Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond].

Mr. BURNS. I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond].

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from New Mexico, but the shift of trying to direct our dollars into quality of life caused some of that in some areas. So with that, I really believe that there is as much fairness and thrust in this bill as we could possibly have and still complete the mission of military construction. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. I would respond to the Senator and say this: Because we had to use up so much money in that, we had to have money for the Guard and Reserves. The President's request had very little for the support of our Guard and Reserves and facilities around the country outside of the normal activity of our military because so much of the original request is taken up by base closure and realignment.

Mr. BURNS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Mexico raises a couple of good points. If you look to see what we have done in the past, we have been very negligent in providing housing, especially for our enlisted personnel in the military. When we changed the philosophy on how we were to maintain our military forces, when we went to an all- military Army, Navy, and Marine force, we made a covenant with those people that if they are volunteering and they make this a career, we are going to provide some kind of quality of life. I think this is the first time that we have made an investment this large in the infrastructure for the quality of life for our enlisted people. I was shocked when visiting some of the bases that we actually have people who are living off base, who have to go to lease a house, or rent a house, or even purchase a house. This has caused them to qualify for food stamps. I do not think this is very good when we ask those people to stand in harm's way for this country and to represent us in some areas where maybe some of us would refuse to go. I am very much aware that for the first time we have changed the thrust of military construction. Then let us look at another end of it. In the base closing and the realignment, we are trying to move some of the facilities that we have closed into private hands, to dispose of that property. But due to some environmental laws, like third-party liability, those properties are not worth anything until we clean those properties up. And that is where the big expense is coming in with base realignment. We have chosen to close military facilities to save money. We are having to shift some funds over into BRAC in order to close those facilities and make them available to either private sales or to be used for some other part of Government operations.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment, and that a time agreement has been reached, an hour equally divided on both sides, with Senator Bingaman in charge, and the managers in charge of the opposite side.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc to H.R. 1817, provided that no point of order shall be considered as having been waived by reason of this agreement, and that the bill as thus amended be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 1996. Mr. President, this bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. The bill recommended by the full Committee on Appropriations is for $11.159 billion. This is $461 million over the budget request, $18 million under the House bill, and $2.424 billion over the level enacted last year. Compared to last year's enacted level, the budget proposed a $2 billion increase in the regular military construction program. Also, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the bill is within the committee's 602(b) budget allocation for both budget authority and outlays. Mr. President, it has not been easy putting this bill together. Earlier this year, the subcommittee received an allocation that provided for a $461 million increase to the budget request. However, $161 million of this amount provides for a transfer from the Defense appropriation to the military construction appropriation for the Pentagon renovation. This account was put into the Defense bill in 1993 in the form of a revolving fund. By putting it back into the military construction appropriation we will bring more visibility to the program. This transfer means our allocation is really $180 million under the House. The Committee on Appropriations in the House approved an appropriations bill that was $500 million over the budget request. Mr. President, this bill has some points I want to mention. The bill fully funds the base closure and realignment accounts. This include $784 million for this year's round of base closures. This has been an extremely difficult year for many States with regard to the brac process. We made sure that there would be no impediments to moving forward with the decisions that the President has approved. Mr. President, this account makes up 35 percent of our appropriation. However, I am extremely concerned with the growth of this program. The base closure program cannot replace a regular military construction program. Our military bases that will remain open will have investment requirements which must be met. But as the base closure program grows, it will continue to crowd out the regular military construction program. In addition, the subcommittee is asking the General Accounting Office to help us evaluate the future requests for the base closure accounts. If the Department is unable to get the cost of base closures under control, it has a responsibility to reorient other priorities in the Defense budget so adequate funding is available to pay for the routine military construction requirements of the active services and the Guard and Reserve. We supported the Secretary's initiative to provide more housing to our military members. This is part of the $4.2 billion included in this bill for family housing. We did not, however, support the Air Force's request to build new senior and general officer quarters. We will not support building new homes for generals when there are families of enlisted people on waiting lists for homes. We also addressed the shortfalls that continue to plague our Reserve component; $263 million was added for the Reserve component. In each case these funds are for quality of life or readiness. Mr. President, the administration has available to it the same information the subcommittee has. The administration knows that the construction backlog of the Army Guard, the Air Guard, the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve, and the Air Force Reserve is billions of dollars and that backlog is growing, even as the force levels are being reduced. So against this construction requirement, the administration budgeted only $182 million for the entire Guard and Reserve component of the Department of Defense. We could not allow this to happen. We have only reduced the administration request of $179 million for the NATO Security Investment Program by 10 percent. We believe this is a responsible reduction considering the requirements that may be put upon NATO in the near future. Mr. President, before I close I want to thank the ranking minority member for his participation and his contributions to the subcommittee this year. I also want to thank Dick D'Amato of his staff as well and Warren Johnson and Jim Morhard on my staff. We would not have gotten here without their tireless work. Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor to my friend from Nevada, the distinguished minority member. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Warren Johnson be given floor privileges during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to mention that this morning the leaders' time has been reserved and the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 1817, the Milcon appropriations bill. Under the consent agreement entered into last night, at 10:20 this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the rescissions bill. At that time, there will be 40 minutes of debate remaining and as many as three stacked rollcall votes to occur following the debate at approximately 11 a.m. Senators should therefore expect votes throughout today's session of the Senate. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday, Senator Pressler and I introduced the NASA authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 which I have enthusiastically cosponsored. The bill authorizes a total of $13.8 billion for the agency, a 3-percent decrease from the requested level of $14.26 billion. That funding should allow NASA to continue the important missions that already are underway such as space station, Mission to Planet Earth, and the aeronautics and space science programs. It should also prepare NASA for the future by authorizing several new missions, such as an effort to develop a shuttle replacement and a new radar satellite program. Mr. President, as you know, we are in a budget crisis of sorts and NASA deserves a great deal of credit as one of few Federal agencies to respond to it early and responsibly. In 3 years, NASA cut the space shuttle budget from $4 billion to $3.1 billion. It developed a redesign of space station that was $5 billion less expensive than the earlier space station Freedom concept. Mission to Planet Earth has been reduced from a $17 billion armada of satellites to a $7 billion focused satellite system. Earlier this year, faced with the prospect of deep congressional budget cuts across all of the Government, NASA took the initiative and developed a plan to cut $5 billion in 5 years, without reducing program content. But NASA did not stop there. This year, it conducted a comprehensive zero-based review of all of its activities and programs to achieve even greater savings. That review looked at a broad range of money-saving measures such as work force reductions, elimination of redundant activities, consolidation of functions, and operating more efficiently. I understand that, within the administration, NASA's efforts are often cited as the model for reinventing government. After 3 consecutive years of brutal budget cuts, NASA is now down to the bone. To require additional reductions would force NASA to cancel important space programs, close vital facilities, or layoff essential skilled personnel. That would decimate the Nation's science and technology base. Equally important, it would decimate the morale of the good men and women who have made our space program the subject of movies like ``Apollo 13'' and inspired thousands of scientists, engineers, and schoolchildren across our country. It is time for the bloodletting to stop and to give NASA the support it needs to face the challenges of the future. This NASA authorization bill is designed to do just that. The bill provides the full $2.1 billion requested level for space station. This program is NASA's most costly, complex, and controversial activity and we are all aware of the many criticisms leveled against it. However, space station is precisely the kind of bold vision that NASA was created to pursue. Space station will enable the United States and the international science community to conduct unique microgravity research and expand our knowledge about humans' ability to live and work in space. If past missions are any indication, the space station will undoubtedly yield breakthroughs in biomedicine and advanced materials. We can probably also expect exciting spinoffs just as past space missions have spawned microelectronics, pacemakers, advance water filtration systems, communications, and many other products and services we now take for granted. I must admit concern about the heavy reliance of the current station plan on the Russians. I remain troubled by the possibility that the program might collapse if the Russians were to withdraw for any reason. However, I am still a strong Station supporter and the full funding provided in the bill will keep the program on track for a first element launch in 1997. The bill also provides full funding for Mission to Planet Earth. Mission to Planet Earth is NASA's $7 billion satellite program aimed at studying how the oceans, land, and atmosphere work as a system in order to understand and predict global climate change. For those of us representing farm States, weather and water are our lifeblood. Mission to Planet Earth promises dramatic improvements in our ability to predict climate change and manage our scarce water resources. If those expectations are met, the program will easily pay for itself in lives and property saved and improved water management. Mr. President, in my view, one of the most important areas within NASA is aeronautics--the first A in NASA. For many years, aeronautics seemed to be reduced to a small A status. It always seemed to take a back seat to the higher-profile space missions. However, under Dan Goldin's leadership, that is beginning to change and NASA is giving aeronautics the backing it deserves. To me, the aeronautics research is critical to maintaining U.S. technological leadership and aerospace competitiveness. For instance, the high speed research program is developing pre-competitive technologies in support of supersonic aircraft. It is estimated that the first country to market such an aircraft stands to gain $200 billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs. Similarly, the advanced subsonic technology program funds research in support of subsonic airplanes--a market that generates one million jobs and contributes over $25 billion annually to the U.S. trade balance. These programs are money-makers and it is in the national interest to give them whatever support they need. Accordingly, our NASA bill authorizes aeronautics research at the requested level of $891 million for fiscal year 1996. As a final point, Mr. President, I note that the bill also authorizes a collection of activities and initiatives designed to extend NASA's vision to include our rural States. Our rural States can make an enormous contribution to the civilian space program if only given the chance. For example, in May, Prof. Steve Running of the University of Montana testified before the Science Subcommittee about his efforts to use remote sensing satellite data in forest and crop management. To embrace our rural States in our space program, the bill contains a $2 million increase for the EPSCoR program, which funds important research in our rural States. It also funds another Rural Teacher Resource Center to the existing nine Centers, as well as an additional rural technology transfer and commercialization center, to fill in coverage gaps in those two programs. Further, it provides funding for an Upper Missouri River Basin hydrology project. This project should help the Nation develop better strategies for predicting, and responding to, the flooding and other water management problems that have plagued the Missouri River region in recent years. Mr. President, I believe that this bill provides NASA with the support it requires to continue and build on its important work in space and aeronautics and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when it reaches the floor later this year. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent during the vote on the Hutchison modified amendment to S. 343 today. Had I been present, I would have voted for the amendment. The amendment, which stated that civil and criminal penalties shall not apply if the rule failed to give fair warning of required conduct, clarifies S. 343 and, I believe, is a valuable addition to the bill. I would like to note that my vote would not have affected the outcome of the vote, which was adopted by the Senate, 80-0.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I rise in support of this amendment. And I appreciate what is trying to be done here. We realize that some rules and regulations are necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. We are getting short on time. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act. It has been a long time coming. I am very impressed with the compromise that has been worked out and I think Senator Dole and Senator Johnston need to be congratulated. To begin with, this bill brings some common sense back to Government and starts to give some much-needed relief to businesses all across our Nation. But in Montana, where 98 percent of our businesses are small businesses, the onslaught of regulations in the past years have been a stranglehold. Regulations have a number of effects, two of which are to inhibit growth of a business and to discourage folks from even opening a new business. There is no doubt that some regulations are necessary. This bill will not do away with all rules and regulations. What it will do is require the regulating authority to justify the regulation. By requiring the agencies to do certain things, such as a cost-benefit analysis, we will eliminate those ridiculous rules that seem to only add to the paperwork or cost of doing business. Let me give you some examples. Earlier this year I held a field hearing in Kalispell, MT, to look at new regulations for logging operations. They range from silly to impractical to downright dangerous. safe workplace One of the regulations requires a health care provider to inspect and approve first aid kits on logging sites once a year. It makes me wonder just how that health care provider would be reimbursed for that visit-- is it a house call? Making certain that first aid kits contain the needed supplies is certainly something the employer can do on his or her own. Requiring a health care provider to inspect each kit is ludicrous. Another regulation required loggers to wear foot protection that is not even available. Specifically, they must have on waterproof, chain- saw resistant, sturdy, ankle-supporting boots. If Kevlar boots were available and affordable, they would not be flexible enough to wear in the logging field. On top of this, the regulations charge the employer with the responsibility of assuring that every employee has the proper boots, wears them and the employer must inspect them at the beginning of each shift to make sure they are in good condition. Add to this the new requirement that the employer is now responsible for inspecting any vehicle used off public roads at logging work sites to guarantee that the vehicle is in serviceable condition--and the employer may as well spend all his time as a watch dog. Since when is an employer held responsible for the employee's property? Why should they limit this to just loggers? Perhaps OSHA would like to require the U.S. Senate to ensure all our employees are commuting to and from the Hill in cars that are serviceable. But the regulations are not just burdensome, one regulation may even prove hazardous to the logger. They require the lower portion of the operator's cab to be enclosed with solid material to prevent objects from entering the cab. Unfortunately, when logging, you need to see below your cab. One gentleman who testified at my hearing said, ``Any rule that would require loggers to enclose areas of machines that operators need to see out of, in order to safely operate the machine, is poor logging practice.'' It became very clear during our proceedings that the OSHA paper pushers who wrote these regulations had never felled a tree. They probably had never even been at a logging site. And yet, the regulations written were to be enforced last February. It is only because of an outcry by the industry that these are now being reviewed. But, Mr. President, this is just one example in just one industry. Regulations have been published that deal with fall protection on construction sites. They almost make me laugh. Requiring employers to have their employees harnessed if they are higher than six feet, would cover anyone on top of a standard ladder. But they do give the employer options. In the case of roofers, the employer can hire a roof monitor who tells roofers when they get too close to the edge. Now that is ridiculous. By now, we have probably all heard the statistics before--the cost of regulations to our economy is staggering. Federal regulation costs have been estimated between $450 billion and $850 billion every year. That works out to about $6,000 per household every year. That might be acceptable if we knew we were getting our money's worth. And that is what this is all about. S. 343 will allow us to decide whether the benefits of the regulation justify the costs. That may not always be easy, but it's necessary. It is responsible. It will give us a tool to decide whether the regulation is truly needed and whether it is practical. But one of the sections of this bill that I am most pleased with is the congressional review. I have been calling for this since I arrived in the Senate. We pass laws here--that is our job. And then we leave it up to the agencies to write the rules and regulations. But we never get to review the final product. So, the law we pass and the rules enforced may be completely different. They may not be what we intended at all. S. 343 requires the regulating authority to submit a report to the Congress, spelling out the rule, making available the cost--benefit analysis, and allowing the committees with jurisdiction to review the new rules. And we have 60 days to decide whether the rule follows the intent of the law. Now I know some folks are worried that we will be stifling rules that are meant to protect the safety and health of children. That will not happen. Show me one person who would willingly put his family's or his constituent's health at risk. Rules will still be promulgated, regulations will still go into effect, to protect the safety and health of all of us. What we will cut down on is the unnecessary red tape. In 1991, the Federal Government issued 70,000 pages worth of regulations and in 1992 the Federal Government employed over 122,000 regulators. These are the people responsible for such regulations as the prohibition of making obscene gestures in a National Forest. These people are responsible for the regulation requiring outdoorsmen to carry with them a bear box, to store perishables in while camping--a box the size of which would require a horse to carry. And these regulations are responsible for the destruction of private property when land owners are prohibited from preventing erosion on their land in order to not disturb local beetles. We need to restore common sense to Government. That may be a foreign notion, but its time we try. This bill does that. We passed unfunded mandates. We passed paperwork reduction. Now let us pass the Comprehensive Regulatory [[Page S 9691]] Reform Act and give our businesses the relief they so desperately need. Mr. President, let me reiterate that I rise today in support of the Dole-Johnston substitute. I will tell you why, because I think for the first time maybe we bring back some common sense in this business of rulemaking. I am very supportive of that part of this legislation that requires Congress to look at the final rule before it is published in the Register and goes into effect. I have said ever since I came to this body that this is what we have to do. For so many times after legislation is passed by this Congress, and it is signed into law by the President, it is turned over to some faceless people to write the administrative rules. Sometimes those rules look nothing like the intent of the legislation. But I want to talk about something today that probably in the rulemaking I think becomes very important. Let me repeat that 98 percent of the businesses in my State of Montana are classified as small business. So we have a small business part in this piece of legislation to look into those things. There is no doubt in my mind that some regulations are necessary. Nobody in business today, and especially those who have a very close relationship with working men and women and their families, wants to have an unsafe workplace. It just does not make good sense. For sure it is not good business to have an unsafe workplace. This bill will not do away with all of those rules and regulations. But the regulating authorities have to justify the regulation by requiring the agencies to do certain things, such as cost-benefit analysis. It will eliminate some of those ridiculous rules that seem to only add to paperwork and the cost of doing business. And they do very little to improve a safe workplace. Earlier this year, I held a field hearing in Kalispell, MT, with regard to new regulations written for logging operations in our part of the country. They range from the silly to the impractical and sometimes downright outrageous. Let me give you an example. One of the regulations required a health care provider to inspect and approve first aid kits on logging sites once a year. That is a health care provider. That is not somebody within the company going by every now and again and looking at the first aid kit to make sure all of the items are in there. That is just common sense. We do not need rules for that. I tell you what the rule was created for. If your health care provider did not go and look at it, then that is the place for a fine. Back in 1990, I think we set up the reauthorization of OSHA a little bit differently; in the tax bill we handled it a little differently. That is probably not meeting with great open arms in the public now. Another regulation required loggers to wear a certain footwear protection that was not even available and is not available today. They are Kevlar boots. Now, if they were here, the majority of the people could not afford to wear them. On top of this, the regulations charge the employer with the responsibility in assuring that all of the employees have proper boots, primarily these boots, and inspect them every day at the beginning of the shift to make sure they are in good condition. Now, add this to the new requirement that the employer is now responsible for inspecting any privately owned vehicle that you and I drive back and forth to work for safe condition and serviceable condition. So what it meant was that the employer was the watchdog. He had to even look at all the pickups and cars that you drove to work every day. Of course, being in a mountain area, that is probably not a bad idea, but, my goodness, can you imagine the cost for the employer just to comply?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Objection.

Mr. BURNS. Objection.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the order of business?

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Ohio. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1000 are [[Page S 9412]] located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed as if in morning business for no more than 2 minutes for the purpose of introducing a bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the concurrent budget resolution. But before I do that, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts of Senator Domenici, Representative Kasich, and the members of the budget resolution conference committee in presenting us with a concurrent budget resolution which balances the Federal budget by fiscal year 2002. I support the overall direction that this budget mandates for the country. For the first time in over a generation, we are about to pass a budget resolution that will--we are not there yet--bring the Federal budget into balance. I do not think anyone will dispute the overwhelmingly positive impact that balancing the Federal budget will have on America's economy, and consequently, upon the American family standard of living. By every account interest rates will drop. Per capita incomes will rise. Millions of jobs should be created. More money will be available for investment. Thus expanded economic opportunity. Also, once this budget is balanced, we will finally be in a position to begin to make meaningful payment to retire the Federal debt. That would reduce our yearly interest payment on the Federal debt, which will, in turn, free up more money in the Federal budget in future years for other purposes. One thing is certain, though, if we do not take these steps now, we will certainly mortgage our children's future. I believe that this budget proposal achieves a balance in a responsible way, and that is why I am supporting it. It reduces the size of the Federal Government, streamlines governmental operations, and slows the rate by which Federal spending increases. I think most folks agree that the Federal Government has gotten too big to operate efficiently. This budget proposal addresses this problem by reducing legislative branch spending by $200 million. I strongly believe that, if we are going to ask other Federal agencies to tighten their belts, Congress has got to be willing to accept our share of the reductions. This budget resolution also calls for a $1.9 billion reduction over 7 years in spending in natural source management in an effort to streamline Federal land management agencies. As I stated a couple of weeks ago. I support such a reduction in spending, so long as it is targeted toward new land acquisitions, new construction, and new land use planning starts. These reductions in spending should not be made in resource programs that return positive benefits to the land, to the Federal Treasury, and to local economies. Reductions in resource programs, while attractive in the short-run, are bad fiscal policy in the long-run, and I oppose such reductions. This budget resolution also calls for the continued funding of the interest subsidy for undergraduate study which I firmly support. I believe that such an investment will have long-term benefits that outweigh the short-term costs of such assistance. I am, however, disappointed that the TRIO Program, a program that assists disadvantaged students in acquiring the minimum skills necessary to complete undergraduate coursework, was not specifically provided for in the conference report. I strongly encourage the budget committees in both the House and Senate to influence the authorization and appropriations committees to continue funding for this and like programs. You know, we have heard a lot over the past 2 days about how this budget resolution slashes Medicare. The numbers just do not tell such a story. You cannot get around the fact that total Medicare spending over the next 7 years will exceed $1.6 trillion, which is nearly double the amount spent on the program during the last 7 years. You can't get around the fact that Federal Medicare spending will grow from $4,350 per beneficiary in 1995 to $6,070 [[Page S 9388]] per beneficiary in 2002. This is a $1,720 per beneficiary increase--a 40-percent increase. So when you hear people saying that this budget resolution is cutting Medicare, what you are really being told is that funding for Medicare didn't increase by as much as we had hoped that it would. Calling that a cut makes sense only inside the beltway. We need to get back to defining a cut as a cut, and this budget resolution does that. While I generally support the goals outlined in this concurrent budget resolution, this is not to say that I do not have some concerns with some of its details. This budget proposes a reduction of agriculture research by 10 percent, which would reduce total outlays to this program by $1 billion. As I explained a couple of weeks ago. I have concerns with this provision. At a time when wheat yields are dropping, we need to keep a safety net out there. Agriculture research gives our farmers and ranchers the vital tools that they need. Cutting this research now would have a devastating impact on our farm and ranch communities down the road and thus upon the Federal Treasury. I believe that our first priority here should be to protect our farm and ranch families, and I am opposed to any reduction in this funding. Furthermore, agriculture has taken more than its fair share of reductions in Federal spending in the past. I do not oppose all reductions in agriculture spending; I do, however, oppose agriculture suffering disproportionate spending reductions. This budget resolution also proposes the privatization of PMA's. I likewise have concerns with this provision. PMA's generate substantial revenues for the Treasury. It makes no sense to me to count the revenue received from the sale of the PMA's and ignore the revenue foregone over the long-term due to the loss of the availability of those assets for power sales. Consequently, I believe that the scoring of revenue derived from the sale of PMA's is poor fiscal policy, and I am likewise opposed to the privatization of PMA's. Finally, I am concerned about the tax cuts proposed in this concurrent budget resolution. While I support the enactment of middle class tax relief and tax incentives to stimulate the economy and enhance wages, I believe that our first priority should be to balance the budget. Consequently, I believe that any tax bill should be contingent upon CBO certification that we are moving toward a balanced budget and should be limited to the $170 billion CBO certified dividend. I believe that any tax cuts which exceed the $170 billion dividend or which are not tied to deficit reduction are irresponsible, and I will oppose them. In conclusion, I would like to praise Senator Domenici, Representative Kasich, and the members of the budget resolution conference committee in presenting a responsible budget resolution, and I pledge to work with them to develop a policy that works for all Americans. Mr. President, I have heard all of the figures here today. Everybody has had an opportunity to hear them in every speech that I have heard across the aisle. ``I believe in a balanced budget. I believe in getting this deficit under control. But.'' We leave that for the American people to judge. ``But'' what? This is not the right time? I have to say that. We have to recognize that, and stand for one thing. And I think the Senator from California hit the nail right on the head. I am going to stand for the American dream. If we continue to plunge this Government into debt, the American dream is gone. How would you like to be a young person sitting down here that looks at the prospect, whenever they go into the work force, of 85 percent of their paycheck going just to pay the interest on the national debt? I do not think that is a very good prospect. I do not think it is very responsible. I think we are immoral to do that. For the first time in this generation, we are about to pass a budget resolution that will bring this budget into balance--not this year or next year or the next--by the year of 2002. And we do it with a minimum of hurt. Yes, there is going to be some hurt. But everybody in America said we will participate. We will help you. If you will help us, we will help you. That is kind of what we are doing in this message. Because if we do not, the balancing of the American budget will have an effect on the American economy and consequently on the American family, which is under strain now, and that family's standard of living. By every account, interest rates will drop. Per capita income will rise. And who benefits from that? The American family. That is who benefits from that. So we are in a meaningful position right now. Sure, I do not agree with all of it. I signed a letter. I said let us not worry about cutting taxes until we get this spending under control. I still stand with that. They put a message into that which says OK, Finance Committee, you cannot cut any taxes until the Congressional Budget Office tells you that you are in balance, that we can still pay our bills and give some money back to the American taxpayer, the person who is pulling this wagon. That language is in here. It is in this resolution. Remember, this resolution does not become law. The President does not sign this. This is a blueprint to get us to where we are going. When we pass the reconciliation, that is when we start shooting with real bullets, and we will find out who really wants to balance the budget and who does not. So I am going to support this budget resolution. So for the first time since I have been here, we are on the right track. I believe it is getting us there in a responsible way. So I am going to stand with all Americans--rich, whatever--all of them because I happen to believe very much in the American dream. I am probably a product of that American dream. I started out on 160 acres with two rocks and some dirt. I did not have anything. The American dream means something to me. That was back in the days when you worked and you tried to get ahead. So this resolution calls for a $1.9 billion reduction over the 7-year spending in natural resource management. We are a resource State. But if it is responsible, we can handle that. I will tell you what we have to do. We have to make those natural resources available to the entire American public, and not just lock it up for a chosen few. We have to approach it with a different mindset. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. The right language is in there. Yes, there are some cuts that I do not like. They are not in Medicare. They are not in Medicaid. We are not cutting those folks. Those continue to go up. Every year, they go up. Only in this 13 square miles of logic-free environment does an increase mean a cut. I never figured that out. So basically, we are back at zero-base budgeting to fund those and make us set the priorities of what we should be financing, and what the true role of Government is. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those who are supportive of this legislation and to also take the opportunity to commend the sponsors of S. 240, Senator Domenici and Senator Dodd. It is through their hard work and effort that we now have a balanced bill that protects both investors, and defendants of securities litigation. It almost seems as if the class--action securities fraud suit has become a feature of doing business for just about every size and type of company in the United States. In 1990 and 1991, a record 614 securities class action suits were filed in Federal courts against American businesses. In an article printed in the Wall Street Journal on September 10, 1991, Mr. Vincent O'Brien reported that he collected data on more than 330 Federal class-action securities-fraud cases involving common stock. In every case, the plaintiffs alleged material misrepresentations and omissions by management regarding the true health and potential of the defendant company. Of the 330 case sample, only 3 cases were decided by a jury; an additional 5 were dismissed or withdrawn, and an astonishing 96 percent were settled out of court. Proponents of securities class actions say that the suits prevent fraud and help maintain the integrity of financial markets. It is certainly true that one aspect of a fair marketplace is that those persons who have been injured by fraud in connection with a securities transaction, have some avenue available to retrieve their losses. While the current system does provide for a means to address fraud, the evidence is overwhelming that the real victims of securities fraud are not receiving adequate compensation for their losses. In fact, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, those who were actually damaged, obtain only about 60 percent of the settlement while attorneys' fees and litigation expenses eat up the rest. Moreover, because plaintiffs' attorneys only pursue cases involving large offerings, the lion's share of the stock at issue tends to be held by institutional investors. Small investors often account for only an insignificant percentage of the shares at issue. Many of these lawsuits, whether they are with or without merit, generally come to the same end. Settlement amounts depend entirely on the amount of damages claimed or the defendants' insurance coverage. The sad part is, that between 5 and 15 cents on each dollar sought is actually returned to the plaintiffs while the lawyers average $1 million in fees for each case. Mr. President, it has become far too easy and profitable to file securities suits. Computer tracking of stock prices has led to nearly instantaneous suits filed by class action plaintiffs' attorneys. The incentive to the lawyers for being first is simple: Usually the judge who ultimately presides over the case will name the lawyers who got their cases filed first to be lead counsel. On what basis do they file? If a company's earnings are less than projected, a suit is filed claiming shareholders were not told of the dangers. If earnings shoot through the roof, they can be sued for withholding good information that would have prevented impatient stockholders from selling their stock. Such suits, or threats of suits, have a serious consequence of deterring valuable risk-taking and cause qualified persons to be unwilling to serve as directors because of the risks of liability. American business and the American consumers are the big losers. Mr. President, once a suit is filed, defendants face enormous incentives to settle. Those who choose to fight the allegations face large legal fees even if they ultimately prevail. For some defendants, the stakes are even higher because the law currently does not distinguish differing degrees of fault and you could very well be liable for losses attributed to other parties. Even though claims might be completely meritless, firms feel coerced to settle rather than assume the open- ended risk. The legislation we have before us today will go a long way toward curbing abuses in securities litigation. It will provide a filter at the earliest stage of a lawsuit to screen out those that have no factual basis. A complaint should outline the facts supporting the lawsuit and not just a simple assertion that the defendant acted with intent to defraud. If the complaint does not set forth the facts supporting each of the alleged misstatements or omissions, the law suit may be terminated. In order for the judge to be able to determine whether the case has any merit prior to subjecting the defendants to the time and expense of turning over the company's records, a stay of discovery is included in this bill. A typical tactic of plaintiff lawyers is to request an extensive list of documents and to schedule an ambitious agenda of depositions that take up the time and resources of a company. The discovery costs comprise 80 percent of the expense of defending a securities class action lawsuit. The stay of discovery provision will provide the defendants with the opportunity to have a motion for a dismissal considered prior to entering into the costly discovery process. Securities laws are intended to help investors by ensuring a flow of accurate information about public companies. However, the present system reduces the amount of information as companies limit their public statements to avoid allegations of fraud. In fact, an American Stock Exchange survey found that 75 percent of corporate CEO's limit the information disclosed to investors out of fear that greater disclosure would lead to an abusive lawsuit. To encourage disclosure of information, the bill will create a statutory safe harbor. To deter plaintiffs' attorneys from filing meritless securities class actions, judges will have the authority to review the conduct of attorneys and discipline those who file frivolous suits. Suits filed with little or no research into their merits can cost companies thousands of dollars in legal fees and company time. According to a sample of cases provided by the National Association of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys [NASCAT] 21 percent of the class action cases were filed within 48 hours of a triggering event such as the announcement of a missed earnings projection. Innocent companies pay millions of dollars defending these frivolous cases and are left with large attorney bills even when they win. If a judge finds that an attorney filed a frivolous suit, he can award sanctions as appropriate. This bill ensures that those primarily responsible for the plaintiff's loss bear the primary burden in making the plaintiff whole. Under current law, codefendants each have liability for 100 percent of the damages irrespective of their role in a fraudulent scheme. In this bill, the courts would determine who has committed knowing securities fraud, and hold them fully responsible for all damages. Any other defendants named in the suit would be held proportionately liable. As we all know, there are instances when a defendant is insolvent and is unable to pay their share of damages. This bill contains provisions to ensure that investors are compensated in cases where there is an insolvent codefendant. When plaintiffs are unable to collect a portion of their damages from an insolvent codefendant, the proportionally liable codefendants would be required to pay up to 150 percent of their share of damages. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk that this legislation would adversely impact small investors. Nothing could be further from the truth because this bill actually provides special protection for them. All defendants, whether they are jointly and severally liable or proportionately liable, would be held fully responsible for the uncollectible shares of plaintiffs whose damages are more than 10 percent of their net worth, if their net worth is less than $200,000. Providing special protection for small investors is a critical component of this bill and one I support strongly. Mr. President, there has been an effort by the critics of this bill to misrepresent the facts. Several opponents have claimed that if the bill had been law during the savings and loan crisis, investors defrauded by Charles Keating would have been left without remedy. However, they fail to tell you that most of the losses from the S&L crisis did not result from securities fraud and this bill would not apply. The primary enforcement mechanism in dealing with the S&L crisis was the bank regulatory system, not the Federal securities law. Finally, oppoinents allege that S. 240 would make it impossible for municpalities to recoup losses from securities fraud involving derivatives. However, the Domenici-Dodd bill preserves investors' rights to sue. Just as under current law, defrauded investors who purchased or sold derivatives would still be able to sue defendants who had actual knowledge of the fraud or who acted recklessly. In concluding, Mr. President, legislative reform is needed to return rationality to the system so that meritorious claims are compensated and meritless claims are neither rewarded nor encouraged. Business desperately needs relief from both the financial and management burdens attending these abusive suits. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and I once again want to commend Senator Domenici and Senator Dodd for their tremendous work on this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced a bill to eliminate the Office of the Surgeon General in the Public Health Service. In light of what we have just been through with Dr. Foster's nomination, what Dr. Elders went through, and even Dr. Koop, I think it has never been more clear that this position is a lightning rod. Let me say at the outset, this has nothing to do with Dr. Henry Foster, and everything to do with politics. For years, this office has been used by both parties as a political football. Instead of fulfilling the duties as spokesperson for public health, the Surgeon General has found himself or herself as a puppet for the administration, pushing forward rhetoric on whatever pet topic peaks their interest. I guess as a political appointee, you would expect this. However, when it comes to the public's health, politics should not come into play. But what makes this bill timely is the effort being made by both the administration and Congress to shrink the size of Government. Being a voice for good health habits is not a job that only a Surgeon General can do. There have been times in our recent history when we had no Surgeon General. Was the public's health in danger during that time? No. The duties were picked up by the Assistant Secretary for Health. In fact, through most of the 1970's there was no Surgeon General. During the Carter administration, the Assistant Secretary for Health doubled as Surgeon General. And it worked. It wasn't until Dr. Koop was named to the position, that the offices were again split. Do not get me wrong--those who have filled this position have done some remarkable things. But the position is redundant. And if we are serious about wanting to reduce the size of Government and save the taxpayers money, then we have to take a close look at why this position is still there. The Office of the Surgeon General has six employees and costs the taxpayer close to $1 million each year. In the scheme of things, that may not sound like a lot, but to folks in Montana, folks in Arizona, in fact, folks anywhere outside the beltway, a million dollars is a lot of money. Am I saying the public doesn't need the information they get from the Surgeon General? No. They will still get the information that is important to preventing disease promoting wellness and learning how to live healthy lives. But that information will come from the Assistant Secretary for Health, who by the way should be no less credible. This position is consistently filled by a medical doctor. And again, it's been done before. Mr. President, I think it is time we stop playing games with the public's dollar. This is one level of bureaucracy that we don't need. It has been proven in the past and we can make it work again. Eliminating the Office of the Surgeon General would not only save money--without hurting the public, I might add--it will also remove the football that has been used by both Republicans and Democrats to control a pulpit that the public has come to count on. We do not need a separate Office of the Surgeon General, Mr. President. I have been joined by Senators Kyl, Thomas, Helms, Santorum, Nickles, Thompson, and Brown in introducing this bill and I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to restore common sense to the Government. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, introduced a bill to reform the FAA. There is probably no institution in this town that needs reform more than it does. In my home State of Montana we take aviation, particularly general aviation, very seriously because we are a very large State but we are the 44th in population. We are the fourth largest State, 148,000 square miles. The Chair understands about that, coming from Wyoming, our good friend to the south. So you could say both of us have quite a lot in common. There is quite a lot of dirt between light bulbs in our part of the world and not many folks in between. So, for us having general aviation in a healthy mode and our ability to fly point to point is not a luxury, it is often a necessity in the West. So we have a very strong, hard-working and well organized pilot community in Montana. I am proud of my strong relationship with the thousands of pilots in my State. Many of them are flying ranchers and that is the way they get their parts, that is the way they do a lot of business, a lot of their travel. I have been watching the debate about reform of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Air Traffic Control system with some concern, and I share those concerns with my friend from Oklahoma. The pilots who talk to me tell of outdated equipment that their air traffic controllers are forced to use. I have heard the same concerns from air traffic controllers all over the country, as a matter of fact. They tell me about the concerns that the FAA does not get the necessary funds and it is absolutely hamstrung in some areas by layers and layers of red tape. They say the FAA is ripe for reform. After serving in this body now in my second term, after 6 years, I would have to agree with that. But many of the proposals I have seen are only superficially attractive. The numbers just do not add up. The administration's ATC Corporation idea--there is no industry support for an entirely privatized ATC. So today I am joining with Senator Inhofe in his introduction of legislation to provide some realistic, meaningful reform for the FAA. It will reestablish the FAA as an independent agency with an administrator who has a fixed term in office of 7 years and a management advisory committee made up of members of the private sector to advise the administrator on management policy, spending, and regulatory matters. This measure will provide the FAA with major personnel, procurement and finance reforms that I think it needs. It will mandate that the FAA take action on safety-critical regulations in a more timely manner. This bill will give the FAA more flexibility in making corrections without risking its record of safety. It is my hope this bill will be a starting point from which we can gain some consensus among this body, and in this Congress, and we hope that consensus will evolve rather quickly. I understand Senator McCain is also working on a proposal to reform FAA. He is the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee. His knowledge of not only flight but also this agency is unexcelled, and I hope he will welcome this bill and that it will be a valuable contribution to what he is trying to do. Maybe we can really get together and put reform on the fast track. We can work together. I think it can be supported by everyone in the aviation community. It is needed. Also, we have to be very mindful that not just airlines use FAA. It is very important we maintain it at a healthy level for general aviation because of the points I spoke about earlier on today. With that, I support this reform as it starts down the track. We hope we can get a consensus and reform it before the snow flies this fall. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators on the floor, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.