Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1846.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a unanimous- consent request.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent, without it being taken off of the Senator's time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the Senator from Arkansas. I am Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training. I have worked closely with Senator Hutchinson to assure small businesses are treated fairly by the NLRB. I have numbers as well that show there is difficulty with that. I held a hearing in July that clearly illustrated how small business owners that win against the NLRB on an action against the employer get left with thousands of dollars of legal bills. Aggressive actions continue to be brought against the small business owners with no relief in sight. That has to be solved. Regarding this movement for community health centers, regardless of how much it takes to take care of the present situation, Wyoming doesn't have a community health center. We have a need for it equally. I hope that is included in the suggestions for where this money will be going. I understand the need to raise enough funds to be able to support the current efforts. I ask people to take a look at the record of the hearings we held on this subject of the National Labor Relations Board and the unfairness with which they have treated some of the employers, the huge bills employers have been left with, in spite of some of them representing themselves before the committee. Such practices are wrong and need to be stopped. We shouldn't have additional funds for a function that is actually decreasing the load. We also find there is a decrease in cases going before those people. Earlier this year at a field hearing about the National Labor Relation Board's treatment of small businesses by the safety subcommittee, a small business employer named Randall Truckenbrodt testifies that in one year alone, over 36 unfair labor practice charges were filed against his company. After a prolonged legal battle, Randall won all 36 charges. The cost of defending himself, however, totaled a whopping $80,000, a sum which he testified, ``could have been triple had I not represented myself.'' As a former small business owner, I shudder to think that such a practice could ever occur--much less to a small business--and I am dumbstruck by reports that what happened to Randall happens all the time. Such practices are more than wrong, they should be stopped. I support this amendment, which would allow NLRB to focus on their existing responsibilities and not allow additional funds for random, meritless claims brought against small businesses by the NLRB--an intimidating bureaucracy that can sometimes strong-arm the little guy who doesn't have the resources to defend himself. I have great concerns over the actions of the NLRB against small businesses, and before we give it 25 million additional dollars, I think we need to get to the bottom of NLRB's treatment of these smallest of businesses. I support Senator Hutchinson's amendment which would transfer the $25.7 million increase for the National Labor Relations Board to Consolidated Health Centers under the Public Health Service Act. Community health centers play a vital role in providing primary care services to underserved areas. The Labor HHS bill provides a $99 million increase for CHCs--Consolidated Community Health Centers Program--for poor, rural areas. HRSA, however, testified and requested $264 million just to maintain levels of coverage and care. Health centers serve over 10 million people nationwide, over 4 million of which are uninsured. By spending $25 million more for health centers, health centers estimate that they will be able to serve over 83,000 more people. Bottom line, this amendment will bring better health care to millions of Americans, rather than harming more small businesses by allowing the NLRB to run wild in filing meritless claims against them, and therefore I rise to strongly support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick Thompson from the HELP Committee staff and Mark Battaglini, who is a fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on S. 1650, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the numbers used a minute ago in talking about the number of cases filed and the number of cases disposed of in this seemingly inverted pyramid of backlog of cases. It did not happen that way. In 1997, there were 37,000 cases pending. In 1998, there were 34,000 cases pending. That is a decrease in the number of cases pending. That is not the same as the number of cases filed. There were 39,000 cases filed in 1997; there were 36,000 cases filed in 1998. Both of those numbers show a decrease in cases--a decrease in the number that were pending and a decrease in the number that were filed. The Senator from Iowa mentioned there was a decrease in the backlog, that they were working that down. Let me tell you how part of that backlog happens. In my previous life, before I came to the Senate, I was an accountant. One of the people I did accounting for received one of these notices of audit from the National Labor Relations Board. They came in--it was about 10 days work for me--and they looked over all of the accounts and decided at the conclusion of that time verbally, not in writing, that there was no violation. We said: Great; we will wait for your letter. It is my understanding they are still waiting for that letter. As far as they know, that is still a case pending. All of the work was done, a decision was rendered verbally, and that ought to dispose of it. I know for that year it was still a case pending. For an employer, sometimes this gray cloud hangs over, even after they have been assured there is no problem. That shows up in these statistics of the backlog. The other number presented, the number they worked, actually increased; the number pending evidently was not pending in the next year. So they were working a full 37,000 cases in 1997, plus a few more to work that backlog down. This agency has been working the cases. They have been eliminating extra cases, some of which I do not think should have been part of the backlog anyway. Now we are talking about significantly increasing the amount of dollars. There would be an appropriate time to do that. One of the things we talked about in a hearing in the subcommittee was the legal fees these businesses have to put up when cases are brought, and the cases, in some instances, are frivolous. At any rate, the decision ought to be on whether the small business wins or not, and if they win, they ought to get back the costs they have expended on this. Part of the testimony in that hearing was from some other employers who would never take a case to the NLRB because they know it is going to be more expensive to fight it than to pay it. That is not the way the American Government is supposed to work. Businesses are not supposed to live in fear of expensive litigation by their Federal Government with their tax money. Perhaps an increase ought to accompany making a change where there is some reimbursement for these small business employers who win--only when they win. But there could be a degree of fairness built in this at the same time there is an increase. Until that happens, the community health centers are the place to put the money. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to have a technical correction from what the legislative service drafters had, to change ``line 18'' to ``line 14.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today as Americans head off to work, 17 of them will die and 18,600 of them will be injured on the job. All of us on the Labor Committee have worked very hard to make sure those numbers come down--not go up. We do not want an increase; we want a dramatic decrease in deaths. We want a dramatic decrease in the number who are injured. I repeat: 17 working Americans will not be returning home tonight because they will die on the job. As chairman of the Worker Safety Subcommittee, I feel responsible to those families for making sure we are doing all we can to prevent those horrible accidents from occurring in the first place. I feel responsible for finding solutions that will help protect more workers from harm. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is the Government agency responsible for regulating safety laws in America. The way OSHA is supposed to work is that it should be providing helpful assistance to the overwhelming number of employers who are actively pursuing safer workplaces. And I can tell you that according to OSHA: . . . 95 percent of the employers do their level best to try to voluntarily comply with OSHA. ``Voluntarily comply with OSHA''--that was stated by Frank Strasheim, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of OSHA. Simultaneously, OSHA should be effectively targeting those employers who are willfully disregarding safety laws. They should be inspecting them. They should be fining them. And they should follow up to ensure the bad practices are stopped before accidents occur. But everyone knows that is not what is actually happening. What is happening is that OSHA lumps all employers together--both the good and the bad--treats them the same, and tries to inspect and fine them all, no matter how small or ridiculous the violation. Meanwhile, serious and potentially deadly practices go uninspected and unstopped. The result is disastrous and, unfortunately, often fatal. I am not trying to decrease any funding for OSHA. What this amendment does is shift the emphasis so that there is some money being spent on consultation. We have had a lot of hearings. We have had a lot of discussion. We have said that prevention is where we want to be, prevention of an accident, not persecution after a death. That is not how this is supposed to work. As reported in the Associated Press, three-quarters of the worksites in the United States that had serious accidents in 1994 and 1995 had never been inspected by OSHA during this decade. The report also showed that even OSHA officials acknowledge that their inspectors do not get to a lion's share of lethal sites until after accidents occur because it takes OSHA, according to the AFL-CIO, over 167 years to reach every worksite in this country. We want them to be able to serve everyone, but 167 years? That means the budget would have to be increased 167 times to do that. The fact is that OSHA neither helps those good-faith employers who want to achieve compliance with the safety laws, nor effectively deters bad employers from breaking the law. How long does it take to get an inspection? That varies quite a bit by State. Those that are State plan States get a little bit more frequent visits than those that are not State plan States. So the Federal ones, some of them, it will be more than 200 years that they have the odds of not getting an inspection. This point is so important, I will say again, because it takes OSHA over 167 years to reach every worksite in this country. The fact is that OSHA neither helps those good-faith employers who want to achieve compliance with safety laws, nor effectively deters bad employers from breaking the law. OSHA's response has been to ask Congress for more and more enforcement dollars. I say that response is no response. I say that response only begs the question. Using OSHA's framework, the scenario would be as follows: Since it takes 167 years for OSHA to investigate every worksite in the country, we would need to increase OSHA's enforcement budget 167 times in order for OSHA to inspect every worksite every year. It doesn't take as long when they are doing consultation, and it reduces accidents. Increasing it 167 times would be a reckless, unrealistic suggestion that doesn't even get to the heart of the problem. That is not even the worst part. The worst part is what OSHA's response for more enforcement dollars says to those 95 percent of employers who are doing their level best to comply. It says: Hey, Mr. Good-Faith Employer, we know you are trying to comply, but you are out of luck because even if you are trying to be safe, if you don't know what you are doing, or if you make a wrong interpretation of the statute, we are going to fine you. We are going to fine you big. Here are the facts: Employers have to read through, try to understand and interpret, and implement over 1,200 pages of highly technical safety regulations--1,200 pages. That is what I have right here. Do you know how big numbers like that are in Washington? I want to make this clear as possible so I brought a little show and tell. Before I do that, I yield to the Senator from Georgia. Amendment No. 1885 To Amendment No. 1846 (Purpose: To clarify provisions relating to expenditures by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by authorizing 50 percent of the amount appropriated that is in excess of the amount appropriated for such purpose for fiscal year 1999 to be used for compliance assistance and 50 percent of such amount for enforcement and other purposes)

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on this amendment on which we are about to vote, we have given an increase to OSHA for the work they do. What I am asking is that we continue to recognize there are parts of those that go in hand in hand. One of the parts is enforcement. The other is consultation. There are 1,275 pages of OSHA that every business has to follow. They need the consultation to be able to wade through that. They need somebody they can ask to be able to get answers. I have taken the increase in OSHA and given some recognition that consultation ought to be a part of that. Consultation will help. I don't know that they will spend it that way. We don't have any really good oversight to see that. But it is the trend we have to follow. Sixty-six percent of their money goes to enforcement and 30 percent goes to consultation. I am asking you to split this money in recognition between the two so that kind of an emphasis will continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind remarks of my colleagues. I appreciate the comments they have made. We all have a tremendous interest in seeing there are safer workplaces, and there is a long way to go on that yet. But what we are having a little trouble agreeing on is the mechanism for getting there. There are some philosophical differences on how to go about safety. I do not think they are across that big of a chasm, but if we had the opportunity to spend some time to sit down and talk about them, we could come up with some things that will help the safety of the workplace in this country. We can throw out all the misconceptions and previous solutions and work from there. That is not what is happening. What is happening is this appropriations bill. We mentioned a record of safety and how it has been increasing. I have been very curious about that record of safety because a lot of people said when OSHA went into effect, there was a huge jump in safety in this country and it has been continuing; since OSHA went into effect, there has been a decrease in the number of deaths and accidents in this country. I went back another 20 years beyond that and looked at the number of accidents in this country. Business had been bringing that down before OSHA went into effect. They were doing that because they knew if they were going to have a good business, they had to take care of the employee. There has been an ever-increasing awareness of that, and there has been an ever-increasing improvement in that. My colleagues from across the aisle say consultation and enforcement have to go hand in hand. Yes, they do have to go hand in hand, and I am not suggesting any other thing. I am saying that half the money we are putting in increases ought to go for the other hand of the hand in hand. We ought to do 50 percent for each. We are already doing a whole lot more enforcement than we are consultation. I am not trying to even that up. I am trying to take part of what we are doing this year and putting it in there. They say: Whoa, rather than do that, take another $33 million and stick it in there and that will show a real commitment to safety. Let me tell you what that would show. It would show my stupidity on management. We are doing a drastic increase on that budget. We are expecting them to take a huge increase of funds, find the people, train the people and put them out there doing enforcement. I have faith in the people who are in that Department, and I believe they can do that, but they have a better chance not only of being able to train the people but also to get effective use out of them by putting half the money into consultation so half the people being trained are going to go out there and answer questions. They are going to be the good guys. They are going to be the ones who say: I know you do not understand these 1,200 pages, but just let me go through your business, show you what is wrong and, by golly, you fix it. If you fix it, you have no problem. If you don't fix it, my buddy over here is going to be on your tail; this other 50 percent of the money is going to be on you. There is a limit to how much increase you can do in a given year. There is room for training improvement. We have looked at what kind of training there is. I have also looked at the number of inspections that are being done by the people who are there. I am not sure there is enough management over the inspections that are being done. My colleague from Minnesota mentioned that out of those very bad employers, they were only able to inspect 3,000. That is terrible. That is rotten. That is not the way it is supposed to happen. We have 2,500 Federal inspectors. They are not doing the State-plan States. They are only doing the Federal inspections. If they did one more inspection a year, they would double the number of inspections on those bad businesses. But we are not going to have that if we just throw a whole bunch more people into the mix. They are not going to be capable of going out and looking at the bad employers and finding those bad problems. It takes more than a few months to train the people, and you cannot do it if you have thousands coming into the workforce at one time. There have to be some limits. This is a reasonable approach to being sure there is an increase in enforcement, and it is accompanied by an increase in consultation. If you look at the numbers of people who are waiting out there in non-State plan States--the State-plan States are doing pretty good with this, the ones that have said they will do the work themselves. They are doing pretty good. The non-State-plan States are having a terrible time getting to the backlog on consultations. So we need some consultation money. I have a bill that may be the wrong approach to doing safety. I put a lot of hours into it. I sat down with everybody individually, and I talked to them about it. It is the SAFE Act, and it calls for hiring some private consultation. I have run into opposition on that. What I have heard in the way of opposition is: You cannot let the businesses hire people to do inspections. Even though those inspections would result in things being found, things stopped, things improved, you cannot do it that way. It has to be done federally or that there be some kind of a mechanism for the Federal Government to have the inspectors involved. So I have listened. I have said OK. Under this program, the Federal Government hires the inspectors, the Federal Government hires the consultation people; it is the Federal Government that is coming in to do these consultations--totally independent, totally under the direction of OSHA. I have been trying to listen to what is being said on all of this. This is one of the solutions that can be provided. I hope you will support increasing the funds to OSHA. I know that is a tough stand for a lot of people over here, but I want you to do that. I want you to increase the amount of money that is going to the enforcement of OSHA, but at the same time what I want you to do is take half of that money and assure that it is going to consultation. As I said before, there is no way we can assure that it is going to consultation. Once it gets in that department budget, even though it is under a line item, there is not much of a way, even with oversight, to see if those people who are supposed to be under consultation are doing any enforcement, and vice versa. So it is a statement that we are making that, yes, consultation ought to go hand in hand with enforcement. It is a statement. How they use that budget, we will never know. Maybe we will know through increased enforcement. Maybe we will know with a decrease in the amount of waiting time people have to have for these inspections. But we have a chance to do the right thing and to do it in a responsible manner that can be handled, giving the increases and making sure that to the small businessman out there who wants to understand those 1,275 pages as they apply to his business--and it isn't optional for him to do that; it is mandatory he do that--we are saying we are going to reach out and give you a little bit of a hand. We are going to come into your business. We are going to show you what is wrong, and you have to clean it up because we are hiring more enforcement people who are going to be here to check on you if you do not. That is all we are asking. I think it is a reasonable amendment. I was hoping that it would be accepted. I am still hoping it will be accepted. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. If I could briefly comment, this is a change in the OSHA budget. But what it does is allocate a portion of the ----

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was mentioning these regulations, these 1,200 pages of regulations. That is what we expect the businessman to know, understand, and implement. Just imagine, Dodd's Bootery in Laramie or Corral West Ranchware in Cheyenne or Bubba's Barbeque in Jackson. They are supposed to have understood all five of these huge volumes. There are more pages in these OSHA regulations than ``Gone with the Wind'' or ``The Canterbury Tales'' or even the Old Testament and the New Testament combined. Adding insult to injury, in many cases OSHA's regulations are so complicated and so complex that even if you read through it all, deciding one correct interpretation of a rule is nearly impossible. Take OSHA's draft safety and health rule, for example. This is the draft one. This is one I have a lot of concern about. What this draft rule would require is for almost all employers, regardless of their size or type, to put in place a written safety plan. Now, I am in favor of safety plans. I know that safety plans make a difference in safety in the workplace. I have watched that. But this is a draft rule. It sounds right. This is not only mandatory, but the elements of the rule are completely subjective to human nature. For example, the rule requires the program, and I quote, to be ``appropriate'' to conditions in the workplace and an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. He is supposed to evaluate the effectiveness as often as necessary, and where appropriate, to initiate corrective action. So I throw out this question to the Senate: How often is as often as necessary? Is it once a month? Once a week? Every day? I can envision 1,000 different responses from 1,000 different angles. So how on Earth do we expect small businesses to cope, not only with reading these five volumes but also to understand what is meant by them, how OSHA would interpret them, and then to draw up a safety plan? That, however, is exactly what the draft rule expects every small business in this country to do. The safety subcommittee, which I chair, has had two hearings examining the effects of OSHA. The first was a hearing to highlight how so many good-faith employers want safe workplaces but are drowning in these 1,200 pages of highly technical safety regulations. Every single one of the employers who came to the hearing agreed that they were left to their own to comply with every one of the thousands of rules without helpful assistance from OSHA. The second hearing we held was about the flip side of that coin, how OSHA is not deterring the bad employers from willfully violating safety laws either. The subcommittee heard from family members who lost loved ones in workplace accidents and how OSHA neither helped prevent those accidents from occurring nor adequately responded after the accidents took place. To those people who have told me that the new OSHA is on the right track and that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' I ask them to read through our hearing transcript and see if it will change their minds. Since I don't have much time, I would like to tell my colleagues about one of the witnesses who testified before our subcommittee whose name is Ron Hayes. In 1993, Ron and his family didn't know much about OSHA and were not all that active in the worker safety scene. But in 1993, Ron's 19-year- old son, Patrick, was killed at his job in a grain elevator in Florida after being pulled under the grain and suffocated. Losing his son changed Ron's entire life. Since that time, Ron has worked day in and day out to get answers about how to make employees safer and healthier. Ron and his wife, Dot, struggled to understand why more hadn't been done on behalf of their son and what could be done in the future to change the tide of workers' injuries and deaths. Ron and Dot founded Families In Grief Holding Together, called FIGHT. It is a project to help other families enact changes in the arena of workplace safety and to work through grief. Ron Hayes is one of the most courageous and honest people I have ever met in my life, not to mention the fact that he has become one of the most proficient OSHA experts in the country. His story continues to inspire me and push me forward. Reading an excerpt from Ron's testimony: Each year over 10,000 people are killed on the job. In 1993, one of those who died was our beloved son, Patrick Hayes. I did not come here today to rebuke or chastise anyone. I am simply here to plead--no, to beg you great statesmen to work together to come up with positive solutions for a better agency. No one wants to get rid of OSHA, we just want the agency to do its job, protect workers, help train and support business. I ask you great statesmen to lay down your party affiliations and work toward a common goal. I often wonder why the good businesses in our country continue to stay safe. Sometimes they are at a disadvantage by their own good deeds. These good businesses build into their product or bids safety measures and are sometimes undercut or underbid by other uncaring business owners, so under our present OSHA system, where is their benefit? The bad companies know OSHA is ineffective and because of the length of time it will take OSHA to inspect every work site or get around to inspecting them, the odds are on their side and even if caught, they know OSHA will not do much. OSHA's reactive enforcement methodology has not and is not working. Letting OSHA continue in this manner and giving them more and more money each year for enforcement and getting less and less each year is just crazy. Someone has to take a stand and make some hard decisions for our very future. Ron's strong, unwavering stand is that OSHA consultation, rather than reactive ``find and fine'' enforcement, is the answer that will save workers like Patrick from being killed on the job. I agree with Ron. That is why I am here today with this amendment. The amendment isn't to decrease the enforcement of OSHA. The amendment is to make sure there is an increase in consultation, an increase in the people who go to the places to look for the problem, interpret the problem, suggest the solution, and also make it a bigger penalty if they come back later and it hasn't been solved. My amendment is simple. It puts half of the $33 million increase into OSHA's budget, into a consultation group program that helps employers know how to comply. The other half is still an increase directed towards OSHA enforcement. What is OSHA consultation? OSHA consultation is the effective alternative to OSHA enforcement. It is what is currently working well and is highly praised by employees and employers. It is praised by the agency, and it has been praised by this Congress. It allows employers to call OSHA and ask them to come in and help them read through the five volumes of OSHA regulations to see what applies to them and how to turn the regulations into tangible safety solutions. It allows employers to ask questions, to get help from the inside, and partner with the agency, all without threat of fines or citations. It makes it a little safer for them to ask OSHA questions. That can be as intimidating as it would be for a person to ask the IRS questions. But the consultation function gives them that opportunity. They are expected to fix what is found. Consultation works. The fact is that you cannot force an employer to comply with regulations he doesn't understand or does not know how to implement. It doesn't do any good to threaten employers to comply when they do not know how. If an employer isn't getting the help he needs, an inspection won't make the difference. The key is helping employers to understand what the regulations mean and how they work. Consultation is the answer because it puts the emphasis on partnership, cooperation, and information sharing. And if, as OSHA estimates, 95 percent of American employers are trying to do the right thing, spending money on consultation is money well spent because the vast majority of employers will take OSHA's suggestions to heart and become safer without the threat of fines and coercion. That allows OSHA to concentrate on the bad employers, to put some special emphasis there, to go after the people who don't make the correction, the people who aren't interested in safety and are relying on getting away on that 167-year inspection schedule. You don't have to take my word for it. Look at what Vice President Gore has said about the virtues of consultation: No army of federal auditors descends upon American businesses to audit their books; the Government forces them to have the job done themselves. In the same way, no army of OSHA inspectors need descend upon corporate America. In his Report on Reinventing Government, the Vice President concluded that employers should be encouraged by OSHA to use private safety professionals as a way to vastly improve the health and safety of American workers ``without bankrupting the federal treasury.'' Such an approach would ``ensure that all workplaces are regularly inspected, without hiring thousands of new employees.'' By establishing incentives designed to encourage workplaces to comply, ``[w]orksites with good health, safety, and compliance records would be allowed to report less frequently to the Labor Department, to undergo fewer audits, and to submit to less paperwork.'' He concluded by saying that ``No army of federal auditors descends upon American businesses to audit their books; the government forces them to have the job done themselves. In the same way, no army of OSHA inspectors need descend upon corporate America.'' I agree with the Vice President's praise for consultation. This amendment simply puts the money where our mouths are. A few final remarks to remind everyone what a balanced approach this amendment really is. Does this amendment tie OSHA's hands on the enforcement front? No. It gives OSHA a 50 percent increase over its 1999 budget to use for enforcement. That is a lot of additional people to hire and train. Does this amendment strip OSHA's ability to go after that thin layer of bad work sites? No. They have more money to go after those work sites than they did last year. What it does do is help those 95 percent of employers who OSHA estimates are doing their best to comply with OSHA and to find safety solutions that work. It helps them out, too. This amendment is more of a statement than it is an actual change within the department. Oversight capability of seeing where the money really winds up is pretty limited, but our ability to assign it there in the first place is not. I am pleased that there is an increase in the budget for OSHA. I am disappointed they didn't designate part of that for consultation as well. Beefing up OSHA's proactive consultation approach empowers both OSHA and the employer to achieve safer worksites. I have seen these consultation programs work. I have seen people clamoring to have the consultation, and I have seen them get in long waiting lines for it. These are the people who want to comply, who understand that there are 1,200 pages, and who want to do the right thing. But there isn't enough consultation money out there to help them get the consultation in a timely fashion. All we are doing is saying, please earmark some of that money for consultation; don't put all of it into enforcement and persecution. By voting in favor of this amendment, OSHA's own consultation programs will be extended to even more employers who are seeking safety and health solutions. The result will mean vastly improved safety for America's worksites. This is something I have been talking about to all of the Members on the committee since I came to Washington. This is an approach that needs to be stated in our appropriations as well. Again, it is not an elimination of safety and not an elimination of inspection but a 50- percent increase in the money going to enforcement. That is what we need to have. But we also need to be sure the consultation programs are improving and increasing and are more accessible in a timely manner. If people have to wait a year for a consultation, accidents can happen. They are interested in doing it. They are ready to budget the money to fix it because if they don't, it doesn't do them any good. This is an amendment that just places some priority. It doesn't say all we are going to do is enforce and that all we are going to do is find and beat you up and fine you. It says if you will ask the questions, if you are serious about safety, if you want to help, we are going to help. I hope you will support me on this allocation of money to consultation as well as an increase in enforcement. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield my hour under rule XXII to Senator Gorton.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, and the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, on oil royalties. It is essential that we adopt this amendment to prohibit yet another attempt by this administration to ``tax'' the American people without their effective representation--without a bill being introduced in Congress, without its passage by both Houses of Congress, and without the President's signature. There has been a lot of talk about whether or not the current procedures for valuing crude oil for Federal royalty purposes are working properly. I have been fascinated by this debate. The issue we are discussing is really more basic than whether the current procedures need to be modified. The question is at heart a constitutional one--if we are to change the way the Federal Government has forced oil companies to calculate Federal royalties for the last 79 years, should this change come from Congress, or should it come in the form of a tax scheme dreamed up by a Federal bureaucracy? Not only do these rules amount to a usurpation of the legislative function by the administration, but in substance they would allow tremendous complexity for people in the oil industry. These rules would require producers to report and pay royalties under three different sets of rules. Now I've been a small businessman, and I've been on the receiving end of Federal and State regulations for a good part of my life. I can tell you, we better have a very good explanation if we are going to expect small oil companies in Wyoming to dill out a bunch more paper work just to comply with their lawful obligation to pay Federal royalties on the oil they drill on Federal lands. If we are going to change the point at which we determine the value of the crude oil--from the wellhead to some point downstream or by reference to a national exchange, we owe it to the small producers in Wyoming, and throughout the country, to give their suggestions to Congress on any alternative plan. We need to hear how much more time and effort this is going to be for folks who are still hurting from last year's devastatingly low crude oil prices. I think we owe that opportunity to our Nation's oil producers, so I am proud to join the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Mexico, and others in standing up for the right of Congress to pass laws that affect the tax burden on our domestic oil industry. I ask unanimous consent a letter from Wyoming Governor Geringer to Senator Hutchison be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the first Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety, OEHS Week, August 30 through September 3, 1999, is a reminder that while workers are safer than they used to be, injury, illness--even death--in the workplace is still an unfortunate reality. The American Industrial Hygiene Association, a not-for-profit society of professionals in the field of occupational and environmental health and safety, sponsors OEHS Week and plans for it to become an annual event. The goal is to bring a greater awareness of workplace and community health issues to the public. The theme, ``Protecting Your Future . . . Today,'' highlights the far-reaching nature of occupational and environmental safety's impact on the public. ``We chose Labor Day weekend as the perfect time to remind workers, management and the community at large that workplace safety affects everyone. Even one fatality on the job is one fatality too much,'' says AIHA President James R. Thornton. ``But beyond that, we are concerned with overall safety. We want all employees to consider their workplace environment, even in offices that otherwise may seem extremely safe. For instance, is your workstation ergonomically sound? Is your chair comfortable? Do you take occasional breaks to stretch? Is your computer monitor at the proper angle? All of these things can add up to the difference between working safely and a work-related injury or illness. ``We've made great strides in the last few years,'' he said, ``but there's still room for improvement.'' As Thornton noted, if you've been working in the United States for the last decade, chances are that you're feeling safer on the job today than you did 10 years ago. That's because overall rates of worker illnesses and injuries have fallen dramatically since 1993, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact, in 1997 (the most recent year tallied by the BLS), the case rate dropped to 7.1 percent of all workers, despite a total of 3 percent more hours worked by the nation's employees. This translates to nearly 50,000 fewer reported injuries or illnesses compared to the previous year, despite the larger number of staff-hours--the continuation of a trend that began in 1993. Still, even with fewer reported illnesses, injuries and fatalities on the job, workers suffered 2.9 million injuries that resulted in lost workdays, restricted duties or both. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, although workplace injury is a primary focus for IH professionals, they like to point out that safety issues don't disappear in the company parking lot. This awareness gives OEHS Week its second important emphasis--safety in the community and home. Thornton noted that in addition to its focus on workplace safety, OEHS Week is designed to heighten awareness about several vital community health concerns, including carbon monoxide poisoning, indoor air quality and noise exposure. ``Just as in the workplace, paying attention to seemingly small things can reduce injuries in the home. There are lots of things the average person can do,'' said Thornton. ``Reducing noise pollution and hearing loss by lowering the volume on stereos or wearing earplugs when mowing the lawn, for instance. ``We also recommend installing a couple of inexpensive carbon monoxide detectors in your home. They could save your life--and your family's lives as well.''

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment introduced by the Senior Senator from Nevada that would drastically cut funding for our schools and rural communities. Over the past ten years the federal timber sale program has already declined by more than 70 percent to an all-time, post World War II low. This rapid decline has brought with it severe economic instability to resource dependent communities in rural America. The most visible victims have been rural schools who were dependent on their share of the 25% payments they received from the proceeds of timber sales to fund such programs as, school lunches, nurses, computers for the classrooms, and just about any extra-curricular activity that you now see vanishing from America's education system. Some school districts have been forced to cut back to 4-day weeks, others have been forced to lay off teachers, and others have dropped courses, all in attempts to survive within diminishing budgets. This instability has also impacted the rest of the community. Increased unemployment has resulted in an increase in domestic violence, family dislocation, substance abuse, and increased welfare rolls in rural counties in all regions of the country. More and more families and communities have been driven to live near or below the poverty level. Many local communities, however, have begun working with their local Forest Service offices to restore economic equilibrium. They have joined with local environmentalists, local governments and industries to form coalitions that they hope can help save their schools while maintaining or improving the forest ecosystems in which they live. And yet, as quickly as they rebuild, new attacks come to reduce or eliminate funding for the federal timber sale program. These attacks are based on the concept that federal timber sales are below-cost and economic boondoggles for the federal treasury. As a former accountant, I would like us to take a moment to look at this program and to evaluate exactly what is going on with our Federal Timber Sale program. The first question we have to ask is: Does the federal timber sale program constitute a subsidy for the forest products industry, or in other words, is the price paid for federal timber below its actual market value? If federal timber contractors were to receive a special benefit and pay less money for the timber they harvest on federal lands, then we could say that there is a subsidy. However, Federal timber is sold by means of a competitive bid system. As a result, these auction sales are the most likely of any type of commercial transaction to generate the returns that meet or exceed market value. Because timber sales are designed to generate market value prices, we therefore must conclude that there is no subsidy. Furthermore, the forest products industry has been able to demonstrate time and time again that the benefits gained by the public through the Federal timber sale program far outweigh the costs to the Federal treasury. Only twice in the history of the Federal Timber sale program has the Forest Service reported that the costs of operating the program has exceeded revenues, in the years 1996 and 1997. This sudden loss of revenues, however, has not occurred because timber sales are not profitable. A quick breakdown of the timber sale program shows that commercial sales still generate a profit for the federal government. The Forest Products industry is still paying its share. What has changed is the focus within the Forest Service to implement an increased number of what is called stewardship sales, or timber sales designed to improve forest health without necessarily harvesting merchantable timber. These sales are not, and never have been intended to make a profit. Because of this increased emphasis on stewardship, there is now virtually no such thing as a purely commercial timber sale on our National Forests. Almost every timber sale released by the United States Forest Service now includes some form of stewardship element that is intended solely for the purpose of improving the health and fire resilience of our National Forests. In a sense we now have timber companies paying for the privilege of improving forest health. As a result, our national timber sale program continues to be the single most effective tool of the United States Forest Service for restoring health to our national forests. And our national forests desperately need help. According the Forest Service's own records, more than 40 million acres of our national forest system currently exist under an extreme threat of destruction by catastrophic wildfire. An additional 26 million acres suffer from threat of destruction as a result of disease and insect infestation. Without the National Timber Sale program to thin out these forests and drastically reduce the amount of combustible fuels accumulating in our national forests I can guarantee you that when these forests burn, not if they burn, but when they burn, habitat will be destroyed, animals will be killed, water tables will be decimated, jobs will be lost, and more communities have to suffer the pains of rebuilding after another economic loss. Mr. President, it does not make sense to take money from our nation's most effective forest restoration program just to give it to another forest restoration program. The Timber Sale Program is currently funded at a level very close to last year--an appropriate figure as we work to restore equilibrium in rural economies. This bill, however, does not ignore the other restoration programs. Wherever possible we have increased funding for watershed restoration, road maintenance, and fish and wildlife management and I hope that we can continue to increase funding for these important programs, but where we have limited resources, we need to spend our tax dollars in the most effective manner, which means continuing to support the timber sale program. In closing Mr. President, I would like to say that the goals of environmental protection and economic stability are not mutually exclusive. We can save our environment without sacrificing rural America.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for addressing the potential benefits that could come from a new coal enhancement procedure being developed in my home state of Wyoming that would provide a unique economic development opportunity for the Crow nation and its surrounding rural communications in Montana and Wyoming. This project, known as the advanced development project Powder River coal initiative, is designed to develop a training program for the Crow nation that will create future employment opportunities for members of the tribe by utilizing a new technology that permanently removes the moisture from the Powder River Basin's low grade sub-bituminous coal. It is important that we must continue to develop programs like this advanced development project to further the twin goals of environmental protection and economic stability.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, with more than 5,000 Federal grazing permits scheduled to expire in FY 1999, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, is hard pressed to meet its September 30 deadline before hundreds of American ranchers are forced to shut down business and move off the land. This could result in local economies suffering dramatically for the BLM's inability to keep up with bureaucratic regulations. The Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has included language in this bill that would allow the BLM to complete its permit renewal process without forcing ranchers out of business. It is important to note, that, in spite of misconceptions put forward by the other side: 1. The BLM must still comply with all Federal environmental laws and the BLM must still complete all of its environmental reviews. The cost of delays, however, will be borne by the agency and not by individual ranchers who have no control over the completion of the environmental reviews. 2. The current language does not dictate any new terms or conditions. After the BLM completes its final reviews the BLM still has the authority to update the terms and conditions of all permits. 3. The BLM still holds the authority to terminate grazing permits for unauthorized use or noncompliance. The goals of environmental protection and economic stability are not mutually exclusive. Please help keep western livestock producers on the land while protecting the financial future of family ranches and Western economies. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the existing language in Section 117 of the bill, and oppose this and any amendment that may adversely impact the delicate balance of sound livestock production, and the sustainability of western landscapes for wildlife habitat and other recreational opportunities.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. This amendment has one very simple purpose: To ensure that the rights of Congress and all fifty states are not trampled on by an unelected cabinet official. This amendment is very straightforward: it prohibits Secretary Babbitt from expending any funds from this act to implement the final regulations he published on April 12 of this year. The regulations at issue would allow Secretary Babbitt to circumvent the rights of individual states by approving casino-style gambling on Indian Tribal lands. This amendment would prohibit this power grab. Mr. President, this is the fifth time in two years that I have been involved in amendments of this nature. I myself have offered four previous amendments to stop this power grab by the Secretary of the Interior, and four times this Senate has approved these amendments by voice votes. I think this body has spoken with a clear voice that it does not believe an unelected cabinet official should bypass Congress and all fifty states in a decision as great as whether or not casino gambling should allowed within the state borders. Mr. President, recently I was invited to testify before the Indian Affairs committee on a bill Senator Campbell has introduced to amend the statute that governs gambling on Indian Tribal lands, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. While I do not agree with all the changes Senator Campbell has proposed to IGRA, I applaud the Chairman for taking the initiative to attempt to make changes the proper way--by proposing a bill, holding hearings, receiving public input from all the stakeholders, and moving the legislation through both houses of Congress. I have a few ideas on how I believe the bill could be improved, and I welcome the invitation of Senator Campbell to offer some suggestions to his bill. In contrast to this legislative process--the proper way to make changes to substantive law--Secretary Babbitt wants to make changes by administrative fiat. His regulations are a slap in the face to the governments of all fifty states, to Congress, and to all the Indian Tribes that have negotiated Tribal-State compacts with the States in which they are located. The Secretary's rules effectively punish those tribes which have played by the rules. The Secretary's action will open the floodgates to an approval process based more on political influence than on proper negotiations between the states and the tribes. Who will be the winners under Secretary Babbitt's new regime? Will it be the Tribes that donate enough money to the right political party? In contrast to the Secretary's rules, the Graham-Enzi amendment would ensure that an unelected Secretary of the Interior won't single- handedly change current law. This amendment will ensure that any change to IGRA is done the right way--legislatively. I have already had occasion on this floor to remark on the painful irony of the timing of Secretary Babbitt's power grab. In March of last year, Attorney General Janet Reno requested an independent counsel to investigate Secretary Babbitt's involvement in denying a tribal-state gambling license to an Indian Tribe in Wisconsin. Although we will have to wait for Independent Counsel Carol Elder Bruce to complete her investigation before any final conclusions can be drawn, it is evident that serious questions have been raised about Secretary Babbitt's judgment and objectivity in approving Indian gambling compacts. We should not turn over sole discretion of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands to an individual who has shown such carelessness in administering his trust responsibilities to all the Indian Tribes within his jurisdiction. The very fact that Attorney General Reno believed there was specific and credible evidence to warrant an investigation should be sufficient to make this Congress hesitant to allow Secretary Babbitt to grant himself new trust powers that are designed to bypass the states in the area of Tribal-State gambling compacts. Moreover, this investigation should have taught us an important lesson: we in Congress should not allow Secretary Babbitt, or any other Secretary of the Interior, to usurp the rightful role of Congress and the states in addressing the difficult question of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. Mr. President, the Secretary has not given any indication in the 16 months since the independent counsel was appointed that he should be trusted with new, self-appointed trust responsibilities over Indian Tribes. On February 22nd of this year, United States District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a contempt citation against Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover, for disobeying the Court's orders in a trial in which the Interior Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were sued for mismanagement of American Indian trust funds. In his contempt citation, Judge Lamberth stated, and I quote, The court is deeply disappointed that any litigant would fail to obey orders for production of documents, and then conceal and cover up that disobedience with outright false statements that the court then relied upon. But when that litigant is the federal government, the misconduct is even more troubling. I have never seen more egregious misconduct by the federal government. This conduct has raised such concern that both the Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the Chairman of Senate the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have held hearings and proposed legislation to call Secretary Babbitt to task for his mismanagement of these funds and his disregard for the rulings of a federal court. The Secretary's continued violation of his trust obligations to Indian Tribes should serve as a wake-up call to all of us in the Senate. This is not the time to allow the Secretary to delegate to himself new, unauthorized, powers. I want to point out that this amendment does not affect any existing Tribal-State compacts. The amendment does not, in any way, prevent states and Tribes from entering into compacts where both parties are willing to agree on class III gambling on Tribal lands within a State's borders. This amendment does ensure that all stakeholders must be involved in the process--Congress, the Tribes, the States, and the Administration. Mr. President, a few short years ago, the big casinos thought Wyoming would be a good place to gamble. The casinos gambled on it. They spent a lot of money. The even got an initiative on the ballot. They spent a lot more money trying to get the initiative passed. I became the spokesman for the opposition. When we first got our meager organization together, the polls showed over 60 percent of the people were in favor of gambling. When the election was held casino gambling lost by over 62 percent--and it lost in every single county of our state. The 40 point swing in public opinion happened as people came to understand the issue and implications of casino gambling in Wyoming. That's a pretty solid message. We don't want casino gambling in Wyoming. The people who vote in my state have debated it and made their choice. Any federal bureaucracy that tries to force casino gambling on us will only inject animosity. Why did we have that decisive of a vote? We used a couple of our neighboring states to review the effects of their limited casino gambling. We found that a few people make an awful lot of money at the expense of everyone else. When casino gambling comes into a state, communities are changed forever. And everyone agrees there are costs to the state. There are material costs, with a need for new law enforcement and public services. Worse yet, there are social costs. And, not only is gambling addictive to some folks, but once it is instituted, the revenues can be addictive too. But I'm not here to debate the pros and cons of gambling. I am just trying to maintain the status quo so we can develop a legislative solution, rather than have a bureaucratic mandate. Mr. President, the rationale behind this amendment is simple. Society as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A state's law enforcement, social services, communities, and families are seriously impacted by the expansion of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. Therefore, a state's popularly elected representatives should have a say in the decision about whether or not to allow casino gambling on Indian lands. This decision should not be made unilaterally by an unelected cabinet official. Passing the Graham-Enzi amendment will keep all the interested parties at the bargaining table. By keeping all the parties at the table, the Indian Affairs Committee will have the time it needs to hear all the sides and work on legislation to fix any problems that exist in the current system. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the constitutional role of Congress--and for the rights of all fifty states--by supporting this amendment. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment and to express my concerns regarding the increased bureaucratic burden it would place on the backs of America's rural communities. This amendment would require the Forest Service to conduct forest-wide wildlife population surveys on all proposed, endangered, threatened, sensitive, and management indicator species in order to prepare or revise national forest plans, and in every area of each national forest that would be disturbed by a timber sale or any other management activity. Such a requirement would put a virtual freeze on all Forest Service activities and would serve as a death knell for rural economies. For more than fifteen years, the Federal Government has been at war over how to manage our Western lands. The result has been 15 years of gridlock that not only locks up public lands and threatens the health of our national forests, but it also locks up rural economies which have suffered from dramatic economic disruption. Economies in rural communities are not like economies in more urban settings. Rural economies cannot make the kind of rapid adjustments that are available to more populated areas. When a timber company of about 50 people goes out of business in rural America, even though its number of employees may seem small under urban standards, those fifty employees can make up 20 to 30 percent or more of the local work force. Just as important, however, is the impact that this kind of amendment will have on the future of forest health. The biggest threat facing America's forests today is the overriding threat of destruction by catastrophic wildfire. This threat is particularly strong in the West where our nation receives very little annual rainfall. Without a proactive forest health program that thins out the ever increasing vegetation from our forest floors, we are only setting ourselves up for disaster. Haven't we learned anything from the debate over the Wilson Bridge? When local communities decided to improve the Wilson Bridge along the infamous Washington Beltway they learned near the end of their process that they had to go back and complete a full blown EIS. Because of this regulatory requirement, the Wilson Bridge now will not be built for another two or three years. In the meantime, traffic will continue to back up and it will take longer and longer to navigate around our nation's capitol. This kind of regulatory gridlock never used to happen on the East Coast, but it has been a common occurrence in the West. I can guarantee you, however, that these kinds of regulatory activities will continue until we receive regulatory relief and learn that increased regulation does not necessarily mean we are protecting the environment. If we are seriously going to protect our environment, we need less regulation and more proactive programs particularly on our national forests. The worst thing we could do, then, is add to the gridlock and adopt this kind of amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. This bill represents the third prong in our plan to restore financial security to America's families. Along with saving Social Security and reducing the national debt, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999 marks another significant chapter in our continuing effort to bring stability to our national budget and financial discipline to Congress. I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for his unwavering determination to provide greater financial freedom to America's families. Let there be no doubt about what we are debating today. We are debating whether we should return part of the overpayment by the taxpayers to the taxpayers, true overpayment. As an accountant, I am particularly concerned with that. We need to return the overpayment to the people who made the overpayment. Or should we keep it in Washington to fund President Clinton's new bureaucracies and unproven Government programs? I am not talking about funding adequately the ones we have. I am talking about brand new ones that will require continuing additional funds. The choice is between tax relief and new spending, plain and simple. I, for one, believe it is time to reward the ingenuity and hard work of our taxpayers by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn. The Financial Freedom Act provides tax relief over the next 10 years with cutoffs if the surplus doesn't materialize. By phasing those tax cuts in over 10 years, this demonstration assures the American people that the money dedicated to Social Security will only be used for Social Security. Moreover, by making the majority of the broad-based across-the-board tax reduction contingent on reducing the national debt, this bill makes a real commitment to reducing the Federal debt and forces Congress to live within its means. This legislation not only reduces the overall tax burden but reduces all the marginal income tax rates, beginning with the lowest rate and increasing the ceiling on the new 14-percent bracket. This plan will reduce much of the damage imposed by President Clinton's mammoth tax hike of 1993 and by the bracket creep that millions of Americans have experienced as a result of job and wage growth over the past 10 years. This broad-based reduction, which is the backbone of the act, would provide tax relief for all taxpayers. Let me repeat that: Anyone who now pays Federal income tax will see their bill go down as a result of the 1-percent marginal rate decrease in each and every marginal tax rate. Moreover, this tax cut is especially aimed at the middle class. By increasing the income limits of the new 14-percent bracket by $2,000 for single filers, millions of Americans will see their tax bill reduced by $400 per year by this provision alone. In addition to reducing all the marginal rates for taxpayers, the Financial Freedom Act eliminates one of the most egregious effects of our current Tax Code--the marriage penalty. We have heard a lot of talk about supporting the fundamental institution of marriage. This bill allows us to put our money where our mouths are by doubling the standard deduction and doubling the income limits of the new 14-percent tax bracket, bringing our tax policy in line with the rhetoric. If you are serious about helping the financial needs of millions of married couples across the country, you will support this legislation. It also reforms our Tax Code and our tax policy by eliminating the infamous death tax. We encourage savings and thrift, and we provide much-needed relief for millions of ranchers, farmers, and small businessmen around the country, people who at the time of death will have to end their family business. As a small businessman who worked with my wife and three children selling shoes to our neighbors and friends in several Wyoming towns, I know firsthand how difficult the choices can be when you have to make that kind of a decision. The current tax on death punishes countless small businesses and farm and ranch families. I congratulate, again, the people who have put together this, the cooperation there has been between the House and the Senate, the outstanding work of providing a balanced picture of tax relief to the American people while assuring that we can save Social Security, help Medicare, and pay down the national debt.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. We are checking.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment and urge my colleagues to support American agriculture by supporting a program that has consistently proven its worth to American consumers. Our current sugar program provides consumers one of the cheapest prices for sugar in the developed world. In 1998, U.S. sugar prices were approximately 32 percent below other developed countries. One reason for these low prices has been the obvious success of the current Sugar program. The purpose of the program is to protect the incomes of domestic sugar producers by supporting domestic prices. The program does this by making available loans to sugar processors and by restricting sugar imports. There is no cost, therefore, to the American taxpayer. Because of the support this program has given America's sugar producers, American consumers have benefitted from a healthy industry that has provided us a steady, quality product. Consider, however, what could happen if our domestic sugar industry was suddenly forced out of business by heavily-subsidized, low-quality foreign sugar. Could we guarantee that sugar prices would continue at an affordable level, or that American consumers would receive a high-quality product that was produced under safe, healthy conditions? When we compare the cost of U.S. sugar with the price of sugar on the world market we must also not forget the other benefits that come from a healthy domestic sugar industry, including the benefit of increased employment for our rural communities. Economies in rural communities are not like economies in more urban settings. Rural economies cannot make the kind of rapid adjustments that are available to more populated areas. When a sugar processing plant of about 250 people goes out of business in rural America, even though its number of employees may seem small under urban standards, those 150 employees can make up a large percentage of the local work force. The impact of this sudden high unemployment can resound through such a community for many, many years. Furthermore, it is unfair to compare the cost of U.S. sugar with the price of sugar on the world market because when we look at the actual source of the world price we learn it is not an accurate or comparable price. In reality, it is a dump price, or in other words it is the price sugar-exporting countries get for dumping their highly-subsidized sugar on world markets. In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support America's farmers and to support America's consumers by opposing this amendment. Amendment No. 1510, As Modified