Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Dodd second-degree amendment is, in effect, an increase in taxes and I am opposed to any increase in tax. However, I am also opposed to the Snowe amendment. Let me begin by stating that I am a strong supporter of educational funding. I am firmly opposed to the drastic cuts in educational programs and funding which is outlined in the House resolution. I believe that these cuts, while well- intentioned, are shortsighted. Such cuts ignore the long-term benefits of preparing America's children to assume their position in the world market, and for that reason I oppose those cuts. By the same token, however, I believe that Senator Snowe's amendment is shortsighted. I believe that we, as guardians of our children's future, are charged with the moral obligation to not only educate our children but also to insure that there will be jobs available for them to assume once they have been educated. To ignore either is irresponsible. Now let us take a look at what is on the table. The High-Speed Research Program was designed to develop precompetitive technologies for high-speed civil transport aircraft. Once developed, the technology is transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, and U.S. industry. It is estimated that the first organization to market such an aircraft stands to gain $200 billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs. In short, this program accomplishes three goals that are vital to the United States' financial solvency: First, it increases new jobs, which increases the country's tax base; second, it generates sales for U.S. industry, which increases the country's GNP, and, in so doing, increases the country's tax base; and third, it insures the United States' continued leadership in this field, thus forecasting future revenues. Likewise, the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program generates substantial long-term revenue benefits. This program is designed to protect the United States' market share in subsonic aircraft, an area which generates almost a million high quality jobs in the United States and contributes between $25 and $30 billion annually to the U.S. trade balance--which, incidentally is the largest of any U.S. manufacturing industry. These programs are moneymakers, and to eliminate them for any reason is fiscally irresponsible. This is particularly true under the present circumstances, where the chairman's budget adequately addresses the concerns raised by Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe's amendment seeks to restore $6.3 billion over 7 years for undergraduate loans--$1.124 billion of this from the termination of the NASA programs. However, the chairman's resolution protects undergraduate student loans. Under Chairman Domenici's resolution, interest on loans for undergraduate education does not accrue until graduation. So, for all students who enter the work force immediately after college, nothing has changed. With regard to individuals who choose to pursue graduate or professional coursework, interest would not accrue on their college debt until they complete this coursework. Chairman Domenici's resolution does change the present student loan program with respect to deferring interest payments accruing upon graduate and professional coursework. However, this burden is lessened by the chairman's budget by preserving the benefits of capped interest rates on student loans, federal guarantees, opportunities to defer payments in case of economic hardship, and Federal fellowship programs targeted specifically toward graduate students. The Snowe amendment ignores the long-term impact that terminating these programs would have upon the U.S. balance of trade, the GNP and its consequent U.S. Treasury implication, and the generation of jobs in America. Consequently, I oppose this amendment, and urge my fellow colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1128

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have all been receiving phone calls and getting letters about the proposed budget that is being recommended now or being talked about and marked up in the respective committees in the Senate and House of Representatives. We have had time to talk to the chairmen of those committees and get copies of the proposal that they have put forth. In other words, the great debate has started on this year's budget. I think we have to applaud the chairman of each committee because they have come forward with very daring proposals. I applaud the chairmen, especially Senator Domenici of the Senate Budget Committee. When you look at our deficit spending we see, yes, that the deficit did become lower last year. It went down. But it now continues to climb. The deficit this year alone stands at $175 billion, and for a while. But, nonetheless, it is growing at the outrageous rate of $482 million a day. That sounds like a lot of money to me. So, consequently, it is time for this body and this Government to do something responsible and to deal very frankly with the budget, to be up front about it, and to try to address some of the problems that we have because I think most Americans are wanting something done to rein it in. It is absolutely necessary if we are to continue the economic viability and the leadership in this world for our Nation. We cannot continue to stand by and conduct business as usual, and in so doing allow the national debt to increase by $1 trillion every Presidential term. So the time has come for bold initiatives to look at getting spending under control, and Senator Domenici's budget right now does exactly that. The chairman of the Budget Committee slows the annual growth of most lines. Every line in that budget, with the exception of a few, grow every year. We have heard a lot of attention brought to the Medicare line, growing 10 to 11 percent every year. Now we want to slow that growth because already the trustees of that trust fund have told us that by the year 2002 it will be broke and they will pay no bills at all. Also it transforms Medicaid into block grant funds to the States where they will have the responsibility to do something responsible to get spending under control. It further calls for the establishment of a bipartisan congressional committee to represent policy changes needed to maintain the short-term solvency of the Medicare system. Such measures would generate the savings needed to put the system on a financially sound footing for the next 7 years while we work together to develop a long-term solution for Medicare solvency gap. There can be no getting around the fact that, if we continue on the path that we are presently on, Medicare will lapse into bankruptcy within 7 years and then it will be too late, or too expensive, to solve the problem. The chairman's budget proposes the elimination of spending for the National Biological Survey. I have long said that we had the resources within the organizations of the Fish and Wildlife, the Park Service, or in the Department of the Interior to do that without creating another bureau or the money that goes with it. We also want our policy decisions based on sound science and we start dealing with the biological makeup of this country or this world. And I think we can do it without the National Biological Survey. The chairman's budget proposes the reduction in the Agricultural Research Service by 10 percent which would reduce the total outlays in this program by $1 million. It is true that we all will not agree with this budget. This is one area where I do not agree. This is one area where we cannot pull back on any investment in the research and development in agriculture. I will stand on this floor and maintain until I can draw my last breath that the second thing everybody who lives in this Nation does every morning is eat. I do not know what the first thing is that they do. They have a lot of options there. But I know the second thing they do is eat. We still have an obligation to feed this Nation and this society. So when it comes time to talking about budgets, basically that is what a balanced budget amendment would have done; make us talk about the most important things and to set our priorities where we think those important things are. We have to look to the necessities of life, not to the frills but the necessities of life and also the individual responsibility that each one of us has at just being a citizen of this great country. You might be surprised to know that for the first time in the history of agriculture our yields in wheat are going down, because we are just not getting enough money for research, plant breeding, developing those strains of wheat that are disease resistant because that is a constant thing; it goes on all the time. And so we must, if we are going to feed this Nation--and right now, 1 farmer feeds 145 other people. Also, one of our greatest exports is agriculture. In fact, it has been in the black forever. We have to continue with our ability to produce foodstuffs, food and fiber for this society. The chairman of the Budget Committee also proposed the privatization of the PMA's, the power marketing administrations. They are making money for the Treasury. They also generate and produce power for our REA's. In rural America, we would not have electricity yet if it was not for REA's. My father served on an REA board. I have often said if it was not for REA on the farms, we would be watching television by candlelight. We have to be very cautious in the way we set our priorities in this budget. So consequently I think we have to take a very hard look at long-term revenue implications that would happen, that is, if WAPA, western area power marketing, and the Southwest and the Southeast are moved into private hands. And this is nothing new. We will argue about different parts of the budget. Where we set our priorities is what is really important for this Nation and the people who live in it. That is what this budget will do. But it will be a responsible budget that I am sure, after America looks at it, we will have the confidence in its integrity to do what we have to do, and that is to balance the budget by the year 2002. I do not think there is anything that will come before this body that will be any more important than the issue of this budget and the roadmap, the blueprint to get us where we want to be as world but also that keeps us free. In conclusion, I wish to again praise the chairman. He presented a responsible budget resolution, and I pledge to work with the Budget Committee and all my colleagues to make sure we do those things that are necessary and do away with those things, those frills at this time in our history that we cannot afford just because we like to say we have them. So I wish to work with the chairman and this body in producing a budget that will work for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to reduce yet another regulatory burden on many petroleum marketers and other small businesses across the country. My bill would prohibit the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] from enforcing an unwarranted and unnecessary regulation on operators and owners of small cargo tanks of 3,500 gallons or less and return that authority back to the States where it belongs. Specifically, my bill would repeal a regulation promulgated by RSPA which requires cargo tank operators and owners to comply with cumbersome Federal testing inspections and retrofitting mandates. Members of the Montana-Western Petroleum Marketers Association and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America have been especially negatively impacted with RSPA's requirements. The cost of the regulation to small businesses often costs thousands of dollars, with little additional safety protection. In addition, the Federal inspection requirements often force cargo tank operators to travel great distances to comply with the regulations. It is time that we force regulators to be responsible and establish justification before the implementation of such regulations. I think we could send a clear message by passing my proposed legislation. Many of the cargo tank owners and operators are owned by small ``mom and pop'' businesses, who operate on a slim profit margin. The cost of compliance can be devastating to their business. For years, States had the authority to inspect small cargo tank vehicles. Not only was this more convenient for owners and operators, but States had the ability to structure the program to benefit their constituents. I think we should return this authority to the States and allow them to make decisions which best suit their needs. Up until 1991, RSPA provided an exemption of cargo tanks carrying 3,500 gallons of petroleum product or less. However, since that time, RSPA has decided that no tank is too small to regulate and that all cargo tank operators should operate under the same rules. In theory this may sound reasonable, but, in reality, small cargo tanks are very different from larger tanks and should be treated as such. I ask for to restore some common sense into the Federal bureaucracy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this morning, the Senator from Washington State, Senator Gorton, introduced his reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I would just like to make a few comments about that act and also the amendments that will be offered in its reauthorization. Congress was scheduled to reauthorize it this year and, of course, last year, and it has been a while since it has been done. I think it is about time that this Congress take a look at the Endangered Species Act and try to make it more workable. Currently, there are about 60 listed or candidate species in Montana on the Endangered Species Act. There always seems to be new species from some group that wants it put on the list just about every week. In a recent effort by a group based in Colorado, they want the black- tailed prairie dog placed on the candidate list. This petition is related to the black-footed ferret. If you want to hear some stories about one act and how it impacts a State or community, we can probably write an entire book about this. But our largest industry in the State of Montana is agriculture. If you ask Montana farmers and ranchers what law they want Congress to fix, most will say this act, the Endangered Species Act. If you are in the western part of the State, near the wood products industry and those folks that work in the woods, and you ask them what law needs fixing, they would also reply the Endangered Species Act, because half of the economy of western Montana is based on wood products. They will tell you a lot of stories about infringing on their ability to make a living for their families, about the grizzly bears, the road closures, and once again, coming back to the old Endangered Species Act. There is no doubt that we must reform the law. It is the single most restrictive law that Montanans and other Americans who rely on the land to make a living must deal with. The communities in Montana lack the economic stability and the predictability that they deserve. When we have 38 percent total land mass in one State that belongs to the Federal Government, it is hard to find that stability and predictability about the policies carried out on those public lands. The current law has many communities in Montana and throughout our Nation living on pins and needles. Jobs have been lost because of this act. The bottom line, of course, is the economic well-being of communities, and our communities are suffering. We need to change the act, that it really does protect the species and recover species, that it does not cost millions of dollars per species and it will protect the private property rights and also perhaps bring some economic viability and predictability to our communities. This act should be amended so we can recognize species in trouble and emphasize restoring the populations to healthy levels. Emphasis must be placed on recovery, however. The current law emphasizes the listing of species instead of protecting and recovering species. In order to do this, the new act should contain the following principles. The new act needs to be amended so it is based on better science. We know that our science has not been too good in the past. Peer review procedures need to be added to improve the overall data collected so that the right decision can be made, or at least to arrive at some decision based on proper science. We must have these decisions made outside of politics, and instead done by objective individuals who have a background in that science. As I stated earlier, above all, we must concentrate our efforts on recovery plans. I think if we want a simplified solution to it, we have to decouple the listing process from the recovery process. If we do that, we would focus on the least costly alternative and we would have access to impacting the decisions made under the act, and of course take into consideration local economics. In addition, this would force priorities to be set and would generate recovery plans which are reasonable. And yes, they are attainable. I think that is very, very important. The decoupling process may be the toughest part of this entire debate. The best decisions are those that are made at the local level. I believe we need increased private participation in our conservation efforts. The fact is that local individuals are the best people to support any kind of a conservation plan. We are finding that out now, with the farm bill, in the 1985 farm bill, which required conservation plans on farms and ranches in order to participate in the farm program. We need people who live and work in the areas that are affected, because they have a stake in what happens in their own backyard. Washington should not forget that these people want to maintain the quality of life that they have for their families now. The act should encourage cooperative management agreements for non- Federal efforts. We just talked this morning about several activities going on in Montana that have the cooperation not only of private landowners, but also several environmental groups and Federal land management agencies that are cooperating now in order to provide the best use of a natural resource on public lands, but also to protect the environment and hang onto the economic viability of the area. Just to mention a couple, there are Willow Creek and Fleecer up in Montana and, of course, the Blackfoot challenge that we talked about this morning in our office. However, we cannot solely rely on these cooperative management agreements. Some landowners and communities will not have the resources to pay for some of these agreements. It is in these instances that the Federal Government will have to play a larger role. Local involvement is still essential to carry out the objectives of recovering species. Any proposal communities. Local communities must be given the opportunity to express their support, comments and, yes, their areas of concern. Also, the conservation and recovery process must recognize State and local laws. Federal agencies should not be allowed to run roughshod over State management agencies, State laws, or their agreements. Without a doubt, compensation must be given individuals who lose the use of their private property under a Federal Government conservation plan. Our Constitution and property rights need protection on every front. Anything short of that is selling our constitutional rights down the river. It is also, if one has to wonder why we take property rights so seriously, because when we pass that property on to our children and our offspring, it is our only thing that we can pass along to them that ensures their freedom for generations to come. The Endangered Species Act has a good goal. It does make everyone aware of the world. However, since it has become law, it has been twisted and misused for other purposes. We need some common sense to put back in not only recovering the species but also taking into account the human factor. After all, part of the system, the ecosystem, is man himself. Starting from a new viewpoint in crafting the act, which would truly reflect what we want to do is to conserve and recover the species, has to be the focus. It cannot let the existing law and regulations run multiple use off of our lands. Most of our lands are under multiple use, use for the highest economic benefit. Of course, most of the time, that is either logging, mining, running of livestock, or grazing, but sometimes it is also recreation. Even recreation can be in conflict with the recovery of the Endangered Species Act. The bill, introduced by Senators Gorton, Johnston, and Shelby, is a good starting point. I have added my name as a cosponsor because I am very supportive of this process moving forward. I am supportive of the basic concepts of this reform bill. The bill makes sure that better science is used. It provides peer review. It also allows for more local participation incentives and non- Federal efforts, and encourages cooperative agreements and habitat conservation plans. This bill places the emphasis on recognizing the species that are in trouble, coming up with a plan to protect them, and most importantly, recovering the species. We have a great job ahead of Members. It takes a great deal of cooperation between private landowners, Government agencies, and State and local communities in order to get it done. However, I am a supporter of the bill. I have some reservations about it. The current act is complicated. I would like to see it reformed, simplified, and made easier for landowners and people who use the public lands to be in compliance with the law. Basically, the law needs to be streamlined. I also strongly believe in private property compensation if the need arises. The bill ensures that people are not denied reasonable use of their property. However, there is no compensation provision. The consultation provision needs to be strengthened. There are just too many instances where other Federal agencies cannot use plain old common sense because the Interior or Commerce Departments will not let them, based on this and other areas of the law which I think we need to take a closer look at. I am glad that we have finally started moving the process forward. I am thankful for the work that has been done by the sponsors of this legislation. In addition, I have made a request to Senator Kempthorne that a hearing on this issue be held in the State of Montana. I do not know whether there is a State in the Union that is impacted more by this action than the State of Montana. After all, we have been dealing with the grizzly bear a long, long time. By the way, the recovery has been very successful. In fact, biologically, the animal now can be delisted and taken off the list of those endangered. I hope this summer Senator Kempthorne's Subcommittee on Clean Water, Fisheries and Wildlife will be able to come to my home State of Montana and hear the testimony from us folks who live in Montana. Reforming the Endangered Species Act is essential. It is essential to our economy. Our four largest industries, agriculture, timber, mining, and oil and gas, rely on the use of those lands. It is these industries which supply the jobs and the tax base for the State of Montana. Changing the laws on conserving and recovering endangered species is important for jobs for Montana. It is important for sound land management activities. It is time we took a look at this area. I want to reiterate on how, possibly, we can make the act work. There has to be a different process of listing a species and then the process of how to recover the species. Right now the law is pretty hard and tough. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the law kicks in and kicks out all conversation or any flexibility, in order to recover the species without large impacts where the species is to be recovered. I applaud my colleagues for their work on this bill. I am a cosponsor of it. It is a bill that needs reforming and the time has come. I urge all my colleagues in the Senate to get involved in this debate and let us reform the Endangered Species Act so it will work for this country and the species we are trying to recover.

Mr. BURNS

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

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to proceed as in morning business for the next 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is important to the future, I think, of the livestock industry, not only of Montana, but Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming and, also, I think to the Nation. Wherever the Government has a large concentration or a large presence, I think it has to be called upon to be a good neighbor. This legislation, which is long overdue, is as a result of the ineffectiveness of the Federal Government--especially the Park Service--to follow up on the work that it has been directed to complete. This bill will require the National Park Service to effectively manage a disease ridden herd of bison within the boundaries of the Yellowstone Park. Mr. President, for years, the bison within the Yellowstone Park have carried brucellosis. It is a disease which causes cattle or bovines to abort their calves. When transmitted to humans, the disease can create a very painful and incurable disease known as undulant fever. This is a disease which the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture has targeted for complete eradication from the United States by 1998. The bison herd in Yellowstone Park is the only remaining major free-roaming herd in the Nation where nothing has been done to eradicate the disease. Brucellosis is a disease which the livestock industry in the United States has spent untold millions of dollars to eliminate, done on a State-by-State program. In my State of Montana, the stockgrowers have spent almost $70 million to eradicate the disease and set up barriers in order to protect their herds. Yet, due to the continual delays in the Yellowstone National Park Service to address the remedy of the situation there in that park, the future of the livestock industry in Montana, the Nation, and the region, continues to be threatened by disastrous result which are a direct consequence of the disease. In addition, to the cost incurred by the livestock industry, there has been a cost to the State of Montana to protect its borders from the wandering herds of bison which roam outside the park every winter seeking forage. These bison carry the disease and threaten the grazing lands and the herd on private lands in and around the park. Now, I could stand here today and give a complete history of the terrible problem faced by States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. For the sake of time, let me talk about this past winter and just exactly what happens. In November, we had major snows in the park. It did not take long, but within a few weeks, up to five feet of snow had accumulated in Yellowstone Park, which effectively covered all the forage opportunities for the animals in the park. When this occurs, the bison within the park turn and do exactly what is natural--they will start drifting between the lower meadows just for food. instincts tell them to do. In order to protect livestock in our part of the country--and livestock industry and livestock agriculture is the No. 1 industry in Montana--we had to find it necessary to bring down these animals that we could not chase back into the park. This past winter, this number exceeded almost 400 head. Nobody likes to see this happen, especially when an animal is following its own natural instincts for preservation and survival. However, it is necessary also to protect an economy and the safety of my State of Montana. If the disease were to be transmitted to any herd in the State, Montana would lose its brucellosis-free status that was granted by APHIS and the Department of Agriculture. Already this year, the action of nine States has adversely affected the well-being of my cattle industry in the State of Montana. These nine States right now are requiring that any cattle transported from the State of Montana be tested for brucellosis, which basically, up until this incident, had been eradicated and certified free. At the time, the industry is already reeling from a lower market. We are having to test all the breeding animals that leave the State of Montana, at a cost of $20 to $30 a head, a cost which we thought we spent money on to get rid of up until last year. The language of this will require the National Park Service to face up to the seriousness of maintaining poor health and bad health practices for the herd of buffalo or bison in Yellowstone Park. The animals will be tested and those that will test positive for the disease will be culled from the herd. Those that will test negative will be retained, and the younger animals will start on a program of being vaccinated. Doing this, over time, will finally eradicate the disease from the park. When this herd was first introduced into the park by the U.S. Army, it was thought that there would be some sort of management plan to control the population. However, in the mid-1960's, the National Park Service developed a hands-off policy in relationship to the number of bison that could run in Yellowstone Park. This action has increased the size of the herd and also increased the outbreaks of the disease. By increasing the herd size, the management of the park has increased the movement of the herd outside the park. The land mass within the park boundaries cannot sustain a herd of present size. Anybody who would drive across the park would say that range conditions and the carrying capacity, we just have too much livestock in that part of the world, that little corner of the world, to sustain that herd. I think our estimated population went up to around 4,300, and by anybody's estimate it should be around 1,500. The provision of this bill will allow the Park Service to manage the size of that herd. Mr. President, I appreciate the time to address this issue. This legislation is very important, not only, I think, for the livestock industry that would be affected in the States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho; I think it also shows that wherever Government has a presence, and is required to be or called upon to be a good neighbor, just like not asking the Park Service to do anything that we do not ask of an individual producer in the State of Montana, should this disease break out in a private herd. They, too, are asked to test, to cull, and to vaccinate, to get on a herd health program that takes this disease out of the livestock industry. 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the McConnell amendment to the Product Liability Reform Act that is now being considered before this body. If there was one thing that was made clear last year during the health care debate, it was a need for medical malpractice reform, not just to curb the need for defensive medicine--and some still argue about the extent to which that contributes to our rising costs in medical care--but to get a handle on this incredible amount of litigation our society now seems to take part in. In Montana I have talked with several of our rural doctors who, through no fault of their own, have outrageous malpractice premiums. I recently had a primary care doctor in my office who pays $38,000 a year in premiums. To those folks who practice in more urban areas and have extended practices, $38,000 might not sound like much. But it is a big ticket in a rural State. To top that off, he is yet to be sued. But, yet, to protect himself, he cannot avoid paying this premium. Of course, we know who pays for that--the people who use his services. On top of this cost of practice, he has overhead expenses, too. It is no wonder the cost of services and fees continues to go up. In fact, I was astounded to find out the other day from a group of doctors what an office call would cost if it were not for a lot of extenuating rules, regulations, insurance, and, yes, Government regulations in their life, and how that increases just the price of an office call. The McConnell amendment is a perfect fit on this product liability reform bill. I am glad to see the House has included it and that this body is considering it now. The product in this case is health care services. I am not trying to say that people do not deserve malpractice awards. As in any business, people are fallible, judgment is not always true, and accidents do happen. I think we tend to hold health care providers to a higher standard because much of the time they hold our lives in their hands. But malpractice claims are made more often than necessary. Of the billions of dollars spent on medical liability, 50 cents of every premium dollar goes to the attorneys and not to the injured patients that this system was meant to help. If our goal is to direct health care dollars into the legal system for the attorney fees and court costs, then we should not enact liability reform. However, if the patient is our priority, and if quality of care is important to us, then this provision is essential. One area that I am very interested in is the contingency reform provisions in this amendment. This provision will help to address some of the sizable costs in the system by limiting an attorney's contingency fee to 33\1/3\ percent for the first $150,000 and 25 percent of any amount over $150,000. The real travesty of justice here is the amount of the health care liability award that goes to the attorneys. The contingency fee was intended to be the poor man's key to the courthouse. According to the evidence from a 1990 Harvard medical malpractice study in New York, the contingency fee is not serving this function very well. Most folks with small health care injury claims never get access to the civil justice system because the contingency fee stimulates lawyers to be primarily interested in the big ticket cases. It is the same incentive that drives the lawsuit lottery, encouraging lawyers to take cases with a sympathetic plaintiff even if there is no negligent care. In many States, the contingency fee is growing. Though traditionally the norm is one-third of the plaintiff's payment, the standard is growing to 40 percent and, yes, 50 percent contingency fees are becoming more and more common. This fee covers only the attorney's professional fee. Litigation expenses are deducted separately from the plaintiff's recovery and they, too, can be quite high. I am proud to say that the Montana Legislature has just passed legislation to cap the fee and reform our medical liability system, the Montana State Legislature that just adjourned prior to the Easter break. I take my lead from my constituents. I always have and I always will. But I also keep a pulse on what is going on around the Nation. In a recent public opinion strategist poll linking people to groups that represent America's values, I tell you what, attorneys, kind of with us, are running pretty low. But for the sure reason for that, maybe we should examine the system. Incidentally, doctors were near the top of the poll. So I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell-Kassebaum amendment. After all, it was just a couple of years ago that Senator Kassebaum worked on a medical plan, and this was included in her plan then so this is not a new idea. It is an idea that has been accepted by the American people and it is an idea whose time has come. These two amendments together will meet the needs of the injured patients who deserve to be fairly compensated and society which needs to reduce transaction costs and eliminate windfall judgments. But above all, it will allow us to continue to promote the highest quality medical care for our people, our consumers in this country, and maintain that high quality for years to come. It is very important that this be a part of this package whenever we go to conference and when it becomes law. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. I am starting my seventh year in the Senate, and every year it seems as if we always come up with a product liability bill. I have served on the Commerce Committee under the leadership of Senator Hollings and under the leadership also of Senator Danforth, who was a great champion of product liability reform. I want to thank Senator Gorton, who has picked up the traces, so to speak, and especially to Senator Rockefeller who through all of the years I have been here, starting the seventh year, has also played a very strong part in leadership on this issue, diligently trying to seek reform. I have supported product liability reform primarily because I believe it is time now for Congress to act on what some would term barriers to economic growth in this country. And the need to reform our product liability system is no less urgent now while the economy is seemingly healthy than if we would experience economic downturn. The current system drives up costs in nearly every sector of the economy and does very little to improve our quality of life and does very little to increase safety at the workplace. In the last 30 years, the number of cases filed in Federal courts has more than tripled, to over 250,000 a year. Now, this issue, yes, is a jobs issue; it is a competitiveness issue, and some would term it even a moral issue. Currently, the typical American manufacturer faces product liability costs that are 20 to 50 times higher than that of his or her foreign competitor. This additional cost makes American companies less competitive; they lose market share to foreign competition. So what do they do? They raise prices and they lay off workers. The costs of runaway litigation are felt by American companies, workers and, yes, consumers alike. It is not just a big business issue either. It affects small businesses as much if not more than our large businesses. The 1,100-percent rise in the number of Federal product liability cases in the 1970's and 1980's has driven up the cost of liability insurance to astronomical amounts. The burden of this increased cost is proportionately much greater for small business and in some cases it is the element that is a ``make or break'' issue for them. This issue is most often presented as a consumer issue, Mr. President. I disagree with those who say that if you are for product liability reform, you are against the consumer. I reject that argument. Consumers do not benefit when the business community has to protect itself from runaway lawsuits. They pay for it. As we have often been told, it just goes into the operating costs; that companies and corporations do not pay taxes either. People pay taxes. And the threat of lawsuits keeps the vital consumer products from the market and discourages safety and other improvements that would make it a better product. Moreover, liability stifles research and development for new consumer and medical products. This bill seeks to bring fairness to a system without taking away an injured person's right to a fair and speedy trial and, yes, just settlement. Right now the system fails to compensate those injured in proportion to their losses and it takes them far too long to receive the compensation. The people who benefit the most in the current system, let us face it, are the principals involved, the lawyers. Studies say that 50 to 70 cents of every attorney. This hardly seems like a system that benefits the consumer. There is a tremendous amount of support for this liability lawsuit reform in my home State of Montana. In a recent poll, 89 percent of Montanans indicated that the current system has problems and it should be fixed. There is a growing awareness that the only winners in the lawsuit lottery game are the attorneys and the professional plaintiffs. S. 565 will reform the current system to make it more effective. We must protect people from careless manufacturers and defective products. This bill does not compromise that objective. It just ensures that we do so in a fashion that still allows American businesses to compete and grow in a global economy. Congress has the opportunity to reform our product liability system, and I hope that we do not miss this window of opportunity and that we take advantage of it. This bill must become law. I ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 12:45 p.m. today.

Mr. BURNS

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 oppose the amendment offered by Senator Murray of Washington. This amendment severely weakens what this provision is intended to do--respond to our forest health emergency, restore our forests to health, and create jobs. This substitute amendment is only a clever way to do nothing. The committee-passed provision is responsive to not only forest health, but to the people who support their families in the wood products industry. But this amendment is no more than status quo. And Montanans do not want status quo. This substitute amendment does not streamline the process, limit the frivolous appeals, or allow for salvage sales to be expedited. Instead this amendment forces agencies to consult with other agencies, and does nothing to cut through the environmental red tape and still allows for endless delays. It replaces the Forest Service definition of ``salvage timber sale,'' which is included in the committee's bill, with a new definition. This definition doesn't take into account overcrowded forests which need to be thinned, and it forces the land managers to always consult with biologists. This amendment also eliminates the legal sufficiency language which is needed in the preparation of sale documents. If we are truly serious about salvaging timber, we need to have sufficiency language included, and we need to retain streamlined timeframes to assure that the environmental procedure process is not abused. Currently, delays in Federal land management arise primarily from two sources--multiple analysis requirements and administrative appeals and judicial review. Without this sufficiency language, we will continue to have lengthy delays which will substantially lead to the more dead and dying timber in our forests. the authority to establish the law, rather than leaving it to the judicial branch to declare what the law is. Yet, this amendment moves this authority toward the courts. This amendment is worse than the status quo. It requires the agencies to jump through more holes than it already has to, and it makes some land currently available for harvest off limits. It wouldn't result in any more timber salvaging activities. And most importantly, it will stop the creation of jobs in Montana. I strongly oppose this amendment. The wood products industry comprises almost half of western Montana's economy, and this amendment is not responsive to those folks who make their living in this sector of our economy. I just want to make one simple little evaluation here about this conversation. We have had the status quo long enough. I know what the status quo is. We do not salvage any, or we do not log any of our salvage lumber. It is finite. If it goes another year, it is not worth anything. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about areas that have been burned and areas that are infested with disease. The lumber is finite. Everybody can stand around and grin while people are not working and we are not taking care of the forests like they should be managed. They think they are doing a great thing for America, when they are not doing anything for America and are doing worse for the people who depend on public lands for their living. You are making your check; they are not. You think about that whenever you place this vote today.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a perfecting amendment to the Gorton amendment that merely accedes to the House language of the bill in the timber harvest. The House-passed bill contains language regarding lands which are exempt from the timber provision. However, the language as reported out of the Senate Committee on Appropriations is more limited than that passed by the House. So my amendment is the same language as that of the House, as it was passed through the House of Representatives. It exempts land designated by Congress for wilderness study in Montana and Colorado, Federal lands recommended by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management for wilderness designation in its most recent land management plan in effect; the Federal lands on which timber harvesting for any purpose is prohibited by statute. In other words, what this does is prevents harvesting timber inside of now-designated wilderness areas, those study areas, and also those areas that have been proposed for wilderness by any forest plan that is now in effect under the forest plan. I believe this amendment addresses most of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues. I hope the Senate will accept my amendment. I thank Senator Gorton of Washington for allowing me to perfect his amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know what the cost is, but in the new regulations they required boots for loggers that are not even being made. And I can see this fellow yet, who was described as the OSHA representative, up there to enforce these rules and regulations. You can pick him out of a thousand people. There he was. For instance, the employer is required to make sure that the employee's vehicle, if he drives to on-site logging, is safe; in other words, passes all the safety conditions of the State. The employer responsible for an employee's own private automobile? Now, that is overstepping a little bit. Also, I found out--and I am not a logger. I have been in the woods a little but not nearly that much. The renewable resource that I dealt with was grass. You do not take a chain saw to that; you take a cow to it. But, anyway, you have to use a Humboldt cut. In other words, when you take down a tree, you have to use the Humboldt cut. I had not heard of that. And neither, by the way, had the guy who wrote the rules. He said he just heard about it but he was not really familiar with what a Humboldt cut was. Basically, when you fell a tree, it is to prevent a kickback when the tree goes down. And that happens every now and again. In a select cut, no matter how remote or how steep, that tree can only be taken by mechanical means. Now, in some places you just do not get mechanical harvesters. What do you do? You let the tree just go, let it hang up and lose it? I do not think so. But these are rules and regulations that have been imposed on an industry which were written by an organization with basically very little common sense when it comes to logging. I just want to put these statements in the Record because I made a suggestion one time. After legislation is passed by this Congress, after it goes to the President for his signature and he signs it into law, what happens? That law is given to a faceless and nameless bureaucrat to write the administrative rules. We have enough evidence that most of those rules have nothing to do with the intent of the legislation. So I suggested that before the final rules go into the Federal Register, maybe they should come back to the committee of jurisdiction to make sure they do conform to the intent of the legislation. I mentioned that to a colleague of mine, and he said, ``Good Heavens, Senator, we never would get a law in place,'' at which I just grinned. I rested my case. Sometimes we should not have some of these laws passed. Maybe it should take a little longer. Maybe they should be debated a little more. any part of our duty, it is in oversight and being involved in writing the administrative rules. If every Senator in this body went home and talked to the industry that is going to be affected, we would be acutely aware of the problems faced in private industry. And we wonder why they are struggling trying to make a living, especially our smaller companies, our small business people. Over 90 percent of the jobs in Montana are created by small business. So I thank any friend from Oklahoma, who is the author of this bill. It gives us 45 days to look at those rules. We should look at the rules. We should become actively involved in the rulemaking, especially if we are sponsors of a piece of legislation that has so much to do with the workplace and the ability of a small businessman to make a living at this time. Not only are they taxed to death; they are also ruled and regulated to death. So we need to do what we are supposed to do. It was suggested after the elections last year that Government reinvent itself. I do not know what the message was last November 8, but I will tell you this. You will get as many versions of that message as there are editorial writers or coffee klatches or Lions Clubs or Rotary Clubs, wherever people sit down and visit about the political arena. But I say they are saying to people involved in Government, it is time to sit down and reassess the real mission and the real role of Government. Why are we here and why is it costing the taxpayers so much money? And then we turn right around and force rules and regulations on them that cost them more. Everybody wants a safe workplace. That is not to say that we should not have some rules and regulations. But I say that whenever you put it in the rules and regulations that your car has to be safe--and that is just a suggestion--once you write it into the rules, then an inspector who wants to make a name for himself can say, ``Aha, that car is not safe. I will fine you $100,'' instead of saying, ``We have some problems here. Let us work with each other, let us iron them out. Let us make a safe workplace.'' In the logging industry especially, most of the companies are small, where you have the man who owns the company, plus he has four or five of his friends--and I mean his friends, not his employees--he works with in the woods. They know each other and they must know each other in order to have a safe environment in which to do business. They do not want to hurt each other, either. And they are all small. But I am saying, when just a suggestion is made in the Federal Register, it gives an inspector an idea that this is hard law and he can fine for it. So we just need to be a little bit prudent about what we put into rules and regulations. Nobody is arguing here that we take safety out of the workplace. We are saying we should approach it in a manner in which we can have the employee, the employer, and the Government entities, both State and Federal, work together to make that a safe workplace. I think this piece of legislation does it. I congratulate my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my friend from Oklahoma. I wish his Oklahoma State Cowboys a lot of luck come this weekend. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. That is correct. I also want to congratulate that man, though. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct. But the man that really wrote the regs did come to the hearings in Kalispell, MT. He sat down and gave his testimony, but he also stayed and listened to those loggers. He listened to them when we took public comment. When it was all over, he sat down with them and they started working some things out. I think we made headway, and that is fine and dandy. But basically, we should not have to do this. Common sense tells us it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper for everybody if we did not get ourselves into that kind of situation. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my friend from Nevada for introducing this legislation, S. 219. Whenever it was announced that this bill was going to come to the floor at this time, I was pretty happy about it because a couple of weeks ago I chaired a field hearing in Kalispel, MT, to look at the new OSHA rules on the logging industry. I was as surprised as anybody. We have been receiving a lot of mail in our office from northwest Montana on how these new regulations as suggested by OSHA were really out of bounds this time. After all, the State of Montana has in place regulations for safety in the workplace, especially in the logging industry, and they are not strangers to the logging industry because it has been a part of the Montana scene for many, many years. But to go to that hearing and hear these loggers sit down and tell some of the horror stories that happened to them under these new rules and regulations was really an eye opener for me. We received comments not only from the State of Montana but folks from Idaho and folks from Oregon who flew over there to make that Saturday field hearing. Randy Ingraham, just to give you an idea, who is a training consultant for the Association of Oregon Loggers, was there and had the same comment basically as the Montana loggers, that Oregon's OSHA forest activities code book is as effective as the Federal standards. So what we have in this situation is regulations on top of regulations. If we really want to understand why Government is costing the taxpayers so many dollars nowadays, it is because of the redundancy. All the States, too, have an OSHA-type office that enforces safety rules in the workplace. States are familiar with the industries that are located within those States. Randy Ingraham's comments were very welcome. Don Rathman said OSHA needs to listen more to the industry rather than to people who have a philosophical idea on what the rules should be. Julie Espanosa: Return the control to States. Bill Copenhaver, from Seeley Lake, MT, said the same thing, that Montana standards basically are a little bit higher than those found in the Federal rules but the States show a willingness to work with employers and employees to make sure that the workplace is safe rather than just coming out and saying this little item here, something is wrong with it, so I am going to fine you and if you want to change it, that is fine. But next week we will fine you again if you do not. In other words, they are reluctant to work with employees for a safe workplace. Robert Cuddy, from Plains, MT; Dan Kanniburgh, from Marion, MT. The list goes on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may put in the Record a couple statements from folks who testified at that committee hearing as they were given to me.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor to the Omnibus Private Property Act. Since the beginning of this Congress, many bills to protect private property rights have been introduced. This bill encompasses those bills in a comprehensive proposal. For too long, Washington has disregarded the fifth amendment to our Constitution. Laws, regulations, and other actions have allowed the rights of private property owners to be abused. Now we have the opportunity to provide a consistent Federal policy to encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property and to ensure the constitutional and legal rights of private property owners. The legislation we are introducing reaffirms our private property rights. It requires compensation for a loss of property value when the Federal Government takes certain actions. The bill also allows for taking disputes to be resolved through settlement or arbitration as an alternative to litigation. In addition, the Omnibus Private Property Rights Act requires that the Federal agencies responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act establish procedures so private property owners may appeal actions and seek compensation. Another important aspect of the bill deals with regulations. This bill requires that taking impact analysis be conducted prior to promulgating regulations. If these actions result in a loss of 33 percent of value of the property, compensation is required. Montanans believe that protecting private property is of utmost importance. And Congress should pass the Omnibus Property Rights Act which reinforces the Government's responsibility to protect property rights and will help get the Federal Government off the backs of Montana's working men and women.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield back the remainder of my time. I just think it sends the wrong message at this particular time in the process of BRAC. But I have no further comment.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my chairman, and I thank the Chair. I am going to oppose and ask that this amendment be tabled. I think what we have here when we start looking at the BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, we are all at once starting to send wrong messages before the process is even complete on those that are now being considered. I think probably the construction will not go on, especially new construction, on bases that are being considered now. I do not think that is going to happen. So I know where my friend from Arizona is coming from and what he wants to try to do. But I think as chairman of that committee, I would like to see the funds at least stay there, have a possibility of letting that Commission complete its duty, and then rescind that money. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.