Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I join Senator Faircloth and Senator Johnston and others, in introducing legislation that addresses a major concern of landowners, farmers, businesses, and average citizens throughout the United States. The concern is wetlands. Just last week, during consideration of the Clean Water Act, the House of Representatives passed major revisions to our Federal wetlands laws. It is now the Senate's turn to address this major issue. As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Wetlands, Senator Faircloth will direct Senate efforts to bring much needed common sense to our Federal wetlands laws. Very few Federal issues are more critical to South Dakota property owners. Therefore, I look forward to working with Senator Faircloth in making sure reforms are adopted during this Congress. Mr. President, current wetlands law is too broad. It is causing too many problems throughout the country. Congress has never passed a comprehensive law defining wetlands. Without such a definition, Federal agencies have been recklessly pursuing control over private property in the name of saving wetlands. The time to act has come. Earlier this year, I introduced S. 352, The Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995. A number of the provisions in my legislation already have been adopted by the House, as part of its reforms on wetlands. Also, I am pleased that most of S. 352 is incorporated in the bipartisan bill we are introducing today. By introducing a bipartisan bill, one message is made clear: Meaningful wetlands reform must be adopted this year. One issue I reserve the right to address during future Senate debate on wetlands reform is adequate compensation for private property owners. Whenever the Federal Government takes land away from private property owners, or significantly reduces the use of private property, compensation is in order. There is no compensation provision in the bill being introduced today. However, I intend to raise this issue during floor debate on this subject. Compensation to private property owners should be included in meaningful wetlands reform. The primary purpose of today's legislation is to clearly define wetlands in law and regulation. What the Federal Government should, or should not be doing in this area needs to be clearly defined. In addition, efforts must be made to ensure that any fine or penalty is in line with violations. Many violations are incidental and can be quickly repaired. Penalties should fit the crime. The bill we are introducing today would set that kind of standard. The bill would require certain criteria to be met and verified before an area can be regulated as a wetland. Such an approach would be more reliable in identifying true wetlands. It would prevent field inspectors from mistakenly classifying as wetland dry, upland areas that drain effectively. It also would eliminate a major source of confusion and abuse caused by current regulations. This bill also would give States and local governments the authority to tailor the wetlands regulatory program to their own special circumstances. This is greatly needed. The bill also would clarify current agricultural exemptions and provide that the Secretary of Agriculture shall identify agricultural lands that are wetlands. Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to adopt wetlands reform. Only through the kind of commonsense and balanced approach proposed in this bill can the Nation's agricultural, business, environmental, and individual interests be properly addressed. Mr. President, thousands of South Dakotans have written, called, or visited with me about the lack of definition of wetlands and the haphazard rules and regulatory overkill taken by the Federal Government. They rightly are concerned about the impact of the current system on their ability to run their farms and businesses. South Dakotans are law-abiding citizens who stand for fairness and balance in the enforcement of the law. South Dakotans are conscientious stewards of the land they have cared for and cultivated for generations. They believe the time has come for a fair, balanced approach that protests the environment as well as private property. I believe the bill we are introducing today responds to this call for fairness from South Dakota and across America. Action on this issue is essential. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and join in supporting it.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, overall, I am supportive of this budget resolution. I believe it provides a sensible roadmap toward balancing the Federal budget over the next 7 years and I commend my colleagues on the Budget Committee for their efforts. However, there is one area of the budget resolution with which I disagree: the proposal to sell the Power Marketing Administrations. This sale would have a devastating effect on South Dakota's rural communities and small cities--and on people across the country. That is why I rise today to join my colleague from Montana in offering a sense-of-the-Senate to strike the Budget Committee's recommendation to sell the Western Area, Southwestern, and Southeastern Power Marketing Administrations--collectively known as the PMA's. Public power serves many functions in South Dakota. As a sparsely populated State, utilities are faced with the challenge of how to get affordable electricity into small cities and rural communities where there are less than two people per mile of transmission line. Public power provides the solution. In public power utilities, the only investors are the consumers. Revenues are reinvested in the community--in the form of taxes and services. And, the low cost of power is essential to encourage economic development in small cities and towns. Public power, purchased through the Western Area Power Administration, known as WAPA, costs South Dakotans an average of 2.5 cents less than the market rate. This allows revenue to be reinvested in additional transmission lines, and better service. The availability of hydropower from the Missouri River to rural cooperatives and municipals has helped to stabilize rates. With 7,758 miles of transmission lines in the Pick-Sloan region, WAPA can serve 133,100 South Dakotans--without charging them an arm and a leg. Public power has brought more than electricity to South Dakota. For example, Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency, based in Sioux Falls, has embarked on a program offering incentives for planting trees. The goal is to plant at least one tree for each 112,500 meters in the agency's membership territory. In fact, Missouri Basin was recognized by the Department of Energy for outstanding participation in this Global Climate Change Program. I congratulate Tom Heller of Missouri Basin for this excellent community service program. Public power also brings new jobs to the communities it serves. In part due to the low cost of power from East River Electric, there are now three injection molding plants based in Madison, SD--creating snowmobile parts. Arctic Cat, PPD, and Falcon Plastics employ approximately 200 people in Madison. East River also is involved in other economic development activities. It provides classes to help the community attract businesses, and offers grants for feasibility studies associated with economic development projects. South Dakota clearly has benefitted from the work of Jeff Nelson, as the general manager of the East River Electric Power Cooperative. Public power is a South Dakota success story. It is the source of innovation, development, and community pride. I am sure the same is true in other small cities and rural communities across America. That is why I disagree with the Budget Committee's recommendation to sell WAPA and two other power marketing administrations. This is simply economic smoke and mirrors used to cover up a backdoor tax on rural and small city Americans. In essence, this would force South Dakotans--and public power consumers everywhere--to cover for the rest of America. Why? Because the sale of the PMA's could result in rate increases totaling more than $47 million. In addition, many of my colleagues claim that the sale of the PMA's would generate revenue for the Federal Government. Will it? Let us look at the facts. PMA's still owe almost $15 billion in principal. Also, more than $9 billion in interest already has been paid to the Federal Government. By selling the PMA's, the Government would forfeit future interest payments. In fact, a recent report prepared by the Congressional Research Service demonstrates just how much money the PMA's are expected to contribute to the Federal Government. This year, WAPA is expected to pay back $225.1 million borrowed from the Federal Government. But WAPA will also return another $153.4 million to the Treasury. Given these figures, it is clear that this plan does not make good economic sense. As my colleagues know, this is not a new issue. I have been fighting the proposed sale of the PMA's ever since I came to Congress. In 1986, the Reagan administration made similar attempts to privatize the PMA's. I worked with many of you to pass a law to prevent the Department of Energy form pursuing any future plans to sell the PMA's, unless specifically authorized by Congress. As the debate over the sale of the PMA's rises again, it seems this law has been forgotten. Mr. President, once again, we are fighting to prove the worth of public power. Once again, we must demonstrate how necessary it is to the lives of rural and small city Americans. The people of South Dakota have stated their message loudly and clearly--through thousands of postcards, letters, and phone calls. South Dakotans such as Ron Holstein. Bob Martin, and Jeff Nelson have been leaders in their opposition to the proposed AMA sale and I appreciate their hard work. Public power is a solid investment for the Nation. Public power is one of the great success stogie of South Dakota. I urge all my colleagues to stand united behind this amendment to allow the continued existence of the public power, and the essential service it provides to the Americans who reside in small cities and rural communities. Now is not the time to mess with success.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to Louis Hurwitz of Sioux Falls, SD, on his retirement after 57 years as executive secretary of the Sioux Falls Jewish Welfare Fund, a branch of the United Jewish Appeal. His tireless efforts in assisting the education, well-being, and happiness of countless Jewish refugees worldwide is admirable. To understand the depth of Lou's love for and dedication to the happiness of others, one need only review his constant involvement in and uncommon generosity to the Sioux Falls community. His persistently positive impact on others and his continuous commitment to making a difference cannot be overstated. For six decades, Lou has been recognized repeatedly for his hard work on behalf of the Sioux Falls community. His efforts in reaching across religious lines to work with persons of all faiths deservedly has earned the respect and affection of many people, including myself. I extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Lou Hurwitz for his selfless service to the people of South Dakota, the Sioux Falls Jewish community, and thousands of others elsewhere. Mr. President, Lou's extraordinary dedication to helping others mirrors the teachings of the Hebrew scholar, Maimonides. According to the teachings of Maimonides, the highest level of charity is to enable other human beings to help themselves. I am proud of Lou's efforts in that regard. He has enabled countless Jewish refugees around the world to become stronger. I congratulate Lou for all he has accomplished. He has left a legacy that always will be a source of pride to all South Dakotans. I join with Lou's friends and family members in wishing this extraordinary man the very best in all he has yet to achieve.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici budget. As I have said on the Senate floor before, I strongly believe that this represents a solid blueprint that finally will lead this government to a balanced budget. It has been a very strange sequence of events here in the Senate when we [[Page S7111]] saw the entire Senate reject the President's budget. I would certainly welcome a debate on the President's budget, but the members of his own party voted his budget down. Thus, the only budget that is before us is the Domenici budget. Overall, this budget is a solid, responsible plan, and takes an across-the-board approach to achieve balance. Without this kind of bold plan, we will be facing bankruptcy, both in terms of the Federal deficit and in terms of Medicare. The liberals may be criticizing this budget, but where is their budget? Insofar as agriculture is concerned, I think many of us have said that we will take an across-the-board approach, and I think this budget does that. There will be efforts, and perhaps I will join them, to make some minor changes in the Domenici budget, but overall it represents a path or a guidepost to a balanced budget. Mr. President, recently our dollar has been doing very poorly. We have an unstable dollar. It is because of our huge Federal deficit. We have reports that Medicare will go bankrupt by the year 2002. I would rather give senior citizens a stable, sound dollar and a secure Medicare than to continue going on year after year without taking some action. It is time that we take sound action in this Chamber, and this represents that opportunity. So, Mr. President, I commend Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee for their leadership and its hard work. I know there may be some changes in that document this week. But I would say to the liberals who are criticizing it to bring forward a complete budget of their own. Indeed, the Democrats on the other side of the aisle voted down the President's budget entirely. Where is their plan? The Senate Republicans have a plan. It is a solid plan for the American people. I believe that we are on the right path. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this week I have been fortunate to visit with two citizens from Springfield, SD--Georgia and Larry Talsma. Georgia and Larry made their first trip ever to Washington, DC, by car. The Talsmas are the quintessential hard-working South Dakota ranch family. They and their ancestors have worked the land for five generations. They know the importance of proper stewardship of the land, because without this respect there would be nothing for the next generation. The Talsmas came to Washington to tell their story of how the Federal Government is intruding on their land and threatening to take over their private property. Amazing as this may sound, Mr. President, it is true. In 1991, Congress passed legislation to designate the 39-mile segment of the Missouri River from the headwaters of Lewis and Clark Lake to the Ft. Randall Dam as a recreational river to be administered by the National Park Service. Today, however, the process to achieve this designation has raised great controversy. In fact, the local citizens along this segment of the Missouri River now question the need for the designation. I agree with those South Dakotans, including the Talsmas. During the first public meeting on the designation, pamphlets were handed out describing how the Park Service acquires private property. Mr. President, most, if not all, of the South Dakotans in attendance were not even aware of the river designation, let alone the possibility of the Federal Government condemning their land and buying it out from under them. Their concerns and fears were fed by representatives of the National Park Service who stated that if they, the Park Service, cannot own this land, then they will control it. This morning I asked the Director of the National Park Service to come to my office and listen to the Talsmas. At that meeting I told the Director that I intended to introduce legislation to undo the designation in South Dakota. This is an effort the Talsmas and other South Dakotans strongly support. I also asked the Director to listen to the Talsmas and see what steps could be taken by the Park Service to address the needs of South Dakotans. While Director Kennedy informed the Talsmas that the Park Service did not want to buy or control their land or claim eminent domain, the Talsmas correctly pointed out that the ``Devil is in the details.'' The Talsmas informed the Director they were being told just the opposite at the public meetings and that is why they felt they had to come to Washington to get their message across. Their primary concern is not for themselves, but for their children and future generations of South Dakotans who depend on the land for their survival. I am pleased to report that due to the efforts of the Talsmas, something good came out of the meeting. First, the Park Service agreed to push back the deadline for a preferred alternative to no earlier than August 1, 1995. Just a few days ago the Talsmas were told they had only 5 days to review and comment on the preferred alternatives. This extreme time limit simply is not fair. I told the Director that South Dakotans needed the time to tell their story and have input into the decisionmaking process. Director Kennedy agreed. Director Kennedy also assured the Talsmas there would be at least a 60-day comment period on any preferred alternative. If more time is needed, Director Kennedy said he would be willing to provide such time. Director Kennedy also told me his office would provide legislative language [[Page S6849]] to me that would assure local control over the river. I look forward to reviewing the language and if appropriate will push for its immediate approval by the Congress. Mr. President, I will continue to work with Georgia and Larry Talsma and other South Dakota landowners to see that their property and their rights are fully protected, and are not overrun by the Federal Government. Federal policy is moving ever closer toward infringement of individual private property rights. One of America's founding principles is the right of citizens to own private property. These rights must be closely guarded. Mr. President, I am proud South Dakota has citizens such as Georgia and Larry Talsma. Their determination, and hard work actually moved Washington to action. They had to take time off their ranching chores and drive all the way to Washington to move a bureaucratic mountain. I am please they achieved progress. I am proud of the Talsmas and what they have accomplished. They are to be commended. Their battle is not over yet, but Mr. President, their action is proof that this is a government of and for the people. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to rectify a great disservice done to a number of retired Americans, including many in my State of South Dakota. Specifically, the retired employees of John Morrell & Co.--a meatpacking plant located in Sioux Falls--were promised life-time health benefits by the company when they retired. As these workers planned for their retirement, they relied upon the Morrell promise of continued health care benefits. However, in January of this year, Morrell unilaterally terminated all of its retiree health insurance benefits--suddenly leaving about 3,300 retirees and their families throughout the country without health insurance. These individuals now find themselves with little or no options for replacing their health insurance. Mr. President, this is patently unfair. As policymakers, we must not allow these inequitable actions to remain unchallenged. If we do, we risk establishing a precedent that encourages other companies to violate good faith agreements with their employees' health care benefits. The parent company of Morrell is Chiquita Brands, Inc., a highly successful multinational corporation known to many Americans. Chiquita has refused several good faith offers to negotiate with the Morrell retirees on this issue. Chiquita has moved to save money for the company at the expense of those who have no standing to defend themselves. In March of 1991, Morrell sent a letter to its retirees announcing it reserved the right, at its sole discretion, ``to alter, modify, or terminate'' any benefit at any time. In December, 1991, Morrell announced the first unilateral reduction in retiree health benefits. Legal proceedings challenging the action began immediately. So far, efforts to reverse the decision in Federal court have been unsuccessful. In October 1992, a Federal district court trial was held in South Dakota. The trial court refused to overturn Morrell's action. It concluded that the health benefits were not contractually guaranteed by the company. When a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision, Morrell immediately terminated all health benefits for all retirees. An appeal has been made to the U.S. Supreme Court, though review is unlikely given the few cases selected by the Court each year. The Morrell retirees are at the end of their rope. They have tried to retain their health benefits through negotiations and through the courts. When it comes to matters such as this, legislation must be considered the last best alternative. Frankly, we have reached that point. It is time for Congress to step in. Therefore, today I am introducing legislation that is intended to stop the transaction in its tracks, and prevent similar injustices from being done in the future. My bill, the Retiree Health Benefit Protection Act, would end these abuses by making it costly for those companies who entice their employees to rely upon the company's good will and then, subsequently, renege on their promises of continued health benefits. The Retiree Health Benefit Protection Act would reduce significantly the amount of the current tax deduction that a company can take for expenses made to provide medical care to its employees. Under current law, companies are allowed to take a 100 percent tax deduction for these expenses. My bill would reduce that to 25 percent--the same rate at which a self-employed individual can deduct their expenses--if a company refuses to honor its prior health benefit commitment to its retirees. Mr. President, some will say this bill is tough. It is. As we all know, businesses make their decisions largely by looking at the bottom line. For Chiquita, its seems that its bottom line requires it to drop health benefits to Morrell retirees. My bill is designed to alter the bottom line--to make it clear that companies cannot break a promise to its retirees without paying a great price. The Morrell retirees are paying an unfair and unjustified price right now for Chiquita's action. But what price is Chiquita paying? I do not believe that a company should be allowed to continue to take full advantage of the tax benefits of providing health care if they do not continue to fully provide promised health care benefits. Therefore, my bill is designed to impose a price--to alter the bottom line--and in a manner that I believe will make companies keep the promises they make to their employees. We in Congress have an obligation to be sure that policies that impact our retirees are fair. For many years, retired Americans work and plan for a day when they can spend their later years reaping the benefits of hard work. These plans depend largely on promises made by others, including their employers. Retirees make financial decisions counting on these promises being kept. The Federal Government--through the tax code--provides tax breaks to those companies who provide benefits to their workers, such as health care. In short, we use the tax code to reward good faith behavior. It is now time to consider using the code to prevent a violation of good faith, or to punish such violations. Chiquita/Morrell made a promise to their employees. It has an obligation to live up to its word to the many retired Americans who made Morrell an integral part of South Dakota's economy. [[Page S6917]] Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Kay Riordan Steuerwald, who passed away earlier this week in Rapid City after a lengthy battle with cancer. South Dakota has lost an outstanding citizen. Kay was one of South Dakota's premier leaders in the tourism industry for many years. To her many friends in South Dakota and throughout the Nation, Kay's name always will be associated with Mount Rushmore. As president of the Mount Rushmore Mountain Co., Inc., Kay ran a first- rate, visitor-friendly concession operation at our Nation's shrine to democracy for 42 years until 1993. She attributed her success to an emphasis on good service and reasonable prices. Kay also was a leader on the national level in tourism and national park concession circles. In the early 1980's, I recommended Kay's appointment to the U.S. Senate National Travel and Tourism Advisory Council. Through her position on that council and her leadership in numerous other organizations, Kay was an outspoken advocate for the tourism industry, which has tremendous economic impact in all States. Kay provided an excellent role model for women seeking to become small business owners. This is a reflection of her business acumen and her adherence to the work ethic. She succeeded as a businesswoman during a period when for many years business was traditionally considered a man's world. Her first job was in the South Dakota Transportation Department in Pierre during the administration of Democratic Gov. Tom Berry in the 1930's. Her career as a business owner began with her purchase of a coffeeshop and subsequently a hotel in Martin, SD. In 1941, she left Martin to become manager of the State Game Lodge in Custer State Park. Ten years later, she began operating the concession at Mount Rushmore. Over the years, Kay touched the lives either directly or indirectly of literally millions of visitors to Mount Rushmore. Countless individuals have fond memories of a wonderful dinner--topped off by a piece of the Mountain Co.'s famous strawberry pie--in the Buffalo Dining Room gazing out the windows at the priceless view of our four great Presidents on Mount Rushmore. Kay was very active in many organizations and community activities. Too numerous to mention all of them, her civic involvement included the National Park Concessionaires, National Federation of Independent Businesses, South Dakota Tourism Advisory Board, National Park Foundation, South Dakota Historical Society, American Council of the Arts, South Dakota Cultural Heritage Center, South Dakota 4-H Foundation, and executive board of A Christian Ministry in the National Parks. Having led a life full of accomplishments, Kay also received numerous awards over the years. She was one of the few women ever to be named an Honorary Park Ranger by the National Park Service. She was the first woman to receive the South Dakotan of the Year Distinguished Service Award from the University of South Dakota and was named South Dakota Small Business Person of the Year by the Small Business Administration in 1980. May 5, 1982, was designated as Kay Riordan Day by Gov. Bill Janklow. In 1985, Kay received South Dakota's prestigious Ben Black Elk Award for Tourism. In addition to her philanthropic contributions to numerous civic projects, Kay also helped many people privately on an individual basis. She frequently took young people under her wings and assisted them with furthering their education or getting started in business. Kay was a strong patron of the arts, particularly for native American artists. Those of us who knew Kay can recall our own special encounters with her. I recall Kay's gracious hospitality when my wife, Harriet, and I spent our honeymoon in the Black Hills in the early 1980's. Kay always made visitors feel welcome whenever they stopped by her business or her second-story office with the beautiful view of Mount Rushmore. Many lessons can be learned from Kay's perseverance in the business world, her strongly held personal convictions, and her courageous struggle with cancer these past few years. South Dakota has lost a true pioneer. In business, in her community, and in her heart, Kay was a trailblazer. Harriet and I extend our sympathies to her husband, Charlie; her nephew, Jack; and all her family and friends.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, once again, Mother Nature's fury is challenging the spirit and perseverance of South Dakotans. For the past several weeks, persistent rains have brought flooding conditions to much of the State for the third straight year. As a result, 38 counties already have been declared disaster areas. More counties may be added in the days ahead. Just by way of comparison, in July 1993, 33 counties were disaster areas due to the heavy rainfall and flooding that made front page headlines nationwide. Flooding has made vital roads and bridges impassable, placing the assurance of basic services at risk. Rivers and streams overflowing their banks have wreaked havoc in urban and rural areas across South Dakota--basements, fields, and roads are inundated with water. Damage to public and private property threatens the well-being of farmers, small business men and women, families, and individuals. On Monday, Gov. Bill Janklow requested that the President declare the State a disaster area and provide Federal emergency assistance in excess of $16 million. The devastation appears already to have surpassed that caused by the so-called Great Flood of 1993. Some areas of the State already are experiencing their wettest springs in history with 3 weeks remaining in the season. An end does not appear to be in sight. National Weather Service reports indicate heavy precipitation will continue through the end of this month and maybe into this summer. If this is the case, South Dakota once again may resemble the Great Lake of the Midwest. South Dakotans clearly are experiencing hard times. The Governor's office has informed me that the State is using all the resources it can to assist those in need. Federal help is critical. As South Dakota's senior Senator, I intend to do all I can to ensure that the President and our Federal agencies respond to South Dakota's disaster needs swiftly and diligently. The people of South Dakota deserve and should expect no less from their Government. I already have written to the President, the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], and the Small Business Administration [SBA], and the Federal Highway Administration, alerting them of South Dakota's urgent situation and urging quick approval of the Governor's aid request. I also invited the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Rodney Slater, to personally assess the damage of our flood-damaged roads and bridges and to give immediate consideration to a request from the State for assistance. Having endured $1.2 million of damage to roads and bridges last year, additional damage to roads and bridges makes FHWA assistance even more critical this year. Administrator Slater for some time has planned to survey damaged roads and bridges in South Dakota. Unfortunately, he has not scheduled a visit. Now is as good a time as any for him to see just how serious the situation is. South Dakotans have no time to waste. The Federal Government should act, and act fast. South Dakota deserves the same response other areas of the Nation receive in times of need. I intend to see that this action is taken. What kind of action can be taken at the Federal level? Plenty. In fact, a number of initiatives can be taken without a Presidential disaster declaration--initiatives that are critical to South Dakota farmers and ranchers. First and foremost, the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation must provide far greater flexibility in the administration of the Crop Insurance Program to South Dakota farmers. The Crop Insurance Program, which has replaced disaster payments as the central means for emergency relief, is predicated on the planting of crops. However, as we all know, the clear problem caused by the recent rain and floods for crop farmers is that they are unable to plant. Consider the percentage of crops planted, as of May 8, 1995, as compared to the 5-year average: corn--1 percent, 5-year average--19 percent; spring wheat--17 percent, 5-year average--89 percent; oats--12 percent, 5-year average--85 percent; barley--6 percent, 5-year average--84 percent. I already have written to Agriculture Secretary Glickman, urging administrative flexibility for the Crop Insurance Program. Specifically the Secretary needs to take the following steps: First, provide prevent planting coverage on crops that producers paid premiums on. If a producer was unable to plant the insured crop by the final planting date, crop insurance should pay the prevented planted indemnity and permit the producers to plant any subsequent crop possible and insure that crop. Second, provide crop insurance coverage for producers who aerial seed this year's crop. With the degree of wet conditions occurring in South Dakota, aerial seeding needs to be considered a usual practice. Third, withhold penalties against producers by permitting prevented planting coverage even if a producer enters the 0/92 program. Fourth, release Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] acres for haying and grazing. Fifth, extend immediately the May 15 deadline for calving on CRP acres. I am pleased that Secretary Glickman has responded to this request, and has extended the deadline. Sixth, permit the following crops to be planted this year without the loss of farm program benefits: millet, soybeans, buckwheat, sunflowers. FEMA, SBA, and the FHWA also should be equally responsive, fair, and flexible to the needs of South Dakotans should the Governor request Federal assistance. The need for equitable treatment in response to disasters is very important to me. In recent years, I have been very critical of what I believe to be the apparent discriminatory administration of Federal emergency assistance. It seems that disaster aid is always quick in coming to States and localities with major media markets and big electoral votes. However, whether you are from Humboldt, CA, or Humboldt, SD, a disaster is a disaster--a lost home, business, or income due to Mother Nature is hard for all Americans, regardless of where they live. Thus, treatment of these disasters should be fair. Once again, the wrath of Mother Nature is challenging the people of our great State. Times are tough, but I know South Dakotans will persevere. The pioneer spirit and sense of community within all South Dakotans will rise to the occasion. In the last few days, my wife Harriet and I have talked to a number of our friends in South Dakota. We have heard the difficulties they have faced. Our hearts and our prayers are with them--the farmers, ranchers, business men and women, and the families impacted by the flooding. I intend to do all I can to ensure that the Federal Government stands side-by-side with all South Dakotans during this difficult time. The President can begin this effort by approving Governor Janklow's request and send assistance where needed. I urge him to do so without delay. Again, the people of South Dakota should expect and deserve no less.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, there has been much discussion about the budget of the United States that will be brought to this floor by Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee soon. I believe strongly we must do something in this country or Medicare will go broke and our country will go broke. That is the alternative on one side. The alternative on the other side is to do something about it. Those are two rather grim alternatives. Because if we continue down the road with a $4.8 trillion debt in a $6.9 trillion economy, our money will soon become worthless. We are already seeing signs of this: the decline in the value of the dollar, particularly the unexplained collapse of the dollar against the yen and against the German mark. So something is wrong in our economy. In fact, I predict that at some point in the next 5 or 10 years we will have a cataclysmic event, economically speaking, in our country if we do not do something now about the Federal deficit. We also have learned that Medicare will go broke by the year 2002 unless something is done. I have been a champion of senior citizens. I would ask our senior citizens, would we rather have a Medicare system that is broke, or would we rather have one that is solvent even though we may have to make certain changes? So that is where we stand as a country, basically, with this budget coming to the floor. It is a historic turning point in our country's history. We have to make a decision as to whether or not we are going to face up to the facts. We had a debate on this Senate floor about the balanced budget amendment recently. The Democrats pointed out that our side of the aisle had no plan. They said, what is your plan to balance the budget? We do have a plan. It is the Domenici plan that will come to this floor. It has a lot of cuts; some cuts I do not personally agree with, but I am going to support the Domenici budget plan, generally speaking, because in part it is the only game in town. The Democrats do not have a plan. Yet, they are criticizing our plan. That is unfortunate. The Democrats have [[Page S6648]] the White House. They are supposed to provide leadership in this area also. But they do not want to. So it is our burden in the Republican majority to provide commonsense leadership, to take the hits, to make the tough votes. Mr. President, one of the newspapers in South Dakota this morning reported that the Federal Government--the Treasury--released how much my State would suffer if some of the budget cuts were made. I say to my fellow South Dakotans, that is the oldest trick in the book by the Federal bureaucracy. They release how much people are going to suffer, and how much money is going to be lost. They do not say that they might have to reduce the number of bureaucrats in Washington or at the Denver regional headquarters. They do not say that they are counting as part of the budget impact the elimination of bureaucrats and regulators whose work may involve South Dakota, but actually live in Washington, DC, or Denver. They merely say, ``Your State is going to be hurt this much,'' and, ``Senator, if you vote to cut us, you are hurting your State.'' Those numbers that are released in such a timely fashion show how skillful the Federal bureaucracy is at trying to protect themselves by politically hurting Senators and Congressmen who vote for cuts in the budget. So I urge all South Dakotans, and all Americans, to take a close look at exactly what they are talking about. In conclusion, Mr. President, on the budget, we face a very painful choice. On the one hand, we can go broke as a nation and see the value of the dollar decline and leave a great debt for future generations. We also can keep spending in Medicare at the same level without making changes and have it go broke by the year 2002. On the other hand, we can take a responsible course. We can follow the outline of Pete Domenici's budget, which he is bringing to this floor. The Republicans in the Senate have a plan. The Democrats do not. They are criticizing our plan. That is fine. We will take the criticism. But I want to say to the people in my State and to this country that I hope they give us the understanding and the credit for taking leadership, for taking the tough votes we will soon take, because the other side is merely throwing rocks at us as we are trying to climb up the hill. Let us remember that our country is at a historic point. We could choose to go bankrupt, with a $4 trillion debt this year. With many programs such as Medicare going broke, we can keep doing what we are doing, and if so, it is going to lead to a cataclysmic event. Or we can take some tough medicine, and take some tough votes. In the next 6 months, I believe that I will be casting the toughest votes of my Senate career. I ask for the understanding of my constituents because it is not easy. I would rather be voting to give everybody everything. It must have been fun to be a Senator in the 1960's, when you could vote for amendments without having any budget offset. Now, with every amendment we have, if we add something to the budget, we have to say where we are taking it from. We have to state under the budget rules what this is going to do to the Federal budget. So the whole tone of the next 6 months in this Chamber is going to be a very difficult one. We are going to see Senators struggle in their votes. It is going to be easier to demagog and to say let us wait until next year, or delay it 3 or 5 years. But the time has come to stand up and be counted. I believe that we can do a great deal for the future of the United States if we do so. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week the Pentagon released a much- anticipated report by the Institute for Defense Analyses [IDA] on our Nation's heavy bomber force structure. This report, the heavy bomber study, examined the deployment options of our long-range heavy bomber forces--in association with additional tactical forces--under the circumstances of two hypothetical, nearly simultaneous world conflicts. To date, the IDA study is the most comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the use of our Nation's three heavy bombers--the B-1 bomber [B-1B], the B-2 stealth bomber, and the B-52--in a conventional war-fighting role. I am pleased that the IDA study confirmed what I have said for quite some time: The B-1B is an efficient and effective long-range bomber, and it can be used successfully as the centerpiece of American airpower projection. The IDA study suggests that planned conventional upgrades to the B-1B would be more cost-effective than purchasing 20 additional B-2 bombers. Further, the study recommends that remaining B-2 bomber production preservation funds should be reallocated to other weapons and conventional upgrades. That would allow for a total bomber force consisting of 95 B-1B's, 66 B-52's, and 20 B-2's. As my colleagues know, the B-1B was developed and built at the height of the cold war. Thus, it was anticipated that its function would be limited to meeting one of several nuclear options. However, the B-1B has shown to be an effective conventional force component--a testament to designers, Air Force strategists and pilots who recognized the versatility of this aircraft. Time and again, the B-1B has had to meet new challenges. For example, the 1994 congressionally mandated assessment test of the B-1B, performed by the 28th Bomber Wing at Ellsworth Air measured the readiness rate of one B-1B bomber wing when provided fully with the necessary spare parts, maintenance equipment, support crews, and logistics equipment. The Dakota Challenge found that a fully funded B-1B wing could maintain an unprecedented 84 percent mission capable rate. In addition, improvements were seen in other readiness indicators, including the 12-hour fix rate--a measure of how often a malfunctioning aircraft can be repaired and returned to the air within one half day. By meeting a number of different challenges, the B-1B has earned justifiably the designation as the workhorse of the heavy bomber fleet. Based on the analysis of the IDA report, the B-1B should assume a prominent role in our Nation's defense. The study recognizes that maintaining the B-1B as the workhorse of the heavy bomber fleet would yield the highest return on our defense investment and render the most cost-effective contribution to our Nation's heavy bomber requirements. With continued investments in weapons upgrades, I believe the B-1B will be an outstanding and effective conventional heavy bomber capable of projecting America's air power into the next century. Mr. President, over the next several decades, the United States increasingly will be forced to respond rapidly and decisively to regional security threats around the globe. Holding 36 world records for speed, payload, and distance, the B-1B is uniquely suited to meeting our Nation's present and future defense challenges. In this period of budget constraints, I urge my colleagues to consider carefully the recommendations in the IDA Heavy Bomber Study before casting their vote on any defense measures affecting our heavy bomber force structure.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, an exciting event recently took place in the southern Black Hills of South Dakota. The Freedom Shrine, a collection of documents from U.S. history, was dedicated at the Hot Springs VA Medical Center in Hot Springs, SD. I commend Maurice Wintersteen, the Exchange Club of Rapid City, and Hot Springs VA Director Dan Marsh, for their efforts to bring the Freedom Shrine to Hot Springs. Late last year, Maurice Wintersteen approached the Exchange Club of Rapid City about sponsoring a freedom shrine in the local VA Hospital. The Exchange Club of Rapid City agreed to his request, and Director Marsh threw his full support behind the project. As a result of their dedicated efforts, the Freedom Shrine became a reality and was placed in the rotunda of the VA Domiciliary Building. The Freedom Shrine displays reproductions of 28 historic American documents, including the U.S. Constitution, President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and President Kennedy's Inaugural Address. It is my understanding the Hot Springs VA Hospital is the only VA facility in the Nation to have such a freedom shrine. It is very fitting that the Freedom Shrine was dedicated on the 50th anniversary of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt--the man who led a worldwide alliance against a tyranny that threatened freedom- living people throughout the world. The Freedom Shrine serves as an essential reminder to all Americans that the freedom we enjoy today is the direct result of the enormous effort and sacrifice of our forefathers, from the pioneers who first settled the Nation, to the veterans who gave their lives to defend it and the values we stand for. We must never forget the precious gift they gave us. It is ours to preserve for future generations. Inspired by the Freedom Train that toured the United States with American historical documents after the Second World War, the National Exchange Club resolved to display documents from U.S. history in communities throughout the Nation so that Americans of all ages would have easy access to the rich heritage of their past. Since 1949, many freedom shrines have been installed by exchange clubs in various communities across the Nation, Puerto Rico, and at American outposts around the world. From State capitols to U.S. warships, and hundreds of schools across the Nation, freedom shrines serve as an invaluable reference for students and other citizens seeking information or inspiration from these historic treasures. Again, I congratulate the Exchange Club of Rapid City, Maurice Wintersteen, Hot Springs VA Director Dan Marsh, and all our veterans for their ongoing commitment to the preservation of American principles. Their deep pride in the history, traditions, and values of our great State and Nation are reflected in the Freedom Shrine. Most important, they have given present and future generations of South Dakotans a precious and lasting gift. I salute everyone involved with this inspiring project.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as we conclude the debate over S. 565, the Product Liability Fairness Act, we have come full circle. committee action On March 15 I joined with Senators Gorton and Rockefeller in introducing legislation designed to reform that portion of America's tort system dealing with products liability. Two days of hearings were conducted on the bill and on April 6 the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which I am chairman, met in executive session to consider the legislation. During the committee process there was talk of expanding the bill to encompass a broader array of tort reform. As chairman, I resisted efforts to expand the legislation into any areas that did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Do not get me wrong. I support more broad-based tort reform. My voting record over the past 2 weeks proves that fact. However, during committee consideration I believed it was important not to add provisions that fall under the province of other Senate committees. As a result, on April 6 the Commerce Committee voted 13 to 6 to send a products liability reform bill to the full Senate. senate consideration On April 24 the full Senate took up the measure. Over the past 2\1/2\ weeks the legislation has consumed some 90 hours of Senate debate. It has been a constructive process. No one can say this body did not fully explore the issues involved. No one can say we blocked any attempts to make changes to the legislation. Indeed, it was those--like myself--who favored a broader bill that found themselves blocked. Since April 24, we have debated and voted upon over 30 amendments. Roughly a dozen of those dealt with reforming the medical malpractice system. Senator McConnell introduced a broad reform amendment similar to legislation that had been fully debated by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. That major amendment, together with a number of smaller malpractice reform measures passed the Senate and became part of the bill. I was proud to support these efforts and voted for many of the malpractice initiatives. Next the Senate turned its attention toward broadening reforms concerning punitive damages. By considering some half dozen punitive damages amendments and adopting several--including major provisions offered by Senators Dole and Hatch, by Senator Snowe and by Senator DeWine--a majority of the Senate worked its will to expand the reform of punitive damage awards from product liability cases to include all civil cases. Again I supported these efforts and worked for their passage. Finally, the Senate turned to a consideration of joint and several liability. S. 565 as reported contained a provision abolishing joint liability for noneconomic damages. As to these damages, defendants would be liable only in direct proportion to their responsibility for the claimant's harm. They would not be responsible for the harm caused by another defendant who later was found unable to pay the compensation awarded. In other words, with regard to noneconomic damages, a defendant's liability would be several and not joint. Senator Abraham offered an amendment on the floor to extend this concept to all civil cases. Unfortunately, that amendment was tabled. Mr. President, these actions brought us to Thursday of last week. They also put a majority of the Senate on record in favor of broad- based legal reform. Most importantly, our efforts produced a fair, reasonable, and balanced bill. Sadly, our efforts were not enough. Last Thursday the Senate failed in two votes to end debate, allow a vote on final passage of the bill, and move to a conference with the House of Representatives to work out the difference between our bill and the much more sweeping legislation passed by the House earlier this year. As a result, Senate leadership crafted an alternative bill. That measure, introduced Friday as a substitute to the pending legislation, returned the reform initiative to its Commerce Committee roots. That proposal, along with the amendment we are debating today, is very similar to S. 565 as reported by the Commerce Committee. How did this happen? Quite simply the opponents of broad-based tort reform were highly effective in their debate over the issue of civil justice reform, the rhetoric tended to get very emotional and often strayed off course. the truth about the bill Mr. President, the truth is this legislation would not change any of what is right with our current legal system. The courthouse doors would remain open. Consumers would still have a full range of rights. Persons wrongfully injured still would be compensated. Tort cases could be used to provide a strong check on corporate behavior. Contingent fees would continue to allow ordinary citizens with limited means the ability to bring suit. What would change is that frivolous lawsuits would be curtailed--pure and simple. In an earlier statement I outlined how the bill's provisions concerning punitive damages, the statutes of limitations and repose, joint and several liability, defenses for alcohol and drug abuse, and biomaterial suppliers would benefit small business, consumers, and those injured by products. Therefore, I will not take the Senate's time to reexamine those issues today. It is not necessary. Under the latest alternative we have before us today, the things I said in that statement continue to apply. I would add only a few comments concerning the views of the American people--specifically the citizens of my home State of South Dakota-- with regard to our legal system. A recent poll conducted in my State found that 83 percent of survey respondents say that ``the present liability system has problems and should be improved,'' while only 10 percent say that ``the present liability lawsuit system is working well and should not be changed.'' In addition, this is not a partisan issue: 78 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of Independents, and 88 percent of Republicans in South Dakota responding to the survey say there are problems that need to be improved. of those who had served on a civil trial jury, 79 percent say the system has problems and needs improvement. Mr. President, the pending measure is not as broad as I would like. I truly wish we could have done more to address the problems of the tort system generally and not limit ourselves simply to product liability cases. However, I am gratified the model used by the Senate for product liability reform continues to be the bill reported to this body by the Commerce Committee. It represents an excellent move forward and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I join my fellow Americans and millions of freedom-loving people around the world in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. I am enormously proud of the South Dakotans who answered their Nation's call to free Europe from Nazi terror. The 34th Infantry Division--the first American division to serve in the European theater--included three South Dakota National Guard units: the 109th Engineer Battalion, the 109th Quartermaster Regiment, and the 132d Engineer Regiment. South Dakotans were with Eisenhower, Patton, and Bradley when they invaded North Africa in 1942 and Italy in 1943. More than 2,200 South Dakota National Guardsmen served on active duty. More than 41,000 South Dakotans between the ages of 21 and 36 were called into military service through the draft and 23,192 South Dakotans enlisted. Hundreds more served as State guardsmen to respond to civil and military emergencies at home. South Dakota was a temporary home to many of our brave soldiers in training. The Sioux Falls Training Base provided technical instruction to 45,000 servicemen. Pierre and Rapid City were sites for airbases. The latter would ultimately become Ellsworth Air Force Base. Watertown and Mitchell served as subbases for the Army. Provo was the site of the Black Hills or Igloo Ordnance Depot. And an area in the Badlands, known as the Gunnery Range, was used for bombing practice by the military. I join with all Americans in saluting the enormous contributions of our native Americans from South Dakota in the war effort. Congressman Ben Reifel--born on the Rosebud Reservation--was in the Army Reserve when called to active duty in 1942. He served in Europe. Reifel reached the rank of lieutenant colonel by the time of his discharge after the war. The Lakota and Dakota code talkers' contributions deserve special recognition. Their service back then was invaluable. Their story is still legendary and a source of pride to all Americans. My former colleague and dear friend Senator George McGovern was a World War II veteran and hero. As an Army Air Corps pilot, Senator McGovern flew 35 bombing missions over Europe in a 6-month period. He also received the Distinguished Flying Cross for safely crash-landing his B-24 bomber--the Dakota Queen--on an island in the Adriatic Sea. South Dakotans know well the heroism of Msgr. Francis Sampson, known as the Jumping Padre. Monsignor Sampson was a paratrooper--one of the first American liberators in the 82d and 101st Airbornes to set foot on European soil on D-Day. He was captured by the Nazi Army, escaped and was captured again, spending the rest of the war in a German prison camp. Mr. President, the greatest share of gratitude and tribute we owe to our American and Allied veterans--living and dead. For it is they who put their lives on the line so that their children and grandchildren could live in a world free of Nazi terror. From the shores of Normandy to the forests of the Ardennes, American veterans pryed open Hitler's tyrannical stranglehold over Europe. But we must not forget Americans at home. It was just as much a Victory in America as it was a Victory in Europe. South Dakotans will never forget the tremendous service of Governors Harlan J. Bushfield and M.Q. Sharpe, who met the enormous challenges of raising the State's National Guard and organizing civil defense drills and bond drives throughout the war years. South Dakotans volunteered and raised funds for eight United Service Organization [USO] clubs in South Dakota. These USO clubs were much needed to boost morale among the troops stationed in our State. South Dakotans young and old dug deep into their pockets and piggy banks to keep American troops armed, fed, and clothed. During eight national fund-raising campaigns, South Dakota exceeded its quotas. South Dakota consistently ranked first or second in the per capita sale of the Series ``E'' war bonds, known as people's bonds. In total, South Dakotans raised $111.5 million from the sale of people's bonds--that's $173 for every South Dakotan adult and child. Some South Dakotans even sacrificed their homes and property for the war effort. South Dakotans worked overtime in the fields and factories of our State growing the food and building the supplies for our troops. Workers in the K.O. Lee Co. of Aberdeen made grinders and keyless drill chucks. The Dakota Sash and Door Company, also of Aberdeen, constructed wooden shell boxes. The Nichols Co., located in Spencer, manufactured leather carbine scabbards for jeeps. Mr. President, I could go on and on to note the tremendous accomplishments of my State to the war effort. It is a story that each one of my colleagues could echo. Each State, each American had a hand in the victory. Our hearts and minds were with our courageous American forces overseas. They answered the call. They stood face to face with Hitler's machine of hate and oppression. They turned the tide of Nazi aggression. [[Page S6242]] But we could not have won on the European front without a victory on the home front. Our American forces in Europe were the best trained, best fed, and best supplied liberating force ever constructed on the planet. They were the best ever abroad because we were the best ever at home. Let there be no mistake. The twisted power and oppression of Nazi terror, hatred, and Holocaust were no match for the collective powers of freedom, of democracy, of individual initiative--the very essence of America. Today, we honor the 50th anniversary of that victory. We honor that victory every day so long as we continue to stand for these values at home and abroad. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize some very special businesses in my home State of South Dakota during National Small Business Week. Through work on the Senate Committee on Small Business for 17 of my 21 years in Congress, I know small businesses have not always enjoyed the recognition and attention they deserve. For too long, America's entrepreneurs have been taken for granted. These dynamic men and women play a critical role in this Nation's economy. During the last major recession, small businesses created 4.1 million jobs, while large firms reduced employment by 500,000 jobs. Without the spirit, drive, and determination of small businesses, our economy would not have been able to break out of the economic stagnancy of the early 1990's. Clearly, this sector of our economy is finally getting the respect it is due. Wile credit availability has improved significantly and now appears stable, we must continue to monitor this situation. Without adequate financing, entrepreneurs will not be able to get out of the gate. Likewise, I am encouraged by recent efforts in Congress to decrease the burdens of Federal regulations and paperwork. And while the Senate still is deliberating S. 565, the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995, I hope we will be able to protect small manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits by enacting sensible tort reforms. Though we have worked to level the playing field for small businesses, small firms now face unique problems. America and the world are in the throws of an information technology revolution. The ability of an enterprise to use high-technology tools very well may dictate whether the business survives. We must ensure established and fledgling small businesses are able to be players in the technological arena. We must ensure small firms wishing to provide high-technology goods and services have access to credit and capital. Because the very nature of capital assets tends to be less tangible, small firms may have difficulty securing the traditional forms of collateral lenders often seek. Is it possible to put a value on the time, effort, and knowledge of a software developer? I do not know. However, from my position as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I hope to identify solutions to these potential roadblocks. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I also did not raise some of the unique challenges rural small businesses face. South Dakota's 1995 Small Business Person of the Year has defied conventional wisdom that says a successful manufacturing business must be located in an urban area. In 1982, Randy Boyd returned to his native Geddes, SD, where he joined his father in a gunsmith and gun repair business. By 1986, their operation hired three employees to assist in the manufacturing of gun- stocks for shotguns and big game rifles. Since then, their venture has expanded to 25 full time, 10 part-time, and 10 contract employees. Boyd's Gunstock Industries, Inc., currently is one of the country's leading gunstock manufacturers. I commend Randy Boyd for the well deserved honor of being named South Dakota Small Business Person of the Year. He is an inspiration to other entrepreneurs with a dream and a willingness to work hard to see that dreams take shape. During my visit with Randy this week, I learned he would like to expand Boyds' Gunstock even further. Unfortunately, he has encountered a limitation many burgeoning small businesses face in rural States like South Dakota. Randy wants very badly to keep his operation in the small city of Geddes. In order to overcome the community's limited work force, Randy has aggressively pursued workers from surrounding communities. Though such efforts have been successful for Randy in the past, he is discovering that the city of Geddes lacks affordable housing for these new employees. Indeed, it would be a tremendous loss for the community if this opportunity is lost. I will be working with Randy and the community of Geddes to try to resolve a problem that has become all too common for communities across my State. Private investments in real estate must be both appealing and lucrative. As I said during my visit with Randy, I will promote tax incentives that, in turn, will promote economic growth. It is important that we continue to cultivate a climate that will stimulate small business growth. We must reward and encourage entrepreneurs such as Randy Boyd to continue their efforts. I again congratulate Randy for his success and the success of Boyds' Gunstock. I also would like to recognize some of my State's other businesses leaders. I congratulate: Arlin W. Anderson of the South Dakota American Legion, Veteran Small Business Advocate of the Year; William F. Carlson of Tower Systems, Inc., Small Business Exporter; John E. Brewer of Rushmore State Bank, Financial Services Advocate; Eileen Lunderman of the Sincangu Enterprise Center, Minority Small Business Advocate; Brenda Wade Schmidt of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Media Advocate, and Jan Steensland of Eyes on You magazine, Women in Business Advocate. Each of these individuals has played a very important role in making small businesses the driving force behind South Dakota's vibrant economy. I am proud of their generous efforts. They have contributed tremendously to their neighbors and friends. It is the duty of Congress and the Federal Government to allow them to continue making such important contributions. Often this can best be achieved staying out of their way. Again, Mr. President, I salute South Dakota's 1995 National Small Business Week Award winners and thank them for their efforts.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues and millions around the world in celebrating Israel's 47th year of independence. Israel's rapid economic progress and strength are testimony to the vigilance and determination of the Jewish people. As we celebrate nearly five decades of Israeli autonomy, we call to mind the many of today, yesterday, and centuries past who share a common bond: The dedication of their lives to establish and maintain a country that every Jewish person can call home. As Israeli President Ezer Weizman recently stated, ``The State of Israel achieved its position due to the fact that its people aimed for peace and fought for it, despite all difficulties.'' For the Jewish people, adversity has served as an incentive rather than a deterrent. According to Prime Minister Shimon Perez, ``Israel will continue her quest for peace. At the same time, she will fight those who fight peace.'' As friends, the people of the United States salute the conviction and perseverance the Jewish people as we, on this occasion of independence, reaffirm our shared belief in Israel's sovereignty. The tiny democracy of Israel thrives in a region historically barraged with experienced regional opposition from dictators such as Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser and Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Yet Israel has flourished amidst such hostility. Through open, democratic elections, majority rules representation, and the support of her allies, Israel has proven that a democracy can succeed in a region of otherwise undemocratic nations. Today we applaud the tenacity and the vision of the Israeli people and their success in making democracy work for nearly half a century. Israel's charter reads that the new state ``will rest upon the foundation of liberty, justice, and peace as envisioned by the prophets of Israel, and that it will be loyal to the principles of the United Nations Charter.'' Almost immediately, President Truman recognized the similarity between the United States Constitution and the Israeli proclamation and became the first foreign leader to endorse the newly formed state. With the help of allies like the United States and the path-breaking leadership of individuals such as Menachim Begin and Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, Israel has been able to maintain and even expand its strategic alliances throughout the world. Mr. President, the State of Israel has made tremendous progress over the past 47 years. Israel has emerged as a scientific and technological leader. Last year, the Israeli economy grew more than 7 percent--a growth rate higher than the more advanced economies. This is clear evidence of Israel's commitment to progress, and the willingness of countries all over the globe to recognize Israel as a viable trade partner. The Israeli people have repeatedly looked beyond the events of the day and maintained a focus on the need building a strong scientific and technological base. Neither terrorism nor war has diminished their desire to maintain a strong, independent nation. Without a doubt, the people of Israel could not have flourished so quickly without the support of friends and family living abroad. By conveying their support for Israel, Jewish people living in the diaspora have demonstrated their commitment to a Jewish homeland. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres recently stated that, ``No nation has been helped as much by its brothers and sisters.'' Americans of all religions and creeds are brothers and sisters of the people of Israel. Our nations share a bond of similar values. Our experiences are their lessons. Israel and the United States of America have demonstrated that a democratic society can withstand the forces of hate, oppression, and terror. That is why we have embraced Jews living within this Nation and have pledged our support to their homeland. In spite of a housing shortage, Israel maintains an open door to Jewish immigrants. The Israeli Government has made it clear that it will not refuse the admission of Jewish immigrants due to external political pressures. To do so would contradict a major principle of the Jewish faith--that ``all Jews are responsible for one another.'' President Weizman recently reaffirmed this belief by insisting that, ``The significance of sons and daughters coming to Israel in large numbers to feel and breathe the atmosphere cannot be overemphasized. Israelis, on their part, will take them to their hearts.'' This long- standing policy has been a beacon of hope for the 600,000 Soviet and 50,000 Ethiopian Jews who fled their besieged countries and settled in their new homeland. Today's celebration of Israeli independence should bring to mind the determined spirit of the Jewish people. After centuries of struggle and persecution, the Jewish people finally have a cultural, political, and religious sanctuary. To our friends in Israel, we Americans share in your continuing efforts to achieve regional peace and the further economic progress of your homeland. The celebration of Israeli independence is a celebration of the permanence of democracy. We recognize that no force can defeat your spirit of self-determination. In the words of Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, ``neither war not holocaust nor threats nor animosity could cut the energy of your people.'' Mr. President, today is a great day for all Jewish people and all people in democratic societies. The nation of Israel stands as a great tribute to the fortitude of the human spirit. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in wishing the Jewish people, especially those in my home State of South Dakota, a happy and peaceful 47th Yom Ha'atzmaut.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the administration's proposal to sell the Western Area, Southwestern, and Southeastern Power Marketing Administrations--collectively known as the PMA's. Public power serves many functions in South Dakota. As a sparsely populated State, utilities are faced with the challenge of how to get affordable electricity into small cities and communities where there are less than two people per mile of transmission line. Public power provides the solution. In public power utilities, the only investors are the consumers. Revenues are reinvested in the community--in the form of taxes and services. And, the low cost of power is essential to encourage economic development in small cities and towns. Public power, purchased through the Western Area Power Administration, known as WAPA, costs South Dakotans an average of 2.5 cents less than the market rate. This allows revenue to be reinvested in additional transmission lines, and better service. The availability of hydropower from the Missouri River to rural cooperatives and municipals have helped to stabilize rates. With 7,758 miles of transmission lines in the Pick-Sloan region, WAPA can serve 133,100 South Dakotans--without charging them an arm and a leg. Public power has brought more than electricity to South Dakota. For example, Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency, based in Sioux Falls, has embarked on a program offering incentives for planting trees. The goal is to plant at least one tree for each 112,500 meters in the Agency's membership territory. In fact, Missouri Basin was recognized by the Department of Energy for outstanding participation in this Global Climate Change Program. I congratulate Tom Heller of Missouri Basin for this excellent community service program. Public power also brings new jobs to the communities it serves. In part due to the low cost of power from East River Electric, there are now three injection molding plants based in Madison, SD--creating snowmobile parts. Arctic Cat, PPD, and Falcon Plastics employ approximately 200 people in Madison. East River also is involved in other economic development activities. It provides classes to help the community attract businesses, and offers grants for feasibility studies associated with economic development projects. South Dakota clearly has benefited from the work of Jeff Nelson, as the general manager of the East River Electric Power Cooperative. Public power is a South Dakota success story. It is the source of innovation, development, and community pride. I am sure the same is true in other towns and communities across America. In spite of these success stories, the Clinton administration--and several Members of Congress--want to put an end to this success. Specifically, President Clinton has proposed selling WAPA and two other power marketing administrations in order to pay for the modest tax cut he has promised the American people. In essence, this would force South Dakotans--and public power consumers in small cities and rural areas--to cover for the rest of America. Under the President's plan, South Dakotans would not be able to enjoy the promised tax cut. Why? Because the sale of the PMA's could result in rate increases totaling more than $47 million. In addition, I question the claim made by the administration that the Government. Will it? Let us look at the facts. PMA's still owe $15 billion in principal. Also, more than $9 billion in interest already has been paid to the Federal Government. By selling the PMA's, the Government would forfeit future interest payments. In fact, a recent report prepared by the Congressional Research Service demonstrates just how much money the PMA's are expected to contribute to the Federal Government. This year, WAPA is expected to pay back $225.1 million borrowed from the Federal Government. But WAPA will also return another $153.4 million to the Treasury. Given these figures, it is clear that the Clinton plan does not make good economic sense. As my colleagues know, this is not a new issue. I have been fighting the proposed sale of the PMA's ever since I came to Congress. In 1986, the Reagan administration made similar attempts to privatize the PMA's. We stopped them by passing a law to prevent the Department of Energy from pursuing any future plans to sell the PMA's, unless specifically authorized by Congress. I suspect the Clinton administration may have forgotten that law. Mr. President, once again, we are fighting to prove the worth of public power. Once again, we must demonstrate how necessary it is to the lives of rural Americans. The people of South Dakota have stated their message loudly and clearly--through thousands of postcards, letters, and phone calls. South Dakotans such as Ron Holstein, Bob Martin, and Jeff Nelson have been leaders in their opposition to the proposed PMA sale and I appreciate all their hard work. Public power is a solid investment for the Nation. Public power is one of the great success stories of South Dakota. I urge all my colleagues to stand united behind the continued success of public power, and the essential service it provides to the Americans who reside in small cities and towns. Now is not the time to mess with success. power marketing administrations

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn the news last night that rescue workers in Oklahoma City discovered the body of Cartney Koch McRaven amid the rubble that once was the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Cartney Koch McRaven was one American--not ordinary--extraordinary. Cartney graduated from Spearfish High School in 1993. She enlisted in the Air Force, whose members believe that the protection of freedom is the highest, most important public service. With devotion and honor she served her country. Her action was a tribute to the core values that make this country great. Cartney was only 19 years old. Newly married on April 15 to Shane McRaven, a fellow airman in the U.S. Air Force. She was stationed at Tinker Air Force Base. She had traveled to the Murrah Federal Building to register her new name on Federal documents. A new name. A new husband. About to start a new life. A life that will never be. A life cut short by the savagery of domestic terrorism. By murderers who kill their fellow citizens. Cartney had a beautiful life ahead of her. On behalf of the people of South Dakota, my wife Harriet and I extend our condolences to Cartney's family, friends, and loved ones. For Cartney and the other victims of the Oklahoma City tragedy, we must not let our commitment to freedom waiver. These cowards will be brought to justice. She and the others tragically killed in Oklahoma will not have died in vain.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, periodically, it is my pleasure to address the Senate on the effective work of the Cooperative Extension Service and 4-H programs. The Cooperative Extension Service [CES] is at the heart of many American communities. Established in 1914 by the Smith-Lever Act, the CES has been serving the needs of millions of Americans for more than 80 years. The CES provides education and one-on-one assistance on a wide variety of issues, from agribusiness skills and safe chemical handling to senior nutrition and child care. The U.S. Department of Agriculture works closely with each State's land-grant university to provide information on these and other programs to participating communities. The hands-on approach increases productivity and keeps thousands of farms and families running smoothly. Local agents tailor CES programs to meet special area needs. In southeast South Dakota, for example, more than 1,200 producers affected by flooding received information on cropping alternatives and financial management. In Day and Marshall Counties, CES agents organized more than 450 South Dakota families and businesses in a recycling effort. Another example is the successful Extension Service Indian reservation programs. On the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations, 87 farmers and ranchers completed training for their private pesticide applicators license. One unique program run by the CES in every South Dakota county is helping to put welfare recipients back to work. Every recipient of Aid to Families With Dependent Children [AFDC] must attend resourceful living classes offered by county extension agents. In these classes, welfare recipients learn basic skills such as household budgeting, and interviewing skills. No other State in the country has such a program to establish self-sufficiency. According to the CES, for every dollar invested in CES livestock programming, $4.60 to $5.80 is realized in the increased value of livestock sold. For every dollar invested in crop programming, the value of crops sold is increased by $5.90 to $8.62. Thousands and thousands of dollars in health care costs are saved through the nutrition and child care education offered by CES. Clearly, this is an example of a Federal program with an excellent return on the taxpayers' dollar. Why? Because it relies on the common sense participation of local folks who know the unique needs in their own communities. Another program with a history of common sense result is 4-H. The mission of 4-H is to help young people become self-directed, productive, and contributing members of society. 4-H members have the opportunity to explore many areas of interest. Their projects can include raising cattle, hogs, and sheep. Other 4-H projects involve growing farm or garden crops, forestry and entomology collections, baking, sewing, handicrafts, art, electronics, horse showing, photography, public speaking, and much more. Nationally about 5.5 million young people are involved in 4-H annually. I always enjoy meeting 4-H'ers in my Washington office or at our State fair. They always give me helpful advice. 4-H has helped them to become well-informed and articulate leaders. While growing up on a small family farm in my home State of South Dakota, I was active in a local 4-H club, the Humboldt Hustlers. The 9 years I was active in 4-H helped me develop my personality and better focus myself. That helped me to confidently formulate and pursue my goals. Each 4-H participant learns the value of teamwork, and gains knowledge of the community, State, Nation, and world in which he or she lives. I was fortunate to have attended twice the 4-H Club Congress in Chicago and the 1961 World Agricultural Fair in Cairo, Egypt. Participation in such programs by young people is even more vital today with the growing importance of the global community to the United States. The success of South Dakota 4-H is due to a team of very competent, well-informed adult professionals and volunteers who help educate 4-H members. I remember in particular two professionals who helped me and other South Dakota youth. They were Glenn Schrader, who was the Minnehaha County agent for more than 30 years, and John Younger, who was the South Dakota 4-H leader for nearly 25 years. Both were instrumental in the development of 4-H within South Dakota, as well as nationally. All 4-H participants also appreciate their local 4-H leaders for the time, effort, and commitment they volunteer. During the time I was involved in 4-H, I had two leaders: Elmer Anderson and Harry Stofferahn. They shared the values and spirit of 4-H to me and my fellow members, for which I am grateful to this day. With the reported decline in rural communities, my colleagues may wonder how these programs continue to serve a useful purpose. The Extension Service and 4-H programs are no longer just for rural areas. They have expanded from addressing traditional farm and home economic problems to current issues such as teen pregnancy and violence. In fact, nearly one-third of 4-H students now reside in urban areas. They have grown so fast because the lessons and values that are the essence of 4-H--head, heart, hands, and health--transcend geography and demography. More important, at a time when thousands of young people in urban areas face so many challenges, the lessons and values of 4-H are needed more than ever before. As Federal budgetary pressures grow, it will be tempting for Congress to cut funding for programs such as the CES and 4-H. I hope my colleagues will resist this pressure and continue supporting these effective programs. The CES and 4-H programs should be permitted to continue providing support for communities across the United States for many years to come.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to correct a serious problem in South Dakota that has resulted in severe flooding along the shores of Lake Traverse. Lake Traverse is located in the far northeast corner of South Dakota and in parts of western Minnesota. In fact, the boundary line between South Dakota and Minnesota cuts through the middle of the lake. There is very interesting history connected with Lake Traverse. Lake Traverse is the beginning of the Red River--the only major North American river that flows north. This river eventually enters Hudson Bay and flows through Wahpeton, Fargo, Grand Forks, and Winnipeg. Historical records show this lake was an important avenue in the transportation of United States grain to destinations as far away as Belgium. On Lake Traverse, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains and operates White Rock Dam and structures at interstate bridge. Both these sites are located east of Rosholt, SD. Operations to date have been devastating. Lake Traverse is facing a major disaster due to high water levels. Shorelines have been destroyed. Some small businesses are facing financial jeopardy. Farmland is being lost. Homes, cottages, and other structures are being destroyed. And if that is not enough, subsequent erosion is wreaking havoc on the local land. Thousands of trees are under water and dying. Something must be done. Taxpayers should not be required to pay taxes on land that is under water and useless. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, congressional approval is needed before the corps can take steps to correct the high water level and erosion problems. The corps is managing the lake with arcane rules that are half a century old. That is unacceptable. My bill would give the corps the necessary authority to better manage water release at Lake Traverse and control erosion. The answer, in the form of legislation I am introducing today, is simple: It would direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain and maintain a high water level at Lake Traverse not to exceed 977 (MSL). In other words, this legislation would provide the necessary authority for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to solve the problems surrounding Lake Traverse. There is strong public support for this action. Just last week, I held a meeting at the Circle K Resort, which is located on the South Dakota side of Lake Traverse. More than 250 people were in attendance. This turnout clearly indicates that South Dakotans believe something needs to be done. The bill I am introducing today would achieve their goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that material related to the Lake Traverse flooding be inserted into the Record. I urge my colleagues from South Dakota and Minnesota to review this legislation. We must solve this problem. I urge their support and the support of the entire Senate.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, April's Commerce Department magazine contains an article entitled ``Commerce Officials Knew Two Congressmen `Back When'.'' As it happens, I am one of the Congressmen. ``Back then'' was Vietnam during the war when Paul London, now Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce, was in charge of a State Department unit involved with economic affairs and I article, Paul reflects on a small research project I conducted for him involving the cost of fish in Saigon. It just goes to show that we never really escape the actions we take in this life. At any rate, Mr. President, the piece brought back a great many memories and I am flattered Paul remembered such a small incident after all these years. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as the Senate begins its debate of H.R. 956 I wish, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to discuss the provisions of S. 565--the Product Liability Fairness Act--as reported by our committee. S. 565 as reported will be offered as a substitute for H.R. 956, therefore I shall discuss the Senate bill as we begin this debate. Earlier this month, the Commerce Committee conducted extensive hearings over 2 days and then voted 13 to 6 to report the legislation with an amendment on April 6. S. 565 as reported is a fair and balanced bill. Mr. President, as we begin I cannot help but point out: Here we are again--product liability reform being debated by the Senate of the United States. Do not get me wrong. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I am proud to bring S. 565 to the floor. So why do I say, ``Here we are again''? It is not that I do not think this is an important issue. Far from it. This bill is vital. It is vital not just to America's businesses but also to our Nation's workers and consumers. It also is vital to the victims of injuries caused by products. the history It is just that we have come this far before. Indeed, since 1981, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has held 23 days of hearings on product liability reform. S. 565 marks the seventh piece of product liability reform legislation reported by the Commerce Committee over that 15-year period. It is my fervent hope this time we can achieve meaningful results. Mr. President, I see no reason why we cannot. This year's bill is balanced and reasoned. I consider it superior to legislation debated in the last Congress in that it does not include a provision to disallow punitive damage awards in lawsuits for certain manufacturers receiving pre-market certification from the Federal Aviation Administration. As my colleagues know, that section of last year's bill made this Senator extremely uncomfortable, so uncomfortable as to put me in the equally uncomfortable position of voting against cloture on legislation addressing other legal reforms I have supported and voted for many times over the years. I personally have been involved in the product liability reform movement since the early 1980's. I am proud of that. I was an original cosponsor of the Risk Retention Act that became law in 1981 and provided for liability insurance pools--or risk retention groups--for businesses. Throughout the 1980's I cosponsored numerous uniform product liability bills with Senators Kasten, Danforth, and Gorton. The early bills were supported strongly by the business community but lacked bipartisan support in Congress. I chaired Small Business Committee field hearings in Sioux Falls and Rapid City, SD, on this issue in 1985. I commend the efforts to Senators Gorton and Rockefeller with regard to S. 565. They are, indeed, tireless advocates for meaningful reform of America's product liability system. They demonstrated serious leadership in the committee on this issue and the bill reflects their commitment. key provisions I would now like to take a few minutes to briefly highlight some of the key provisions of S. 565 as reported. alternative dispute resolution This legislation provides either party in a product liability suit may offer to participate in a voluntary, nonbinding state-approved alternative dispute resolution [ADR] procedure. If a defendant in a products suit is asked to participate in ADR and refuses and later a will be required to pay the claimants reasonable legal fees and costs if the court determines the defendant acted unreasonably or not in good faith in refusing to participate in ADR. There is no penalty for claimants who refuse to participate in ADR. The bill's ADR provisions should be particularly helpful to those who experience injuries the system considers minor--generally speaking, injuries that amount to less than $100,000. These individuals often have difficulty finding a lawyer to take their case on a contingency basis due to the expense of preparing for trial. The section also puts claimants squarely in control of whether to choose ADR procedures as a quicker and cheaper mechanism of handling their claim. punitive damages Although you would not know it to listen to those on the other side of the issue, S. 565 does not remove a plaintiff's ability to recover punitive damages. It does, however, make their imposition more rational. Punitive damages are not designed to compensate those who have been injured. They are punishment, punishment of defendants found to have injured others in a conscious manner. They are used much as fines are used in the criminal system. However, there are two big differences. First, unlike the criminal law system, there are virtually no standards for when punitive damages may be awarded. Second, when they are awarded, there are no clear guidelines as to their amount. Under this bill, punitive damages can be awarded if a plaintiff proves, by ``clear and convincing evidence'' that his or her injuries were caused by the defendant's ``conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of others.'' Thus, S. 565 provides a meaningful standard for when punitives may be awarded. In addition, the legislation before us allows punitive damages to be awarded in the amount of 3 times economic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. This provision provides a measure of certainty as to the amount of punishment a wrongdoer will suffer. statutes of limitations and repose The bill also establishes a statute of limitations of 2 years from when the claimant discovered or reasonably should have discovered both the harm and its cause. This is another example of how this legislation will benefit those injured by products. Under current law, some States establish the ``time of injury'' as the point at which the time for bringing a claim begins to run. Often this is not a problem. However, where the harm has a latency period or becomes manifest only after repeated exposure to the product, the claimant may not know immediately he or she has been harmed or the cause of that harm. S. 565 will reduce the number of plaintiffs who, having otherwise meritorious claims, would be denied justice solely on the basis of the statute of limitations in the State in which they choose to file a claim. The bill also establishes a statute of repose of 20 years for durable goods used in the workplace. After such goods have been in the workplace 20 years or longer, no suit may be filed for injuries related to their use unless the defendant makes an express warranty longer than 20 years. The need for a Federal statute of repose was presented well by one of my fellow South Dakotans, Art Kroetch, chairman of Scotchman Industries, Inc., a small manufacturer of machine tools located in Philip, SD. Earlier this month, he told the committee how vital product liability reform is to the ability of American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Art told me that under the current patchwork of liability laws, his company pays twice as much for product liability insurance as it does for research and development. Joint and Several Liability The doctrine of joint and several liability provides that any defendant in a lawsuit may be required to pay all damages, regardless of the degree of fault or responsibility. What are the consequences? One person is held responsible for the conduct of another. True wrongdoers are not always punished. Indeed, the average citizen ultimately pays the claim--either through higher prices, loss of service, or higher insurance premiums. S. 565 would abolish joint liability for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Thus, each defendant would be liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to the defendant's share of responsibility for the harm. This section goes a long way in correcting many of the inequities of the joint and several liability doctrine and is essential to any tort reform effort. This section would provide some relief. It is an issue in which I have been particularly interested for many years. In 1986, I attempted to strengthen proposed product liability legislation, S. 2760, with an amendment regarding joint and several liability. My amendment, which passed the Commerce Committee, would have curtailed the joint and several liability abuse that is all too common in our current system. The amendment abrogated joint and several liability for noneconomic damages in product liability cases. As such, defendants would be held liable based only on their degree of fault or responsibility, not the deepness of their pocket. Unfortunately, that bill was never enacted. I am proud the concept underlying my amendment a decade ago is part of the bill before us today. alcohol and drugs S. 565 also provides a defendant will have an absolute defense if the plaintiff was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or illegal drugs and as a result of this influence was more than 50 percent responsible for his or her own injuries. I think across the country this is something that is much misunderstood. We see the use of alcohol or drugs by a person operating equipment causing that person to be injured. In these cases, the manufacturer can be held liable, which seems ridiculous. This bill will correct that and will put greater responsibility on everybody to avoid those situations. biomaterials access assurance During markup of S. 565, the committee accepted an amendment I offered. In addition to making technical corrections to the legislation, my amendment added a new title to the bill. This title II is identical to S. 303, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1995 introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman. This title would allow suppliers of raw materials--so called biomaterials--used to make medical implants, to obtain dismissal, without extensive discovery or other legal costs, in certain tort suits in which plaintiffs allege harm from a finished medical implant. Specifically, it would allow raw material suppliers to be dismissed from lawsuits if the generic raw material used in the medical device met contract specifications, and if the biomaterials supplier cannot be classified as either a manufacturer or seller of the medical implant. During its hearings, the committee heard compelling testimony that without such changes in the law, the millions of Americans who depend upon a variety of implantable medical devices will be at risk. Suppliers of biomaterials have found the risks and costs of responding to litigation related to medical implants far exceeds potential sales revenues, even though courts are not finding such suppliers liable. Indeed, three major suppliers of raw materials used in the manufacture of implantable medical devices recently announced they will limit, or cease altogether, their shipments of crucial raw materials to device manufacturers. All three companies have indicated these were rational and necessary business decisions given the current legal framework. product liability and small business Mr. President, from my comments it should be apparent product liability reform is essential to the future health and success of America's businesses. This is particularly true for our small businesses. According to a 1992 Small Business Administration [SBA] study, small firms may be affected more negatively than large firms by nonuniform product liability laws. This is because small businesses do not enjoy economies of scale in production and litigation costs. In addition, they are less able to bargain with potential plaintiffs. Finally, their limited assets make adequate insurance much more difficult to obtain. The cost of product liability insurance in the United States is 15 times higher than that of similar insurance in Japan and 20 America's small businesses need rationality and uniformity in the product liability system if they are to compete effectively in the global marketplace. As I explained previously, this point was at the heart of the testimony given by Art Kroetch of Scotchman Industries in Phillip, SD at the Commerce Committee hearings earlier this month. It also was the point made to me by Jim Cope of Morgen Manufacturing in Yankton, SD. Jim calls product liability reform a jobs issue for our State. Morgen has had to lay off workers and has been unable to give raises to other employees because of losses due to product liability claims, claims that never resulted in a verdict against his company. Nevertheless, Morgen was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending itself. To Jim Cope, tort reform means more jobs for South Dakota. product liability reform and consumers Aside from the jobs issue, product liability reform also benefits consumers in other ways. It would lower the cost of U.S. goods. The current product liability system accounts for 20 percent of the cost of a ladder, 50 percent of the cost of a football helmet, and up to 95 percent of the cost of some pharmaceuticals--up to 95 percent of the cost of some pharmaceuticals arises from product liability. Reform of our product liability system also would foster competition and provide consumers with a greater selection of products from which to choose. Studies tell us 47 percent of U.S. companies have withdrawn products from the market and 39 percent have decided not to introduce products due to liability concerns. As a result, Americans depend on single companies to provide such vital needs as vaccines for polio, measles, rubella, rabies, diphtheria, and tetanus. Finally, S. 565 would encourage safety improvements. The current system encourages companies to discontinue research. Many companies fear research to improve an existing product will be used against them in court to demonstrate they knew the product was not as safe as it might be. Certainty in the system would reduce this counterproductive effect. In addition, the bill would encourage wholesalers and retailers to deal with responsible and reputable manufacturers. This, in turn, would lead to better products for consumers. Under our bill, product sellers would be legally responsible for products manufactured by companies that are insolvent or do not have assets in the United States. This should increase the quality of the products found on the shelves of U.S. businesses. Mr. President, I have quickly outlined five ways in which this bill will benefit consumers. First, it will mean more jobs. Second, it will lower the cost of the goods they purchase. Third, it will mean a greater selection of goods from which to choose. Fourth, it will encourage testing to make goods safer. Finally, it will help to maintain and, in some cases, improve the quality of products available to consumers. product liability reform and the injured The present product liability system is unfair to those injured by products in at least two ways. The system is full of delay, and compensation that eventually is received, often is inequitable. Product liability suits take a very long time to process. A General Accounting Office study found, on average, that product liability cases took 2\1/2\ years to move from filing to trial court verdict. Most product liability cases are settled before trial, but even these cases suffer from delay. One plaintiff's attorney explained that ``most settlement negotiations get serious only a week or so before trial is scheduled to begin.'' Delay can result in undercompensation of victims. Many injury victims are forced to settle their claims for less than their full losses so they can obtain compensation more quickly. These individuals often are forced into this decision because of inadequate resources to pay for their medical and rehabilitation expenses. Another way in which the current system inequitably compensates victims concerns proportionality. Numerous studies have found the tort system grossly overpays people with small losses, while underpaying people with the most serious losses. Mr. President, this provides a brief overview of S. 565 and the variety of ways in which it will help business--both large and small-- consumers, and those injured by products. In short, product liability means jobs for American workers. It means innovative products for American consumers. It means swifter and more equitable compensation for victims. It means international competitiveness for American companies. This is why I strongly support S. 565. It is good for small business. It is good for their workers. It is good for consumers. It is good for those injured by products. In other words, Mr. President, it is good for America. I might add, I have been in my State these past days and many people have come up to me saying we need to end frivolous lawsuits. That is a term that is understandable. We need to preserve people's right to sue when something is really wrong. But everybody is suing everybody. It is a sort of lottery out there. The average person is beginning to understand this increases the costs of goods and services. We do want to preserve people's rights to sue. Certainly when there has been a wrong done, there should be punishment, but we want to try to improve our legal system, and this bill is a step in that direction. I want to commend Senator Gorton and Senator Rockefeller and others, who have worked so long and hard on this. We are very blessed to have their leadership. I stand in strong support of S. 565.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week South Dakota lost a great public servant, State Senator Les Kleven. Les lost a brave and courageous fight against cancer. His leadership and innovation will be greatly missed. A native of North Dakota, Les moved to Sturgis, SD, in 1962 to start KBHB radio station. Under his direction and leadership, KBHB grew to become one of the premier radio stations in western South Dakota. To this day, it remains an important source of news, information, and entertainment to thousands of listeners in western South Dakota and nearby States. Over the years, Les often had his station broadcast live the meetings I held in the Sturgis area on agricultural disasters, the farm bill, and other important issues. I always appreciated his valuable advice on issues important to the South Dakota broadcast and radio industry, as well as many other issues. Les was a past president of the South Dakota Broadcasters Association. His love for South Dakota and service to the State did not begin and end with radio. He served three terms in the South Dakota State House of Representatives in the 1970's. In 1992, Les was elected to the South Dakota State Senate. Of course, much as he did on the air waves, he significantly affected South Dakota political currents. Throughout his career as a member of the South Dakota State Legislature, Les distinguished himself as a leader and fiscal conservative. His constituents and his colleagues knew him to be independent, straightforward, and fair. Indeed, his contributions to the State of South Dakota will long be remembered. Most important, Les was a family man. Though all who knew Les held him in high respect and admiration, none could be more proud of him than his mother Alice, his lovely wife, Marguerite, and his two children, Andy and Jazal. Les Kleven's honesty and integrity will be greatly missed. His accomplishments as a radio innovator, a State legislator, and a proud father provide an inspiring example of the South Dakota spirit--a man who gave to his profession, his community, his State, and to his family. Les was a family man, a pillar of the community, and a good friend. We will all miss him. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. PRESSLER

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to an outstanding South Dakotan and good friend, Father Robert J. Fox of Alexandria, SD. Today, April 24, 1995, marks the 40th year of his dedicated service to the Catholic church and the people of South Dakota. It has been my personal pleasure to work with Father Robert over the past 6 years in establishing National Children's Day. As national chairman of National Children's Day activities for the Catholic church, he has tirelessly promoted this special day for our children. As a result of his efforts, I expect to see National Children's Day successfully celebrated on the second Sunday of October for many years to come. Father Robert Fox began his pastoral career at the age of 27 after graduating from St. Paul Seminary school. A little over a year later, on April 24, 1955, he was ordained into the priesthood, and gave his first sermon soon afterward at Watertown, SD. Over the years Father Robert has faithfully served the Catholic church in many different parishes across eastern South Dakota. He has been ministering in Alexandria since 1985. During his career Father Robert has authored 20 books and numerous articles in Catholic publications. He also has taken pilgrimages with 3,000 youth. Certainly, South Dakotans of all ages have benefited from his very active career of service. I am just one of many South Dakotans who have profited from Father Robert's wisdom. His valuable advice will always be greatly appreciated. He is loved and respected by many. I am honored to join in observing this very special occasion for Father Robert.