Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my ranking member on the Agriculture Committee for protecting me for just a little time here. I will not take too much time on this particular issue. I do have a couple of questions, though, for the Senator from South Dakota. How does this deal with contracts? In other words, there are some people who forward-contract, under a pricing system, on a grid or whatever. How does this affect that?

Mr. BURNS. Do you deal with futures and options?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am supportive of what the Senator from South Dakota is trying to do. I associate myself with the remarks made by my good friend from Wyoming. Unless we deal with contracts, this matters not because, in other words, they will just contract the cattle. They will contract the cattle right from the cow/calf producer before they even go into the feedlot. I don't want to get caught in the same quagmire we have had with market reporting. That has turned out to be a beast. I do not know if it has helped out in any way. But what our intent was on market reporting was that the infrastructure of the USDA Market Reporting Service was already there and sales had to be reported. But OMB got in the middle of it and said, if only one guy was bidding on the livestock, then they can't report that because that is a violation of privacy in business or--I don't know, lawyers have some fancy word for it. I am not a lawyer. I have never been hinged with that title. So the OMB got in the middle of it, and they had a working sheet on why we could not have true transparency in the livestock marketing business. It was that thick. It was just--it would just blind you. I have nothing against cooperatives either, but I have yet to see one that is managed all that well. What they are trying to do with prime beef is a venture--and we have producers in Montana who have cattle on feed in that program. But we must not take away a producer's right to do business with whomever he wants to do business, if he wants to do it on a private party basis. So I have some reservations about this amendment. I appreciate the work that has been done. I don't know of any other way. We have not been able to attract any kind of sympathy or notice from the Justice Department when it comes to antitrust in the agricultural markets, other than ADM. That is about the only one, over in soybeans. So if we do not do anything about contracts nor the use of futures to hedge your cattle or hogs--the same is not true in sheep. I have been looking at the sheep industry. I am still very much interested in it because we have a situation there that is completely intolerable to the lamb industry in this country. The excuses they give for a market that dips so fast--I mean it went down something like $20, $30 per hundredweight on lambs in less than 2 weeks, and there was no reason for it other than the principal processor and slaughterer and importer in this country has that big lever and they can do it. So I haven't made up my mind on this, but I did want to say if there is no treatment of contracts or futures or options, then I don't know how we close all the loopholes of packer-owned cattle. Right now packers can't own stockyards, and there was a good reason for that. That law is being enforced. But one of these days I think those of us who have a interest in the livestock industry--and there are a lot of us in this body who do and some probably know more about it than I do--we are going to have to take a look at packers and stockyards and maybe do some reforms in that respect. I think the total law will probably need redoing. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the Senator from South Dakota and to the attention of others in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from New Mexico for leading the charge on this particular part of the farm bill. A while ago we were talking about myths. If this section does not erode the State adjudication process and the State would have to give its OK, if there is a section of willing seller and willing buyer-- which, by the way, they already have that right--why have the legislation? What other purpose does this legislation serve than the landowner and the water right owner in that community? Some 8 or 9 years ago a Secretary of the Interior made a speech and said: We can't change the culture of the West until we take over the financing and get control of their water. I know the Senator from Nevada very well, and he understands the State of Nevada very well, that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. That has been pretty well accepted throughout the West. But in this piece of legislation, which has been inserted into this bill, is language that would make it possible for the Federal Government to purchase water rights from individuals to protect sensitive species. We have a hard time defining ``endangered'' or ``threatened.'' Now we come up with a new term called ``sensitive species.'' When the Government owns the water rights, do we see, all over again, Klamath Falls, OR, where we had a vote in this Chamber that sent a signal throughout the agricultural community that this body was more sensitive to a sucker fish than we were to 1,500 farm families in this country? You just stand there and watch your crop dry up because of a law and an insensitive Government? Now, this was first introduced as a bill. The bill was S. 1737. The bill has never had a hearing. It has never seen the light of day until today with the introduction of this piece of farm legislation. Though it may be well-intentioned, I would say this: Whenever the Federal Government enters the picture, and willing seller/willing buyer, or coercion, when you are going broke, and the fellow in town has the biggest checkbook, and it happens to be the Federal Government, don't you bet your last paycheck on whether the Government knows who has the biggest checkbook. They also know the position you are in to finance your situation, and where that water is going to go. Just about every State in the West--I know it is true in Oregon and I know it is true in Montana--has a water trust. They are already in place. If a farmer or a rancher wants to give up what he is growing now and does not want to use that water, or he wants to sell or lease that water to another irrigator who still has a crop that requires large amounts of water, he can do that now. It does not require this legislation. It does not need the big checkbook coming out putting him in a position where he must sell to the big checkbook. If people doubt that, then I suggest they go out and try to run one of these irrigated farms. They are already in place. So the intrusion, although not intended, or the coercion, also not intended, happens in the real world. And I hope this body operates in the real world. My good friend from Nevada says it may change the groundwater. Let me tell you, it does. I live in an irrigated valley. I used to, anyway. I am up on a hill now. I say to Senator Reid, let's take Clark County in your State where that county has grown and pushed out the agriculture. You and I will not see it, nor do I think our kids will see it, but there will come a time when we will pay the penalty for building houses on the valley floor covering up good, productive agricultural land that tends to provide great benefits to us. We had better start building our homes and our houses and our businesses on dry land and let the valley produce. That is the way societies have done it before, and those societies still are with us today. We may have to take a look at that. I will tell you, when they turn the water out of the ditch, the wells at my house go dry because the water table drops. That happens every fall. So that is not a myth, I say to the Senator. It is true. I have a letter here from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The president of that association, Lynn Cornwell, is a resident of Montana. He is a good friend and a good rancher out of Glasgow, MT. They would like to see this part of the agriculture bill deleted because they, too, understand what it does and the effect it has on farming and ranching operations, even on dry land. I would say the biggest share of the Cornwell ranch is on dry land. I want to change the tone and restore the spirit of the law of the CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program. I will have an amendment that will do that which I will offer in a little bit. But my concern is, the willing buyer-willing seller is not the real world. It is not the real world. It may be up to us, and those of us who probably have never trod on a farm or a ranch, to deal with this. I have been a very fortunate person. I have been an auctioneer for a long time. I have had the painful experience of selling out some friends who did not make it. The big checkbook always came into play. So that is not the real world. Then, I say, if this has nothing to do with circumventing the State's rights, water rights, and the adjudication process in that State, then why do we need the legislation? There is absolutely no reason for it. So there must be another motive that cannot be seen just by reading the words of this particular section. I would hope that we would use a little common sense in this 17- square miles of a logic-free environment and not do anything that upsets the balance between the States, the Federal Government, irrigation districts, and private land owners. Because it is my interpretation of the language that once you sign up in the Conservation Reserve Program, then you might not have any choice but to relinquish those water rights, even on a temporary basis. And that is a very dangerous precedent in itself, of relinquishing those water rights to the Federal Government. I have always taken the advice of an old rancher over in Miles City, MT: There is a way to survive in a harsh country. Never ever let anybody erode or give away your water rights, always keep a little poke of gold, and you will survive out here in pretty good shape. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is hard to follow my friend from Indiana because he makes his argument so sound that it is hard to argue with him. I look upon the support we give American agriculture, no matter what segment, as an insurance policy. The figure was that the sugar program costs the American taxpayers some $460 million a year, something like that. That is in the neighborhood. That may not be correct. That is less than $1.60 per American. I can't insure my car for that price. What we are talking about here is that even though sugar prices go down, we still see prices of those products that have a high preponderance of sugar in them continue to go up. That is the record. It is there for all to see. If one looks at the total picture of $73 billion a year we put into the agriculture budget, one has to remember that over half of that is programs on nutrition, food stamps, WIC, many others, meals on wheels, school lunch programs, all subsidized by the American taxpayer. The rest of it is farm programs and the administration of those farm programs. I look at it as an insurance policy. No other country in the world has a grocery store like we do. Americans have to agree with me that when you go into a grocery store, there is a variety of anything you want to eat. I realize that maybe we don't look upon that as an important thing, but the second thing we do every day when we get up is eat. I don't know what the first thing you do is; that is up to you. But we all need it. We would like to have a little insurance and a little security in the food we buy both from a quality and quantity standpoint. And we do. You can buy your meat, prepare it any way you want. Same thing with your fresh fruits and vegetables. This is just about the only country in the world, that has fresh vegetables even in the northern tier of States. When there is blowing snow outside, we can still buy fresh lettuce and vegetables. It is an infrastructure and a distribution system that is unmatched in the world. Getting back to farmer income, for many years agriculture, at the production level, lived on 15 to 20 cents--and that varied--of the consumer dollar which went back to the American farmer. Now we are trying to get by on 9 or 10 cents. Our cost of production, our cost of vehicles, our cost of machinery, of our fertilizer, our chemicals, everything it takes to produce a crop is higher. Let's take, for instance, wheat. In my State it is around $2.75 a bushel. That is lower than it was coming out of World War II, 50 years ago. We are a blessed nation. We can produce. The American farmer can turn it up, and they can produce it. My goodness, can they produce it. Yet when it comes time to write the check, not near as many of those dollars and pennies filter down to the American farmer. Think about this: When you buy a loaf of bread, less than a nickel's worth of wheat is in it. Yes, the retail price of sugar in Canada is lower than in the United States, 6 cents a pound. No wonder the people who handle sugar in Canada like the idea of stuffing. This is the only industry where it is mandatory by law and by trade negotiations and trade agreements that we import so much sugar--not trying to overproduce here in the United States, but it is mandatory. It comes to about 15 to 20 percent of our total production is mandatorily put on our market. If we look at the surplus, that is just about our surplus. We can talk about numbers and figures. In fact, we can swim in those numbers and figures. But at some time we have to take a real look at the men who are on the ground in charge of producing. They are the ones. It is on their backs that this good economy operates. We don't spend 50, 60, 70, or 80 percent of our income just to put a meal on the table. We do it for less than 20 cents. In order to ensure that supply of quality and quantity, and also prepared in any way that you want, there has to be some sort of an insurance policy that that, too, will remain. We have bigger things to argue about in this Senate than this sugar program and what it costs. In fact, the cost, when you compare it to the rest of the economy, is nothing. We could talk about food safety. We could talk about terrorism and its impact on our ability to move food from the producer to the table. That is what we are talking about here. It is an industry that should be allowed to survive. Sugar producers did put forth a plan for why inventory management is the plan for sugar farmers, consumers, and taxpayers. Let's not get caught up in saying that if we take away a sugar program, the cost will go down to the consuming public, when the figures bear out that it is not true. That was very ably pointed out. That is not true. If we had assurance that we could do a lot of things and provide food for those who are in need--that is what this does, and it makes it affordable. What it saves on the consumer side also saves on the Government side whenever we start talking about nutrition programs and programs that we are willing, as Americans, to provide those who are in need. Nobody ever thinks about those savings. On the loans--nobody ever thinks that--while we have the sugar, it is sold. Where did the money go? We just hear about the initial appropriation for the program, but we never get an accounting on how much the Government owned, how much it sold and the difference. If we lost a little money, then that takes that so-called--everybody hates this word--subsidy number way back. It is hard to get those accounting numbers. So what I am saying is that Americans are willing to ensure the stability, the quality, and the supply. They are willing to accept and pay for that insurance policy. If you look at the whole bill, I think it is around $250, $270 a household across the country. You can't insure your car or your house for that, and you can't insure your life. I had a cookie while coming over here. Obviously, I've had a lot of cookies in my life. I have never missed a meal, nor do I intend to. But I also understand that this society is the benefactor of people who really know how to produce. Now, talking about limitations and all of that, let me tell you folks that on the farm and ranch, the people who were inefficient, just playing around and trying to farm and could not, they are gone. We are talking about an agriculture that is down to the point where these are the good people who know how to operate and they are efficient. Our production, as far as increasing our production per acre, has almost been capped out. We can't increase that any more. So the old analogy saying we have to be more efficient and increase our production per acre, and our cost --we will have more to sell, but our cost of production continues to edge up there, also. I am always reminded of the two fellows in Montana--brothers--and they go to Mississippi and buy watermelons for 75 cents apiece and haul them to Montana and sell them for 74 cents apiece. One looked at the other and said: We are not making any money. The other suggested: We have to get a bigger truck. Well, that is not happening in agriculture anymore. That is not happening there. So the consumers of America, who are benefactors of this great production, are willing, I think, to buy that insurance policy that says, yes, we will have a supply; yes, it will be ample; yes, it will be quality; and, yes, it is guaranteed to be at that grocery store that is open 24 hours a day and the ability to buy anything you want to eat, in any amount, at any quality, prepared in any way. That is what we are talking about there. That is what American agriculture is all about. We want to help people. I don't know of anybody who ever showed up at our house who didn't get fed when mealtime rolled around. That is the way of the people of the prairies of this great country. The Senator from Indiana knows of the values in rural America. They deserve to make a living--just to make a living. Sugar is no different. That is all they deserve. Now, are there people who abuse the system? Sure, there are. There always are, but they are few. The people who really need the help are people who didn't buy a new pickup last year and didn't buy one all through this boom. We have seen cattle prices a little bit better now, but we haven't seen a great boom on the farm or ranch through this great economic recovery we came through. We did see our cost of production escalating. For everything we bought, prices went up because of the last boom. I hope we will table this amendment and not send the wrong signal to agriculture and the American people that, yes, we like the insurance policy that we have and, yes, we like that security. I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Before asking my first question, I want to provide a very brief context for my letter to CBO and the issues I will be raising. The subject of the letter is whether the federal government can save even more money than it has been saving with the use of the Smart Pay Card program. This matter was brought to the attention of Senator Baucus and myself by Michael B. Walker, a Montanan who has considerable experience in the credit industry. Mr. Walker, who is CEO of Payment Programs Management Corporation, believes that there is an opportunity for the federal government to save hundreds of millions of more dollars with its use of credit cards issued to federal employees. Senator Baucus and I wanted to get an independent confirmation of those savings from the CBO before encouraging Congress to adopt the refinement outlined in our letter. It is my understanding that CBO will score the various proposed improvements in our letter before the end of this year, but the scoring may not arrive in time to affect appropriations bills for the current fiscal year. Since the largest users of the card are the employees of DOD, I thought that it would be appropriate to raise this matter in connection with this bill. Assuming that CBO does respond with a scoring that the improvements suggested in our letter will potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars, will the Senator from Alaska tell me whether he will work with the Department of Defense to encourage the consideration of any and all potential savings and benefits suggested in the letter send to CBO by Senator Baucus and myself?

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator. My next question is a follow up question. Assuming that the armed services are prepared to offer proposed improvements in the use of federal credit cards, would you encourage them to work with the General Services Administration, which is charged with the overall administration of the Smart Pay Card Program, to get these improvements adopted?

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator. At this point, I would ask unanimous consent that the November 15, 2001 letter from Senator Baucus and me to CBO Director, Dan Crippen, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. BURNS. I rise to ask a point of clarification by the chairman and ranking member relating to a letter that Senator Baucus and I sent to the CBO regarding the use of the Smart Pay Card used by Department of Defense employees, the armed services, and contractors with the Department of Defense.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we continue to hear in the Senate a powerful argument put forth by the assistant majority leader. Yet I am struck by the idea the Railroad Retirement Act under consideration now is a given. There are 70 cosponsors on that piece of legislation; I am one of the cosponsors. Yet we are also denied the ability to move an energy policy act that the Nation is demanding, as well as a stimulus package which, again, the Nation favors. I challenge my colleagues and Americans by asking why just a few can deny a State such as Alaska its ability to develop and market its own natural resources, not only for the good of the economy of Alaska but also at a time when this Nation's economy is struggling and it would contribute to the rebuilding of that economy. I find that disheartening. This is important. The season of Christmas is fast approaching. We should be finishing up our work. There are two things that have to be done: Finish the appropriations process to run this Government, and also develop an appropriation for our military in a time we are at war. By the way, this is a war that will not be won at Camp Pendleton, Fort Bragg, or any other military installation, but will be won in every community around this country. Yet the military now is carrying the load to destroy the core of terrorism. Why deny those resources when just across the border, in the tundra-- and one must remember, this is not a pristine wilderness when we talk about ANWR, as one might envision wilderness in my State of Montana where we already have 3.5 million acres. This is tundra. It runs for miles and miles and miles. It can be developed to the advantage of this country and to its economy without disturbing hardly anything that far north. At a time when the national economy is struggling, if you can provide any kind of a job, anything that would contribute to the rebuilding of that economy and the infrastructure of it, that should not be denied. What do we hear? We hear how much we need an energy policy, but we see no action in the Senate. We hear the speeches about a stimulus package, yet no action is forthcoming. We talk about conservation. It has been a foregone conclusion of the task force that was put together under the chairmanship of the Vice President, when they look at our energy situation and assess it, that they will conclude we should then take the proper actions so we can rely on our own ability to provide the energy for our country. The conclusion was drawn that we cannot conserve our way out of this one. This past weekend, I looked at the area with probably the greatest utilization of wind power that we have in this country. Yet it only contributes less than 1 percent to the Nation's need for electricity. That will not work. I can tell you what spurs conservation faster and more efficiently than any rule, law, or regulation that the Government could impose: High prices. All you have to do is ask those who live in California. That is what spurs conservation. That is what spurs the imagination and the inventiveness of this society. When the cost goes high from the lack of a supply of energy, that spurs us to deal with it. So I say, yes, maybe the unions oppose the Lott amendment. They would not oppose the Lott amendment if it was a stand-alone, though. It just happens to be on a railroad retirement act. That act has the support of over 70 Senators in this body. So I challenge my colleagues and I challenge Americans, when Canada develops their energy supply and a way to deliver it to their people, keeping their energy costs so low that they are a very strong competitor in the global market, are we denied that? We have to look at ourselves and say, why? Based on science? I do not think so. Based on technology? I know that is not true. So we have to conclude the reasons lie in other areas. As we hear this debate about going forward, I want Americans to understand and realize this about the development of our energy resources. Conservation as we defined it and as it has always been defined is the wise use of a natural resource. Why can't this move forward? It would but for a few who are opposed because of other reasons, other than science and technology. So I hope the Lott amendment can be approved and we can move forward on this issue, finish our work on appropriations, finish our work on the stimulus, and go home for the holidays. I know there are those who want to go home a little bit earlier. I am not one of those who say we should leave with our work undone because the last time I looked, I think I get a check for the month of December. So we might as well work if that be the choice of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have heard several comments this morning with regard to energy, yet I am still in a fog about why we are even discussing this legislation. Americans should know that September 11 not only changed the entire Nation but it also changed the mindset in Washington, DC. I can remember that morning because we were in a press conference talking about enhanced 9-1-1, legislation that was passed and signed by President Clinton. Basically what it did was it allowed the technology to move forward in our wireless communications that when someone used their cell phone and they hit 9-1-1, they got the nearest first responder or emergency responder. In a State such as Montana where we have large rural areas, this is very important. I held a safety conference in Helena during the August break. We had around 200 people attending, saying we need to locate people whenever an emergency comes in on a cell phone because we have great distances to cover. With the technology of triangulation of the towers and enhanced GPS, we can now locate the 9-1-1, or the emergency caller, just as we can when we pick up a phone in our own home where it is wired. We were taking a look at the deployment of that technology in a news conference on that morning of September 11 when the terrorists decided to take their bite out of the United States of America. It was a shocking thing when we saw the second airplane go into the second tower and then the one that hit the Pentagon in Washington, DC. It changed our perspective on everything. I bring that up because we are in a war, and the only defense against terrorists who will forfeit their lives to carry out a mission, the only way to prevent those people from doing great harm to our country, is to keep them on the run where they do not have a lot of time to plan to do bad things to us. I congratulate the President this morning because we are taking out the al-Qaida and the terrorists who perpetrated this act of war on our country. We are also in a recession. We have an agricultural sector that is hurting, and we are talking about something that affects none of the things that are affecting our country today. Nothing in this legislation, with the time we think we have left of this year, the first half of the 107th Congress, will stimulate the economy. It has nothing to do with the economy. I am a cosponsor on the bill. We have farmers who are walking into their banks to renew their operating loans, and what are the bankers telling them? We have to have some concrete evidence this Government is going to be in your corner next year. We have been every year, but now they want to tie it down a little tighter. Yes, that is a stimulus. Agriculture is about 20 percent of the GDP in this country. It is very important, and it all starts at the production level. We do not hear anybody talking about that. Yesterday morning I brought up the fact that energy is a part of this, and we hear speeches even this morning on energy, but we only hear speeches. Put a bill on the floor. Allow a bill to come to the Senate. We will debate conservation. We will debate the economy. We will debate production. The President had a task force put together headed by Vice President Cheney, and a lot of the actions he wants taken are not allowed to be debated. Make no doubt about it. We are at war, and then we hear speeches. We have an energy crisis, but we hear speeches. The economy continues to slip; we continue to hear speeches. Put the bill before the Senate. That is all I say. The Railroad Retirement Act probably has as many cosponsors as have ever cosponsored a bill in this body. Some folks would say fairness. Fairness to whom? Fairness with the rest of the country? It does nothing that would heal some of the ills that are afflicting our country right now. What I am saying is let us get our work done. If we want to talk about energy, put an energy bill before the Senate. That is all we ask. Then we will let the chips fall where they may. That is what we should be doing this morning if we move forward on anything. Let us do something substantive. Let us complete the appropriations. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. The assistant minority leader serves on that committee. We have worked together on a lot of issues, and I think he will agree that it is not going to take a lot of work or a lot of time to finish. As soon as we get the Defense appropriations and complete a stimulus bill, then let us go home and let us recharge the batteries. Let us talk to the people back home. Let us find out what their agenda is, what they want to see this Government and this Congress do as we complete the year 2001. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. To proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we are on the railroad retirement bill; is that correct?

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, today I recognize the Civil Air Patrol as they celebrate their 60th anniversary this year. I rise to commend the many men and women serving in our armed forces. These brave souls are stationed around the world and on the front lines, defending freedom, liberty and our way of life. Today, I specifically want to acknowledge the individuals of the Civil Air Patrol, CAP, and celebrate their service to our nation because of the upcoming 60th anniversary of their fellowship and support as defenders of security for our country. The Civil Air Patrol was founded December 1, 1941, one week before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, by over 150,000 citizens concerned about the defense of America. Flying under the jurisdiction of the Army Air Forces, CAP pilots flew over one-half million hours, were credited with sinking 2 enemy submarines, and rescued hundreds of crash survivors during WWII. On July 1, 1946, President Truman established the Civil Air Patrol as a federally chartered benevolent civilian corporation. Congress passed Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, which made the Civil Air Patrol the auxiliary of the new United States Air Force. The Civil Air Patrol was charged with three primary missions: Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services. Today there are almost 1800 units of the Civil Air Patrol nationwide, with approximately 60,000 members. All of these members are volunteers. Each year they provide countless acts of community service in the form of educational workshops, cadet training, and emergency support that in my opinion are the highest level of good citizenship. When I learned of the 60th anniversary of the inception of the Civil Air Patrol, I thought it necessary to speak on their behalf. This group, formed during another time when America felt the need for homeland defense measures, has grown, flourished, and now is a vital service group during the resurgence of a need for the citizenry to become involved in the fight to protect what is the lifeblood of America. All of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces deserve our praise. Whether active duty, guard, or reserve, this is one Senator who sincerely appreciates the sacrifices these men and women make daily to defend this great nation. They are truly patriots. I can't say enough about how community involvement, whether it be as simple as providing educational tools or as critical as giving manpower in an environmental crisis, works to harness the fiber of a society. In wartime, this fiber is tested, and the work of these individuals goes a long way to ensure that it remains strong. Montana has over 400 members of the Civil Air Patrol, and I thank them for their efforts in helping Montana communities. Examples of their work can be seen in many areas. The Montana branch of the Civil Air Patrol is active in searching for lost persons. During times of flood, or other disasters, the Montana Wing can transmit aerial real- time photographs to disaster services personnel to help them evaluate the situation. The Montana Wing was involved a great deal during the fires of 2000, flying over areas to be evacuated, taking aerial photographs, to help Disaster Emergency Services personnel create evacuation routes. In addition, The Montana Wing holds regular Search and Rescue Exercises throughout the state to enable members to prepare for an actual search and familiarize themselves with the variety of topography the state has. The Montana Wing has an active cadet program teaching youth leadership skills, moral ethics, military discipline, aerospace education and disaster relief skills. This year, Montana sent one of 8 teams, representing the Civil Air Patrol's 8 national regions, to the National Color Guard Competition at the Air Force Academy. As you can see, this group is deserving of acknowledgment for its efforts to produce good citizens and to aid in the community when there is need. I applaud their 60 years of hard work, and I hope that we'll see them continue in their service for another 60 years.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we are in the closing weeks of the 1st session of the 107th Congress. We are in a defined recession and at war, and we seem to be talking about everything except those two items, and we are not doing anything about them. As we talk about the security of the country, we have to consider how energy and energy security play a role in the survival of this country, especially in rebuilding the economy. On Wednesday, November 14, the Energy Information Administration, which is a part of the Department of Energy, released a report that concludes that our dependence on foreign sources of energy is going to increase dramatically by the year 2020 because energy consumption will increase more rapidly than increased domestic production. So our need for new sources of energy continues. Energy should be one of the highest priorities in the Senate. In terms of energy, there are two major reasons why the Senate should act this year on an energy bill as part of a stimulus package, if it is to be. First of all, for national security. Second, the economy needs the help right now. Energy costs hurt economic recovery as much as any other segment of our economy. I see the Senator from Florida. I had the opportunity to spend some of the Thanksgiving break in his State. One would never think we were in an energy crisis with the price of gasoline up and down the road now, but nonetheless I think that is a short-lived situation. I have a couple of examples on what we should be doing and why we should be doing it. Long before the terrorist attacks of September 11, President Bush recognized the vital role that energy plays in the economy and, of course, our national security. Shortly after taking office, he established a national energy policy development group under Vice President Dick Cheney to take on the task of examining America's needs for developing a balanced and comprehensive energy policy to assure reliable, affordable, efficient, and environmentally sound energy for the future. This does not pertain to our fuels of transportation. It does not deal with the transportation fuels such as gasoline or, in some cases, natural gas. It deals with what we are going to do with electrical power in rural areas and how we restructure the power industry to address those needs of industry and, of course, our quality of life. On May 17 of this year, Vice President Cheney's task force announced their comprehensive plan for energy, dealing not only with the cost of energy but also a sustainable supply. On August 2, a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives passed the Securing America's Future Energy Act, the SAFE Act, of 2001, which is basically H.R. 4, a comprehensive energy bill that incorporates many of the President's proposals. In the Senate, led by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, this side of the aisle has put forth numerous plans but they have all refused even to let us debate our plans. They are comprehensive. They are bipartisan. In fact, the major portions of organized labor, including Teamsters, back what Senator Murkowski has proposed. We are asking: Where do we go from here? Are we being remiss if we do not seize the moment of bipartisanship and pass a comprehensive energy bill? Despite such timely steps to help lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil and promote energy development and production, progress has stalled. We began hearings on this legislation last March but have failed to act. In fact, Majority Leader Daschle specifically instructed the Energy Committee to stop action for the rest of the year. In a time of crisis, and it could be a time of crisis and we are in this crisis of war, we should be trying to find some sort of answers to these situations. So I am asking today that we reconsider our agenda and look at security, both economic and energy security, for this country. The Civil Air Patrol

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak and use whatever time I may consume. I do not think I will go past 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we will agree to the conference report to accompany the airport security bill in a few moments. It is a terrible thing; I lost my voice. That is fatal for auctioneers and for those of us who try to make a living in the cave of the winds, which is this Chamber, but I will try to get through. I will make my points as quickly as I can. We had an opportunity to pass a good bill, and I think we have a bill. I will pledge to my colleagues in this Senate and also to the flying public that I will do everything I can to make it work because we have spoken. If we really wanted to maximize security at airport facilities across the Nation, we took a wrong turn in this bill. That is what we do. I offered an amendment to allow the bright line of accountability, authority, and responsibility of jurisdiction of enforcement of those laws to reside with the Department of Justice. When I offered that amendment, it was immediately accepted by a voice vote. No debate was held on that part of the bill. Some of that was my fault because we were trying to deal with the bill and move it through the Senate. As we consider this legislation, I ask the question: Whom are we trying to protect? I will tell you whom we protect more than anything else. We protect Government jobs. We are building up a bureaucracy within the Department of Transportation to which even the Congressional Budget Office cannot put a figure. We do not know what this is going to cost yet. What happens after we pass this bill today? The rules of administration will be written. That will take considerable time. Those of us who are concerned about this bill were told we had to pass something before Thanksgiving because Thanksgiving is the most highly traveled time of the year. I suggest we are not going to have any more protection this Thanksgiving, and I am not sure we are going to have the protections in place next Thanksgiving. If we try, as a legislative body, to suggest to the rule writers how we want the bill to work, we will be given the old story of separation of powers, that we cannot do that. So now it goes into the hands of the bureaucrats who have a habit of writing the rules for their benefit and sometimes disregarding the real reason why we passed the legislation. Every time one flies, they are going to be charged to pay for this big bureaucracy, and every taxpayer in this country will also be paying for it. Why did I decide the Department of Justice is better than the DOT in the areas of enforcement? I will say why. It is enforcement. Before we can expect load factors to go up and return to the levels prior to 11 September, the flying public must feel secure and safe. Symbolically, for no other reason, I suggest the Department of Justice do that. Let us take a look at the areas of responsibilities and the challenges ahead of us: passenger lists, intelligence, baggage and cargo, check-in areas, boarding areas and, yes, the security of the aircraft. All personnel who have anything to do with maintenance, cleaning, fueling, or catering must be screened. These are challenges of great dimension, and it is a big job ahead. Yes, we are asking to build a new bureaucracy in order to take care of this. Who is best equipped to handle that challenge? I suggest the Department of Justice because they have the intelligence in front of them and they know how to handle secured areas. Who deals with security every day and has the experience to do it? Who can best be put to work the quickest and have people on the ground doing the business the fastest, without creating a new bureaucracy? The model is in front of us. As we discussed, this was not allowed to be discussed in conference, either. There was no debate so the American people were not given a real choice between a new bureaucracy and a bureaucracy that is already in place. How are we going to pay for it? I will leave with this thought. Again, I will pledge my support to make sure this law works. It would be unwise to be any other way. We have come through the World Series, a great World Series, and we watch football almost every day on our television sets. Do you know what makes that game a great game and why it garners all the spectators? It is because we do not let the teams referee their own games. In football, there are 22 men on the field, the most heavily armored, mobile, hostile, bent on killing one another, and 6 old men in striped shirts have very few problems. Why? One, because there is only one rule book, and No. 2, we do not allow them to referee their own games. I contend we are making a big mistake. I did not sign the conference report, but I will pledge to make sure the law works. I also warn my colleagues we will be back in less than a year to deal with this problem again. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Clean Alternative Fuels Incentives Act of 2001. This bill extends and limits the credit of producing fuel from non-conventional sources to facilities that produce qualified fuels using technologies that provide certain environmental benefits, but only if such facilities produce enhanced value synthetic fuels from coal. It is important to outline the goals of this legislation at the outset. The four primary goals of this bill are all very important to the future of this Nation. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our Nation's trade imbalance and reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the cleaner, alternative fuels emit cleaner byproduct into the environment. Third, these technologies produce jobs in the United States. Fourth, they encourage the development of technologies that will be economically viable after the short period during which the incentive is provided. Starting with the energy crisis in the 1970s, Congress acted on numerous occasions to provide tax credits intended to develop alternative fuels. Prior sessions of Congress took these steps in recognition of the need to encourage the development and use of alternative fuels, which they hoped would help lead our Nation towards energy independence. Today our Nation not only needs to continue its efforts to develop alternative fuel resources, but given our constantly growing energy needs we must consider the environmental impact that conventional and non-conventional fuels have on our environment, particularly in light of the Clean Air Act. In order to maximize the most efficient use of our Nation's reserves, this Congress needs to commit to the development of clean alternative fuels. My home State of Montana has vast coal reserves. In fact, many times our State has been referred to as the ``Saudi Arabia of coal.'' Not only do we have vast reserves, but also with clean coal technologies we can use these resources and do little harm to the environment. Those who say that coal is not one of the answers to energy independence because of its environmental impact are dead wrong. Coal- fired plants generate over 50 percent of our Nation's electricity. Interestingly, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, reported that Montana's emissions of nitrogen oxide, NOx, sulfur dioxide, SO2, and carbon dioxide, CO2, all decreased from 1986-1996 while producing the same amount of electricity. This proves to me that our coal technologies are improving. Folks, I believe the environmental emissions will continue to improve and if you provide incentives to help clean alternative fuels reach the marketplace, some day we will reach energy independence in this Nation. One question that some of you may have is, ``Are these proven technologies?'' These are proven technologies, but to make the continued development of these technologies a reality, the Congress needs to provide meaningful incentives. The bill that I offer today accomplishes exactly that, it provides clean alternative sources of energy a real opportunity to bring energy independence to this Nation. This bill would extend the non-conventional fuels credit for facilities that produce synthetic fuel from coal using a technology that results in: (1) Measurable reductions of certain emissions when producing the fuel or when the fuel is burned as a fuel, not including any reductions caused by dilution and (2) measurable increases in the value of coal, not including any increases caused by additives. These two factors will lead to accomplishment of the four goals I stated previously. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our Nation's trade imbalance and reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the technologies provide cleaner emissions into the environment. Third, these technologies produce jobs in the United States. Fourth, they encourage the development of technologies that will be economically viable after the short period during which the incentive is provided. I hope that Members of this body will support this important piece of legislation, which helps our Nation at a time of dire need.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Clean Alternative Fuels Incentives Act of 2001. This bill extends and limits the credit of producing fuel from non-conventional sources to facilities that produce qualified fuels using technologies that provide certain environmental benefits, but only if such facilities produce enhanced value synthetic fuels from coal. It is important to outline the goals of this legislation at the outset. The four primary goals of this bill are all very important to the future of this Nation. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our Nation's trade imbalance and reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the cleaner, alternative fuels emit cleaner byproduct into the environment. Third, these technologies produce jobs in the United States. Fourth, they encourage the development of technologies that will be economically viable after the short period during which the incentive is provided. Starting with the energy crisis in the 1970s, Congress acted on numerous occasions to provide tax credits intended to develop alternative fuels. Prior sessions of Congress took these steps in recognition of the need to encourage the development and use of alternative fuels, which they hoped would help lead our Nation towards energy independence. Today our Nation not only needs to continue its efforts to develop alternative fuel resources, but given our constantly growing energy needs we must consider the environmental impact that conventional and non-conventional fuels have on our environment, particularly in light of the Clean Air Act. In order to maximize the most efficient use of our Nation's reserves, this Congress needs to commit to the development of clean alternative fuels. My home State of Montana has vast coal reserves. In fact, many times our State has been referred to as the ``Saudi Arabia of coal.'' Not only do we have vast reserves, but also with clean coal technologies we can use these resources and do little harm to the environment. Those who say that coal is not one of the answers to energy independence because of its environmental impact are dead wrong. Coal- fired plants generate over 50 percent of our Nation's electricity. Interestingly, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, reported that Montana's emissions of nitrogen oxide, NOx, sulfur dioxide, SO2, and carbon dioxide, CO2, all decreased from 1986-1996 while producing the same amount of electricity. This proves to me that our coal technologies are improving. Folks, I believe the environmental emissions will continue to improve and if you provide incentives to help clean alternative fuels reach the marketplace, some day we will reach energy independence in this Nation. One question that some of you may have is, ``Are these proven technologies?'' These are proven technologies, but to make the continued development of these technologies a reality, the Congress needs to provide meaningful incentives. The bill that I offer today accomplishes exactly that, it provides clean alternative sources of energy a real opportunity to bring energy independence to this Nation. This bill would extend the non-conventional fuels credit for facilities that produce synthetic fuel from coal using a technology that results in: (1) Measurable reductions of certain emissions when producing the fuel or when the fuel is burned as a fuel, not including any reductions caused by dilution and (2) measurable increases in the value of coal, not including any increases caused by additives. These two factors will lead to accomplishment of the four goals I stated previously. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our Nation's trade imbalance and reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the technologies provide cleaner emissions into the environment. Third, these technologies produce jobs in the United States. Fourth, they encourage the development of technologies that will be economically viable after the short period during which the incentive is provided. I hope that Members of this body will support this important piece of legislation, which helps our Nation at a time of dire need.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, there are some of us who did not and will not sign the conference report. I will make my statement this evening, but we have not seen the bill and will not see it until the morning. I think it is asking a little bit of those of us who have a responsibility to the aviation industry and the security of this country to not see that legislation before it passes. We understand there are some dogs and cats in there and some things to which we cannot agree. So I want to put myself on record that I will oppose this piece of legislation, but I will not hold it up. I thank the leader.