Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. President, I rise to briefly discuss S. 648, a bill to establish standards and procedures for products liability legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that bill and I feel that it should be a legislative priority for consideration during this session of the 105th Congress. In the 104th Congress, both the House and Senate passed meaningful product liability reform legislation only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. The President now indicates that he wants to sign a products liability reform bill. Legal reform has the broad support of the American people and strong bipartisan support in Congress. With each passing day, we are losing an opportunity to do the people's business by not enacting common sense legal reform. S. 648 is designed to inject some common sense into runaway punitive damage awards in view of the need for some semblance of uniformity in our National interstate commerce system. Last May, the United States Supreme Court held in BMW in North America v. Gore, that punitive damages can be considered so excessive as to violate a defendant's constitutional due process rights. It seems that many courts have not heeded this lesson. Just a few weeks ago, another case received national attention for the enormity of its punitive damage award. A jury in a Louisiana State court levied a $2.5 billion punitive damage award against CSX Transportation corporation and $1 billion against the other defendants in the case for their involvement in a 1987 tank car fire. The court awarded this enormous punitive judgment despite findings by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that CSXT did not cause the accident and that no serious injuries resulted from the accident. In light of these egregious examples, it is time for Congress to pass legislation to reign in these exploding legal costs which have hurt American businesses, stifled ingenuity, and punished consumers through higher prices and decreased competition. S. 648 would mark an important first step in reforming a tort system which all too often better resembles a lottery than a forum of justice. I urge our leadership to make S. 648 a priority in the first session of the 105th Congress.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the lack of information pertaining to alcohol and substance abuse fatalities in the workplace is alarming. If we are serious about the safety of American workers, we must carefully examine all contributing factors that pose a potential threat while on the job. I had intended to offer an amendment to the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill that would instruct the BLS to incorporate in their annual report an analysis of toxicology reports in the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. After meeting with the BLS Commissioner, Katharine Abraham, we agreed that the BLS will again perform this important analysis during the calendar year 1998 and issue a report no later than 6 months after the data collection is completed. This agreement dismisses the need for a congressional mandate. I appreciate BLS's cooperation in properly addressing this matter. In 1992, the Department of Labor initiated a program to compile data on how alcohol and drugs contributed to fatal work injuries. The BLS's Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Program collected 1,355 toxicology reports from 43 States and the District of Columbia--roughly one report for every four of the 1992 fatalities. About one-sixth of the cases for which toxicology reports were available, fatally injured workers tested positive for toxic substances. The most frequent cases showed alcohol use followed by cocaine and marijuana. Unfortunately, the BLS stopped collecting this data in 1995. Although this data was only reported over a 3-year span, it clearly shows that alcohol and substance abuse is a major contributor to fatal workplace injuries. In an effort to understand the safety of American workers, we must have data available to us. The inclusion of this analysis in the annual report sends a message that we do care about the safety of American workers. Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, I was an accountant for Dunbar Well Service in Wyoming--a large, independent oil well servicing company. Aside from my accounting responsibilities, I also traveled the State collecting urine and saliva samples from our employees. Not only have I given alcohol and substance abuse tests, but I've been tested. I understand a thing or two about validity and dignity. This analysis doesn't hinder either of those traits. Safety in the workplace should be everyone's concern. However, if we don't understand how our workers are killed on the job, then we only deceive ourselves. This analysis will provide a better understanding of why and how frequently alcohol and drugs play a contributory role in fatal work injuries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me from BLS Commissioner, Katharine Abraham, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 168, S. Res. 122.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 111, and further the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, now that we have added the second-degree amendment to my amendment, I would like to conclude my remarks so we can move on with the other discussion that is so important to this appropriations bill. I do have to respond to some comments that were made earlier. I am not trying to do a piecemeal approach that will destroy what the Indian Affairs Committee is doing. I commend them for any activities they take. This is just a very small part of the appropriations, and it is to prevent the expenditure of any moneys by the Secretary of the Interior that would bypass the State's right to an involvement in this process. I really appreciate the offer for the hearings, the offer to bring witnesses, even so generous as to suggest that we could use 3 days. We have been on this for almost an hour and a half, and that is really all I need, and I have used only a small portion of that. I think we have talked about this issue to the extent that we can, because I have modified it to put it in a situation where I am maintaining business as usual. We are assuring that there is a State's right to involvement in the Indian gaming issue. That is the way it is at the moment, and this amendment doesn't make any change in that. There is some talk about the words ``1-year moratorium'' in this. There is a 1-year moratorium because this is an appropriation, and the appropriation deals with 1 year's worth of expenditures, but it is not a 1-year moratorium against the tribes being able to do anything. It is a 1-year moratorium against the Secretary of the Interior being able to impose himself on the process. The Secretary of the Interior cannot make Federal law. We do that right here in conjunction with the House folks. I am trying to make sure that we can keep that same process. So we are not really asking for a 1-year moratorium on Indian gambling. I heard the letter that was read, and I assume that letter was written before the changes were made here that I have allowed in this amendment. If that letter was written and still intends to be a part of this discussion, I have to say that I am offended. I am offended that the Secretary of the Interior wants to impose his will and a threat of a Presidential veto over business as usual that has already been passed by the Senate. That is not a role that the Secretary of the Interior can have. We cannot give him that right. That is our right. That is our responsibility. That is what we were elected to this great body to do: to make the law. He can suggest guidelines, and we already have a law that suggests how this process works. The amendment, as it is now written, assures that all States have their rights in this process and that the law continues the way it is now. I have sent the change to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, and the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, be made cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I really appreciate the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Hawaii. I know of his long-time involvement in the Indian issue and of his long-time involvement in the Senate. In fact, I think he is the only person in the Senate who has been in the Senate since his State became a State. There is a lot of tradition, a lot of history, and a lot of specialization and involvement in this particular issue. I have to admit that in the last few minutes I have learned a lot about the issue. From talking to him earlier in the morning, I learned a lot about the issue. I also got an opportunity to talk to Senator Campbell. Again, I learned a lot about the issue. I have been involved in it before. But there was a different level of involvement, and these are people with a tremendous tradition and history on the issue. Again, my intention with the amendment that I presented is to see that the Secretary of the Interior does not bypass our process, that he doesn't write his own rules with the opinion, or believe that that can bypass some of the States' involvement in the issue. I do think that for the friendship and cooperation that has been built up in some of the States over the years, that this is an issue that still has to have the States' involvement. That is the only way that people can live together and work together and make sure that the Indian interests and some of the Indian problems are solved along the way. I appreciate the Senator's comments about the fact that only about 10 of the casinos are in a situation where they are making a lot of money. I have visited some of the reservations where the casinos are and have noted the disappointment by the tribal members over how poorly their casino was doing. I have seen that on nontribal casinos as well, because I followed the Colorado situation where the small businessmen in the small towns that were allowed to do the class 3 gaming looked forward to the time that they would be wealthy from gambling. They found out that it takes some different talents than they had as small businessmen to run a big casino. So, they didn't make the money that they had anticipated on it either, although there is a lot of money being made in a lot of places on gambling. My intent on this is to make sure that the States are a part of the process. The Senator mentioned the hearing that is coming up. I really appreciate the fact that he is going to hold a hearing and cover some of these important issues. My amendment would not undo the hearing. All of the issues can still be addressed in that hearing. If a bill comes out of that hearing and it covers the issue of State involvement, or at least this issue of whether the Secretary of the Interior can expend money to bypass the State process, if that is in there, I would work to be sure that the repealer of this amendment is in that bill. I would work for that passage. I don't think there would be any difficulty with it. I don't know of anybody who would oppose it if that were assured as a part of that hearing process. So, I commend him for his efforts already on this and his willingness to hold a hearing, which, of course, was already scheduled and planned well before I ever even thought of an amendment, but his willingness to be sure that that issue is addressed in there. That is what I got from his comments. We want to make sure that where the Court may have made some things unclear, they are clarified, and, again, that the State involvement in the issue is not left out. People live too close together these days to have the tribes separate from the States on the gaming issue. Lastly, I will address the comments about federally preempting State laws. That would never be my intent. Anybody who has looked at anything that I have done in the State legislature or since I have came to Washington would, I think, agree that everything that I have done has been to assure States' rights. It is not my intent with this. As I learn, I make changes. I guess I would ask the Senator from Hawaii, if I made a change to the amendment, one that would, instead of mentioning the Governor and the State legislature--which I understand now in some States one has the authority, and in some others the other has authority, and in some States it requires both to participate in order to do it--if we could change the wording so that if it was approved by a State in accordance with State law in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, if that would be a wording change that would then make this acceptable in both places where I mentioned the Governors and State legislatures--because I would like to make this so that I am not preempting State law. I don't intend to do that and would be willing to make that change if it would make a difference.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment to the bill that comes as a result of several years of involvement with the Indian gaming issue in Wyoming. I want to mention, you may have a copy of an early version of the amendment. I hope you have a copy of this more recent version. What we are trying to achieve with the bill is to be sure that the Secretary of Interior is not drafting any rules or regulations that would bypass the States in the process of dealing with Indian gambling. Now, that is what this amendment works to do, and I rise to join my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan, the Senators from Indiana, Senators Lugar and Coats, and the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, in offering an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. This amendment would place a 1-year moratorium on the Secretary of Interior's ability to approve any new tribal-State gambling compact if the compact has not been approved by the Governor and the State legislature of the State in which the tribe is located. This 1-year moratorium will give Congress an opportunity to review the approval process of Indian gambling compacts as well as the effect of gambling on the society as a whole. Mr. President, last year Congress approved the formation of a National Gambling Impact Study Commission to conduct a 2-year study of gambling's political, social, and economic effects. By authorizing the study, Congress realized the potential dangers that the recent explosion in casino gambling poses to society at large. While this study has yet to get seriously underway, the expansion of casino gambling is continuing at an alarming rate. The desire for quick cash has had an effect on everyone, including native Americans, and them as much as any other segment of the population. A Congressional Research Service report issued this past June showed that since the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988, the Secretary of the Interior has approved over 180 tribal-State gambling compacts. As of June of this year, 24 States now have gambling on Indian reservations within their borders. Mr. President, 145 Indian tribes currently have one or more casinos on their lands. This proliferation of casino gambling on tribal lands and society at large has not been without its negative effects. John Kindt, a professor of commerce and legal policy at the University of Illinois, has concluded that for every $1 in tax revenue that gambling raises, it creates $3 in costs to handle such expenses as economic disruption, compulsive gambling, and crime. Gambling is an industry in which a precious few make a fortune, while the penniless thousands pay the price with their shattered lives, painful addictions, and widespread crime. In light of the detrimental effects of the proliferation of casino gambling, Congress should review the approval process of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to determine what long-term changes need to be made to this act. While the regulation of gambling is generally reserved to the State governments, the power to regulate gambling on Indian tribal lands rests primarily with Congress. Let me explain precisely what this amendment would do. The amendment my colleagues and I are offering places a 1-year moratorium on the approval of any new tribal-State gambling compacts if the compacts have not been approved by the Governor and the State legislature in the State in which the tribal lands are located. This amendment does not prohibit the individual States and Indian tribes from negotiating class III gambling contracts. It simply requires if there is to be an expansion of the tribal-State gambling contracts within a State's borders, these compacts must first be approved by the State's popularly elected representatives and Governor. Again, this moratorium is only for a period of 1 year. A 1-year moratorium will allow Congress to reexamine the long-term approval process of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to determine if the current process is in the best interests of the tribes, the States and the country as a whole. The rationale behind this amendment is simple: Society as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A State's law enforcement, a State's social services and communities are seriously impacted by the expansion of gambling, casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. Therefore, a decision of whether or not to allow casino gambling on tribal lands should be approved by the popularly-elected representatives. I believe a 1-year moratorium on the approval of new gambling compacts which do not receive approval from the Governor and the State legislature is a reasonable beginning to a very important debate on reexamining the long-term approval process under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort. Again, the amendment that we have presented would give a clear indication to the Secretary of the Interior that we do not want rules and regulations that will bypass State authority and put the State in a situation-- since the gaming doesn't affect just the lands, just people on the tribal lands, it affects those immediately surrounding it to a great degree. The further you are from the gambling, the less impact there might be. But there is an effect on a greater number of people than just the tribe. In our State of Wyoming, we had an initiative about 3 years ago to allow local option decisions on gambling. When that initiative was first presented, according to polls, 70 percent of the people were in favor of allowing that local option. We took a look at the situations in the States surrounding us, what was happening, and when we had the vote, 70 percent of the people in Wyoming said, no, that isn't the way we want our State to go, that isn't the way we want our neighbors to inflict their decisions on us. So the State, as a whole, took an approach of not allowing class III gambling by 70 percent. That was with a lot of money against it. So we have some concern in our State. My purpose with the amendment is to make sure the State's concerns would be represented in this, as well as everyone else's. I mention that, with the first version I put out, I got a call from the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. He had some concerns. He thought I was trying to eliminate a particular tribe in a particular place in New Mexico. That was not my intent. I took a look again at the wording and changed it to the wording that has gone to the desk because, again, we want to emphasize that our purpose in this is to make sure that the States are involved in the decision as well. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ENZI. I thank the body for their time and ask for their support on this important amendment. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I think this is a nice addition to the amendment that we have, and I do support it.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I certainly agree to that change. I had not proposed that change. I will be happy to do it. The intent was never to infringe on any of the State procedures, but to accommodate the States in the way they have operated in the past. I ask for that change. In the meantime we have gotten it typed up, and I send this provision to the desk.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, yesterday, President Clinton held a press conference in which he outlined his reasons for refusing to sign onto the Oslo Land Mine Treaty. As my colleagues know, this treaty is intended to eliminate the horrible and very real carnage thrust on people of war torn countries by abandoned and old-fashioned land mines. The President said that the refusal of the signatories to consider our Nation's security requirements with regard to our use of self- deactivating, so-called smart mines, and our obligations to the defense of our loyal South Korean allies, represented a line which he simply could not cross for the good of the Nation. Honesty compels me to speak out when I disagree. It also demands that I recognize a person when he is right without regard to which side of the aisle he may occupy. I rise today to commend the President's act of courage in refusing to sign the Oslo Treaty, and for being willing to stand up and say we need to protect our soldiers when they have to be in the field. As we all know, the pressure on him to sign--especially during the last several weeks--has been worldwide, relentless, and most intense--even from his own party. Thankfully for our troops, the President understands the danger of taking this defensive weapon away from them. Thankfully for our troops, the President understands the importance of land mines to the defense of the hottest spot on the globe today--the Korean Peninsula. Thankfully for our troops, the President understands that taking smart mines away will not help one person in any mine-infested country in the world. Thankfully for our troops, the President understands that you simply cannot legislate the horror out of war. I commend President Clinton for his exercise of good judgment in the face of overwhelming public pressure to do otherwise. I also commend the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all the many generals and admirals, both retired and active duty, including Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who have made their opposition to this treaty known. I commend so many of my colleagues who, during recent meetings with Canadian lawmakers, expressed their support for the President's efforts. Finally, I command Secretary of Defense Cohen, for his wise counsel. Regrettably, the effort to take this necessary defensive weapon away from our troops is still active. There is still legislation proposed that would do exactly that. But yesterday a battle was won in that struggle, and every American soldier, current and future, who might ever have to go into harm's way, and each mother, father, son, and daughter owes our President a debt of gratitude. He did the right thing for our country.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of Senate Resolution 122 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to make some comments about funding the arts, and I rise in strong support of the amendment offered earlier today by my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson. I commend him for taking such an active role in the issue. It is an issue that people have very strong and very divergent feelings about. It is that divergence of opinion that brings me to the floor to support this amendment. In the House, it is my understanding that there is a majority in favor of eliminating funding. We will be voting on that, too. Senator Hutchinson is offering an alternative. He has done a lot of research on funding equity to meet the purpose of arts, of getting it out as divergent as possible across the United States, and we have not been doing that with equity. During the course of this debate we have heard example after example of successful and valuable local projects. We hear about Shakespeare in the Park and we hear about traveling museums, we hear about folk festivals and chamber music, and visiting artists. These are very worthwhile programs, and they yank at the rural heartstrings of both liberals and conservatives alike, but the survival of those activities is not the subject of this amendment. In fact, this amendment would strengthen those programs. The variety of approaches today alone for funding the arts shows that what we are doing has some major flaws, and there is a saying that if you keep on doing what you have always been doing, you are going to wind up with what you have, or less. Everyone in this Chamber is familiar with the past trouble surrounding funding for the national endowments. There are too many examples of poor judgment in the granting process, too many examples of taxpayers' money wasted on projects with absolutely no redeeming social or cultural value. There are also those who argue that art is subjective, that Congress should refrain from limiting expenditures in order to foster freedom of expression. This is not a debate about censorship. It is a debate about spending the people's money. It is a debate about who gets to make the decisions. It is a debate about who can most encourage art participation and who should make those decisions. Is there any reason why national panels are more qualified to fund art than State or local panels? If the strongest justification for continued arts funding is the value of local programs, then we should recognize that and strengthen what works, eliminating what does not. Last week the Senate took a historic step in the right direction when we voted to return K through 12 education spending decisions to the local school boards. That vote indicates a frustration we all feel with the abrogation of local decisionmaking authority, with the dissolution of American democracy. Programming decisions, on programs such as education and the arts, must be subject to local sensitivities and needs. Federal bureaucrats have no accountability to people because nobody lives at the Federal level. People live at the local level, people learn at the local level, and people appreciate and produce art at the local level. Even the Smithsonian, National Gallery, and the Kennedy Center produce and display collections of local art. So if we are going to fund our cultural resources with taxpayers' dollars, then let us give the taxpayers the opportunity and the responsibility to do it right. In my hometown of Gillette, for example, where I served as mayor for 8 years, we are particularly fond of Camplex--the Campbell County Arts and Activities Center. Representatives from all over northeastern Wyoming take advantage of the performances and exhibits offered at Camplex, and many of those productions are made possible using Wyoming Arts Council support to leverage additional matching funds from local, State, and national sources. In fact, they leverage the resource about 10 to 1. That is local participation, local approval, and local decisionmaking. I understand the importance of arts and humanities funding in places like Wyoming. I know about the distances between small towns that would never get to participate in the arts if it were not for some funding that helps to get it to them over those distances. Seeing the arts encourages the talent that lives there. It brings out the talent of the kids, and we do have some very talented kids. Every Senator in this Chamber could point to some successes in their States. There is some misconception out there that conservatives do not appreciate the value of the arts and humanities in our society, but that is not an accurate view. This conservative Senator believes there is a place for arts funding, but that place is not in Washington. This is about an equal chance throughout the United States for equal funding in the arts. I congratulate the Senator from Arkansas for his middle of the road approach, and I yield the floor. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend, the Honorable Senator from Indiana, Richard Lugar, in the submission of a resolution declaring September 26, 1997, Austrian-American Day. We are also joined by many distinguished colleagues from both sides of the aisle in support of this measure to commemorate and celebrate the strong ties that bind the Government of Austria and the United States and our people. This resolution has deep meaning to me because of my Austrian roots and heritage. The year 1997 has special significance in the history of Austrian- American relations for it marks the 50th anniversary of what became known as the Marshall plan. It was 1947 when Gen. George C. Marshall outlined his vision of a program to rebuild war-torn Europe through a policy of reconciliation and compassion. The Marshall plan that was eventually implemented by the United States is remembered fondly by the free nations of Europe for its monumental and generous aid that gave the people of these nations hope after the most costly war in the history of the world--hope for freedom and lasting piece. Without the incredible vision of General Marshall the democracies of Europe might have floundered in their rebuilding efforts, creating an avenue for the expansion of communism in the midst of the cold war. Marshall's foresight and the willingness of the people and the Government of the United States to assist all of free Europe, especially Austria, resulted in the growth of stable governments in these countries. Austrians have not forgotten the efforts of the United States to maintain the unity of their country after World War II. The United States was instrumental in calling for a conference to be held in Vienna to debate the future of Austria. On September 26, 1945, this conference was convened between the Allies and the representatives of the nine Austrian Federal States, during which a treaty was signed that rescued Austria from a fate similar to that of the Soviet-occupied European countries and a divided Germany. The resolution I propose today, commemorates the sacrifices Americans made for Austria after World War II, as well as contributions that Austrian immigrants and Americans and Austrian decent have made to the American way of life in industry, education, government, culture, and the arts. Austrian-Americans that have earned the Nobel Prize include Victor Franz Hess in physics, Karl Landsteiner in medicine, and Friedrich von Hayek in economics. Austria has produced the likes of United States Supreme Court Justices Felix Frankfurter and Earl Warren; the originator of the Pulitzer Prize, Joseph Pulitzer; John David Hertz, the founder of today's Hertz-Rent-A-Car and the well-known Yellow Cab system; Estee Lauder, maker of leading cosmetics; and Raoul Fleischman, cofounder of the New Yorker magazine and member of the Fleischman yeast family. Through the years, Americans have also enjoyed the work of those Americans of Austrian descent or origin, such as Fred Astaire, Billy Wilder, and of course ``The Terminator,'' Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is but a small sample of the names to be found on a list of famous Austrian-Americans who have made heartfelt contributions to the legacy of the America they love. Austria and the United States have shared these common ideals and interests, not just in the past 50 years, but for nearly two centuries. It is for these reasons that I feel it is altogether appropriate that we recognize not only the proud people of Austria, but the warm and cordial relations that exist between our two countries at this historic time that holds such deep meaning for both our nations.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. I speak in favor of the Sessions amendment.

Mr. ENZI. I have not even given my speech. I don't know how you could have a question.

Mr. ENZI. I yield for a question on the procedure.

Mr. ENZI. I agree to that time limit as well.