Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to pay tribute to both Senator Rockefeller and Senator Gorton who have had such great courage, leading this controversial bill and bringing it here. This is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation this Congress will consider because of the benefits it will have for small business. Senator Gorton, who has appeared before the Supreme Court 14 times, is a legal expert. His expertise in explaining this bill, both in the committee and on the floor, have been very, very valuable. This bill would not be here without Senator Slade Gorton. He has been able to explain this bill, the technical parts of it. Senator Rockefeller, in my opinion has shown great courage. I wanted to use my time to pay tribute to those two leaders who have fought so long and hard through the committee. I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I still have an amendment. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, ever since Department of the Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, proposed Rangeland Reform '94, I have worked with other western Senators to pass meaningful legislation addressing the concerns raised in Secretary Babbitt's proposal. The bill before the Senate is the result of those efforts. While we were able to postpone implementation of Secretary Babbitt's misguided reforms for some time, Rangeland Reform '94 is now operative. It became effective August 21, 1995. Ranchers are expecting and should get relief from those regulations. We must pass S. 1459. Ranchers in South Dakota have told me one thing: Rangeland Reform '94 must be changed. Many of those reforms could have a detrimental impact on ranching operations in South Dakota. The Secretary's reforms are shortsighted, weigh in too heavy on the side of environmental extremists and could drive many hard-working ranchers off the land. Hardest hit would be our young farmers and ranchers. Many have just started ranching on their own. These young farmers and ranchers are our future. They are agriculture's future. Yet they are the ones that could be most hurt if Rangeland Reform '94 is allowed to stand. I have heard from a number of ranchers who are more concerned with Rangeland Reform '94 than they are with low cattle prices. Now that is quite a statement. It clearly shows why this bill must be passed. The legislation before us today represents nearly 2 years of hard work by many Senators and a vast number of individuals of different interest and professions who are most affected by Federal rangeland policies. I also want to commend the Senate staff who worked to develop our reforms into legislation. They worked late into the night and on weekends. I do want to note that the bill has been significantly modified since it was first introduced last year. Every effort was made to reach a bipartisan consensus. Over the last 6 months Western States Senators from both sides of the aisle worked hard to reach a compromise that could ultimately be passed. S. 1459 has bipartisan support and strong support throughout the country. I ask unanimous consent that a letter describing this support be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, many South Dakota organizations support this bill. First of all it is strongly supported by South Dakota ranchers. It is also supported by the South Dakota Public Lands Council, the South Dakota Farm Bureau, the South Dakota Sheep Growers Association, and the South Dakota Stock Growers, to name a few. Let me outline specifically what this bill would do. Under S. 1459: Ranchers who depend on the use of public lands would be able to continue operating in an economically viable manner. Multiple-use management objectives would be achieved. The rights of sportsmen, like hunters and fishers, would be protected and their use of Federal lands would not be restricted. Water rights for livestock management grazing would be in accordance with State laws. Local input from virtually every key interest into the management of public lands would be assured. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the fundamental goal of the legislation to remove a clearly objectionable rangeland policy. If left alone, Rangeland Reform '94 will have a detrimental effect on ranching operations in South Dakota. Many of these reforms are short- sighted, take away local input and control, and could drive many ranchers off the land. It is clear that extreme environmental groups support Rangeland Reform '94 and are waging a baseless scare campaign on S. 1459. Supporters of Rangeland Reform '94 are spreading the laughable charge that this bill would hurt wildlife and restrict hunting on Federal lands. I say this is laughable because it simply is not true. All one has to do is read the bill which specifically states: Nothing [in this title] shall be construed as limiting or precluding hunting or fishing activities on national Grasslands in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, nor shall appropriate recreational activities be limited or precluded. I originally had two important improvements to S. 1459. One was included in the bill and the second I intend to offer as an amendment. South Dakotans made it abundantly clear of the need for local and public input. I worked with Senator Domenici on an amendment to require consultation with State, local, and other interests in land-use policies and land-conservation programs for the national grasslands. All users of Federal lands should have a voice in land-use policies. This added input will provide needed suggestions on better grazing practices that will protect the land and enhance wildlife management. After discussing this with Senator Domenici, my amendment was included in S. 1459 as reported. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Craig for working with me on this proposal. The second improvement is designed to address concerns expressed by sportsmen. 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 sportsmen's haven. Sportsmen have expressed concerns that S. 1459 could limit use of Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. My amendment would reinforce 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 other sport enthusiasts to use Federal lands. I hope this amendment can be accepted and made part of the bill. Mr. President, the Congress needs to pass S. 1459. The bill would address the problems with Rangeland Reform '94, provide needed stability to farmers and ranchers, and help preserve the social, economic, and cultural base of rural communities in the western States. Current use of Federal lands could be greatly restricted in future years without S. 1459. I urge its adoption. Exhibit 1 March 14, 1996. Hon. Larry Pressler, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Pressler: The undersigned organizations represent the diverse interests of millions of citizens who currently participate in the multiple use of America's public lands. On their behalf, we strongly urge you to support S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Management Act. This bill is the result of innumerable hours of bipartisan negotiations. It fosters balanced multiple use management of our public lands, resource protection and public participation. We have the following reasons for asking your support for this legislation: The bill maintains widespread public participation in the management of federal lands. For the cost of a postcard, any individual or organization may qualify as an ``affected interest'' under the bill simply by writing to the Secretary to express concern for the management of grazing on a specific federal grazing allotment. They will then receive notice of and an opportunity for comment and consultation on proposed decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior affecting that particular federal parcel. Public participation extends down to the level of designation of allotment boundaries, development of allotment management plans, increasing or decreasing the use of the land by permittees, issuance and modification of permits and reports evaluating monitoring data applicable to a permit. The legislation maintains the ``multiple use'' of public lands. There are those in the environmental community who would have you believe this bill somehow establishes ranching as a dominant use. You need not accept the word of these environmentalists or our word; the legislation speaks for itself. The bill states simply and clearly that ``multiple use as set forth in current law has been, and continues to be, a guiding principle in the management of public lands and national forests.'' Section 102 states that nothing shall affect valid existing rights, reservations, agreements or authorizations. The bill specifically states that nothing in the bill shall be construed as limiting or precluding hunting or fishing activities on federal lands in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, nor shall appropriate recreational activities be limited or precluded. The canard raised by these environmentalists that this bill would somehow lock in current livestock usage levels is simply wrong (see Section 101(a)). The issue of NEPA compliance is important. The National Environmental Policy Act was well intended for the protection of the environment with regard to major federal actions. Unfortunately, over the decades since its passage, NEPA has been used by obstructionists as a tool to put a stranglehold on any use of federal lands. The statutorily required major federal action has devolved to the digging of a single post hole on federal lands. Everyone familiar with current agency interpretations of NEPA realizes the system is badly broken. The reality is that agency officials are not getting out on the land and monitoring multiple use; they are desk bound by NEPA paper shuffling and the fear of litigation. The NEPA provisions in the bill will protect the environment, restore the original intent of NEPA and free up federal land managers to do their job, all while saving the public money. The Public Rangelands Management Act is a major cost saver for the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the new grazing fee formula contained in the bill and determined that enactment would decrease direct federal spending by about $21 million over the 1996 to 2000 period. CBO estimates that offsetting receipts would increase by about $28 million over the same period. The western livestock industry supports this new formula at a time when cattle prices are at a 13 year low. Ranchers are stepping up to the plate and expressing a willingness to pay more during the hard times. If enacted, S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Management Act will be the first major revision of federal lands grazing activities since the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. The time has come to restore common sense to the management of the federal lands and to allow ranchers utilizing those lands to continue the production of food and fiber. Support responsible land management, prudent resource conservation and continued multiple use of national lands. Please support S. 1459. Sincerely, Agricultural Retailers Association; American Chianina Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Forest and Paper Association; American Gelbvieh Association; American Horse Council; American International Charolais Association; American National Cattle Women; American Sheep Industry Association; Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association; Arizona Cattle Growers Association; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; Arizona State Cowbelles; Arizona Wool Producers Association; Association of National Grasslands; Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; California Cattlemen's Association; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Public Lands Council; California Wool Growers Association; Cochise Grand Cattle Growers; Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Cattle Feeders Association; Colorado Farm Bureau; Colorado Public Lands Council; Colorado Woolgrowers Association; Dixie Escalante Rural Electric Association; Empire Sheep Producers, NY; Florida Cattlemen's Association; Gem State Hunters Association; Idaho Cattlemen's Association; Idaho Dairymen's Association; Idaho Farm Bureau Federation; Idaho Food Producers Association; Idaho Hunters' Association; Idaho Mint Growers Association; Idaho State Grange; Idaho Wool Growers Association; Independent Petroleum Association of America; Indiana Sheep Breeders Association; Iowa State Grange; Kansas Sheep Association; Michigan Cattlemen's Association; Michigan State Grange; Mississippi Cattlemen's Association; Montana Association of Grazing Districts; Montana Farm Bureau Federation; Montana Public Lands Council; Montana Stockgrowers Association; Montana Wool Growers Association; National Association of Counties; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Grange; National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; National Mining Association; Nebraska Cattlemen; Nevada Cattlemen's Association; Nevada Farm Bureau Federation; New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau; North Dakota Lamb & Wool Producers; North Dakota Stockmen's Association; Oregon Cattlemen's Association; Oregon Farm Bureau Federation; Oregon Sheep Growers Association; Ozona Wool & Mohair; Public Lands Council; Regional Council of Rural Counties, California; Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association; Roswell Wool, New Mexico; South Dakota Public Lands Council; South Dakota Sheep Growers Association; South Dakota Stockgrowers; Southern Timber Purchaser's Council; Tennessee Cattlemen's Association; Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Association; Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association; Utah Cattlemen's Association; Utah Farm Bureau Federation; Utah Wool Growers Association; Utah Wool Marketing; Washington Cattlemen's Association; Washington Farm Bureau; Washington State Grange; Wilderness Unlimited, California; Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation; Wyoming Stock Growers Association; Wyoming Wool Growers Association.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today along with my colleagues, Senators Glenn, D'Amato, John Kerry, Bennett, and Feinstein, I am introducing legislation in an effort to restore credibility to our Nation's already damaged nuclear nonproliferation policy. Nonproliferation is one of our most important national security concerns, if not the most important. Even the President admitted last year that no issue is more important to the security of all people than nuclear nonproliferation. At present, our efforts in this area are tied to another vital goal: the promotion of peace and security in South Asia. I have visited South Asia. I have said before it is a region of striking contrasts--a region of such enormous potential clouded by tension and instability. As all of us well know, last year President Clinton requested, and Congress agreed to, a one time exception and partial repeal of one our most important nonproliferation laws: the so-called Pressler amendment. The Pressler amendment, approved by Congress in 1985, prohibits United States military and nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, including arms sales, so long as Pakistan possesses a nuclear explosive device. The Senate had an extensive debate on this subject last fall. As a result of last year's exception--known as the Brown amendment--approximately 370 million dollars' worth of American military goods is scheduled for delivery to Pakistan. The Brown amendment was very controversial. The central point of the controversy was the fact that the Brown amendment was both waiving and repealing nuclear nonproliferation law without obtaining one concrete nonproliferation concession from Pakistan. We have never provided that kind of exception to any other country before. That was one of the central reasons why I opposed the Brown amendment. I feared it would send the worst possible message: Nuclear proliferation pays. The Clinton administration lobbied the Congress quite heavily on the Brown amendment. The administration even tried to convince Members of Congress that Pakistan did make a nonproliferation concession. The Clinton administration claimed its support for the Brown amendment was based in part on an understanding it believed it had with the Government of Pakistan. On August 3, 1995, Acting Secretary of State Peter Tarnoff stated the context of this understanding in a letter to the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn: Pakistan knows that the decision to resolve the equipment problem is based on the assumption that there will be no significant change on nuclear and missile non-proliferation issues of concern to the United States. Frankly, at the time, I felt the justification was too weak at best and unbelievable at worst. I say that from the standpoint of experience. You see, the Pressler amendment was passed with a similar assurance from Pakistan. Let me remind my colleagues that the Pressler amendment was designed to ensure that Pakistan--at that time our Nation's third largest foreign aid recipient--continued to receive United States assistance. We had an understanding that Pakistan would not develop a bomb program, and in return, we would pass the Pressler amendment so that our existing laws would not result in a United States aid cutoff. As we all know, they did build a bomb program, and continued to receive U.S. taxpayer dollars. So I had some serious misgivings and a sense of foreboding when the Clinton administration stated it was basing its support of the Brown amendment on an assurance from Pakistan. But that was then, this is now. Now we have a clear, unequivocal statement by the Director of Central Intelligence that Pakistan did not accept the administration's position in August. This is what Director John Deutch told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 22: Mr. Chairman, the intelligence community continues to get accurate and timely information on Chinese activities that involve inappropriate weapons technology assistance to other countries: nuclear technology to Pakistan, M-11 missiles to Pakistan, cruise missiles to Iran. For the record, I would like to point out that the Director said ``M- 11 missiles,'' not ``M-11 missile technology.'' So, the administration's assumption that the Government of Pakistan would freeze development of its bomb program was erroneous. Our intelligence community has found ``accurate and timely information'' that Pakistan has, indeed, made significant changes on nuclear and missile proliferation issues of concern to the United States. The nuclear technology to which Director Deutch alluded would allow Pakistan a 100-percent increase in its capacity to make enriched uranium, the explosive material of nuclear weapons. The M-11s are modern, mobile, nuclear capable ballistic missiles and clearly intended to be the principal delivery system of the Pakistani nuclear weapons system. With the underlying assumption of the administration's position now destroyed, there is no longer any justification for the administration's support of the Brown amendment. The administration has the authority to put the Brown amendment on hold. Federal law specifically states that if the President determines that a country has delivered or received ``nuclear enrichment equipment, materials or technology,'' no funds may be made available under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which would include military equipment purchased with Foreign Military Sales [FMS]. All the President needs to do is enforce our nonproliferation laws and most, if not all of the military equipment provided by the Brown amendment remains undelivered. That is what I urged the President to do last month. Sadly, even though Pakistan broke its assurance to the Clinton administration, it has been reported yesterday that the President intends to go through with the transfer. This is stunning news. The Brown amendment alone was a tough blow to our nonproliferation policy. Now the Clinton administration is preparing to cripple our already shaken credibility as an enforcer of nuclear nonproliferation. If that is the President's decision, and I certainly hope he reconsiders, then the law requires that he make an appropriate certification to the Congress. This gives Congress two options: First, it could disapprove of the President's certification. Under the law it would have 30 days to do that. Or, should a certification not be forthcoming, it could enact the legislation I am introducing today. This bill, which I introduce with bipartisan support, simply repeals the Brown amendment. Mr. President, I believe passage of this legislation is necessary if our Nation's nuclear nonproliferation policy is to have any credibility. Indeed, beyond the simple policy justifications for this legislation, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the circumstance that brings me to the floor today. As I stated a moment ago, Pakistan's receipt of nuclear technology from China is a sanctionable offense, as is its receipt of M-11 missile technology. What makes these offenses disturbing is that they were occurring while Pakistan was lobbying the administration and Congress to waive and partially repeal nuclear nonproliferation law. Equally disturbing are reports that members of the Clinton administration knew of the ring magnet transfer at that time, but did not divulge this information to members of Congress. The irony would be humorous if the issue wasn't so serious. I believe that if all my colleagues were aware of this blatant violation of our non-proliferation laws last fall, the Brown amendment would have failed. Indeed, a supporter of the Brown amendment, Congressman Doug Bereuter, admitted that if the Brown amendment was reconsidered, its passage would be unlikely. I am confident enough that this Congress understands the seriousness of this matter and would agree that we need to repeal the Brown amendment or at least suspend its implementation until the underlying policy of the administration is restored--that being the return of the ring magnets and the M-11s from Pakistan to China. Mr. President, finally a word about South Asia. Also on February 22, CIA Director Deutch named South Asia as his No. 1 worry in the annual world wide threat assessment. He noted, ``the potential for conflict is high.'' Just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that Pakistan is preparing for a possible nuclear weapons test. Even a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India would result in deaths and destruction on an unprecedented scale in world history. Under the circumstances, I feel it would be the height of irresponsibility to allow for military aid to one side in such an unstable environment. The aftermath of the Brown amendment is proof that our relationship with India is impacted by United States nonproliferation policy. Because of India's unsafeguarded nuclear program, there is no United States-Indian agreement for nuclear cooperation. United States military cooperation with India is virtually nonexistent. The United States will not export certain forms of missile equipment and technology to India and any other goods that are related to weapons of mass destruction. It is true that United States sanctions have not been invoked against India, but that is because India has not violated its commitments under United States law. I stand ready to seek a commonsense approach to improve our relations with all the countries in South Asia. We need a commonsense approach to deal with the problems in that troubled region. Illicit narcotics trafficking, terrorism, economic stagnation, and weapons proliferation are just some of the issues that plague South Asia. We must seek ways to help these countries address all these problems. I am ready to start that process. We can start by repealing the Brown amendment and begin working on an approach that serves the mutual interests of the people of the United States and the people of South Asia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today along with my colleagues, Senators Glenn, D'Amato, John Kerry, Bennett, and Feinstein, I am introducing legislation in an effort to restore credibility to our Nation's already damaged nuclear nonproliferation policy. Nonproliferation is one of our most important national security concerns, if not the most important. Even the President admitted last year that no issue is more important to the security of all people than nuclear nonproliferation. At present, our efforts in this area are tied to another vital goal: the promotion of peace and security in South Asia. I have visited South Asia. I have said before it is a region of striking contrasts--a region of such enormous potential clouded by tension and instability. As all of us well know, last year President Clinton requested, and Congress agreed to, a one time exception and partial repeal of one our most important nonproliferation laws: the so-called Pressler amendment. The Pressler amendment, approved by Congress in 1985, prohibits United States military and nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, including arms sales, so long as Pakistan possesses a nuclear explosive device. The Senate had an extensive debate on this subject last fall. As a result of last year's exception--known as the Brown amendment--approximately 370 million dollars' worth of American military goods is scheduled for delivery to Pakistan. The Brown amendment was very controversial. The central point of the controversy was the fact that the Brown amendment was both waiving and repealing nuclear nonproliferation law without obtaining one concrete nonproliferation concession from Pakistan. We have never provided that kind of exception to any other country before. That was one of the central reasons why I opposed the Brown amendment. I feared it would send the worst possible message: Nuclear proliferation pays. The Clinton administration lobbied the Congress quite heavily on the Brown amendment. The administration even tried to convince Members of Congress that Pakistan did make a nonproliferation concession. The Clinton administration claimed its support for the Brown amendment was based in part on an understanding it believed it had with the Government of Pakistan. On August 3, 1995, Acting Secretary of State Peter Tarnoff stated the context of this understanding in a letter to the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn: Pakistan knows that the decision to resolve the equipment problem is based on the assumption that there will be no significant change on nuclear and missile non-proliferation issues of concern to the United States. Frankly, at the time, I felt the justification was too weak at best and unbelievable at worst. I say that from the standpoint of experience. You see, the Pressler amendment was passed with a similar assurance from Pakistan. Let me remind my colleagues that the Pressler amendment was designed to ensure that Pakistan--at that time our Nation's third largest foreign aid recipient--continued to receive United States assistance. We had an understanding that Pakistan would not develop a bomb program, and in return, we would pass the Pressler amendment so that our existing laws would not result in a United States aid cutoff. As we all know, they did build a bomb program, and continued to receive U.S. taxpayer dollars. So I had some serious misgivings and a sense of foreboding when the Clinton administration stated it was basing its support of the Brown amendment on an assurance from Pakistan. But that was then, this is now. Now we have a clear, unequivocal statement by the Director of Central Intelligence that Pakistan did not accept the administration's position in August. This is what Director John Deutch told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 22: Mr. Chairman, the intelligence community continues to get accurate and timely information on Chinese activities that involve inappropriate weapons technology assistance to other countries: nuclear technology to Pakistan, M-11 missiles to Pakistan, cruise missiles to Iran. For the record, I would like to point out that the Director said ``M- 11 missiles,'' not ``M-11 missile technology.'' So, the administration's assumption that the Government of Pakistan would freeze development of its bomb program was erroneous. Our intelligence community has found ``accurate and timely information'' that Pakistan has, indeed, made significant changes on nuclear and missile proliferation issues of concern to the United States. The nuclear technology to which Director Deutch alluded would allow Pakistan a 100-percent increase in its capacity to make enriched uranium, the explosive material of nuclear weapons. The M-11s are modern, mobile, nuclear capable ballistic missiles and clearly intended to be the principal delivery system of the Pakistani nuclear weapons system. With the underlying assumption of the administration's position now destroyed, there is no longer any justification for the administration's support of the Brown amendment. The administration has the authority to put the Brown amendment on hold. Federal law specifically states that if the President determines that a country has delivered or received ``nuclear enrichment equipment, materials or technology,'' no funds may be made available under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which would include military equipment purchased with Foreign Military Sales [FMS]. All the President needs to do is enforce our nonproliferation laws and most, if not all of the military equipment provided by the Brown amendment remains undelivered. That is what I urged the President to do last month. Sadly, even though Pakistan broke its assurance to the Clinton administration, it has been reported yesterday that the President intends to go through with the transfer. This is stunning news. The Brown amendment alone was a tough blow to our nonproliferation policy. Now the Clinton administration is preparing to cripple our already shaken credibility as an enforcer of nuclear nonproliferation. If that is the President's decision, and I certainly hope he reconsiders, then the law requires that he make an appropriate certification to the Congress. This gives Congress two options: First, it could disapprove of the President's certification. Under the law it would have 30 days to do that. Or, should a certification not be forthcoming, it could enact the legislation I am introducing today. This bill, which I introduce with bipartisan support, simply repeals the Brown amendment. Mr. President, I believe passage of this legislation is necessary if our Nation's nuclear nonproliferation policy is to have any credibility. Indeed, beyond the simple policy justifications for this legislation, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the circumstance that brings me to the floor today. As I stated a moment ago, Pakistan's receipt of nuclear technology from China is a sanctionable offense, as is its receipt of M-11 missile technology. What makes these offenses disturbing is that they were occurring while Pakistan was lobbying the administration and Congress to waive and partially repeal nuclear nonproliferation law. Equally disturbing are reports that members of the Clinton administration knew of the ring magnet transfer at that time, but did not divulge this information to members of Congress. The irony would be humorous if the issue wasn't so serious. I believe that if all my colleagues were aware of this blatant violation of our non-proliferation laws last fall, the Brown amendment would have failed. Indeed, a supporter of the Brown amendment, Congressman Doug Bereuter, admitted that if the Brown amendment was reconsidered, its passage would be unlikely. I am confident enough that this Congress understands the seriousness of this matter and would agree that we need to repeal the Brown amendment or at least suspend its implementation until the underlying policy of the administration is restored--that being the return of the ring magnets and the M-11s from Pakistan to China. Mr. President, finally a word about South Asia. Also on February 22, CIA Director Deutch named South Asia as his No. 1 worry in the annual world wide threat assessment. He noted, ``the potential for conflict is high.'' Just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that Pakistan is preparing for a possible nuclear weapons test. Even a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India would result in deaths and destruction on an unprecedented scale in world history. Under the circumstances, I feel it would be the height of irresponsibility to allow for military aid to one side in such an unstable environment. The aftermath of the Brown amendment is proof that our relationship with India is impacted by United States nonproliferation policy. Because of India's unsafeguarded nuclear program, there is no United States-Indian agreement for nuclear cooperation. United States military cooperation with India is virtually nonexistent. The United States will not export certain forms of missile equipment and technology to India and any other goods that are related to weapons of mass destruction. It is true that United States sanctions have not been invoked against India, but that is because India has not violated its commitments under United States law. I stand ready to seek a commonsense approach to improve our relations with all the countries in South Asia. We need a commonsense approach to deal with the problems in that troubled region. Illicit narcotics trafficking, terrorism, economic stagnation, and weapons proliferation are just some of the issues that plague South Asia. We must seek ways to help these countries address all these problems. I am ready to start that process. We can start by repealing the Brown amendment and begin working on an approach that serves the mutual interests of the people of the United States and the people of South Asia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this should be a great day. It should be a great day for small business. It should be a great day for employees of those businesses. It should be a great day for consumers. It should be a great day for those unfortunate enough to be injured by defective products. As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I am extremely pleased and proud to see the Senate take up consideration of the conference report to H.R. 965, the Commonsense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996. This is historic. Never in almost two decades of work have we gotten this far. I am deeply saddened, however, by the President's announced intention to veto this important legislation. I am also quite puzzled. You see, as Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton in August 1991, sat on the committee that drafted and unanimously approved the National Governors Association's [NGA] first resolution supporting product liability reform. Governor Clinton also went on record in support of the second resolution favoring product liability reform passed by the NGA. Mr. President, America is plagued by frivolous lawsuits. Every day, our economy is victimized by ridiculous damage awards, both real and threatened. This conference agreement represents a substantial reform of the legal system that allows this abuse. It is tragic some have allowed this effort to formulate meaningful policy to be overtaken by political posturing. It is election year politics at its worst. The sad thing is the posturing is being done for the benefit of certain special interests. Tragically, if the special interests win, the American people lose. Brief History of the Struggle for Reform Mr. President, over the past 15 years the Commerce Committee has held 23 days of hearings on product liability reform. In this Congress, the companion measure to H.R. 965--S. 565--was reported by the Commerce Committee on April 6, 1995. The bill marked the seventh reform bill reported by the Commerce Committee since 1981. I have been involved deeply in the product liability reform movement since that time. I was an original cosponsor of the Risk Retention Act that became law in 1981. This legislation provided for liability insurance pools--so- called risk retention groups--for businesses. I chaired Small Business Committee field hearings in Sioux Falls and Rapid City, SD, on this issue in 1985. Over the years, I sponsored numerous product liability reform bills with some of the great leaders in this area including Senators Kasten and Danforth. These gentlemen are no longer Members of this body, but this legislation is their legacy. I want to commend them for their excellent work. They truly pioneered much of this effort. It has brought us to this point. We would not have gotten this far without them. Let me also take a moment to commend two of our current colleagues-- Senators Gorton and Rockefeller--for their hard work and dedication to this process. They have given years of labor to a cause in which they both are committed and have done so in an extraordinarily bipartisan fashion. I also know Jeanne Bumpus and Trent Erickson of Senator Gorton's staff and Tamera Stanton, Jim Gottlieb, and Ellen Doneski with Senator Rockefeller have given much of the past year, and in some cases more time than that, to this effort. On my own staff, I want to commend Tom Hohenthaner, deputy chief of staff for the Commerce Committee, who has worked this issue for years and in this Congress managed what has often been a tortuous process. I also thank Lance Bultena, counsel for the Consumer Subcommittee, for his dedicated efforts. Let me next pay tribute to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde who also served as chairman ofthe conference. Henry and I were in the same freshman class in the House back in 1974, and I have been honored to serve with him over the years. At the first meeting of the conference, I likened Chairman Hyde to a beacon shining brightly in a field. I would say that his light never wavered in this process and without his fine leadership we would not be here today. Chairman Hyde was assisted in this process by Alan Coffee, general counsel and staff director for the House Judiciary Committee and a savvy veteran of many legislative battles over the years. Diana Schacht and Peter Levinson, both counsels to the Judiciary Committee, and both consummate professionals, also put in a great many hours in this process. Finally, the House Commerce Committee shared jurisdiction over this measure, and I think and commend Chairman Bliley for his leadership. Robert Gordon, counsel to the House Commerce Committee, proved a dedicated and significant member of the team of staff--all of whom worked so hard on this conference agreement and legislation that preceded it. Again, I thank them all. I know many--including many of our colleagues in the other body-- would have liked to see much broader reform. Indeed, many in this body wanted more. So why this fairly narrow and moderate approach? The short answer is: expansion was not possible. We tried. Last April 24 the Senate began consideration of the legislation. Over the next 2\1/2\ weeks--and some 90 hours of debate--the Senate considered and voted on over 30 amendments. Ultimately, the Senate passed a bill very similar to the legislation reported by the Commerce Committee. In the following months, we negotiated with our colleagues in the other body who had passed a much broader bill. Again, activity centered around the possibility of expanding the scope of the Senate bill. Mr. President, the bill that has emerged from conference is--virtually--the Senate-passed bill. It is extraordinarily close to the legislation we sent out of the Commerce Committee last spring. The Senate should pass it again. The conference agreement is narrower than many of us would like. However, while limited in scope, it is an excellent piece of legislation. This bill is fair, balanced, and well reasoned. Indeed, it is a moderate package of reforms. It also keeps faith with what we set out to accomplish--it provides substantial reform to a legal system that is broken. Highlights of the Conference Agreement Mr. President, let me highlight some of those much-needed reforms: Punitive damages. The conference agreement provides that punitive damages may be awarded in a product liability case if a plaintiff proves, by ``clear and convincing evidence,'' that his or her harm was caused by the defendant's ``conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of others.'' This language is to make clear that punitive damages are only to be awarded in the most serious of cases. Mr. President, a fact all too often overlooked in this debate is that punitive damages are not intended as compensation for injured parties. They are punishment. Punishment of defendants found to have injured others in a conscious manner. They are used much as fines in the criminal system. However, currently there are two big differences. First, unlike the criminal system, there are virtually no standards for when punitive damages may be awarded. Second, when awarded, there are no clear guidelines as to their amount. This agreement addresses both problems. It brings uniformity to the punishment and deterrence phase of product liability law by providing a meaningful standard for when punitives are to be imposed and at what level. Under the conference agreement--except in cases against small businesses--punitive damages in a product liability case may be awarded up to two times compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. An additur provision permits the judge to award punitive damages beyond this limit if certain factors are met, but the judge cannot exceed the amount of the jury's original award. When the defendant is a small business--or similar entity--with less than 25 full-time employees, punitive damages may not exceed $250,000 or two times compensatory damages, whichever is less. The additur provision does not apply to small businesses. Finally, either party can request the trail be conducted in two phases, one dealing with compensatory damages and the other dealing with punitive damages. The same jury is used in both phases. Joint and several liability. Joint liability is abolished for noneconomic damages--such as pain and suffering--in product liability cases. Joint liability is a concept allowing one defendant to be held liable for all damages even though others also were responsible for the damage caused. What are the consequences? Too often, it means one person is held responsible for the conduct of another. True wrongdoers are not held liable. Indeed, consumers ultimately pay these claims-- either through higher prices, loss of service, or higher insurance premiums. Therefore, as to noneconomic damages, under this bill defendants would be liable only in direct proportion to their responsibility for the claimant's harm--so-called several liability. This section goes a long way toward correcting one of the most often abused aspects of our current civil legal system. It would ensure defendants would be held liable based on their degree of fault or responsibility, not the depth of their pockets. Mr. President, this is an issue on which I have worked for many years. In 1986, I fought to strengthen proposed product liability legislation, S. 2760, with an amendment regarding joint and several liability. My amendment--which passed the Commerce Committee--also abrogated joint and several liability for noneconomic damages in product liability cases. I am proud the spirit of my amendment of a decade ago lives on in this legislation. Alcohol and drugs defense. Under this bill, the defendant in a product liability case has an absolute defense if the plaintiff was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol, illegal drugs, or misuse of a prescription drug and as a result of this influence was more than 50 percent responsible for his or her own injuries. The philosophy behind such a provision is simple. A society working hard to discourage alcohol and drug abuse must not sanction such abuse by allowing individuals to collect damages when their disregard of a vital societal norm is the primary cause of an accident. Misuse and alteration defense. Under this legislation, a defendant's liability in a product liability case is reduced to the extent a claimant's harm is due to the misuse or alternation of a product. Why should the manufacturer of a machine pay for injuries I sustain because I remove safety guards put on in the factory? Statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for product liability claims is established as 2 years from when the claimant discovered or reasonably should have discovered both the harm and its cause. A plaintiff may not file suit after this time. This is an excellent example of how this legislation would benefit victims. Under current law, some States establish the time of injury as the point at which the time for bringing a claim begins to run. Often this is not a problem. However, in cases in which the harm has a latency period or manifests itself only after repeated exposure to the product, the claimant may not know immediately if he or she has been harmed or the cause of the harm. This bill thus would reduce the number of victims who, having otherwise meritorious claims, are denied justice solely on the basis of the statute of limitations in the State in which they file their claim. Statute of repose. A statute of repose of 15 years is established for certain durable goods. A durable good is defined by the bill as one having either: a normal life expectancy of 3 or more years, or a normal life expectancy that can be depreciated under applicable IRS regulations; and is: first, used in trade or business; second, held for the production of income; or third, sold or donated to a governmental or private entity for the production of goods, training, demonstration or any similar purpose. No product liability suit may be filed for injuries related to the use of a durable good 15 years after its delivery unless the defendant made an express warranty in writing as to the safety of the specified product involved, and the warranty was longer than 15 years. In such a case, the statute of repose does not apply until that warranty period is complete. The statute of repose section does not apply in cases involving toxic harm. States would be free to impose shorter statutes of repose and to cover more than just durable goods. For instance, the House-passed version of this bill would have applied the statute of repose to all goods. The need for a Federal statute of repose was presented well by a fellow South Dakotan, Art Kroetch, chairman of Scotchman Industries, Inc., a small manufacturer of machine tools located in Philip, SD. Last year during hearings, Art told the Commerce Committee how vital product liability reform is to the ability of American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Art told me that under the current patchwork of liability laws, his company pays twice as much for product liability insurance as it does for research and development. Mr. President, the system is broken. Workers compensation subrogation standards. This provision preserves an employer's right to recover workers compensation benefits from a manufacturer whose product harmed a worker--for instance, the manufacturer of a machine used in a business which injures an employee--unless the manufacturer can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer caused the injury--for example by maintaining an unsafe work environment or taking safety guards off the machine. This section of the bill makes no changes to the amount of damages an injured worker can recover in such cases. It merely provides the insurer or employer will not be able to recover workers compensation benefits it paid to an injured employee if the employer or a coemployee is at fault. Biomaterials Access assurance. In certain actions in which a plaintiff alleges harm from a medical implant, title II of the legislation allows biomaterial suppliers to be dismissed from the action without extensive discovery or other legal costs. The term ``biomaterial'' refers to the raw materials--such as plastic tubing or copper wiring--used as part of an implantable medical device. The legislation does not affect the ability of plaintiffs to sue manufacturers or sellers of medical implants. However, it releases biomaterials suppliers from lawsuits if the generic raw material used in the medical device met contract specifications, and if the biomaterials supplier cannot be classified as either a manufacturer or seller of the medical implant. During our hearings last year, the Commerce Committee heard compelling testimony that without such changes in the law, the millions of Americans who depend upon a variety of implantable medical devices will be at grave risk. Suppliers of biomaterials have found the risks and costs of responding to litigation related to medical implants far exceeds potential revenues from the sale of the components they manufacture. Indeed, several major suppliers of raw materials used in the manufacture of implantable medical devices have announced they will limit--or altogether cease--shipments of crucial raw materials to device manufacturers. Each of the suppliers indicated these were rational and necessary business decisions given the current legal framework. Product Liability and Small Business Mr. President, during the last Congress it was my privilege to serve as ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. As a member of that panel for many years, I know product liability reform is essential to the future health and success of America's small businesses. Indeed, according to a Small Business Administration study, small firms may be affected more negatively than large firms by nonuniform product liability laws. This is because small businesses do not enjoy economies of scale in production and litigation costs. In addition, they are less able to bargain with potential plaintiffs. Finally, their limited assets make adequate insurance much more difficult to obtain. The cost of product liability insurance in the United States is 15 times higher than that of similar insurance in Japan and 20 times higher than in European countries. We simply cannot compete. America's small businesses need rationality and uniformity in the product liability system if they are to compete effectively in the global marketplace. As I explained previously, this point was at the heart of the testimony given by Art Kroetch of Scotchman Industries in Philip, SD, at committee hearings last year. It also was the point made to me by Jim Cope of Morgen Manufacturing in Yankton, SD. Jim calls product liability reform a jobs issue for our State. Morgen has had to lay off workers and has been unable to give raises to other employees because of losses due to product liability claims--claims that never have resulted in a verdict against his company. Nevertheless, Morgen Manufacturing is forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending itself. To Jim Cope--and many small business owners just like him--tort reform means more jobs for South Dakota and the Nation. product liability reform and consumers Mr. President, opponents of this legislation tell us it would hurt the American consumer. Don't you believe it. Aside from the jobs issue, product liability reform would benefit consumers in numerous ways. It would lower the cost of U.S. goods. The current product liability system accounts for 20 percent of the cost of a ladder, 50 percent of the cost of a football helmet, and up to 95 percent of the cost of some pharmaceuticals. Reform also would foster competition and provide consumers with a greater selection of products from which to choose. Studies tell us 47 percent of U.S. companies have withdrawn products from the market and 39 percent have decided not to introduce products due to liability concerns. As a result, Americans depend on single sources to provide such vital needs as vaccines for polio, measles, rubella, rabies, diphtheria, and tetanus. This bill also would encourage safety improvements. By contrast, the current system actually discourages companies from engaging in research. Many fear research aimed at improving an existing product will be used against them to demonstrate they knew the product was not as safe as it could be. Certainty in the legal system would reduce this counterproductive effect. In addition, the legislation would encourage wholesalers and retailers to deal with responsible and reputable manufacturers. This, in turn, would lead to better products for consumers. Under the conference agreement, product sellers would be legally responsible for products manufactured by companies that are insolvent or do not have assets in the United States. This should increase the quality of the products found on the shelves of U.S. businesses. Mr. President, I have just outlined five ways this bill benefits consumers. First, it will mean more jobs. Second, it will lower the cost of the goods they purchase. Third, it will mean a greater selection of goods from which to choose. Fourth, it will encourage testing to make goods safer. Finally, it will help to maintain and, in some cases, improve the quality of products available to consumers. A bill that is bad for consumers? How can they say that with a straight face? product liability reform and the injured Mr. President, we also have been subjected to a great deal of nonsense that this bill would limit the rights of victims. Opponents paint the picture of injured victims being harmed further when the courthouse door hits them in the face. Not only does this conference agreement leave intact a full range of victims rights, it actually improves the current system in at least two very critical ways. First, the system we have today is plagued by delay. Second, compensation that eventually is received often is inequitable. Curtailing frivolous lawsuits--all this legislation really seeks to achieve--would significantly improve both problems. Currently, product liability suits take a very long time to process. A General Accounting Office study found, on average, that product liability cases took 2\1/2\ years to move from filing to trial court verdict. Other studies indicate it is more like 5 years. Most product liability cases are settled before trial, but even these cases suffer from delay. One plaintiff's attorney explained that ``most settlement negotiations get serious only a week or so before trial is scheduled to begin.'' Delay often results in undercompensation of victims. Many victims are forced to settle their claims for less than their full losses so they can obtain compensation more quickly. These individuals often are forced into this decision because of inadequate resources to cover medical and rehabilitation expenses while their case drags on. Another way in which the current system inequitably compensates victims concerns proportionality. Numerous studies demonstrate the current tort system grossly overpays people with small losses, while underpaying people with the most serious losses. A bill that limits victims rights? Try a bill that strengthens them. The Truth About Product Liability Reform There you have it, Mr. President--the truth about what it is we are trying to accomplish. The truth about how this bill would help consumers, small businesses and, yes, even those injured in the use of a product. The truth is, we would not change anything that is right with America's current civil justice system. Rather, we would curb the abuse of frivolous lawsuits that cost each and every one of us in a wide variety of ways each and every day. The courthouse doors stay open. Consumers retain a full complement of rights. Lawsuits would continue to provide a strong check on corporate behavior. Concepts such as contingent fees would continue to allow citizens with limited means to bring suit. The truth, Mr. President, is that election year politics threaten to kill this effort. The truth is, we all lose if that happens. The truth is the American people know the current system is broken and want us to fix it. A recent poll conducted in my home State found 83 percent of South Dakotans responding feel ``the present liability system has problems and should be improved,'' while only 10 percent said ``the present liability lawsuit system is working well and should not be changed.'' The truth is, that out there in the real America, this is not viewed as a partisan issue. Seventy-eight percent of Democrats, 83 percent of independents, and 88 percent of Republicans in South Dakota responding to the survey I just quoted say there are problems that need to be fixed. Mr. President, the message is clear. Our constituents do not believe this should be a political fight. I cannot for the life of me understand why some among us wish to make it so. We should adopt this conference agreement. This body approved a virtually identical bill last year. Nothing done in conference should change anyone's reasoning. This is a moderate and reasoned bill. Let us do what is right. Adopt the conference agreement and send it on to the President. Hopefully, he will remember the strong commitment he demonstrated to product liability on two separate occasions just a few short years ago. Hopefully, he will not allow special interests to continue playing politics. The stakes are simply too high. the need to address liability for biomaterials

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, men are measured by both word and deed, yet the greater measure of man is by their deeds. A man's deeds shape the character of mankind. Our active protection of human life is a monumental measure of mankind's character. Harvey Krautschun's deeds define the essence of ``being committed to life'' and his own personal character--one that should be a model for mankind. All South Dakotans know Harvey for his great service in our State legislature. He has served in the legislature for 11 years. He has been the Speaker of the State House of Representatives for a year. Recently, Harvey announced he will not seek reelection. This is unfortunate. His shoes will be hard to fill. But I rise today to pay tribute to Harvey's contributions not as an elected official, which are many, but in his singular contribution as a loving, caring husband. Recently, Gov. Bill Janklow declared Saturday, February 24, Harvey C. Krautschun Day in South Dakota. This honor was given for the life he saved--the life of his wife, Joy. He stood by Joy's hospital bed as she lay comatose for a month, fighting for her life. Because of his constancy and commitment to his wife's life, even as doctors began discussing terminating life-support, Harvey's devotion remained unmoved. He would see his wife awake again. Harvey demonstrated bravery, courage, and faith in protecting his wife's life. Joy found herself in this condition also because of bravery and courage. In July of 1995, when a newborn colt jumped into an 8-foot-deep pond, Joy jumped in to save the colt. While trying to save the colt, Joy's heart suddenly failed. Harvey rushed to her side, and began administering mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Their son, Bart, rushed to find additional help, calling an ambulance. Bart returned to his mother's side and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on her. Father and son together fought to save Joy's life. The massive heart failure pushed her into a coma. Miraculously, Joy awoke from her coma. Her recovery from the massive heart arrhythmia would entail months of hospitalizations and therapy. Joy did recover, she did awaken from the coma, and today she is living with her family. Doctors had believed she would not live. But Harvey and his family made a commitment to Joy's life, and, thereby, saved her. To speak of saving a life, to speak of heroism measures a man's values and ideals. To take courageous, loving actions measures a man's valor and commitments. Considering the turbulence surrounding all of us on a daily basis, at times finding simple answers to our problems is difficult, if not humanly impossible. Some mornings while reading the South Dakota newspapers, I wonder, ``What keeps people so strong?'' In the quake of unforseen events--I have found strength in faith and prayer. So when I heard of the sudden accident of Joy Krautschun and the courageous and enduring actions of her husband, Harvey, I knew faith in the human spirit and prayer are the strongest, most powerful agent we have to combat the turbulence in our lives. I have personally known Harvey for many years. As fellow runners, we jogged together through Spearfish Canyon. As a South Dakota statesman, Harvey has dutifully represented and protected his community, State, and all human life. Harvey has always been there for his constituents. In cases where the problem stretched to the Federal level, Harvey took the initiative to seek out help. It has been my pleasure to have worked with Harvey on such cases in the past. Harvey truly believes in fighting the good fight. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Harvey's leadership in the South Dakota Legislature. I trust and appreciate his views and advice on State and national issues. Harvey and his entire family are good, exemplary people and patriots of their Spearfish community. Harriet and I wish Harvey and his family many more years of health and happiness. Harvey, Joy and their family continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. Knowing a man who is so committed in faith and deed to community, State, country, family, and the very essence of life is an honor. Harvey is true to his rocksolid beliefs in both word and deed. February 24 may have been Harvey Krautschun Day for South Dakota, but it's safe to say that for Joy Krautschun, every day is Harvey Krautschun day.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on February 8, the President signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act has been my highest legislative priority for the 104th Congress. I am very pleased with the great strides we are making in deregulating and fostering competition in this critical field. But our work is not over. I ask to have printed in the Record the article I wrote for Roll Call detailing what lies ahead for telecommunications reform. The article follows: [From Roll Call, Mar. 11, 1996] Telecom Reform: It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over (By Senator Larry Pressler) Historic. Massive. Landmark. Sweeping. Adjectives such as these were often used by journalists and lobbyists alike to describe the recently passed Telecommunications Act of 1996. So often, in fact, I think that some began to wonder if we had placed them in the bill's formal title. The truth is such adjectives got a lot of ink because they captured the scope and direction of the bill. As well they should. Congress had been so long about the business of updating the nation's antiquated communications laws that, when we were finally able to get a bill moving, it had no choice but to be ``historic, massive, and sweeping'' if we were to have any chance of keeping up with the pace of technological development. Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was my highest legislative priority in the first session of the 104th Congress. On Feb. 8, that priority became law. Thanks to my bill, the communications industry will see an explosion in new investment and development. Who are the winners? The consumers. There will be more services and new products at lower costs. All of this economic activity will mean new jobs. Competition is the key for this development. My bill unlocked the regulatory handcuffs restricting the communications industry--now, competition will bring everything from lower costs and new products to better education opportunities to the public. But we are not done. Passage of the act does not mean Congress can now wait another 62 years before looking at telecommunications issues again. On the contrary, we must regard telecommunications reform as a work in progress. Although our legislative calendar may be somewhat attenuated this election year, the list of telecommunications priorities facing the second session of the 104th Congress is as impressive as it is imperative. Among the priorities for the Commerce Committee this year are ensuring that the Federal Communications Commission carries out Congress's intent when it sets the rules to implement the Telecommunications Act; determining federal use and allocation of the full spectrum; and re-examining the rule barring foreign investment in US telecommunications firms. Telecommunications Act Oversight First and foremost, Congress needs to make sure that what the American consumer won on the legislative battlefield isn't lost on the regulatory drawing board. In other words, we need to make sure that the FCC carries out the intent of Congress as it implements the tenets of the Telecommunications Act. This is no small task. Nor is it frivolous. There were many hard-fought battles by various segments of the industry during the drafting of the Telecommunications Act. Now that the scene shifts from the legislative to the regulatory venue, the temptation to refight lost battles beckons many an interest group. Congress must be vigilant and hold fast against the possibility of regulatory revisionism as the FCC proceeds with its rule-making processes. The battle flags already are flying. For instance, the FCC, in initiating a rule-making intended to accelerate the ability of Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) to offer long-distance service outside their monopoly operating areas, is proposing to require the RBOCs to set up separate subsidiaries to provide such services. As I pointed out in a recent letter to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, this is totally contrary to provisions in the Telecommunications Act that specifically exempt the RBOCs from having to provide out-of-region, long-distance services under a separate subsidiary. In another potential regulatory overreach, the FCC is considering requiring broadcasters to increase the amount of air time dedicated to public interest programming, as well as possibly requiring more children's programming. Such government-mandated content control would be enforced through the station license renewal process. The issue here is not whether more children's and public interest programming is desirable, but whether these goals should be mandated by the FCC as part of the broadcast license renewal process. In fact, Congress was quite clear about its intentions in the license renewal provisions of the Telecommunications Act. The act requires license simplification, not license complication. The FCC's direction in carrying out this provision seems to be headed in the direction of re- regulation instead of deregulation. It is the latter approach Congress clearly intended. As to the issue of program content, I think the best public policy is to keep the government's involvement to a minimum and let the industry and the public determine the content of programming. I support providing parents with the necessary technological weapons, such as the ``V-chip,'' to help them control what their children see on television. Of course, the ultimate ``V-chip'' already exists on every television set in America--the on/off switch. Currently, a plethora of flexible, quickly evolving, and market-driven parental blocking technologies are available. Some are already incorporated into many televisions and VCR's. Other are sold as separate add-on devices. We must be mindful that government does not dry up the market for such devices by mandating one technology over all others. fcc reform Another major focus for the committee this year will be to examine the overall performance and needs of the FCC as it carries out its duties. We will look closely at the agency's repeated requests for additional money to implement the Telecommunications Act. As I have told Chairman Hundt, I am concerned about the FCC's alarms over possible budget shortfalls and calls for more personnel and other resources to carry out its mission. The FCC has requested a budget of approximately $224 million for fiscal 1996, supporting some 2,300 employees. This is roughly two-thirds more than the FCC's budget in 1993 ($134 million) and includes an additional 600 employees over the 1993 staffing level (1,700). In fact, since 1992, FCC expenditures have risen at a compounded average annual rate of 15.2 percent, compared with an average of 10.4 percent for the communications industry itself. Should the growth of a federal agency outstrip the very industry it regulates by a margin of three to two? No. Particularly in an era of federal budget austerity in which the watchwords for most other federal agencies are ``smaller but smarter'' government. Clearly, Congress will have to look closely at the FCC during this second session and see what efficiencies can be realized in its operations. overview of federal spectrum policies Another major task facing Congress this year is a thorough examination of federal policies regarding the use and allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum, generally defined as the range of electromagnetic frequencies between three kilohertz and 300 gigahertz, is one of the nation's most valuable resources. I believe the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the efficient management of this resource provides adequately for the national defense, the protection of the taxpayer, and the continued maintenance of America's technological leadership. The full committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is planning to hold hearings on this complex subject, beginning in March. During these hearings, we will examine the government's management and allocation of the entire spectrum, not just that small portion of it used for radio and television broadcasting. This includes supporting: civilian emergency services; scientific and satellite uses; merchant marine emergency and navigation uses; aviation uses; truck and railroad uses; cellular phone and personal communications services; military and intelligence uses; and specialized data-transmission uses, such as telemedicine services. Much of the focus of this spectrum review naturally will gravitate toward the issue of digital television and how portions of the finite spectrum should be allocated to broadcasters for the development of digital transmission. I have long been a supporter of protecting the taxpayers in allocations of the spectrum by the FCC. In fact, I proposed an auction earlier in the year as part of the budget reconciliation process. While I believe the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was clear in that it did not mandate any giveaway of the digital spectrum, it is important that Congress revisit this issue this year and establish a clear national policy on spectrum assignments to the private sector. other issues There are a number of other telecommunications issues that will occupy the committee's attention this year, including a look at whether current rules restricting foreign investment in US broadcasting are good for the nation. It may well be that we should allow more foreign investment in US broadcasting, provided US broadcasters have the same investment rights overseas. This could open more foreign markets to US telecommunications products and services. The committee may hold hearings this year on this issue. The committee also will consider reforming the Communications Satellite Act of 1962. When that act was passed, no one thought private companies would launch and operate satellites. Today, we have private companies competing with the international government-owned satellite systems, INTELSAT and INMARSAT. We need to re-evaluate how competition should operate in the international satellite market. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a major legislative step forward in modernizing America's ancient telecommunications laws. But we cannot rest on our legislative laurels if Congress is to provide a regulatory infrastructure that helps, rather than hinders, America's telecommunications industry. Our work has just begun.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise tonight to comment on this amendment, offered by Senators Bond and Mikulski, to provide, among other things, additional funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. I am a cosponsor of this amendment because it includes funding that is very necessary to the people of Watertown, SD. This amendment would provide $13 million for the reconstruction of a wastewater treatment facility in Watertown, SD. The city of Watertown has worked for more than 10 years to overcome Clean Water Act violations. Now, the city is facing an expensive lawsuit, fines of up to $25,000 per day, and the high costs of restructuring the wastewater treatment plant. I have worked closely with Watertown's Mayor Brenda Barger, who is seeking a reasonable settlement to the lawsuit with the EPA. The city of Watertown's innovative/alternative technology wastewater treatment facility was built as a joint partnership with the EPA, the city, and the State of South Dakota in 1982. The plant was constructed with the understanding that the EPA would provide assistance in the event the new technology failed. The facility was modified and rebuilt in 1991 when it was unable to comply with Clean Water Act discharge requirements. Unfortunately, the newly reconstructed plant still was found to violate Federal regulations. That is why the city now faces a possible lawsuit by the Federal Government, and fines of up to $25,000 per day. The city of Watertown, under the very capable guidance of Mayor Barger, has entered into a municipal compliance plan with the EPA. Under the agree plan, Watertown should achieve compliance by December 1996. However, without Federal assistance, Watertown will be unable to complete the reconstruction by the date set forth by the EPA. In addition, the compliance plan does not address the issue of the onerous civil and administrative penalties that continue to accumulate against the city. Under the law, Watertown could accumulate an additional $14 million in penalties before the treatment facility is able to comply with the Clean Water Act requirements. Madam President, I don't know of any cities in South Dakota that can afford those kinds of penalties. Watertown is working hard to comply with the law. However, to succeed, Watertown needs the constructive cooperation of the Federal Government. The funding in the amendment offered by my friend from Missouri reflects the kind of constructive cooperation needed. As I said, it would provide $13 million to the city of Watertown to rebuild Watertown's wastewater treatment facility. Madam President, this project is necessary for the health and safety of the people of Watertown. Already this year, the city has increased consumer water rates from $9/month to $16/month in order to fund the water treatment facility reconstruction project. The city is prepared for additional rate increases in order to cover a portion of the total project cost of $25 million. The city also has worked diligently to secure a variety of available funding sources, including an allocation of $1 million from the State of South Dakota. Additionally, the city of Watertown has committed to a local match of $8.25 million. This Federal appropriation of $13 million would enable the city to complete construction on the water treatment facility in a timely manner, as required by the EPA. Madam President, I believe the merits of this project are clear. Construction of this facility would allow the city of Watertown to provide its residents with a safe water supply which complies with the Clean Water Act and thus ensures that the environment is protected. I have enjoyed working with Senator Bond, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, and Senator Mikulski, the ranking member on that subcommittee. I know I represent the citizens of Watertown, SD, when I say thank you for your commitment to securing this funding. This is a great first step. As I said, this is a constructive effort. I sincerely hope that the EPA will show the same constructive, cooperative spirit to the people of Watertown.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume the pending omnibus appropriations bill at 9:30 a.m. Thursday. A number of amendments are remaining, therefore votes will occur. Also, a cloture vote will occur at 2 p.m. with respect to the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 14; that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume the omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, at the hour of 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, the Senate lay aside the pending business and there be 30 minutes for debate prior to the Whitewater cloture vote, to be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which passed on February 1 and was signed into law February 8, is only the first step in my reform agenda for national telecommunications policy. As comprehensive as the new Telecommunications Act is, there are a number of profile and policy issues we were not able to adequately address, which need our attention. Over the coming months, the Commerce Committee will be examining the Federal Communication Commission's regulatory structure. The key issue is whether the FCC, a regulatory agency devised in the 1930's, based on the ICC model from the turn of the last century, makes sense today as we prepare for the 21st century. We also need to ensure that Federal regulation does not become a roadblock to the deregulatory policy changes engineered by the Congress with enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We also will move forward with national spectrum policy reform. I plan to chair four Commerce Committee hearings on spectrum policy reform, covering a broad range of issues concerning the management of the electromagnetic radio frequency spectrum. Although the issue of the broadcast advanced television spectrum captured headlines, there are a number of spectrum policy reform issues we need to address that are far more important. I intend to move the spectrum policy debate firmly back on the ground to the communications policy rather than the budgetary process which, to date, unfortunately, has dictated the terms of the spectrum reform debate. Mr. President, the electromagnetic radio frequency spectrum is an important physical phenomenon--a natural, national resource. An increasing number of telecommunications enterprises depend on access to this resource. These enterprises include radio and television broadcasting, communications satellites, the complex air-to-ground systems needed to manage aviation, the wireless systems upon which law enforcement and public safety depend, and the burgeoning mobile radio telephone business--cellular phones and personal communications services [PCS]. Simply put, the spectrum is to the information age what oil and steel were to the industrial age. Today, there is a limited supply of available spectrum and an almost limitless demand for its use. 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 that will create a more effective and efficient use of the spectrum, as well as a more stable supply of spectrum for private sector use, a vast array of new spectrum-based products, services, and technologies will go unrealized for the American people. This is particularly disheartening when one considers the benefits that are derived from current spectrum-based technology. For example, direct broadcast satellite [DBS] has become a viable competitor to cable. High powered DBS satellites have the ability to process and transmit as many as 216 video and audio channels simultaneously. Cellular is another spectrum-based technology that is worth mentioning. In 1962, AT&T was operating its first experimental cellular telephone system. It was not until 20 years later that the first cellular licenses were handed out. Today, the cellular industry generates about $14.2 billion in revenues a year and provides service to nearly 35 million customers. From its very beginning, wireless communication has played a vital role in protecting lives and property and, subsequently, through the development of radio and television broadcasting, in delivering information and entertainment programming to the public at large. More recently, wireless, spectrum-based telecommunications services, products and technologies have proven to be indispensable enablers and drivers of productivity and economic growth, as well as international competitiveness. Wireless technology can deliver telecommunications and information services directly: First, to individuals on the move, away from the office desk or factory floor, thereby increasing their personal productivity; and second, to fixed locations that cannot be served economically by wireless facilities because of physical infeasibility or prohibitively high costs. Wireless services are also critically important in bringing competition to the wireline telephone network, one of the key goals of the Telecommunications Act. The use of this economic resource is largely determined through administrative licensing procedures first developed in the 1920's. Compared to that of most other countries, the U.S. spectrum management system allows for a broad degree of private sector involvement in spectrum. Yet, the system still involves a large degree of central government planning by federal regulators. To a large extent, it is electromagnetic industrial policy. The FCC must determine which services should be provided, the frequencies on which they will be provided, the conditions under which they will be provided, and often the specific technology to be used. As with other systems of central planning, the spectrum management system currently utilized in the U.S. 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. It is a highly politicized process. Most importantly, new services, products and technologies are delayed or, worse yet, denied. This obviously harms consumers. It typically takes years to get a new service approved by the FCC. The lengthy delay in making cellular telephone service available, noted earlier, imposed tremendous cost on the economy. One study estimated that 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 determinants of a competitive industry is the ability of new firms to enter the business. The bureaucratic allocation process typically provides for a set number of licenses for each service, precluding additional competitors. Only two cellular franchises, for instance, are allowed in each market. These problems have long been the focus of criticisms by economists and other expert analysts. Changes in new communications technologies, especially the digitization phenomenon, are making the system even more unworkable. New wireless communications technologies, services and products are being developed at an accelerated rate. Even if the FCC were able to weigh accurately the needs and merits of the relatively few spectrum-based services that existed in the 1930's, it is simply not able to do so today. Even if it could, the lengthy 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 world of today. Pressures on the traditional radio frequency management structure are increasing. This is because demand for channels is outstripping supply. Some of the major issues which have arisen in recent years include: government use Many believe the Federal Government occupies too much of the radio spectrum resource today. They argue for reducing the government spectrum inventory in order to get this resource into the hands of the private sector where they believe it will be used more effectively and efficiently. Some also contend the traditional division of responsibilities between the FCC and NTIA is obsolete. Establishing a single radio spectrum manager for the United States, they argue, would be a significant improvement. Still others see the Government spectrum inventory as a potential source of revenues. They argue that the Government should be required to relinquish frequencies which could then be auctioned. They believe spectrum auctions would return billions of dollars to the Treasury. spectrum flexibility Many contend the Government should liberalize rules governing use of the spectrum. The prevailing radio frequency management system limits the uses that can be made of particular bands and channels. The channels allocated to broadcasting and assigned to broadcast stations thus cannot legally be used for cellular phone service today. Many of these frequency use limitations are grounded on traditional analog radio transmission technology. Many engineers and technical experts contend that the trend toward digital transmission renders these traditional limitations on channel use obsolete. Organizations including the Progress & Freedom Foundation have argued in favor of according frequency users broad flexibility to use their channels as they choose, subject to a no-interference requirement. Such a change would greatly empower individual licensees. It would also eliminate the scarcity of radio channels upon which much government regulation is now based. self-managed regulation At present, the FCC controls which entities receive licenses and what they can do with them. Much of the radio frequency engineering associated with this regulatory system is conducted by the FCC in- house. In some instances, the FCC has delegated some of its engineering and routine licensing functions to user cooperatives called frequency coordinator groups. Legislation passed by Congress in 1981 authorized this approach. Some believe the FCC should expand this approach to encompass virtually all radio-based communications. This would reduce the administrative burden on the agency, they maintain, while speeding up the overall process. Some have suggested that the FCC should make block grants of the spectrum to the States. Governors could then apportion channels among various State law enforcement, public service, and other users. This also would significantly reduce FCC costs, they argue, and could ensure more responsive frequency management. The radio frequency management and use reforms outlined above hold significant promise. None represent a truly fundamental change in Federal policy. All would reduce regulatory burdens while fostering important public policies including advances in technology and innovation, greater choice and more customer options, and more effective, efficient, and responsive use of this resource. a spectrum policy reform proposal--government use Several approaches have been advanced which, if adopted, would significantly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal use of the radio frequency spectrum, and with no discernible adverse impact on the performance of the many Federal programs that now rely heavily on radiocommunications. First, legislation should build on the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation law, which directed the Government within a specified period of time to relinquish control over a predetermined amount of radio frequency spectrum. This spectrum has been retroceded, in part, and should prove the basis for a variety of new private sector communications offerings. Now, legislation requiring the Government to privatize a set percentage of its spectrum--20 to 25 percent--makes sense. A special temporary congressional commission could be established to carry out this task much like the Base Realignment and Closures Commission [BRAC]. Congress also has created special or temporary commissions in the past to examine problems like the 1981 temporary Commission on Alternative Financing for Public Telecommunications. Mr. President, the proposal here is that there would be either the Base Closure Commission or something like it to look at the spectrum that the Defense Department and the CIA has to see if that could not be released in part or shared in part as new technology develops. Indeed, one of our hearings that we are going to hold in the Commerce Committee will be an off-the-record hearing on that subject. We certainly want our national defense to meet its requirements with spectrum, but we need to take a look at it. It may well take an extension of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission to look at the spectrum that the military has. If enacted, this initiative would have several positive consequences. To begin with, it would give Federal agencies a powerful incentive to modernize their communications facilities--to derive more communications capacity from the same or less channel bandwidth. Reducing the amount of spectrum used by Government would also create a powerful economic engine that could help drive the deployment of common user wireless communications systems generally. At present, there are a number of private sector alternatives to the Government providing its own radio communications. These include cellular radiotelephones as well as the new PCS services which are developing nationwide. As cellular radio moves from the conventional analog to more advanced digital transmission techniques, the number of cellular channels--system capacity--may increase by five- or six-fold. That is important to repeat. As cellular radio moves from the conventional analog to more advanced digital transmission techniques, the number of cellular channels--system capacity--may increase by five- or six-fold. In other words, we may have five or six times as much capacity on some of the same spectrum. Do not let me overstate this matter because that is only true of certain types of spectrum. But we may have five or six times as much use of that same band of beachfront spectrum in some instances. That large-capacity increase, plus the proliferation of additional wireless systems, hold the promise of significantly lower customer costs. Such costs could be even lower, if the volume of communications handled by these wireless systems grows. Here, as in other cases, cost per message, and thus price to users, is highly dependent upon volume. Not all Government radio communications requirements can necessarily be fully satisfied by private-sector commercial mobile service [CMS] providers. Through the standard Government procurement process, however, agencies could negotiate with CMS providers for special services and capabilities. There is little reason to assume, at this time, that an effectively competitive wireless communications business could not adequately meet many Government radio communications requirements. In the final analysis, the cost to the Government of relying on private sector supplies would be lower than the posted price because of the private sector's tax liabilities. Second, legislation should be passed to consolidate U.S. frequency management responsibilities under the FCC. The current practice of splitting functions between the FCC and NTIA is a historical anachronism. The frequency management functions of NTIA, together with the IRAC Secretariat and associated support activities--including NTIA's electromagnetic compatibility analysis operations--should be transferred to the FCC. In order to take into account critical national defense, law enforcement, and security concerns, the law should provide for limited review of FCC decisions on Federal frequency management by the President or his designee. At present, NTIA frequency allocation decisions are reviewable by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, acting pursuant to delegation from the President. No appeal from an NTIA frequency decision apparently has ever been taken. Such a consolidation makes sense. The FCC's engineering and routine radio frequency management chores can, for the most part, be assumed by private sector frequency coordinator groups. As Government users increasingly rely on the private sector to meet communications needs, and the dimensions of the Government change as well, the NTIA workload is likely to shrink as well. It makes little sense for taxpayers to fund two separate, Federal agencies both responsible for the effective and efficient use of the same resource. Spectrum Flexibility Radio frequency management traditionally has limited the permissible uses of allocated bands and assigned channels. This, in part, has been a function of technology, as well as the technical characteristics associated with particular frequencies. For example, channels allocated to the Forest Products Service have traditionally been quite low frequencies, because those frequencies have been shown to have the greatest ability to penetrate underbrush, leaves, etc. In general, the higher the frequency range, the more the transmission resembles visible light in terms of the phenomena that cause interference. Hence, at very high frequency ranges, fog, air pollution, and rain cause interference which would not arise if lower frequencies were used. New digital communications technologies, however, lessen this challenge. This is because digital technology includes error correction and other features which lessen interference. ``Spread spectrum'' and ``digital overlay'' techniques make it possible for multiple communications pathways to be established within the same radio frequency channel. Using this technology, broadcasters could transmit other communications in addition to video and sound signals. Radio broadcast channels today already are providing local links for paging operations. Government policy should encourage multiple, more intensive use of radio frequency resources where there is no perceptible adverse technical impact. Among other things, allowing radio frequency licensees greater flexibility could facilitate equipment and systems modernization and upgrading. For example, many public safety 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. The financial resources available to many public safety communications organizations are limited today, however, as a consequence of the fiscal austerity imperatives arising at virtually all levels of government. 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. A local police department, therefore, 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 and NTIA have already taken steps to allow some radio licensees more flexible use. The FCC'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. 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, had typically 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 access to computerized data bases, and having some radio frequency engineering expertise. Access to data bases today, of course, is routine. The number of individuals with substantial radio frequency management expertise is growing, moreover, in part because of 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 user's options. Competition among and between frequency coordinator groups, moreover, should have the effect of ensuring efficient charges and effective, responsive operations. That has been true in virtually every market where competition has been introduced, and should prove true in this case as well. The FCC should be directed to expand substantially the Agency's use of private sector frequency coordinator groups. Let me say something about the public safety spectrum and begin to conclude by saying, at this time, the FCC should be directed to assess the feasibility and desirability of making some spectrum block grants to States. 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, including 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 the jurisdiction. This would reduce delays and heighten responsiveness to actual user requirements, while also lessening substantially the burdens of traditional regulation now borne by the FCC. Most importantly, it would tend to ensure more and better public safety communications for State residents. Again, while States today have substantial radio frequency engineering expertise, such expertise is readily available in the competitive marketplace. In conclusion, the radio frequency management and use reforms outlined above hold significant promise. All would reduce regulatory burdens while fostering 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. I look forward to receiving comment on these and other spectrum reform proposals as part of our comprehensive hearing process in the Commerce Committee. Mr. President, as I look about the Chamber and in the galleries, I feel as I did some months ago. I addressed our State Chamber of Commerce. I was our last speaker after a whole series of speakers. Toward the end of my speech I noticed everyone was nodding their heads. Either they agreed with me or they were falling asleep. I thank my colleagues for letting me make this speech on spectrum management policy. Some of my basic thinking is we need to take a new look at this spectrum. It is a national natural resource. We need to look at what the Government has and what private areas have. We need to look at what the broadcasters have; if they are going to migrate, if we are sure we are going to auction what they migrate from. We have to look at giving authority to the States. If we find that there is more spectrum to use, we need to consider the possibility of auctioning it or, if it is used for public use, letting some of the State Governors decide how to allocate it rather than have it be allocated here within the beltway. Those are some things we need to think about.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute today to Michael Fitzmaurice, a South Dakotan and fellow Vietnam veteran who went far beyond the call of duty during his service for our country. Michael is a native of Cavour, SD, and served as an Army specialist [SPC] 4th Class. Michael's singular accomplishment in Vietnam came when he singlehandedly saved the lives of three of his fellow soldiers. These reminders of his heroism couldn't be more appropriately timed given the presence of our brave troops currently stationed in and around Bosnia. Recently, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and the Hartford Area News published articles about Michael. Leaping onto a grenade and saving the lives of three soldiers; tossing two live grenades back at the enemy; charging North Vietnamese troops--weaponless in the midst of combat--these are all accounts of SPC Michael Fitzmaurice's courage during battle. Michael's actions fill me with a sense of respect and pride. Americans can rest easy knowing men and women such as Specialist Fitzmaurice defend the values for which our country stands. I commend Specialist Fitzmaurice's example of commitment and bravery. He is truly a worthy recipient of the prestigious Congressional Medal of Honor for bravery. Mr. President, part of what makes a soldier fight to the finish lies in the sense of dignity and respect for humanity our parents and communities instill within us. Having grown up not far from Specialist Fitzmaurice, I can vouch for the family-oriented atmosphere in which we were raised. The Golden Rule was not just an adage, but words by which we were taught to live by each and every day. Michael's heroic actions were premised by years of being taught respect for one's country, community, and fellow man. Courage. Bravery. Selflessness. These are the things of which heroes like SPC Michael Fitzmaurice are made. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude for the example set by Michael and the thousands of brave men and women who similarly have fought or even died so that others might experience freedom. Time and again, people like Michael Fitzmaurice demonstrate to us the interminable vigor of the human spirit. Mr. President, I ask that articles which recently appeared in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and the Hartford Area News, be printed in the Record. The articles follow: Hartford Man To Be Honored for Heroism Pierre.--Michael John Fitzmaurice of Hartford will receive a unique honor later this year for heroism while serving in Vietnam 25 years ago. Legislation providing the Hartford man with the state's only set of Congressional Medal of Honor license plates is nearing the end of its Statehouse journey. The bill was approved 66-1 Tuesday in the House; it had cleared the Senate earlier but must be returned there because of changes made by the House. Fitzmaurice received the Medal of Honor for bravery in 1971. When three North Vietnamese hand grenades were lobbed into the bunker where Fitzmaurice and four fellow soldiers hid, he pitched two of them out and dropped on the third one. ``He absorbed the blast, shielded his fellow soldiers,'' said Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, ``and although suffering from serious multiple wounds and partial loss of sight, he charged out of the bunker, engaged the enemy until his rifle was damaged by the blast of an enemy hand grenade, and then while in search of another weapon, encountered an enemy in hand-to-hand combat.''

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the omnibus appropriations bill before us today is a wide ranging piece of legislation with programs that impact teachers, doctors, job trainees, police officers, and businessmen. I do want to single out one small piece of this legislation that is very important for South Dakota students and families, especially those in rural areas. You see, many small banks and credit unions have been leaving the Federal student loan program due to burdensome audits imposed by the Department of Education. The audits on guarantee agencies and schools were extended to lenders in the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1992. I fully agree with the goal of cracking down on fraud and abuse in the student loan program. However, these audits on small lenders are clearly a case of the cure being worse than the illness. The audits are duplicative and in the case of many small financial institutions, exceeding the profitability of the program. The audits are bureaucratic overkill. Expenditures are wasted, as the Department of Education does not even review all of the audits. For lenders with small portfolios, it does not make sense to stay in a program that is losing money. As a result, small lenders are leaving the program, forcing students and families to take their student loan business away from their hometown banks. When hometown lenders leave the program, students and communities are the real losers. I was pleased to have worked with the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, to include language in the Balanced Budget Act to correct this problem by creating an exemption for lenders with portfolios under $5 million. I am equally pleased that the Appropriations Committee included the same language in the bill before us today. I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, and the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Specter, for adding this provision, which will allow students to continue doing business with their hometown banks. I am pleased this problem will be resolved for small lenders and their communities.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am delighted to inform the Senate that today the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany signed an open skies agreement which will liberalize air service between our two countries. I am also pleased to advise my colleagues that the United States and Germany initialed a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement [BASA] which will greatly enhance safety coordination between the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] and its German counterpart agency. The United States-German open skies agreement is a great economic victory for both countries and a very welcome development for consumers. In fact, I regard this agreement to be a trade accord of truly historic proportions for both countries. As always is the case where market forces are unleashed, consumers flying between the United States and Germany, as well as passengers connecting in either country for travel to a third country, will benefit enormously. These consumer benefits will include increased choice and competitive air fares. Mr. President, the United States-German open skies agreement is the product of bold and visionary leadership by two men. I refer to our Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena and German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann. Secretary Pena had the vision to identify this opportunity and to recognize that competition will be our best ally in opening restrictive European air service markets such as those in the United Kingdom and France. Minister Wissmann had the vision to recognize the economic benefits of an open skies agreement with the United States are a two-way street. In addition, I want to praise the great work of four men who labored for months to negotiate the fine points of this agreement. For the United States, I commend the outstanding work of Mark Gerchick, DOT's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, and John Bylerly, special negotiator for Transportation Affairs at the State Department. For the Germans, I commend the outstanding work of Dr. Jurgen Pfohler, Deputy chief of staff to Minister Wissmann, and Dieter Bartkowski, Director of the Air Transport Section at the German Ministry of Transport. The United States-German open skies agreement is a fitting tribute to their efforts and exemplary public service. What does the United States-German open skies agreement do in terms of putting aviation relations between our two countries on the firm foundation of market principles? It will allow airlines of both countries to operate to any points in either country, as well as third countries, without limitation. It also liberalizes pricing, charter services and further liberalizes the open skies cargo regime already in place. In short, it allows market demand, not the heavy hands of governments, to decide air service between the United States and Germany. How will this open skies agreement benefit all U.S. carriers? It will create tremendous new air service opportunities between the United States and Germany in which all U.S. carriers can partake. Also, German airports will provide well-situated gateway opportunities for our carriers to serve points throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the booming Asia-Pacific market. These gateway opportunities offer the double benefit of serving as a means of breaking the bottleneck at London's Heathrow Airport and offering a backdoor to the booming Asia- Pacific market. All U.S. carriers also will receive indirect benefits from the United States-German open skies agreement. I predict the United States-German open skies agreement will be an important catalyst for further liberalization of air service opportunities throughout Europe. In fact, I believe this agreement will serve as a template for such liberalization. Hopefully, the United States-German open skies agreement, in combination with open skies agreements we already have with 11 other European nations, will force the United Kingdom and France to come to the alter of air service competition. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that today is a very important day in U.S. international aviation policy and U.S. trade policy. It also is an important day in United States-German economic and political relations. Perhaps most important, it is a great day for consumers in both countries.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, during the cold and snowy winter months in South Dakota, many of my constituents enjoy the excitement of the basketball courts as a reprieve from the cold. This year, a very heated basketball season is melting the snow off the city of Mitchell, SD. Mitchell's basketball coach, Gary Munsen, has reached a milestone in South Dakota high school basketball--he has recorded 500 career wins. Gary Munsen's achievement represents his long, dedicated service to the game of basketball in South Dakota, and more important, his players and his community. Gary is living proof that hard work and a strong commitment are the foundation of South Dakotans' success. Gary's success also comes from his understanding that coaching is more than teaching kids how to put an orange ball through an iron hoop. Coaching is about teaching young people the importance of teamwork, discipline, hard work, and individual effort. Gary Munsen has made many sacrifices during his career as a basketball coach. But Gary's incredible effort, determination and commitment have made him a brilliant coach. I extend my congratulations to him for his outstanding record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of an article highlighting Gary Munsen's career be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, When I was growing up on a farm in Humboldt, SD, I knew and participated in one of my home State's best kept secrets: hunting. Almost every year I have returned to my State to hunt pheasants in the fall. I did so again, with great success, just last fall. South Dakota is a sportsman's sanctuary, a heaven on earth. It's becoming less and less a secret. Hunting-related tourism has boomed in my State. People from around the world travel hundreds--even thousands--of miles to experience a special piece of South Dakota. The tourism industry has become an integral part of South Dakota's continued prosperity and economic growth. I have many fond memories of growing up in South Dakota. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal articulated many of the sentiments I feel about South Dakota hunting. Sun-filled, crisp blue skies; fields thick with pheasants--indeed, South Dakota is filled with many such days of splendor. I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to share in this unique South Dakota experience. I extend a warm invitation to visit my State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Wall Street Journal article, ``Where Pheasants Swarm as Thick as Locusts,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to pay tribute and bid a fond farewell to a very distinguished statesman, a good friend to the United States and a dear friend of mine--Siddhartha Shankar Ray, India's Ambassador to the United States. Ambassador Ray has decided to return to his home country, and more specifically to West Bengal, to run for a seat in the Indian Parliament. I wish him great success in this and in his future endeavors. As all my colleagues know Ambassador Ray has worked tirelessly during his more than 3 years here to strengthen Indo-United States relations. It is safe to say he has performed his duties with great distinction and even greater success. His service to his country here in Washington came at a vital period in Indo-United States relations. With the end of the cold war, past barriers to better relations with India have gone with it, and vast new opportunities have emerged. We have seen increased investment, trade, and cultural exchanges between our two countries. We also are laying the groundwork for discussions on security issues. Ambassador Ray has played a vital role in this exciting new era. I am certain he will continue to do so. Ambassador Ray is an industrious and articulate diplomat, and a tenacious advocate for his country. The secret of Ambassador Ray's success is simple. As Sister Mary Lauretta once stated: ``To be successful, the first thing to do is fall in love with your work.'' Ambassador Ray loves India. He believes in India's future. His love of country and faith in his fellow citizens were evident throughout his service here. I had the opportunity to spend time with Ambassador Ray and his wife, Maya, last week at his farewell dinner. Both have been positive forces for their country. Now, they intend to continue their already distinguished service at home. No matter what path Ambassador Ray may take, I am certain that all of India will stand to benefit. Ambassador and Mrs. Ray will be sorely missed by all of us in the Washington community. But it is safe to say we can always look to Ambassador Ray to be an essential element in our strengthening ties with India. Again, I wish my friend Ambassador Ray and his family the very best.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues some very disturbing developments in weapons proliferation in south Asia. Last year may go down in history as one of the worst years for the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. New evidence released this week merely reinforces this grave conclusion. On February 5 the Washington Times reported that, in 1995, Chinese defense industrial trading companies exported 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan. Under the terms of an international agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the export of ring magnets is strictly controlled because of the magnets' critical use in the production of nuclear weapons. Specifically, ring magnets are used in gas centrifuges, which are used to extract enriched, weapons-grade uranium from uranium gas. Just this morning, Mr. President, the Washington Post reported a similar story, finding that American intelligence officials believe there is no doubt that the transfers occurred. Chapter 10, section 101, of the Arms Export Control Act contains very severe penalties that are to be imposed on both the exporting country and the importing country for illicit nuclear transfers of this type. Specifically, the law states that no Federal assistance--economic or military--may be made available to either country. In the case of the receiving country, Pakistan, this would mean the suspension of economic and military assistance, including military training or the transfer of defense articles. In the case of the delivering country, the People's Republic of China, the operations of the United States Export-Import Bank would be blocked. These shocking revelations raise three fundamental issues: First, numerous officials in the Government of Pakistan have been quoted, as recently as 1995, that it was no longer enriching uranium for nuclear weapons production. In other words, Pakistan claimed it had frozen its bomb program. We could never verify those statements, but that was what we were led to believe. We now know differently. Second, the People's Republic of China has made a series of pledges to the United States with regards to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Again, we now know differently. Finally, during most of 1995--when the transfer of nuclear technology from the People's Republic of China to Pakistan was taking place-- representatives of the Government of Pakistan and the Clinton administration were actively lobbying the Congress to weaken United States non-proliferation law to allow for a one time transfer of military equipment valued in excess of $370 million, as well as the resumption of nonmilitary aid. As we all know, last year the Senate passed the so-called Brown amendment, which authorized the transfer of this military equipment to Pakistan. It also repealed portions of the so-called Pressler amendment, a law which prohibited any United States assistance to the Government of Pakistan because of its possession of nuclear explosive devices. This last point--the passage of the Brown amendment--is particularly disturbing. I opposed the Brown amendment. I opposed it in part because it called for the transfer of military equipment without obtaining one single concession from Pakistan on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Frankly, if Members of Congress were aware of the ring sale--this violation of U.S. law --I do not believe the Brown amendment would have passed. It is unfortunate enough that our Nation would transfer to Pakistan, United States-made military equipment without any non-proliferation concession. Now we face the real and embarrassing prospect of having weakened United States non-proliferation law for Pakistan's benefit at the same time Pakistan was expanding its nuclear weapons capability in violation of United States law. This irony would be humorous if the issue wasn't so serious. Accordingly, in view of the confirmations of these transfers, I have written today to President Clinton urging that he enforce the law. Specifically, any contemplated transfer of military equipment to Pakistan, as called for in the Brown amendment, should cease immediately. Further, sanctions called for under the law also should be applied to Chinese exporting companies. Finally, Mr. President, it may be worth exploring if officials within the Clinton administration knew of this blatant violation of U.S. nonproliferation law while the administration was lobbying to pass the Brown amendment. And if they did, in fact, know it would be important to determine if they informed Members of Congress of this development. I intend to raise this matter with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the very near future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles in the Washington Times of February 5 and the Washington Post of February 7 as well as my letter to the President of this date be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I support the freedom-to-farm concept. Most farmers in South Dakota that I have talked to want the freedom-to- farm concept. The Senate is in a filibuster situation, although the word ``filibuster'' is not being used. We are not being allowed to proceed to the farm bill by the Democrats. We must produce 60 votes in order to proceed. We apparently do not have 60 votes, at least not up to this point. People should understand that many of us want to pass a farm bill. If we were permitted to proceed to the bill, we could then start offering amendments and begin discussion. However, the other side is not allowing the farm bill to come up. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider supporting S. 1541, the Agricultural Market Transition Act. Should cloture not be invoked on S. 1541, I urge my colleagues to support the compromise offered by the Senators from Idaho and Vermont, Senator Craig and Senator Leahy. Their amendment incorporates all of S. 1541 and includes a number of other reforms. If we do not have the Freedom to Farm Act, we could have the Leahy-Craig substitute, which has the freedom to farm but includes a number of reforms. Mr. President, I was recently back home in South Dakota and spent time talking to farmers about what needs to be accomplished in future farm programs. The message was loud and clear: flexibility, certainty, and less Government involvement. Both S. 1541 and the Craig-Leahy compromise would provide all of those things. Mr. President, S. 1541 would provide greater economic stability to producers. Producers in South Dakota are telling me not to extend the 1990 farm bill, and by all means do not let the underlying 1949 act be the operative act for 1996. After careful review, many producers say, support S. 1541. There will be a lot of unwarranted criticism expressed over S. 1541. Those opposed to the bill say we need a permanent safety net for farmers. I say there is nothing permanent about Federal farm policy. The past farm bills were not permanent. All generally covered periods of 4 or 5 years. Mr. President, S. 1541 would provide a 7-year plan. Unless economic conditions warrant an earlier revisitation of Federal farm policy, we will no doubt be putting together a new farm bill in 2002. So S. 1541 does not eliminate the real safety net for farmers, which, frankly, is the Congress itself. Those people who say there will be no farm programs after 7 years simply are not shooting straight. Past farm bills never carried assurance of future farm products except for 1938 and 1949 Agricultural Acts. Mr. President, let me summarize my position. Congress should pass a farm bill now. We are ready to act. It is my recommendation if we cannot adopt the freedom-to-farm bill, we should adopt the Leahy-Craig substitute, which is the freedom-to-farm bill with amendments. We cannot even adopt amendments to that since there is basically a filibuster going on here. We have to produce 60 votes in order to proceed. I implore my colleagues to let us proceed on the farm bill, offer amendments, as we have in the past in good faith here, in a bipartisan way. Let us amend the Craig-Leahy substitute. We are ready to go. Our farmers are ready to go to the fields soon to plant. They are making their plans with their bankers now. They need certainty. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and others have estimated that commodity prices in the next 5 years will be very high because of demand in China and other demand overseas. The biggest farm bill we could adopt is probably a balanced budget, because if we have a balanced budget we will have low-interest rates for farmers and businessmen. We also will have a stable dollar for international trade. I believe we can have a booming agriculture for the next 5 years if we have a balanced budget and if we move toward the concepts in freedom to farm. Mr. President, our farmers want flexibility--that is to be able to plant new crops and different crops. If we continue to go with a regulated Government system, the Department of Agriculture defines which crops must be planted. Indeed, it is true that wheat and corn are probably best suited to much of our soil. But who is to say that some new crop might not be experimented with and might come forth. It is said if we have the Freedom to Farm Act that, after 7 years, the farmers will be left on their own. That is not necessarily true. Just like with a 5-year farm bill, the Congress does something new afterward. If the Congress in 7 years finds that the farmers are in need of it, they can pass a farm bill. They can even reinstitute the present farm bill if they wish. So that is not a good argument. In talking to my farmers in South Dakota, they like freedom to farm. My farmers like the concept of flexibility of crops. The farmers in South Dakota like the concept of doing away with all the paperwork and Government regulation that has built up around this program. There are those who would say we should not abolish the 1938 and 1949 Agricultural Acts. I disagree. It is time to abolish those acts because they are obsolete. Now is the time for forward thinking reforms. We should not be in a position of carrying forward outdated and ineffective 50-year-old farm policies as the basis for agricultural planning in the 21st century. Opponents of S. 1541 want to extend existing farm policy for 1 or 2 years. Mr. President, the one thing my producers have made abundantly clear is they do not want the Federal Government telling them what they can or cannot plant, and making other decisions for them. They want, and deserve, full flexibility. An extension of existing policy means that Government will continue to dictate farming practices. This simply is unacceptable. Under S. 1541, producers would have greater planting flexibility. Producers would have the opportunity to respond to market conditions. This is vital for their economic survival. Opportunities would be endless. Producers would not lose payments if they decided to plant new and innovative crops. Mr. President, S. 1541 is supported by the South Dakota Farm Bureau, the South Dakota Corn Growers, and many farmers throughout South Dakota. They see great opportunities for them in their operations. A recent study by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute showed that S. 1541 would bring higher prices for corn, soybeans, and all livestock over the next 10 years. Current high prices for wheat also would be maintained. Under S. 1541, net farm income is estimated to increase from $38 to $50.4 billion in 10 years. In addition, farm program payments would be reduced from $6.4 billion in 1995 to $5.04 billion in 2005. In short, S. 1541 would increase farm incomes while lowering farm program costs to our taxpayers. That is a great deal. The last point is important if we are to reach our primary goal of a balanced budget. Mr. President, farmers and ranchers are some of the strongest supporters of balancing the Federal budget. A balanced budget would be great news for South Dakota farmers and ranchers and their families. It would mean lower interest rates and a growing economy. A balanced budget would reduce interest rates by at least 1.5 percent. A reduction in interest rates of that size would help raise farm income by more than $2 billion per year. So, to conclude and to summarize, I support this Congress going forward on legislation on the farm bill now. I am weary of the filibuster that has kept us from dealing with amendments. If we cannot have the freedom-to-farm bill, let us have a modification of it, which the Leahy-Craig offer encompasses. This will mean more prosperity to farmers and also less costs to the taxpayers. It will mean strengthening our position in international trade, which will help our country in general. We cannot delay any longer. Our farmers are meeting with their bankers at this hour, trying to work out their financial plans. In the southern part of our country, they are prepared to plant. The Congress seems to be dilly-dallying. Let people understand what is going on here. We, on this side of the aisle, are ready to legislate. We are going to have a cloture vote today. I plead with my colleagues, let us go and legislate and offer amendments and we will have a farm bill worked out. But let there be no misunderstanding out in the country. We are not holding this farm bill up. We are here, ready to legislate. The cloture vote this afternoon, if we fail, it will hold us up again. I want to make it very clear to my farmers where this delay is coming from. My farmers, generally speaking, want freedom to farm. Let us get the truth out. Let us have a farm bill now. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.