Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I tell my good friend, it is that kind of mind-set that said we are going to save the suckerfish in Klamath Falls, OR, and it takes precedence over 1,500 families and their future and our ability to provide food and fiber for this country. It is a trash fish. That is going on right now in that basin. That is what I am saying. When we take a look at what our attitude is about a certain thing and hide behind the screen of green and throw out all logic on the management of those lands, then we may have to reassess how we look at all lands, even those that exist in the State of Illinois. That is what I am saying. It is something that creeps into the mind-set, that it is all right to disrupt our lives and our families--even though we do it right and in an environmentally sensitive manner--because of a mind-set. I think that is where we have a basic philosophical difference on how we manage land. I look at it much differently. I know you come from down there not too far from where I was raised. I was raised in Missouri. I never thought about water rights until I went west, where there wasn't any. There wasn't any water. Those things become very important. But they never entered our life when I lived in the lower Midwest. I just think it is a mistake whenever we close up an area because of a mind-set that we cannot do it right and we here in Washington, DC, are basically in a better position to make the decision, more than having the decision made locally. Even the Senator from Washington says we had local input. We did the boundaries originally. We looked at the land that was sensitive, and we set it aside. I agree with that. There are areas in the Missouri Breaks that I think should be set aside and even made wilderness. The river is already a protected river. I agree with that. But whenever you take one broad swipe across a huge amount of land, especially when you have 77,000 acres of in-holdings and you have to cross public lands just to get to them, then we make a decision here that impacts people's lives in a real way. Those people have faces. That is why I oppose this amendment. I am not calling for the repeal of the Antiquities Act. What I am saying is we are impacting our own Nation's ability to produce food and fiber and energy because of a mind-set that sounds warm, green, and fuzzy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to table the Durbin amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS. I move that the Durbin amendment be tabled, and I ask for the yeas and nays, which vote will occur at the agreed time.

Mr. BURNS. The figures the Senator cited are from a USGS survey taken in 1995. Those figures have changed and moved up. No. 2, if he doesn't want people to drill there, where can they drill? How many people in this body or in this town drove an automobile or rode something here that required energy? How many? Do we close off the whole Nation because somebody is making a profit? Do we take the same mindset into agriculture, into production agriculture, as they have in Klamath Falls where 1,500 farmers cannot irrigate because of a suckerfish? It is a mindset. I move to table this amendment for the simple reason that it will impact the country. You say only 5 percent or 2 percent or 1 percent. I say to the Senator: $5 is not very much to some of us. But it is when you don't have it. We have that possibility with this kind of a mindset. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. If that resource is there and it can be done in an environmentally sensitive way, why is that bad or wrong?

Mr. BURNS. We had the Secretary of the Interior up in Montana. In the upper Missouri, which was designated as a national monument, I tell my good friend from Illinois, we asked the Secretary, No. 1, to find the gas well and then find the pipeline that carried the gas from the wellhead into the main pipeline. He could not find it. He could not find either one of them--he tried by air and by land--until we showed him where they were. What I am saying is we should consider the new technologies and how we regard our lands, especially the big open lands. I am not talking about a monument such as The Mall; I am talking about land that is in bigger country that is very seldom ever walked upon by the people who probably own the grazing lease. We still allow grazing in national monuments. Very seldom are those lands ever walked on by anybody else. We have an area in Montana that is going to demand some more attention in the next 2 or 3 years because it is along the Missouri River and that was the route of Louis and Clark. Of course, this will be the 200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase, and the trek of Louis and Clark will draw a little more attention to that area. But tell me why we would completely close out the possibility, even under emergency conditions, in areas where we could develop that energy--and especially natural gas, which is the cleanest of all energy that is coming from the fossil fuels we take from the Earth--why we would close out that possibility.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I oppose this amendment. It seems we want to make a blanket assertion on what we should do with our monuments. We have to remind ourselves that we are energy deficient. As for Montana, where there was a national monument created, there are 77,000 acres of privately held land. Even the former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, recommended that oil and gas production in that area should be sustained. There was a public process. The resource advisory committees in each of these areas made the same recommendation: Gas and oil production could be sustained without harming the land in that national monument. These areas have also been studied. They have been studied by different committees whose members live in the area. They understand that land and the recommendations that were made. We in Montana want to contribute something to the energy situation in this country. So far, no one has come up with any solid replacement to oil and gas production for transportation or power generation fuels. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my hope that we can do this by 4 o'clock this afternoon. There is no need for us to dillydally around here when we have other things to do. I only have one thing I have to do at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I have to introduce a couple of judges who have been nominated to the Montana district court system. By the time I get that done, 4 o'clock should be our cutoff. We should be talking about amendments right now. There is no reason why we cannot move this bill to final conclusion tomorrow.

Mr. BURNS. We will do everything we can to get that taken care of. We do not want to close anybody out either, understanding the sensitivity of that. I believe we have made a reasonable request. I thank the chairman. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I watched the debate with a great deal of interest. I can only think of the amendment a little while ago that was offered by the Senator from Illinois. The Minerals Management Service has been working on this lease sale for quite a while, and includes the current 5-year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Program. This was put on the table under the Clinton administration. The service prepared the draft EIS. They have ensured that the proper public hearings have taken place, including the hearings in Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Mobile. But despite the fact that service has jumped through all of the required administrative hoops, some opponents are now trying to foul the whole thing up in the end game right before the lease, of course, is finalized. When we take a look at the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it is interesting that Members who have been leaning towards voting for this amendment are the same Members who have submitted healthy requests for money out of that Land and Water Conservation Fund for some of their projects. It is also interesting to note that in this very bill, Florida has approximately $42 million in items that are funded under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is likely that State has been the single largest draw on the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the last 5 years. That money is derived from royalties from offshore drilling and production. It is ironic to note that the State of Florida is actually the third largest consumer of petroleum products. However, it only produces about 2 percent of the petroleum that it consumes. Basically, this amendment on the surface appears to be one of those ``not in my backyard'' kinds of situations or games. To top it off, this amendment totally ignores the fact that last week the administration announced that it decided to reduce the size of the lease sale and in particular decided to make sure that the lease sale is much further away from Florida's shores. A while ago, we had the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. Now we have the proponents of this amendment pleading with us to heed the local concerns for the protection of Florida's beaches, of which I would concur. I will say right now that I think the offshore drilling probably does less damage than the tankers that go up and down and unload in the Gulf of Mexico every day. They want those decisions to be made locally. But when it comes to voting on an issue that affected the West, they disregarded that. When voting, I ask my fellow Members to think about the fact that this is a legislative rider that could ultimately reduce the amount of funds contributed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and it might interfere with our country's ability to produce its own oil and gas during a time when the country is facing a very serious energy crunch. If local concerns are in play in Florida, why aren't they in Montana? I call that the lack of fairness. I think that is all we ever want in this body--fairness. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that helps a large number of family farmers on the border of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from Federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree there is little value in having the Federal Government retain ownership. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and continue to believe it helps us to achieve the long term goals of Montana irrigators, and the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. Just this week I attended the confirmation hearing of John W. Keys, III, who is the designate for Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I asked his position on title transfers of irrigation projects like the Lower Yellowstone, where local irrigation districts have successfully managed the Federal properties, and where the Bureau has encouraged the transfer of title to the Districts. His response to me was very encouraging. He stated this type of title transfer ``makes sense and is an opportunity to move facilities from Federal ownership to more appropriate control.'' He has promised to work with me and the Irrigation District to make this a reality, and I look forward to it. The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. The Savage Unit was added in 1947- 48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the number one industry in the area. The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 family farms rely on these projects for economic substance, and the entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a foundation for the businesses in the area. As we all know, the agricultural economy is not as strong as we'd like it to be, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the ideals that have made this country successful. The 500 families impacted are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people to manage their own irrigation projects. Every day, we see an example of where the Federal Government is taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of these efforts on an individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the government gets involved in new projects there are many that we can safely pass on to state or local control. The Lower Yellowstone Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that helps a large number of family farmers on the border of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from Federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree there is little value in having the Federal Government retain ownership. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and continue to believe it helps us to achieve the long term goals of Montana irrigators, and the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. Just this week I attended the confirmation hearing of John W. Keys, III, who is the designate for Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I asked his position on title transfers of irrigation projects like the Lower Yellowstone, where local irrigation districts have successfully managed the Federal properties, and where the Bureau has encouraged the transfer of title to the Districts. His response to me was very encouraging. He stated this type of title transfer ``makes sense and is an opportunity to move facilities from Federal ownership to more appropriate control.'' He has promised to work with me and the Irrigation District to make this a reality, and I look forward to it. The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. The Savage Unit was added in 1947- 48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the number one industry in the area. The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 family farms rely on these projects for economic substance, and the entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a foundation for the businesses in the area. As we all know, the agricultural economy is not as strong as we'd like it to be, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the ideals that have made this country successful. The 500 families impacted are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people to manage their own irrigation projects. Every day, we see an example of where the Federal Government is taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of these efforts on an individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the government gets involved in new projects there are many that we can safely pass on to state or local control. The Lower Yellowstone Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I know there are a lot of folks who want to go home about now. I have listened to this debate on the television with a great deal of interest. We have heard all kinds of examples of bad things that can happen to people. Of course, we could talk about those kinds of things in any field because there are certain circumstances where you could sometimes find victims of circumstance and sometimes find victims of greed. We have also heard that our health care system is very complicated. I will tell you, I do not think our system is complicated. I think we are moving a piece of legislation that is going to complicate it. Since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, it has grown more complicated all the time. If one thinks HMOs are hard to deal with, I am wondering if anybody has had the opportunity to deal with HCFA lately. Just try to get some things done for an elderly mother or father. I do not see anything in the three proposals right now that deals with the real and perceived problems with private insurance plans or HMOs. We have advertising that is on every radio station in this town. They have lots of facts, some of which are a little misleading. Patients' rights are assured to those who are covered by HMOs and insurance plans now, but it seems to me where the dispute begins is either the insured did not understand what he or she was buying or what the specific coverages were to which they thought they are entitled. I am not going to stand here and defend the HMOs or the insurance companies, but what has happened to the industry is making them more cautious about the kinds of contracts they issue. And again, with the consumer, as in all areas of the American way, the buyer has to be concerned. It has always been that way. But as plans were gamed and abused, insurance companies and HMOs became more precise in the offering of their coverages; in other words, the fine print became even finer and smaller. Patients have rights, but not for compensation for specific health care problems that are clearly exempted from coverage. So what I am saying is, when you are buying something, buyer beware. Again, with regard to this problem of companies being driven to that kind of a situation, how far they can go, and how far they will go, we do not know. We do not know how much they can stand. A Patients' Bill of Rights is nothing new for me. In 1994, along with my distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, we had a Patient Protection Act. The goal of that bill was to assure fairness and choice to patients and providers under managed care health benefit plans. I still believe it is essential we ensure that managed care techniques and procedures protect patients and guarantee the integrity of the patient-physician relationship. Let me repeat that. We have to guarantee that the integrity of the relationship between the physician and the patient is protected. I am not without a physician in my family, and we talk quite frequently of these and other issues related to the Patients' Bill of Rights and the problems she faces as she attempts to administer quality and necessary medical care to her patients. It is an area in which I am particularly interested. I believe all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care and to be able to select the health care plans of their choice. I support legislation that requires HMOs to be more responsive and accountable to their patients. We must ensure choice, quality, and access at all times. I think it is fair to state we have reached general agreement over many of the consumer protection aspects of all three of these bills that have been presented to the Senate. Doctors must be able to discuss the full range of treatment options to their patients. I continue to believe that gag clauses in health care provider contracts attack the heart of the doctor-patient relationship, and they eat into the most important factor in the healing process, and that is trust. In addition, customers should be fully informed about the financial arrangements, if any, between their doctors and the insurers. Patients in need of emergency care must be free to go to the emergency room to receive the care they need, uninhibited. Customers must be fully informed about the costs and limits of the coverage they buy, they should have complete information about treatment options, a complete list of the benefits and costs of each plan, a full choice of doctors, and access to specialists. Finally, patients who are denied care, or receive word that their plan will not pay, must have a right--and they have the right--to a fair, binding, and timely appeals process. A great deal of debate has and will likely continue to center around this appeals process and how it is structured and having access to the courts. I believe access to the courts should be the last resort. First we should structure a fair, timely, credible, and independent appeals process. Independent, qualified reviewers should be able to draw upon the broadest and best possible medical guidelines when determining the care patients need that is covered under the contract. Physicians should be able to set the timeframe within which the treatment should be provided. When this process fails or is exhausted, then we should turn to the courts. In the cases where an HMO defies an order of the independent reviewers to provide a benefit--or acts in bad faith to delay making the necessary treatment available--I believe the HMO should be held liable. After all, no American should be denied access to our court and justice system, as it is a constitutional right. On the other hand, we cannot let the practice of medicine be governed by the fear of lawsuits and, of course, trial lawyers. This will surely add to the cost of care. I am afraid that as the cost of obtaining care increases, so too will the number of uninsured. That is what I have heard most in my State of Montana. That is a price that no one can afford, especially small business. We do not have big companies in the State of Montana. We are a State with a lot of small businesses. Those employers are telling us to be very careful of the action we are taking. Any bill that passes this Congress cannot contain provisions which would make the employers liable when they have nothing to do with the decision made by their provider of medical coverage. I will tell you, trial lawyers are very imaginative. When they sue, no one is exempt. So our language has to be specific. I was struck that even though it has been shown in this Chamber that the legislation we are considering has that concern--where they say it doesn't say one thing, but there it is in black and white--nobody has offered to change it and make it palatable to either side. Any such provision is extremely dangerous for any employer, whether it be a small Montana business with two employees or a larger employer such as a hospital or doctor's office or clinic. There are many native people who do not understand how imaginatively and broadly trial lawyers can interpret statutory provisions to include businesses as defendants in lawsuits when it was not the intention of the drafters of this legislation. To be very specific, I want to make sure that the innocent small businesses that are trying to provide much needed health care for their employees do not find themselves in court for their good intentions. I have always heard the old saying that no good deed shall go unpunished. Twenty percent of Montanans currently lack health coverage. I don't want to see that number rise either. We cannot add to that number. I cannot support provisions which would threaten to do so. As a practical matter, it seems unreasonable to potentially give one or two people and their lawyers millions of dollars in punitive damages and as a consequence destroy thousands the ability to obtain health insurance coverage. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. For many the greatest obstacle we face in health care today in this country is the cost of insurance, It is not that we don't want it; we can't afford it. What is driving those costs? It is not the person who tries to take care of themselves. It is the coverage of some extraneous programs or plans that drives the cost. Since way back in 1993 and 1994, we have been talking about health care. We want three things when it comes to health care in this country: We want top quality, which we have; we want it fast; we want it low cost. If one would think just for a little bit, we can only have two of the three. I believe we ought to start looking at the best way we can control costs and make health care more accessible and affordable to those who need it. My primary and overriding concern is that any Patients' Bill of Rights is indeed in the best interest of all my folks in Montana and all Americans. I am deeply concerned about those thousands of hard- working folks who are self-employed or employed by small businesses throughout my wonderful State. These people desperately need our protection. I do not want to act in haste or irresponsibly, jeopardizing their present health coverage by higher premium costs. I, therefore, will support a bill that will assure the maximum patient protection to all and ensure that patients get the health care they need when they need it. I absolutely agree that a real Patients' Bill of Rights needs to be enacted as soon as possible. These are complex issues. We have come a long way. I am confident we will be able to arrive at a fair and reasonable bill in the very near future. We have to look at just exactly what we can do because in this piece of legislation, there could be and probably will be some unintended consequences, as there always is when we pass major legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to detail my support of the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001, which was introduced today by Senator Conrad and is cosponsored by myself and a number of my colleagues from rural States across this Nation. The Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will increase payments for low-volume hospitals, equalize Medicare Disproportionate Share, DSH, payments, close the gap between urban and rural ``standardized payment'' levels, streamline wage index re-classification, ensure rural communities access to independent lab services, provide grant and loan programs for infrastructure and technology improvement projects, and strengthen rural health clinics. Those of us from rural and frontier areas recognize that rural health care is in a state of crisis. Through mismanagement of Medicare reimbursement policies and an unwillingness to truly evaluate the obstacles inherent in providing quality health care in rural areas, we have allowed rural health care to reach the brink of complete breakdown. The Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will go a long way towards rectifying this dire situation. The investments through the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will address the kernel problem of health care in America. Next week the Senate will engage in a healthy debate about patients' rights legislation and it is likely that Congress will tackle Medicare reform within the near future as well. These arguments will be academic for many of my constituents if rural hospitals, clinics, and other providers across my State can no longer afford to serve their communities. By passing the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001, we can defuse the time bomb which is rural America's health care crisis. I urge each of my colleagues to consider this legislation carefully and hope for its prompt passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to detail my support of the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001, which was introduced today by Senator Conrad and is cosponsored by myself and a number of my colleagues from rural States across this Nation. The Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will increase payments for low-volume hospitals, equalize Medicare Disproportionate Share, DSH, payments, close the gap between urban and rural ``standardized payment'' levels, streamline wage index re-classification, ensure rural communities access to independent lab services, provide grant and loan programs for infrastructure and technology improvement projects, and strengthen rural health clinics. Those of us from rural and frontier areas recognize that rural health care is in a state of crisis. Through mismanagement of Medicare reimbursement policies and an unwillingness to truly evaluate the obstacles inherent in providing quality health care in rural areas, we have allowed rural health care to reach the brink of complete breakdown. The Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will go a long way towards rectifying this dire situation. The investments through the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will address the kernel problem of health care in America. Next week the Senate will engage in a healthy debate about patients' rights legislation and it is likely that Congress will tackle Medicare reform within the near future as well. These arguments will be academic for many of my constituents if rural hospitals, clinics, and other providers across my State can no longer afford to serve their communities. By passing the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001, we can defuse the time bomb which is rural America's health care crisis. I urge each of my colleagues to consider this legislation carefully and hope for its prompt passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this amendment to the Agricultural Market Transition Act. It would require the Secretary of Agriculture to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas. This amendment will go a long way toward giving producers of these commodities an equal opportunity to obtain the same financial opportunities as other producers now receive. We encourage our producers to grow what is often referred to as alternative crops. Producers have listened and they are successfully marketing these crops. The actions of this bill will now provide these innovative producers with the same economic benefits as producers of other crops. These farmers have dared to try something different and the least we can do is support them for they're daring. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this amendment to the Agricultural Market Transition Act. It would require the Secretary of Agriculture to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas. This amendment will go a long way toward giving producers of these commodities an equal opportunity to obtain the same financial opportunities as other producers now receive. We encourage our producers to grow what is often referred to as alternative crops. Producers have listened and they are successfully marketing these crops. The actions of this bill will now provide these innovative producers with the same economic benefits as producers of other crops. These farmers have dared to try something different and the least we can do is support them for they're daring. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act of 2001. The purpose of this bill is to authorize a regional water delivery system which will serve both the Rocky Boy's Reservation and the surrounding region in north central Montana. For the last few years I have been working on this bill with the members of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the citizens of the six towns affected, and the users of the eight water districts who have joined together to bring clean, safe drinking water to their families. More than 30,000 people would be serviced by this rural water system. This bill is needed now for a number of reasons. First, it will provide a means to import water to the Rocky Boy's Reservation for drinking and for other everyday needs. Over the last decade, the population of the Rocky Boy's Reservation has grown by 40 percent, leaving existing water infrastructure insufficient. Secondly, there are three small water systems in the region which are currently operating out of compliance with the EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule. Others are nearing non-compliance, and one has been issued an administrative rule by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to begin water treatment as soon as possible. This bill helps us to realize that simply maintaining a small town or district's water system can be so expensive and filled with red tape that its users can hardly afford it. Under current law even if small systems are able to be developed, they must be continually monitored and the results reported. That may not be a problem in a larger community with a sizeable tax base and a labor pool, but in a rural setting those expenses and responsibilities are spread between so few people that it can quickly become a major problem. I know rural Montana. I can tell you our very smallest towns are hurting. They are deeply affected by a lagging agricultural economy, and the inability to provide water for any number of reasons could be enough to shut a small town down. Is that what we want? I don't think so. One of the ways we can address that problem is with the development of regional water systems, which are more efficient, and easier to manage. I truly believe it is time to stand up and face our commitments to Indian Country and rural America head on. This bill is the perfect opportunity for that, because it uses the teamwork of committed citizens and builds on the system they have developed. This is a very good example of cooperation between tribal and non-tribal entities, and of what happens when people come to the table ready to find a solution. This project has been a long time coming. The State of Montana committed to it in 1997 with a promise of $10 million for construction, and by providing technical assistance through the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Initial federal assistance followed in the form of an appropriation of $300,000 for engineering and planning for fiscal year 2000. The report was completed and the preliminary engineering is complete. With the passage of the water compact settling the water rights between the Chippewa Cree Tribe and Montana, P.L. 106-163 signed by President Clinton in 1999, the stage was set for this project to be built. All the bases have been covered and it is time to authorize this project. There is a real need for a less burdensome way to manage the water needs of the area. The Rocky Boy's Reservation is in need of an expanded water source and system, and smaller water districts and municipalities are also struggling to stay in operation. The best way to solve both these problems at once is to build an efficient regional water system. I propose we do just that and show our commitment to rural America.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act of 2001. The purpose of this bill is to authorize a regional water delivery system which will serve both the Rocky Boy's Reservation and the surrounding region in north central Montana. For the last few years I have been working on this bill with the members of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the citizens of the six towns affected, and the users of the eight water districts who have joined together to bring clean, safe drinking water to their families. More than 30,000 people would be serviced by this rural water system. This bill is needed now for a number of reasons. First, it will provide a means to import water to the Rocky Boy's Reservation for drinking and for other everyday needs. Over the last decade, the population of the Rocky Boy's Reservation has grown by 40 percent, leaving existing water infrastructure insufficient. Secondly, there are three small water systems in the region which are currently operating out of compliance with the EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule. Others are nearing non-compliance, and one has been issued an administrative rule by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to begin water treatment as soon as possible. This bill helps us to realize that simply maintaining a small town or district's water system can be so expensive and filled with red tape that its users can hardly afford it. Under current law even if small systems are able to be developed, they must be continually monitored and the results reported. That may not be a problem in a larger community with a sizeable tax base and a labor pool, but in a rural setting those expenses and responsibilities are spread between so few people that it can quickly become a major problem. I know rural Montana. I can tell you our very smallest towns are hurting. They are deeply affected by a lagging agricultural economy, and the inability to provide water for any number of reasons could be enough to shut a small town down. Is that what we want? I don't think so. One of the ways we can address that problem is with the development of regional water systems, which are more efficient, and easier to manage. I truly believe it is time to stand up and face our commitments to Indian Country and rural America head on. This bill is the perfect opportunity for that, because it uses the teamwork of committed citizens and builds on the system they have developed. This is a very good example of cooperation between tribal and non-tribal entities, and of what happens when people come to the table ready to find a solution. This project has been a long time coming. The State of Montana committed to it in 1997 with a promise of $10 million for construction, and by providing technical assistance through the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Initial federal assistance followed in the form of an appropriation of $300,000 for engineering and planning for fiscal year 2000. The report was completed and the preliminary engineering is complete. With the passage of the water compact settling the water rights between the Chippewa Cree Tribe and Montana, P.L. 106-163 signed by President Clinton in 1999, the stage was set for this project to be built. All the bases have been covered and it is time to authorize this project. There is a real need for a less burdensome way to manage the water needs of the area. The Rocky Boy's Reservation is in need of an expanded water source and system, and smaller water districts and municipalities are also struggling to stay in operation. The best way to solve both these problems at once is to build an efficient regional water system. I propose we do just that and show our commitment to rural America.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, although little noticed, a native son of Montana passed away at his home in Lafayette, CA. John Winterholler, a three-sport Hall of Famer at the University of Wyoming was a survivor of the Bataan death march. Winterholler was among the inaugural class inducted into the University of Wyoming Athletics Hall of Fame in 1993. He lettered in baseball, basketball, and football from 1936-1939. Upon graduation in 1940, he accepted a commission as a lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps rather than play professional baseball. Winterholler served with the 4th Marine Regiment on Bataan and Corregidor in the Philippines and suffered brutal treatment as a Japanese prisoner during World War II. During captivity, he experienced severe weight loss and was paralyzed from the waist down and near death from malnutrition. He was confined to a wheelchair the rest of his life. He earned two battlefield decorations, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star with ``V'' for valor before Corregidor fell, and he subsequently received the Purple Heart and 26 other medals and awards for his service in the United States Marine Corps. He retired with the rank of colonel. Although he was born in Billings, MT, he grew up just over the 45th parallel which is known as the Montana/Wyoming State line. It was there in Lovell, WY, where he met his future wife, Dessa. They both attended the University of Wyoming and were married in 1945 in his hospital room at Mare Island Naval Base in Vallejo, CA, shortly after his release from the Japanese prison camp. He is just another American who has given so much for this country and all it stands for. An American that believed in the future of this country so deeply that he gave all that was asked in her defense. I, like many, give thanks every day for what they sacrificed and their dedication. He is survived by a daughter, Deborah Harms; a son, David; a sister, Lydia Showalter; and three brothers, Henry, Phillip, and Alfred.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we opened up the debate on education. And, of course, they tell us that we have an agreement in principle. So at this point, for all who believe that it is good for kids, let's go on and do it. We are hearing a lot of words with regard to policy and money, and basically money will not be a part of this debate and should not be a part of this debate. There is a good reason for that. We hear stories--some of them are not too good--about the condition of some of our schools. There is no doubt about it; we see some schools in very poor condition. I represent the State of Montana. Some of its schools are on our Indian reservations, and some of our Native Americans are under crowded conditions. In fact, there are a couple of schools that we are going to replace to help them get into new facilities next year; now young people are going to class in the janitor's closet. Then we like to compare the good old days of our education. Sometimes I hear it said, in fact, that it is a wonder we as a nation have accomplished what we have because of our educational system. I don't want to talk about that. We should be talking about the successes of our system and the successes of yesteryear in education. I went to a rural school. It was a country school with one room. I think it ranged in size anywhere from 18 to 25 or 26 kids. The eighth graders taught the first graders how to read. We only had one teacher. All of us could tell stories like that about our life as a young person in a rural setting. We could talk about that. We could also say how we graduated from a smaller high school. There were only 29 students in my graduating class. We could talk about all the things we missed in our education, but we don't. We like to talk about our accomplishments. When we hear the debate in this Chamber, do we, as policymakers, have all of the answers to the challenges of public education and what it faces today? No, I do not think we do. We might think we do. We need to face the fact that we now come to a subject where success will be based on how we make choices. That is the basis for the debate. The Founding Fathers of this country placed a high priority on public education. They did it for a simple reason. We cannot be a free society and understand the Constitution unless we do it with educated minds. It is remarkable when you look at the documentation of the two great wars fought on this continent, in our country. If you look at the Revolutionary War, very small snippets of history are found in our history books because most of the people who participated in the Revolutionary War at ground level were illiterate. They could not read and they could not write. Then almost 100 years later--not quite, about 90--we had the Civil War, of which we find documentation and letters that soldiers wrote home to their folks and to their loved ones, to their mothers and to their brothers and sisters, to their families and their friends. From those letters we piece together a complete history of the Civil War of this country. The Founding Fathers said that public education is a must. We have to have a high degree of literacy in this country if we are to maintain a free and responsible society. Ever since those days, we have seen strong public support for public education. In fact, there has been overall support for a strong public school system throughout my life--until, I would say, maybe the last 10 years. What happened along the way? And I say the only way we make a good, sound argument is when we relate to how things are in our own neighborhood. There was a time when you could pass a school bond, and it was nothing to it. If you needed more money for buildings--brick and mortar--if you needed more teachers, if you needed more money to run the school, a school bond was fairly easy to pass because everybody supported the local schools and what they were doing. I look at my own neighborhood and the support of the teachers and the schools. It is still there. But there is something missing because we have now experienced a history over the last few years of school bonds going down, voted down, to where it takes a real effort--a real public relations effort--to pass just an ordinary school bond. There is a given in this debate: Anytime education comes before this body, it is sure to attract a great deal of attention. I do not know of a soul in the public sector or in this Chamber who does not have an opinion on education, and they will readily give it to you. I have also found some other things to be true. Everybody knows how to run a school. That is another given. But I also have found that very few look at the record and can think their way through the idea that we have arrived at a time in the history of the evolution of public education and realize that systemic reform is now needed. I am no different than most in this body. One could say: My schooling was sufficient for me; therefore, it would be good enough for our children. But we know that is not true. If we did that, then we would be stuck in low gear. We have to look at this. Again, we should not be talking money. We should be talking accountability. If we are to have great support for public education, we have to have accountability. Everybody understands that. Accountability means testing. It means the product that you are producing has to be a good one. Testing is the only way to do that. You can have a big argument about who is going to give the test and all that. I still say it should be left to the States. Testing also gives us, and public educators, the information needed to develop the sound support that public education should have. We should be supporting the programs that work, reduce the bureaucracy, and give increased flexibility to those who run our schools. I leave you with a closing thought. Money is not the answer. You will see many charts throughout the debate. As this chart shows, we have increased spending in education drastically. Look at the blue line on the chart. It goes right on up. That shows how we have increased spending on education. But look where the achievement line is on the chart. Have we improved reading and math? No. So money is not the answer. Systemic reform is what is needed. I am looking forward to the debate. But I think we have to use some common sense because what we need to do now is restore the accountability in and the support for our public education system because it is the cornerstone of this free society. Do not test the young people for reading. Do not test them for math. Test them on history because, I will tell you, that is where the seed of freedom remains in a society to be perpetuated for future generations. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time under my control be yielded to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as you know, I had a little round with the surgeon during our Easter break. I got a get-well card from a good friend who lives in Montana, something that would come out of sort of cowboy lore or out of a cowboy camp. I knew this man's father. We go way back in Montana and the ranching history. It says: Friend Conrad: Well, looks like you're done for. So I guess we might as well divide up your stuff. I'll take your saddle. Ray. There is a kindness in that letter that probably only can be appreciated by those of us who have been in those cow camps and sat at these folks' fire. I thought I would share that with some folks. There is still some humility around and great comradery that comes from that.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to make note of the 15 people who have lost their lives in the waters off the coast of Alaska. On Tuesday, April 2 the U.S. Coast Guard received a distress signal from the vessel Arctic Rose. The Arctic Rose sank with all hands on board in the Bering sea, some 200 miles northwest of St. Paul Island. I would like to join my colleagues from the home states of these people to recognize those whose lives were lost in this tragic event, and would ask that their names be entered into the record. Aaron Brocker, Jimmy Conrad, Robert Foreman, Edward Haynes, G.W. Kandris, Kenneth Kivlin, Jeff Meinche, and Mike Olney, all from Washington. Kerry Egan from Minnesota. Angel Mendez from Texas. Michael Neureiter from California. Dave Rundall from Hawaii. Shawn Bouchard and James Mills from Montana. I am sure I join with all members of Congress and express our sincerest condolences to the families of these men.