serious political liability for Thailand's aviation negotiators who were running out of reasons for maintaining their hardline stand. The blast from the Association of Thai Travel Agents and its independent study on the aviation industry was one facet of the mounting pressure. Then there was all this talk of open-skies and aviation liberalization being pursued under the ASEAN and APEC umbrellas. Thailand was being increasingly isolated as the US patched up its aviation differences, one by one, with other Asian and European countries. On the cargo front, the US-Filipino aviation agreement had opened a window of opportunity for Federal Express to develop Subic Bay as a regional cargo hub, a move that would leave Thailand's own Global Transpak project wallowing in the water. The American Society of Travel Agents annual convention is to be held in Bangkok in November, bringing 10,000 agents who would wonder how they are supposed to promote tourism to Thailand when the tourists can't fly here. Moreover, the void was preventing the full consummation of the United Airlines-Thai International alliance. Both of Thailand's key aviation negotiators, the director-general of the aviation department and the permanent secretary of the ministry of communications, sit on THAI's board. By continuing to stall on the agreement, they were effectively hampering the progress of THAI. And soon coming to town as keynote speaker of the PATA conference in April is Garry Greenwald, the chairman of United Airlines who, lest anyone forget, recently tongue-lashed Japan's restrictive aviation policy and who would have no doubt have delivered a similar riposte at Thailand's had an agreement not been reached by then. There was simply no way that Thailand could have won this battle. But neither is this agreement a victory for the United States. It is a victory for public pressure and the power of the Thai tourism, industry, especially groupings like the Association of Thai Travel Agents and people like Anant Sirisant who had the gumption to stand up and be counted, at considerable risk to himself and his own company, the East-West Group. While many other operators serve on committees and use their positions for personal aggrandizement, Mr. Anant stuck his neck out, and won. Several months ago, this newspaper, too, called Thai aviation policy, ``a national outrage.'' Suddenly, things began moving. It has been said before, and it needs to be said again, global aviation is administered by archaic and backward 50- year-old rules that governments are having extreme difficult dismantling. There is no logical explanation for the structure any more; it's just the way it's done, especially in the absence of an alternative. Every country has to take its own course of action. In Thailand's case, every airline that comes here or increases its frequency is investing more in the country, providing more jobs, bringing more tourists. Restricting those operations necessarily has the reverse effect. Foreign airlines serving Bangkok now need to forge stronger relationships with Thai hotels and tour operators, work with them, and use their political and economic strength to get what they want. This approach must, under no circumstances, be adversarial or aggressive, but always rational and constructive. If THAI is in the dumps, and likely to remain there for at least a few years as it seeks to regain its erstwhile prestige, there is no reason why other airlines should be hampered from raising their frequencies and bringing more tourists to spend their money in Thailand. The U.S.-Thai deal is a clear victory for the concept of conducting the aviation business in an open and competitive manner. Because no matter what happens, it should always be the public that should benefit.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am voting for the farm bill. I support the freedom-to-farm concept. This is not a perfect farm bill, but I find it somewhat ironic that some of my colleagues are voting against it, yet, urging the President to sign it, and then going out and criticizing it. It would be better to improve it and to be constructive. Our farmers need a farm bill passed now. Many of them have already gone to the fields in our Nation. In South Dakota, they are meeting with their bankers, making their plans. It is time for us to pass a farm bill. Mr. President, for years, we have had all this regulation and paperwork in agriculture. I come from a farm. I am a farmer. Last year, deficiency payments were sent out to the farmers. Then the commodity prices were high enough that the deficiency payments were sent back to the Department of Agriculture. All this requires a great deal of paperwork, and it costs the taxpayers a lot. Let me commend Senator Lugar and the managers of the farm bill, and Senator Grassley and others, who have brought us a farm bill that will not only save taxpayers money, but will also help our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Mr. President, let me say that I think the most important farm bill besides this is a balanced budget because, if we have a balanced budget, we will be able to export our commodities and the commodity prices will be high enough. Because of a balanced budget we will have low interest rates and a stable dollar and high exports. That is what farmers and ranchers really want. They do not seek handouts. They want good prices on the world market. And they are there for us if we take advantage of it. So there are many improvements we could make in this farm bill the next year or the year after. But let us pass it now. This is the best deal we can get at this time. If somebody had a better one, they should have brought it up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 3 minutes for the purpose of introducing a bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pressler pertaining to the introduction of S. 1647 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Iowa and Indiana and congratulate both of them for their work on the farm bill which was very outstanding. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, my amendment is designed to address a concern expressed by sportsmen in South Dakota. South Dakota is probably the best hunting and fishing State in the Nation. I know there may be others who may disagree, but I will gladly promote South Dakota as a sportsman's haven.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this amendment reinforces Federal policy to protect the interests of sportsmen who hunt and fish and use our public rangelands for sport. My amendment would preserve the rights of hunters, fishermen and recreationalists to use Federal lands.

Mr. PRESSLER. I will yield.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I hope this amendment can be accepted and made a part of the bill. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would agree for a moment to set his amendment aside.

Mr. PRESSLER. I will.