May 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6287

AMENDMENT NO. 725

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . NO PREEMPTION OF RECENT TORT REFORM LAWS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of

this Act to the contrary, nothing in this Act

preempts any provision of State law inconsistent with this Act if the legislature of

that State considered a legislative proposal

dealing with that provision in connection

with reforming the tort laws of that State

during the period beginning on January 1,

1980, and ending on the date of enactment of

this Act, without regard to whether such

proposal was adopted, modified and adopted,

or rejected.

AMENDMENT NO. 726

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . NO PREEMPTION OF RECENT TORT REFORM LAWS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of

this Act to the contrary, nothing in this Act

preempts any provision of State law adopted

after the date of enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 727

On page 1, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 2. STATE IMPLEMENTATION REQUIRED.

Notwithstanding any provision of this Act

to the contrary, nothing in this Act shall supersede any provision of State law or rule of

civil procedure unless that State has enacted

a law providing for the application of this

Act in that State.

AMENDMENT NO. 728

On page 27, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 111. APPLICATION OF ACT LIMITED TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of

this Act, this Act shall not apply to any

product, component part, implant, or medical device that is not manufactured in the

United States within the meaning of the Buy

American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) and the regulations issued thereunder, or to any raw material derived from sources outside the United

States.

BYRD (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT

NO. 729

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS,

and Mr. REID) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them

to amendment No. 690, proposed by Mr.

COVERDELL to amendment No. 596, proposed by Mr. GORTON to the bill, H.R.

956, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert

Inasmuch as, the United States and Japan

have a long and important relationship

which serves as an anchor of peace and stability in the Pacific region;

Inasmuch as, tension exists in an otherwise normal and friendly relationship between the United States and Japan because

of persistent and large trade deficits which

are the result of practices and regulations

which have substantially blocked legitimate

access of American products to the Japanese

market;

Inasmuch as, the current account trade

deficit with Japan in 1994 reached an historic

high level of $66 billion, of which $37 billion,

or 56 percent, is attributed to imbalances in

automotive sector, and of which $12.8 billion

is attributable to auto parts flows:

Inasmuch as, in July, 1993, the Administration reached a broad accord with the Government of Japan, called the ‘‘United StatesJapan Framework for a New Economic Partnership’’, which established automotive

trade regulations as one of 5 priority areas

for negotiations, to seek market-opening arrangements based on objective criteria and

which would result in objective progress;

Inasmuch as, a healthy American automobile industry is of central importance to

the American economy, and to the capability

of the United States to fulfill its commitments to remain as an engaged, deployed,

Pacific power;

Inasmuch as, after 18 months of negotiations with the Japanese, beginning in September 1993, the U.S. Trade Representative

concluded that no progress had been

achieved, leaving the auto parts market in

Japan ‘‘virtually closed’’;

Inasmuch as, in October, 1994, the United

States initiated an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into the Japanese auto parts market, which could result

in the imposition of trade sanctions on a variety of Japanese imports into the United

States unless measurable progress is made in

penetrating the Japanese auto parts market;

Inasmuch as, the latest round of U.S.-

Japan negotiations on automotive trade, in

Whistler, Canada, collapsed in failure on

May 5, 1995, and the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor, stated the ‘‘government of Japan has refused to address our

most fundamental concerns in all areas’’ of

automotive trade, and that ‘‘discrimination

against foreign manufacturers of autos and

auto parts continues.’’

Inasmuch as, President Clinton stated, on

May 5, 1995, that the U.S. is ‘‘committed to

taking strong action’’ regarding Japanese

imports into the U.S. if no agreement is

reached.

Now, therefore, be it

Declared, That it is the Sense of the Senate

that—

(1) the Senate supports the efforts of the

President to continue to strongly press the

Government of Japan, through bilateral negotiations under the agreed ‘‘Framework for

a New Economic Partnership,’’ for sharp reductions in the trade imbalances in automotive sales and parts through the elimination of unfair and restrictive Japanese

market-closing practices and regulations;

and

(2) If such results-oriented negotiations are

not concluded satisfactorily, appropriate and

reasonable measures, up to and including

trade sanctions, should be imposed in accordance with Section 301 of the trade Act of

1974.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL

NOTICES OF HEARINGS

fRESOURCES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would

like to announce for the public that a

hearing has been scheduled before the

Subcommittee on Energy Production

and Regulation.

The hearing will take place Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 2 p.m. in room SD–

366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 283, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline

under the Federal Power Act applicable

to two hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania, and for other purposes, S. 468,

a bill to provide for the extension of

the deadline under the Federal Power

Act applicable to the construction of a

hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for

other purposes, S. 543, a bill to provide

for the extension of the deadline under

the Federal Power Act applicable to

the construction of a hydroelectric

project in Oregon, and for other purposes, S. 547, a bill to provide for the

extension of the deadlines applicable to

certain hydroelectric projects under

the Federal Power Act, and for other

purposes, S. 549, a bill to provide for

the extension of the deadline under the

Federal Power Act applicable to the

construction of three hydroelectric

projects in the State of Arkansas, S.

552, a bill to provide for the refurbishment and continued operation of a

small hydroelectric facility in central

Montana by adjusting the amount of

charges to be paid to the United States

under the Federal Power Act and for

other purposes, S. 595, a bill to provide

for the extension of a hydroelectric

project located in the State of West

Virginia, and S. 611 a bill to provide for

the extension of time limitation for a

FERC-issued hydroelectric license.

Those who wish to submit written

statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC

20510. For further information, please

call Judy Brown or Howard Useem at

202–224–6567.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL

RESOURCES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would

like to announce for the public that a

hearing has been scheduled before the

Subcommittee on Energy Production

and Regulation.

The hearing will take place Tuesday,

June 6, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD–366

of the Dirksen Senate Office Building

in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 708, a bill to repeal section 210 of the Public Utility

Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

Those who wish to submit written

statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.s. Senate, Washington, DC

20510. For further information, please

call Judy Brown or Howard Useem at

202–224–6567.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAND

MANAGEMENT

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would

like to announce for the public that a

hearing has been scheduled before the

Subcommittee on Forests and Public

Land Management.

The hearing will take place Tuesday,

May 23, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD–

366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 620, Reclamation Facilities Transfer Act.

Those wishing to testify or who wish

to submit written statements should

write to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources, attention Betty

Nevitt, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC

20510. For further information, please

call Jim Beirne at (202) 224–2564 or

Betty Nevitt at 202–224–0765.
S6288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 8, 1995

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL

RESOURCES

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing

has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider S. 638, the Insular

Development Act of 1995.

The hearing will take place Thursday, May 25, 1995, at 2 p.m., in room

SD–366 of the Dirksen Senate Office

Building in Washington, DC.

Those wishing to testify or who wish

to submit written statements should

write to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Jim Beirne at (202) 224–

2564 or Betty Nevitt at 202–224–0765.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

fBUDGET SCOREKEEPING REPORT

∑ Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I

hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the

Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of

section 5 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, the first concurrent resolution

on the budget for 1986.

This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget

through May 5, 1995. The estimates of

budget authority, outlays, and revenues, which are consistent with the

technical and economic assumptions of

the concurrent resolution on the budget (H. Con. Res. 218), show that current

level spending is below the budget resolution by $5.6 billion in budget authority and $1.4 billion in outlays. Current

level is $0.5 billion over the revenue

floor in 1995 and below by $9.5 billion

over the 5 years 1995–99. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of

calculating the maximum deficit

amount is $238 billion, $3.1 billion

below the maximum deficit amount for

1995 of $241 billion.

Since my last report, dated April 24,

1995, there has been no action that affects the current level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.

The report follows:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.

Hon. PETE DOMENICI,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The attached report

for fiscal year 1995 shows the effects of Congressional action on the 1995 budget and is

current through May 5, 1995. The estimates

of budget authority, outlays and revenues

are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 1995 Concurrent

Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 218).

This report is submitted under Section 308(b)

and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional

Budget Act, as amended, and meets the requirements of Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the 1986 First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.

Since my last report, dated April 24, 1995,

there has been no action that affects the current level of budget authority, outlays or

revenues.

Sincerely,

JUNE E. O’NEILL,

Director.

THE CURRENT LEVEL REPORT FOR THE U.S. SENATE, FISCAL YEAR 1995, 104TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, AS

OF CLOSE OF BUSINESS MAY 5, 1995

[In billions of dollars]

Budget resolution (H.

Con. Res.

218) 1

Current

level 2

Current

level over/

under resolution

ON-BUDGET

Budget authority ....................... 1,238.7 1,233.1 ¥5.6 Outlays ...................................... 1,217.6 1,216.2 ¥1.4 Revenues: 1995 ................................. 977.7 978.2 0.5 1995–99 ........................... 5,415.2 5,405.7 ¥9.5 Deficit ........................................ 241.0 238.0 ¥3.1 Debt subject to limit ................. 4,965.1 4,764.5 ¥200.6

OFF-BUDGET

Social Security outlays: 1995 ................................. 287.6 287.5 ¥0.1 1995–99 ........................... 1,562.6 1,562.6 3 0. Social Security revenues: 1995 ................................. 360.5 360.3 ¥0.2 1995–99 ........................... 1,998.4 1,998.2 ¥0.2

1 Reflects revised allocation under section 9(g) of H. Con. Res. 64 for the

Deficit-Neutral reserve fund. 2 Current level represents the estimated revenue and direct spending effects of all legislation that Congress has enacted or sent to the President

for his approval. In addition, full-year funding estimates under current law

are included for entitlement and mandatory programs requiring annual appropriations even if the appropriations have not been made. The current

level of debt subject to limit reflects the latest U.S. Treasury information on

public debt transactions. 3 Less than $50 million.

Note: Detail may not add due to rounding.

THE ON-BUDGET CURRENT LEVEL REPORT FOR THE U.S.

SENATE, 104TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, SENATE

SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 AS OF

CLOSE OF BUSINESS MAY 5, 1995

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays Revenues

ENACTED IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS

Revenues ................................... ................... ................... 978,466

Permanents and other spending

legislation ............................. 750,307 706,236 ................... Appropriation legislation ........... 738,096 757,783 ................... Offsetting receipts ................ (250,027) (250,027) ...................

Total previously enacted ....................... 1,238,376 1,213,992 978,466

ENACTED THIS SESSION

1995 Emergency Supplementals

and Rescissions Act (Public

Law 104–6). ......................... (3,386) (1,008) ................... Self-Employed Health Insurance

Act (Public Law 104–7) ....... ................... ................... (248)

Total enacted this session .......................... (3,386) (1,008) (248)

ENTITLEMENTS AND

MANDATORIES

Budget resolution baseline estimates of appropriated entitlements other mandatory

programs not yet enacted .... (1,887) 3,189 ................... Total current level 1 ................... 1,233,103 1,216,173 978,218

Total budget resolution ............. 1,238,744 1,217,605 977,700

Amount remaining:

Under budget resolution ....... 5,641 1,432 ................... Over budget resolution ......... ................... ................... 518

1 In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, the total does not include $3,905 million in budget authority and $7,442 million in outlays in

funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and the Congress, and $841 million in budget authority and $917 million in outlays for emergencies that would be available only upon an official

budget request from the President designating the entire amount requested

as an emergency requirement.

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are negative. Detail may not add due to

∑

rounding.

TIME FOR REAL FARM REFORM

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, no

•

fother legislation which is likely to

come before the Congress this year will

have more direct impact on my State,

North Dakota, and the people who live

there than the 1995 farm bill. For a

farm State, for a State with a predominantly rural economy, it is critically

important legislation.

When Congress and the President

begin to draft that legislation, I believe it is essential that we be about

the business of fundamental reform.

The time for farm program facelifts

has long since passed. It is time for

real change, change that returns the

farm program to its fundamental and

original mission: helping family farmers survive and prosper.

I recently wrote a guest editorial

which was published in a number of

North Dakota newspapers which outlined my thinking on this important

issue in some detail. I would like to

share that article, and those thoughts,

with my colleagues and ask that it be

reprinted at this point in the RECORD.

The editorial follows:

NO MORE FACELIFTS FOR THE FARM

PROGRAM—IT’S TIME FOR REAL REFORM

(By U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan)

The new U.S. Secretary of Agriculture,

Dan Glickman, is coming to North Dakota

Friday at my invitation to meet with family

farmers. His visit comes at both an opportune and very challenging time.

This year Congress will cut federal spending to reduce the deficit. It will also write a

new five year farm program. The two are

closely related. Budget pressures will limit

the amount of money available for a farm

program.

Farm program price supports have already

been cut deeply—slashed by 62% since 1986—

but still, some leaders in the new Congress

are pushing for even deeper cuts. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R–TX) and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Richard

Lugar (R–IN) are calling outright for the federal farm program to be phased down and, effectively, abolished.

Those of us who believe that a decent farm

program is essential to the survival of family

farmers face a major challenge. To retain a

decent farm program, we are going to have

to propose new, and more effective approaches. We must take a fresh look at what

works and what doesn’t in the farm program.

I hope that will be the focus of the discussion in North Dakota on Friday with the

Secretary of Agriculture.

At the outset we have to admit that the

current farm program doesn’t work very

well.

First, price supports are too low to offer

real protection to family-sized farms. That’s

because the nation’s largest farms—often big

corporate farms—soak up too much of the

farm program’s funds.

Second, the current farm program is far

too complicated.

Third, it is built on a ‘‘supply management’’ approach that no longer works. In the

new global market place of the 1990’s and beyond, it is virtually impossible for one nation to control supplies. When we cut production of a commodity, other countries

eargerly step in and fill the gap.

The bottom line is that the current farm

program does not do a good job serving as a

safety net for family farmers nor does it do

much to boost market prices for farm commodities.

Under the current program, we have ended

up with more government employees to run

the farm program, and fewer family farmers.

That’s moving in the wrong direction.