Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today as one of the proud co-sponsors of the Animal Disease Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Control Act of 2001. This bill will go a long way toward offering the American public and producers the vital information necessary to begin to understand the economic impacts associated with Hoof and Mouth Disease and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). The risks associated with these diseases to the public health will also be reviewed. In the United states, we take great pride and have worked diligently to maintain healthy herds. We have spent years creating our breeding programs and ensuring the animals we produce are the finest in the world. This bill will help ensure that effort will not be jeopardized. We need to create a solid unified front to ensure that all the information available on these diseases is readily accessible. This bill will not only make that knowledge available, it will provide Congress with the information necessary to move forward quickly with any other type of action that is required. This bill will provide an important tool that will allow us to continue producing the safest meat supply in the world. I look forward to working with Senators Hatch and Harkin on this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today, to introduce the Technology Depreciation Reform Act of 2001. This bill will update the U.S. Tax Code to reflect the evolution of the computer and other high-tech industries. High-tech hardware is subjected to an outdated tax code. Currently, businesses must depreciate their computer equipment over a five year period. I believe this five year depreciation life for tax purposes is clearly outdated. Many companies today must update their computers as quickly as every 14 months in order to stay current technologically. Depreciation schedules for technology assets have not been reformed since 1986. This legislation will amend the U.S. Tax Code by reducing the depreciation schedule for high-tech equipment from five years to three years. I believe it is time to update an outdated tax code to reflect the realities of today's technology-based workplace. A five year depreciation schedule for business computers is no longer realistic. The Computer Depreciation Reform Act allows every company, from the neighborhood real estate office, to the local hospital, to the local bank to depreciate their computer equipment on a three year schedule. As a result, these companies will no longer be forced to pay for their high-tech equipment long after its useful life has become obsolete. In short, the tax code is outdated for high-tech hardware. The five year schedule for technology assets is particularly outdated. In fact, this is an ice age for computer technologies. As the chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, I am very award of the impact this is having on small businesses. Congress has not addressed this issue since 1986. However, the industry has evolved dramatically since that time. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to update the tax code to reflect the realities of today's technological workplace.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to make note of the 15 people who have lost their lives in the waters off the coast of Alaska. On Tuesday, April 2 the U.S. Coast Guard received a distress signal from the vessel Arctic Rose. The Arctic Rose sank with all hands on board in the Bering sea, some 200 miles northwest of St. Paul Island. I would like to join my colleagues from the home states of these people to recognize those whose lives were lost in this tragic event, and would ask that their names be entered into the record. Aaron Brocker, Jimmy Conrad, Robert Foreman, Edward Haynes, G.W. Kandris, Kenneth Kivlin, Jeff Meinche, and Mike Olney, all from Washington. Kerry Egan from Minnesota. Angel Mendez from Texas. Michael Neureiter from California. Dave Rundall from Hawaii. Shawn Bouchard and James Mills from Montana. I am sure I join with all members of Congress and express our sincerest condolences to the families of these men.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001. S. 170 permits retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive both military retired pay by reasons of their years of military service and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability. Currently, a retired military member will have his or her retirement pay offset dollar for dollar when they receive disability compensation from the Veterans Administration. This law is 110 years old and it is long overdue for change. The military retirement pay is earned over one's career for longevity, while the VA disability compensation is for a different reason altogether--sustaining an injury while in the service. These are two completely separate issues and military members have suffered over the years by having their retirement pay reduced. The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001 will correct this deficiency. We owe our freedom to those who wore our country's military uniforms. We must honor our commitment to those who served in the military. This year is the time to overturn the provision in the 110 year-old law that prohibits military retirees from receiving concurrent receipt of full military retirement pay along with VA disability compensation. Entitling these people to receive both retirement pay and disability compensation without any deduction is the right thing to do It is not a hand out; it is something they deserve and earned for serving our country honorably. I encourage my colleagues to support S. 170.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the assistant leader. I have been tied up in a committee all morning trying to get over here. We have had some pressing energy business. But I wish to make one point. How many other industries are we asking to lower their rates on the services they perform for the sake of political activity? Are we asking the automobile companies? The gasoline companies? The newspapers? The direct mailers? The writers? Are we asking them to lower their rates on their inventory for the sake of political activity? I think not. And the broadcasters, once their time is gone, it is gone forever; and they cannot recover it. I don't think we have a right to ask them to do that, especially incumbents, as we are here, who have access to the news every night.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for just 1 minute.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Health Care Access Improvement Act of 2001.'' This bill is designed to dramatically expand rural America's access to modern health care. The Health Care Access Improvement Act creates a significant tax incentive, which encourages doctors, dentists, physician assistants, licensed mental health providers, and nurse practitioners to establish practices in under-served areas. Until now, rural areas have not been able to compete with the financial draw of urban settings and therefore have had trouble attracting medical professionals to their communities. The $1,000 per month tax credit will allow health care workers to enjoy the advantages of rural life without drastic financial sacrifices. But the real winners in this bill are the thousands of Americans whose access to health care is almost impossible due to a lack of doctors and dentists in small town America. There are nine counties in the great state of Montana which do not have even one doctor. In these rural settings, agriculture is often the only employer. Farming and ranching is hard, dangerous work. Serious injuries can happen in an instant. And while Montanans have always been known as a heartier breed of people, we get sick too. It is unreasonable to expect the farmer who has had a run-in with an auger or the elderly rancher's widow to drive two hours or more to get stitched up or to have a crown on a tooth replaced. As doctors, dentists, physicians assistants, mental health providers, and nurse practitioners are attracted to the more urban areas, Montanans and others in isolated communities will suffer. We must do what we can to ensure that these health care providers come to rural America, we must give them some incentive to practice in these smaller communities so that citizens living in these areas can finally enjoy the medical treatment they deserve. This problem is not unique to my State of Montana, alone. In fact, throughout the United States, we continue to experience scarcity in all or parts of 2,692 counties. In rural areas, serious shortages exist in the supply of primary care practitioners and specialty care practitioners. This is precisely the reason why this bill is so important. Twenty-nine health care organizations believe strongly in this legislation, as well. They actively support the introduction of this legislation to provide a tax credit to health care providers establishing practices in underserved areas because they realize it will help thousands of health care providers make decisions to establish their practices in America's underserved communities. So many communities whose access to qualified health care professionals has been a constant ``revolving door'' will be greatly helped by this tax credit. Mr. President, I hold here in my hand a letter on behalf of these various groups which I ask to be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BURNS. It is important to note that less than 11 percent of the nation's physicians are practicing in non-metropolitan areas, less than 11 percent. This is a significant number, folks. We owe it to the men, women, children, elderly and families living in these non-urban communities to take steps necessary to increase this percentage and get more health care providers to their communities. The Department of Health and Human Services uses a ratio of one primary care physician per 3,500 population as the standard for a primary care Health Professional Shortage Area, HPSA. More than 20 million Americans live in rural and frontier HPSAs. Most of the State of Montana is beyond rural, it's frontier. As of 1997, more than 2,200 physicians were needed nationwide to satisfy these non-metropolitan primary care HPSAs shortages. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to work with me and join in support of this legislation. Rural Montana, rural America, and health service providers all benefit from increased access, service and a better quality of life. In short, everyone wins with this legislation. I look forward to making this legislation work for so many of the men, women and children in need of quality health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. It is important to note that less than 11 percent of the nation's physicians are practicing in non-metropolitan areas, less than 11 percent. This is a significant number, folks. We owe it to the men, women, children, elderly and families living in these non-urban communities to take steps necessary to increase this percentage and get more health care providers to their communities. The Department of Health and Human Services uses a ratio of one primary care physician per 3,500 population as the standard for a primary care Health Professional Shortage Area, HPSA. More than 20 million Americans live in rural and frontier HPSAs. Most of the State of Montana is beyond rural, it's frontier. As of 1997, more than 2,200 physicians were needed nationwide to satisfy these non-metropolitan primary care HPSAs shortages. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to work with me and join in support of this legislation. Rural Montana, rural America, and health service providers all benefit from increased access, service and a better quality of life. In short, everyone wins with this legislation. I look forward to making this legislation work for so many of the men, women and children in need of quality health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Health Care Access Improvement Act of 2001.'' This bill is designed to dramatically expand rural America's access to modern health care. The Health Care Access Improvement Act creates a significant tax incentive, which encourages doctors, dentists, physician assistants, licensed mental health providers, and nurse practitioners to establish practices in under-served areas. Until now, rural areas have not been able to compete with the financial draw of urban settings and therefore have had trouble attracting medical professionals to their communities. The $1,000 per month tax credit will allow health care workers to enjoy the advantages of rural life without drastic financial sacrifices. But the real winners in this bill are the thousands of Americans whose access to health care is almost impossible due to a lack of doctors and dentists in small town America. There are nine counties in the great state of Montana which do not have even one doctor. In these rural settings, agriculture is often the only employer. Farming and ranching is hard, dangerous work. Serious injuries can happen in an instant. And while Montanans have always been known as a heartier breed of people, we get sick too. It is unreasonable to expect the farmer who has had a run-in with an auger or the elderly rancher's widow to drive two hours or more to get stitched up or to have a crown on a tooth replaced. As doctors, dentists, physicians assistants, mental health providers, and nurse practitioners are attracted to the more urban areas, Montanans and others in isolated communities will suffer. We must do what we can to ensure that these health care providers come to rural America, we must give them some incentive to practice in these smaller communities so that citizens living in these areas can finally enjoy the medical treatment they deserve. This problem is not unique to my State of Montana, alone. In fact, throughout the United States, we continue to experience scarcity in all or parts of 2,692 counties. In rural areas, serious shortages exist in the supply of primary care practitioners and specialty care practitioners. This is precisely the reason why this bill is so important. Twenty-nine health care organizations believe strongly in this legislation, as well. They actively support the introduction of this legislation to provide a tax credit to health care providers establishing practices in underserved areas because they realize it will help thousands of health care providers make decisions to establish their practices in America's underserved communities. So many communities whose access to qualified health care professionals has been a constant ``revolving door'' will be greatly helped by this tax credit. Mr. President, I hold here in my hand a letter on behalf of these various groups which I ask to be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for holding today's hearing, as it concerns a topic of great importance to the future development of the Internet--how to make sure that our Nation's tax policy keeps pace with rapid technological change. The Internet Tax Freedom Act recognized that uniformity and common sense must be brought to taxation policy on the Internet. The act placed a 3-year year moratorium on State and local taxes that discriminate against online transactions. I strongly supported the bill and welcomed its passage by the Senate. This hearing is particularly timely, as the moratorium on discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce expires on October 21. If the moratorium is not extended, our small businesses across the country face the burden of having to comply with the requirements of over 7,000 taxing jurisdictions. I am more convinced than ever of the folly of imposing a devastating patchwork of taxes on Internet transactions. I agree with the recommendation of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce that we should extend the moratorium. I would like to add my name as a cosponsor to the Wyden bill, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which will keep the Internet a ``tax-free'' zone until December 31, 2006 and will help foster the growth of electronic commerce. Both consumers and businesses will benefit from a reasoned Internet tax policy. Growth will create more revenue and an expanding tax base for the future. The empowering aspects of the Internet for small business--low barriers to entry and an immediate global reach--must not be inhibited by a heavy-handed government approach to Internet taxation. Extending the moratorium on discriminatory taxes on Internet transactions will help to ensure that the nearly limitless potential of electronic commerce is realized. I would like to touch on another issue arising from this debate, the broader question of whether Congress should allow the States to require all remote sellers--be they over the new medium of the Internet, or the more traditional mediums of mail order or telephone to collect sales tax on deliveries into states where the seller has no physical presence or ``tax nexus.'' I believe the current rules on whether an out-of-state company should collect sales tax are, in fact, fair and reasonable. Simply stated, a company is required to collect tax on deliveries into a State if it has a presence in that State. This rule has served interstate commerce well, and importantly, has not burdened small, entrepreneurial companies with having to hire lawyers and accounts to comply with 7,600 different taxing jurisdictions, and worse still, liability to audit from States and localities throughout the country. I'm not prepared at this point to support any new tax collecting requirements on remote commerce. However, if this committee were to act on this broader issue, the Wyden bill's approach, which requires full congressional scrutiny and a mandatory up-or-down vote by Congress before there is any new tax collecting, seems to me to be the correct course.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill on an issue of great importance to my state and to the entire livestock industry. The subject is that of restricting the quality USDA Grade Stamp to only U.S. livestock products. It would prohibit foreign meat from coming into America and unfairly receiving the USDA Grade Stamp. This language offered today, will insure that all meat products imported from foreign countries will not be allowed to use the USDA Grade. For years, other countries have used the USDA Grade Stamp to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of our own producers. Historically, Canada and Mexico have shipped livestock into the United States, and by doing so they have reaped the benefits of the premium given by USDA for our labeled grades. USDA Prime and USDA Choice grades are given a premium price in the marketplace. By allowing foreign countries to compete using our grade labels, American livestock producers are effectively prevented from receiving a premium for something that should belong solely to them. Agricultural producers from across our borders ship livestock to the United States, and feed them for a short period of time in order to bypass current restrictions. The animals are then slaughtered here as a United States product. This is not only unfair, but it is a betrayal of trust that our producers have placed in the system. It is one that American producers should not have to tolerate. My bill provides for a 90 day feeding period to prevent this from happening, yet maintains the profits lightweight cattle from foreign countries bring to American feeders. The huge influx of imports from both Canada and Mexico, that American agricultural producers are currently faced with, has provided an added hardship to the agricultural economy. This is one obstacle that could easily be remedied by this legislation. When consumers see the USDA Grade Stamp on meat, most assume that they are buying a U.S. raised product. Even though imported carcasses are required to have a ``foreign origin mark,'' it is trimmed off prior to retail sales for marketing purposes. This is very misleading for our consumers. This bill will protect both the American producer and the American consumer. If the Grade Stamp is reserved exclusively for U.S. products, we eliminate the disadvantage American producers face in competing with imported meats. We would also be ensuring that American consumers know that the meat they purchase, is the top quality American product they have always assumed they were buying. Producers and consumers alike deserve to know that the USDA grade label really means what it says, produced in the U.S. This bill would also help assure the American consumer that the meat they are eating is disease free, something that our friends in Europe are truly concerned about right now. I am proud and pleased to sponsor this bill, and I look forward to moving it through the process so we may insure that Americans truly have the opportunity to use what is theirs and theirs alone, the USDA Grade. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill on an issue of great importance to my state and to the entire livestock industry. The subject is that of restricting the quality USDA Grade Stamp to only U.S. livestock products. It would prohibit foreign meat from coming into America and unfairly receiving the USDA Grade Stamp. This language offered today, will insure that all meat products imported from foreign countries will not be allowed to use the USDA Grade. For years, other countries have used the USDA Grade Stamp to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of our own producers. Historically, Canada and Mexico have shipped livestock into the United States, and by doing so they have reaped the benefits of the premium given by USDA for our labeled grades. USDA Prime and USDA Choice grades are given a premium price in the marketplace. By allowing foreign countries to compete using our grade labels, American livestock producers are effectively prevented from receiving a premium for something that should belong solely to them. Agricultural producers from across our borders ship livestock to the United States, and feed them for a short period of time in order to bypass current restrictions. The animals are then slaughtered here as a United States product. This is not only unfair, but it is a betrayal of trust that our producers have placed in the system. It is one that American producers should not have to tolerate. My bill provides for a 90 day feeding period to prevent this from happening, yet maintains the profits lightweight cattle from foreign countries bring to American feeders. The huge influx of imports from both Canada and Mexico, that American agricultural producers are currently faced with, has provided an added hardship to the agricultural economy. This is one obstacle that could easily be remedied by this legislation. When consumers see the USDA Grade Stamp on meat, most assume that they are buying a U.S. raised product. Even though imported carcasses are required to have a ``foreign origin mark,'' it is trimmed off prior to retail sales for marketing purposes. This is very misleading for our consumers. This bill will protect both the American producer and the American consumer. If the Grade Stamp is reserved exclusively for U.S. products, we eliminate the disadvantage American producers face in competing with imported meats. We would also be ensuring that American consumers know that the meat they purchase, is the top quality American product they have always assumed they were buying. Producers and consumers alike deserve to know that the USDA grade label really means what it says, produced in the U.S. This bill would also help assure the American consumer that the meat they are eating is disease free, something that our friends in Europe are truly concerned about right now. I am proud and pleased to sponsor this bill, and I look forward to moving it through the process so we may insure that Americans truly have the opportunity to use what is theirs and theirs alone, the USDA Grade. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of the Pesticide Harmonization Act. Last year, Senator Dorgan attempted to address this problem in the VA/HUD Appropriations Conference. I committed myself to work with him and move this legislation this year. I am a cosponsor of this bill because of this commitment and to even out a serious trade imbalance facing the agriculture industry in our country. In my home State of Montana and many other western and mid-western States, we have faced a number of trade disputes between Canada and the United States. One of the most glaring discrepancies deals with pesticides. Chemicals that are sold for one price just across the border in Canada are sold at a considerably higher cost to American producers. Why does this happen you may ask? The EPA places strong regulations on chemicals used in the United States and therefore, the chemical companies believe they should hike up the prices to pay for their trouble. The chemicals in Canada and the United States, in most cases, have the exact same chemical make-up. The same company manufactures them, but often gives them a different name and nearly always prices the American chemicals higher. The crops treated with chemicals our farmers are not allowed to use are easily imported into the United States. These crops were developed at a lower production cost and are now competing with American products. I am a strong believer in fair trade, but for free trade to actually occur, this problem must be addressed. Currently, American farmers are facing a serious economic recession. Prices are the lowest they have been in a number of years and there does not appear to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Additionally, the West is looking at yet another year of severe drought. Already, snow packs are considerably below normal. Also, fertilizer costs are sky-rocketing with the high cost of fuel and energy. Compounding their problem is being forced to pay twice as much for nearly the same chemicals as their foreign neighbors. If enacted, this bill would eliminate current obstacles and even the playing field for our farmers. It would allow States or individual producers to seek a registration for a Canadian pesticide. This could only be done if, upon request by the State, the pesticide is found to be identical or substantially similar to the U.S. pesticide. The EPA still has final authority to disapprove the registrations within 90 days. Once the pesticide is found to be the same or similar and the EPA approves, the State or individual can travel to Canada and purchase the chemical. Our farmers and ranchers have been paying too much for their pesticides and chemicals for too long. From my years as a football referee, I learned everyone needs to follow the same rules to play the game. We need to make sure Canadian farmers and U.S. farmers are playing under the same rules. I believe this bill makes that happen. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this crucial issue to America's farmers and ranchers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of the Pesticide Harmonization Act. Last year, Senator Dorgan attempted to address this problem in the VA/HUD Appropriations Conference. I committed myself to work with him and move this legislation this year. I am a cosponsor of this bill because of this commitment and to even out a serious trade imbalance facing the agriculture industry in our country. In my home State of Montana and many other western and mid-western States, we have faced a number of trade disputes between Canada and the United States. One of the most glaring discrepancies deals with pesticides. Chemicals that are sold for one price just across the border in Canada are sold at a considerably higher cost to American producers. Why does this happen you may ask? The EPA places strong regulations on chemicals used in the United States and therefore, the chemical companies believe they should hike up the prices to pay for their trouble. The chemicals in Canada and the United States, in most cases, have the exact same chemical make-up. The same company manufactures them, but often gives them a different name and nearly always prices the American chemicals higher. The crops treated with chemicals our farmers are not allowed to use are easily imported into the United States. These crops were developed at a lower production cost and are now competing with American products. I am a strong believer in fair trade, but for free trade to actually occur, this problem must be addressed. Currently, American farmers are facing a serious economic recession. Prices are the lowest they have been in a number of years and there does not appear to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Additionally, the West is looking at yet another year of severe drought. Already, snow packs are considerably below normal. Also, fertilizer costs are sky-rocketing with the high cost of fuel and energy. Compounding their problem is being forced to pay twice as much for nearly the same chemicals as their foreign neighbors. If enacted, this bill would eliminate current obstacles and even the playing field for our farmers. It would allow States or individual producers to seek a registration for a Canadian pesticide. This could only be done if, upon request by the State, the pesticide is found to be identical or substantially similar to the U.S. pesticide. The EPA still has final authority to disapprove the registrations within 90 days. Once the pesticide is found to be the same or similar and the EPA approves, the State or individual can travel to Canada and purchase the chemical. Our farmers and ranchers have been paying too much for their pesticides and chemicals for too long. From my years as a football referee, I learned everyone needs to follow the same rules to play the game. We need to make sure Canadian farmers and U.S. farmers are playing under the same rules. I believe this bill makes that happen. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this crucial issue to America's farmers and ranchers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate most of the afternoon. I have heard three or four of the speeches on the floor this afternoon and listened to those who oppose what we are doing with this rule, as if they are the only ones who worked in their lives. When I was a young lad on the farm, I would have loved to have had this rule that says you can only lift 25 pounds 25 times a day. I would get my hay work done pretty quickly. Those bails weighed 75 pounds, and if I only had to move 25 of them a day and the day was ended, you were done, I would have gone for this in a big way. I pay special recognition to my friend from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi. His work on the Small Business Committee and his work in this issue has been stellar. Ergonomics and this rule caught the scrutiny of a lot of folks who serve in this Congress. It would have gone on had it not been for one thing: the disingenuous approach by the previous administration to put this rule into place. These rules and regulations are being enforced and were put in place by Presidential fiat, not by legislation passed by a national Congress. In the principle of self-government, this is exactly the wrong way we represent the people of this Nation. This particular rule is being objected to by so many in Congress not over whether it is basically bad or basically good. It is because of the way it was done. The Labor Department put out a rule for comment. We remember that rule. But when the rule was finally put in and after the comments were received, after all that was done, what went into the Federal Register was a bill or rules and regulations of a different order. It was written by unelected Federal employees who were accountable to no one. Everybody says it is 10 years of work, and 9 weeks of taking comment, and then on to the Federal Register. The problem is there are 600 pages issued on a rule that probably will in some way or other be amended to take care of ergonomics in the workplace. My State of Montana just came out of an era of 15 years of a workers compensation fund that was under attack. It was costing the citizens of Montana an unreasonable amount of money because of lump sum settlements. Eight years ago, a new Governor took over and did some things to make it right, to make it affordable. I was a county commissioner. We had a nursing home that was under the authority of the commissioners of Yellowstone County, MT. There is no doubt about it, keeping employees, and especially nurses and those skilled people it takes to take care of our elderly, was tough to manage. It was a hard job but also very expensive as far as the operators of that facility are concerned, for the simple reason workers compensation rates were just going through the roof. We finally got that under control, and now it is operating where employees and employers are satisfied with the workers comp fund in the State of Montana. Basically, this rule and this regulation on ergonomics nationalizes workers compensation. It overrides States rights and the funds that are found in those States. In fact, an employee, even one hurt off the job if the job contributes to the pain of that injury, could be almost a double dipper. The rule is very vague. And of course it takes an attorney to figure it all out. So we could have a field day here. No employer wants to permit an employee to work in an unsafe place or under unsafe conditions. It doesn't make a lot of sense for an employer to train an employee, make him a valuable part of that company or corporation or that team, and then allow him or her to work in a workplace where ergonomics would limit the employment life of that employee. It does not make sense at all. That is not good management, and I think American corporations understand that. So I rise today in support of the enforcement of this particular law, especially one that was put in place in 1995 and supported by all. Those who support the law will tell everybody, but they will not support the enforcement. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I think on this particular issue it is time for those who supported the administration, which did the majority of its work by rule and fiat, to do their work and write a rule on ergonomics that makes sense, so I support S.J. Res. 6. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate continue morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my name as a cosponsor to the Home Health Care Stability Act of 2001. I commend the leadership of my friends Senator Collins and Senator Bond and I am pleased to join my many other colleagues in support of this very important piece of legislation. This bill is two-fold, it will permanently eliminate the automatic 15 percent reduction in Medicare payments to home health agencies that is currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2002 and will also extend the temporary 10 percent add-on payment for home health patients in rural areas to ensure that these patients continue to have access to much-needed care. Times are rapidly changing. Today more than ever, patients are spending less time in the hospital. More and more, we are seeing procedures done on an outpatient basis, with recovery and care for patients with chronic conditions taking place in the home. In addition, in my State of Montana, for example, the number of elderly who are chronically ill or disabled continues to grow. How do we care properly and compassionately for these individuals? As our population ages, the answer to this question becomes more and more important. Increasingly, the answer for many is home health care. Home health care is an important part of Medicare in which seniors and the disabled can get the care they need, where they want it: in the comfort and security of their own homes. Additionally, home health care is a necessity because, for many, their health or physical condition makes it almost impossible to leave home. Not only is it convenient, but much more importantly, patients love it. They love it because home health care allows seniors and others with disabilities a feeling of independence and dignity, despite their illnesses. Often home health is an alternative to more expensive services in hospitals, and, thus, is a cost-effective alternative to providing care. However, folks, there is a home health care crisis--too many seniors and disabled who should be receiving health care services at home are not getting it. This is wrong. Many of our most frail and vulnerable have had to be repeatedly hospitalized with problems that could have been avoided had they been continuing to receive their home health benefits. Others are trying to pay for the care themselves, often on very limited means. Some are going without care altogether. By the late 1990s, home health care was the fastest growing component of Medicare spending, growing at an average of 26 percent annually. We all know what happened next--in an effort to balance the budget and make the home health program more cost-effective and efficient, Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA, tried to cut the growth in Medicare spending. Unfortunately, the real results of this action went much farther than we intended, in large part because of faulty implementation and excessive regulatory requirements of the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA. As the cuts and regulations spun out-of-control, health care providers struggled to survive, while many were forced to close their doors entirely. Ultimately, patients suffered the most. This story applies to patients and providers in all parts of Medicare, hospitals, nursing homes, home health care providers, everyone. Now, on the horizon, is yet another 15-percent cut that would put many of our already struggling home health agencies at risk and would seriously jeopardize access to critical home health services for millions of our Nation's seniors. In my State of Montana, access to home health care is already a problem for many, we cannot make this problem worse. Home health and, most importantly, the patients who depend on its services cannot afford this. We must act now. I am indeed proud that last year we passed legislation, the Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, which provided some relief to struggling home health agencies. However, I do not think that it went far enough. First, we must eliminate the 15 percent cut completely. The simple fact is that an additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments would spell death for those low-cost agencies which are currently struggling to hang on, and it would further reduce seniors' access to critical home care services. We have already delayed this 15 percent cut three times--the time has come to do away with it once and for all. Secondly, we must also make permanent the temporary 10 percent add-on for home health services furnished patients in rural areas. This, too, was included in last year's legislation, this bill would make it permanent. In Montana, we know too well how very expensive it is for home health agencies to deliver services to rural patients. They have to travel long distances, and it takes a long time to reach those patients. That all adds to the cost. The Home Health Care Stability Act will provide essential relief for our home health agencies that are struggling to make ends meet. I am proud to add my name as a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation. I hope we can get quick action on this bill to ensure that seniors and the disabled have appropriate access to quality home health care.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have been talking about energy today. I rise now to talk about this Nation's struggle to deal with a threatening energy situation that is affecting our economy. I don't think there is any other issue that will come before Congress that will have more to do with our daily lives than this one. For those of you who do not believe we are in a situation that makes us all very uncomfortable, I ask you to rethink that. The prevailing mind-set must change in order to solve this problem that has reached a crisis proportion. Don't let anybody tell you differently. We are in the midst of one of the worst energy shortages this Nation has ever experienced. The oil shortage will pale to the one of the 1970s because it entails all forms of energy. I remember the long gas lines and forced reductions in heating energy that we faced in the 1970s. I also remember the financial pain that it placed on all Americans--especially Montanans. We come from a large State. We are very mobile. In fact, if you look at the size of Montana from the northwest corner to the southeast corner, it is farther than the distance from Chicago to Washington, DC. All of us were hurt during those days. Families of farmers and ranchers, over-the-road truck drivers, manufacturing companies, loggers, and the mining industry were jolted by that energy shortage-- jolted to the point where some did not recover at all. When coupled with high interest rates at that time and runaway inflation, it was truly a double whammy. I do not want to see that happen again. But little did I know, although I should have, that our memories are very short on our understanding of energy and the role it plays in our everyday lives. We took it for granted too long, even though the signs of the impending dangers were there. It is still talked about in the Halls here, but the message fell on ears that did not want to listen. In Montana, we have already seen the impact. Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, one of the largest users of electrical power, closed its doors for a year. Montana Resources in Butte, MT, closed its doors, and we don't know when that will ever be open. Many others will have to do the same if price signals on the cost of commodities or the cost of power does not change. I am told that farmers placing orders for their spring fertilizer needs are stunned when they hear the price. Any increase in the cost of production would be devastating to grain growers in Montana. As you know, natural gas is used in the production of nitrogen for urea and fertilizer that is used across the country. Facing this problem is something within itself. We are in the midst of a crisis. We must use caution. We cannot succumb to the knee-jerk reactions that are of a temporary nature. Usually, that leads to a long-term nightmare. While I know the challenge that faces us, I plan to approach it with a great deal of caution. First off, there are some folks who are promulgating the idea that we impose Federal price caps on electricity. That will not work in the Northwestern United States at this time. Price caps discourage investment, generation and transmission at a time when we need all three. The National Energy Security Act of 2001 introduced by Senator Murkowski today is a piece of legislation that is pretty well thought out and is supposed to stabilize energy prices as we see them today. That is why I am adding my name as a cosponsor to that bill. But as with any bill, there are portions I would like to work on with Senator Murkowski, the administration, and the Energy Committee when we begin the debate. But I am generally comfortable that the legislation is a positive move in the right direction for our country and American consumers. The bill aims to protect the energy security of the United States and decrease America's dependency on foreign oil sources to less than 50 percent by the year 2010 by enhancing the use of renewable energy sources, conserving energy resources, improving energy efficiencies, and increasing domestic energy supplies. As written, it will improve environmental quality by reducing emissions of air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and it will, in effect, stunt the increased costs of energy to the American consumer. But let's take a closer and intensive look at what I perceive are the reasons we are in this energy situation today. Electricity prices are skyrocketing. We are seeing high gasoline prices, oil prices, natural gas prices, and heating oil prices as well. In fact, the price per barrel of oil has gone from $15.99 in 1992 to well over $30 this year. Natural gas prices have gone from $1.74 per thousand cubic feet at the wellhead to nearly $5 per thousand cubic feet today. Electricity prices in the Northwest have gone from roughly $20 per megawatt hour in 1992 to nearly $250 per megawatt hour right now. I don't have a high enough math degree to figure how much of an increase that really is. Gasoline prices were around 93 cents per gallon in 1992 and now sit at nearly a $1.40 or $1.50 per gallon today. And these prices are before taxes are added. So prices have gone up across the board for all forms of energy. The policies of the past 8 years, or as some would say the lack of a clear national energy policy, has contributed to this predicament we find ourselves in today. In the Northwest, we have seen a 24 percent increase in electricity consumption since 1992, while generation has only increased 4 percent. If you add the California situation into the mix, the discrepancy grows even larger. Further, the Electric Power Research Institute recently found that there is going to be a 20 to 25 percent growth in electricity demand in the next 10 years, but, again, only a 4 percent increase in generation and also the transmission lines to carry that electricity, that power. The stats speak for themselves. If we do not see more generation and the ability to transmit it--if those do not come on-line--high energy prices are here to stay. We must lose the mentality that electricity comes from a switch like the mentality that milk comes from a jug. Commonsense tells us that our regulation policies should allow the supply to meet the demand. We can and must identify and reform or, in some cases, remove some of the regulatory burdens. We now have a mandate to assess and improve agency performance, which could lead to more timely processing of permits and applications to produce power. Public lands in the West, what role do they play? Or should they play a role? They do have a role to play. They may hold the key to the dependency of foreign sources of oil and natural gas. We can and must improve the usage and management of our public lands, which means better coordination with local citizens affected by agency action. And there needs to be consistency within the agencies so that investors have some kind of idea about when they may see a return on their investment. We have seen that oil and gas exploration increased with the previous administration. That is true. It is a true statement. It is also true that more lands were withdrawn from exploration than in any other administration. Exploration might have increased but, I would ask, did production? Finally, we must reduce the time and cost for approving exploration and management of development projects. Our Federal agencies need to help ease the pain of regulatory burdens that have been placed on America's energy consumers. Next, we need to be able to access those vast resources on our public lands. The Federal Government currently manages--now listen to this figure--650 million acres of land. More than 90 percent of this land is west of the Mississippi River. In fact, 52 percent of the land in the West is managed by Federal and State Governments. In Montana, nearly 50 percent of our land is owned by the Federal Government. Folks, 95 percent of the undiscovered oil and 40 percent of the undiscovered gas is estimated to be located under these public lands. It is obvious to me that herein lies a part of our solution to energy dependence on foreign sources. We have the ways and means to manage our natural resources on public lands so that the environment is treated like we would treat our own homes. I am confident that the new administration, working with Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski and the rest of the Congress, will develop a comprehensive plan that will take the step to solve the problems that we are facing. As I stated before, we must looks at our regulations and regulatory burdens. We must be able to site generation facilities in a timely manner. We, as policymakers and acting in the best interests of all Americans, should be able to site transmission lines in a timely manner. Finally, we must remove the barriers that stifle incentives for investment in our power markets, while at the same time providing incentives to do the same. We have worked ourselves out of crisis situations in the past. American ingenuity and imagination will again, in a free market, take its role and provide us again with affordable energy, but it must be allowed to do so. It must be allowed in our shared American values.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.