Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. It will not take long to make the point. I will facilitate everything, as the chairman of the subcommittee wants. If Members want to talk about wildlife in Yellowstone, you will see very little variety in wildlife in Yellowstone in the wintertime. If you have been there, you know that about the only thing you will see is bison. Let me tell you, you don't bother them with a little old snowmobile. They are just walking around, and they go wherever they want to, whenever they want to. So let's not be worried about the bison. Whether you agree with it or not, there are too many bison in the park. We have grazed that country right into the ground. I remind Members that those who operate the snowmobiles out of West Yellowstone have gone to the Park Service and said: We will make arrangements to prevent line-ups at the gate, we will get new, cleaner, quieter machines, we will work with you in order to protect the environment of Yellowstone Park. There will be more people in a week this summer through the park than all of next winter. You cannot even get through that park for traffic right now. One of these days, you will have to go to a gate and pick a number and they call your number and you get to go to the park. The impact is in the summer, not in the winter, no matter what you are riding. It could be an old gray horse or a snowmobile, it doesn't make any difference. And are we concerned about that? Let's not be shocked. The Senator from Wyoming has a good idea. It is time we take a realistic look at this, do the study, and go forward with the recommendations that are made.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on the eve of marking up the Conservation Reinvestment Act--an act that can only be described as great politics but very bad policy--to enact a law that gives the Federal Government a blank check to buy land for the purpose of conservation, preservation, or any other so called environmental cause is ill-advised and ill- conceived, it appears, on the surface, the idea of putting land under Federal control for conservation purposes is a good idea and good policy for the nation. However, under the surface, hidden in the dark side of government ownership of lands, it is very bad policy. Nobody has hunted or fished and appreciated it more than this Senator. Nobody enjoys the outdoors as much as I do--the cold crisp mornings in a hunting camp or a fishing camp is unequaled and one would not need a fishing rod or a rifle. I would say that nobody in this body has fought harder for habitat and policies that promote the enjoyment of the outdoors, hunting, and fishing. As former cochairman of the sportman's caucus and still active in the foundation, we guard this privilege. There is no way, Mr. President, this piece of legislation can be made to reflect or fulfill our role in the protection and improvement of our public lands. Just adding acres to the Federal estate does not get it done. Just no way. The supporters of this legislation has been blinded by the prospects of dollars, free dollars coming to their respective States. The money comes from royalties from off-shore drilling. I have no problem with that and, in fact, support such a scheme. It is the purchasing of land for the Federal estate that I cannot support. I ask your patience to bear with me but I feel some facts should be made part of this record and my colleagues need reminding of some startling facts. The Federal Government now controls one-third of the land in the United States. That is wrong and was never intended to be as envisioned by the Founders of our Nation nor the Framers of our Constitution. However, the Federal Government has from its first day, a healthy appetite for land ownership and has never stopped acquiring more and more land. Some for good and solid reasons. In the last 40 years, however, land acquisition has been under the guise of conservation and preservation. Do we have enough surplus of money to squander on the idea that the Federal Government needs more land. Since 1960, major Federal land agencies have added 33.6 million acres of land. That is the area the size of Florida. These agencies control more than 612 million acres or just over one- fourth of the land area of the United States. True, the majority of Americans support land conservation and some acquisition, but few know or understand what it entails. Most of those demanding public ownership of lands have come from groups who have little regard for private land ownership or property rights as provided by our Constitution. Land ownership is the cornerstone to individual freedom which most Americans hold very dear. Have you not seen the movie, ``The Patriot''? . . . A major increase in Federal funding for land acquisition has long been needed. There is a tremendous backlog in land purchases. . . . So says Carl Pope, Ex. Director of the Sierra Club. Ron Tipton, a vice president of the National Park Conservation Association echoes the same line. I would suggest that both organizations have the money and the political will to buy land for conservation, preservation, or to heal some real or perceived environmental ill. The problem arises that they also would be responsible for the operation and management of the lands. That being the case, why in the world does the Federal Government need more land? That is why I started to do some research some 3 or 4 years ago and using some information gathered by very credible organizations, I was startled what I found. The Congressional Budget Office has gone so far as to suggest a freeze on Federal acquisitions. A 1999 report asserts: Land management agencies should improve their stewardship of the lands they already own before taking on additional acreage and management responsibilities. Environmental objectives might be best met by improving that they already own. There is one glaring fact that throughout our history, private individuals and groups have offered the best and most sound resource conservation. Several organizations such as the Sierra Club has the funds and expertise to do and I suggest they proceed. Here is CBO's concern. BLM, USF&W, and NPS have added 840,000 acres per year since 1960. That is the area the size of Rhode Island. In the 1990's, 3.4 million acres and 25 new units for NPS; 2.7 million acres and 24 new units for USF&W; plus 18 million acres in military installations, 8.5 million acres in BOR, and 11.7 million acres in the Corps of Engineers. Even the conservation reserve ``CRP'' controls 33 million acres. spiraling costs and ballooning budgets Here are the reasons the Congressional Budget Office suggested a freeze in land acquisition: Annual costs for land management have far outpaced the rate at which the Federal estate was expanding. For the past 40 years, government's appetite for land ownership grew the total acres just over 6 percent, yet operating budgets have risen 262 percent above inflation. From 1962 to 1998, land acquisition cost $10.5 billion. At that same timeframe, managing Federal lands cost $176 billion, $6.6 billion in 1999 alone. It is a little easier to grasp when one looks at the cost of management in 1962 at $3 per acre. In 1997 the cost has grown to $10 per acre adjusted for inflation. The NPS operating expenses have risen 2.6 percent per year above inflation since 1980. During the same time, the system grew only 1 percent per year in acreage and units. The system has always gotten more money to operate. Park visits, nationally, only grew 2.3 percent per year. BLM generated .50 cents for every $1.00 invested and the NPS .08 cents for every $1.00. While operating budgets for day-to-day upkeep and services have grown faster than acreage, provisions for infrastructure and major maintenance have not followed a similar pattern. In some instances, these capital budgets that provide for long-term facility maintenance have shrunk. Between 1980 and 1995, NPS declined to an annual rate of 1.5 percent when adjusted for inflation. As a result, the NPS has a $5.6 billion deficit for construction and maintenance and a $2 billion deficit for resource management. The USFS has a $5 billion maintenance backlog. Throwing more money into the Federal trough is not getting us what we want. Eroding forest roads, deteriorating water quality, disappearing wildlife habitat, and loss of priceless artifacts are just the most obvious indicators that current policies are not providing quality management. Buying more land only contributes to a situation that is not achieving the environmental objectives that we want. Billions of dollars are spent each year to manage our Federal lands, and the public is not getting the benefits of multiple-use fiscal responsibility, or good resource stewardship. A number of ecologists have also questioned the ability to fulfill its mission of resource protection. Biologist Charles Kay of Utah State University has documented the destruction of the Crown Jewel of national parks, Yellowstone. Overpopulation of elk and buffalo has taken its toll. The result is starvation of thousands of elk, and overgrazed range, the destruction of plant communities, the elimination of critical habitat, and a serious decline in biodiversity. Karl Hess reported the same in Rocky Mountain National Park. Some 39 million acres of Federal forest land are, as we speak, at risk of catastrophic wildfire and disease according to a GAO report of last year. better tools--better results--satisfied conservationists It is clear that merely dipping into the Federal Treasury does not ensure land conservation for the future. Under the current system of command and control, politics plays a major role in Federal land management. Some pragmatic changes in our Federal land agencies, however, could help us get the incentives right. recreational land Lands historically used for recreation, should pay or attempt to pay their own way and not rely entirely upon congressional appropriations. There is no doubt that park managers can better care for the land that Federal overseers in Congress who fail to allocate funds for necessary maintenance. The Fee Demonstration Program is a step in the right direction. As land managers generate revenues and decide how the money will be spent, they are allowed to be more responsive to visitors, more expedient with maintenance, and more protective of natural resources. commodity lands Not all Federal lands are equally deserving of preservation. In a world of limited resources, it makes sense to sell lands with lesser conservation values to ensure adequate protection for those worthy of conservation. habitat set-asides There are some lands under Federal management that are not likely to ever pay their own way, but have ecological or cultural value. The land might be critical wildlife habitat, watershed for large, diversified users, or the site of some historical event. These should be placed under a trust or endowment board. A portion of revenues derived from user fees at more popular sites or the sale of other lands could be used as endowment funds to manage these valuable areas. I am very supportive of this idea. new acquisitions Current Federal land management permits land acquisitions without regard to operating and maintenance costs. Before adding more land to the Federal estate and obligating the American taxpayer, a detailed accounting of annual operating and maintenance costs should be prepared and, like private conservators, laws should require that funding for proper management be part of the appropriation. No O&M money, no deal. I will insist on it. land exchanges There is no doubt in my mind that land exchanges are necessary. Small units of range should be either traded or sold to block up large units for management purposes. The funds derived from the sales should be placed in the trust or endowment for management of other public holdings. private solutions As an alternative to Federal land conservation, private conservation by individuals and groups is a viable option with a long history in the United States. The growing demand to protect land resources has created a new impetus for private conservation through ownership and other legal mechanisms. Whether the land is managed for profit or to fulfill a mission, these private conservators have the right incentives. They face the opportunity costs for alternative uses of the resources. The result is often better land management than that provided by our Federal land managers. fee simple Private landownership is the oldest and simplest form of land conservation. It will continue to exist as long as property rights are well-defined and owners can profit from their investment in conservation or achieve their conservation goals. land trusts, conservation easements Tax benefits. Perpetual easements. Restructuring easements. conclusion Changes that would improve land conservation and mitigate environmental damage without adding more land to the Federal estate include: Lands for recreational use should pay their own way or generate some revenue to cover costs; Land use rights on commodity producing lands should be sold for the highest value use. The winning bid could be commercial timber harvest, selective harvest to enhance wildlife habitat, wilderness, recreation, or some combination of uses; Income from the sale of land and land use rights should be put into endowment funds to buy or manage lands with higher conservation values, such as those with critical wildlife habitat, scenic value, or historical significance; and Barriers should be lowered to encourage private conservation and good stewardship. At present our Federal land agencies are poor land stewards. Many times through no fault of their own, their budgets reach into the billions, yet damage to roads, sewers, buildings, forest, and rangelands remain and continue to worsen. Only the lands that are under long-term lease arrangements with individuals or groups continue to improve. Given the right incentives, we can protect areas like Yellowstone and Yosemite, preserve the Bob Marshall Wilderness of Montana, and the east front. But forests such as Clinch Valley, VA, are better left in private hands. Again, I must iterate that the Conservation Reinvestment Act as written and presented this day, is ill-conceived and ill-advised. We can and must invest those dollars where the environmental objectives are clearly achievable. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation. It is pretty tough to follow the Senator from Texas because the old professor gets going and he lays it out pretty good. Some of us never had the privilege of being a classroom professor and we strike out when we try to start making a point. But I want to offer a few remarks. I also want to offer an amendment at this time. amendment no. 3874

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is in essence S. 2005, the Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000. It has 41 cosponsors, as listed on the stand-alone bill, in the Senate. It is a very simple bill, but it is very important to small businesses, farmers, and people who sell their businesses and carry back some of the financing. As you know, whenever you sell your business, if you have capital gains, you pay the full capital gain on the sale price of that business. Yet your money may be returned to you in yearly installments. What this bill does, is provide an easier method to pay your capital gains tax. The amendment doesn't change the rate. It changes nothing. But it does allow you to pay your capital gains tax as you receive the money on installment. We think this is more than fair. It doesn't put the seller at the disadvantage of having to go to the bank to borrow money in order to pay the capital gains tax whenever a business is sold. I cannot add a lot to what the Senator from Texas has said about the marriage penalty. But I will tell you this, Joshua and Jody Hayes, of Billings, MT--two kids I have known for a long time, now pay $971 more in taxes just because they are married, rather than if they had remained single. That is just one example. Mr. President, I still think when you start to look around this great country and you see the standard of living that generations, since this country's established, have created, it has been progressive. This is because we in this country live for the next generation. Most of us, being parents or grandparents, work for our kids. That is important. We want them to be better educated than we are. We want them to start with a little nest egg which they can invest. We want to start them on their careers, at a rung higher than we started. I was interested in the explanation of the Senator from Texas that this President thinks if you make $25,000 a year, you are rich. I happen to remember the day that if I was making $25,000 I would have thought I was pretty rich. I have a daughter now who is starting her life career making more than I am making now. I find that pretty mind- boggling. Nonetheless, we have always worked for our kids. While we have done that, we have elevated the standard of living for more Americans than any other society on the face of the planet. Now we have found a way to tax it. That tax comes from families--a mom, a dad, a grandma, and a grandpa. Say you have a young family and are trying to pay for a home and saving money to send their kids to school--there are more than enough things going on. You should not have to be penalized by the tax man. Some 21 million couples nationwide pay $1,400 or more a year in income taxes. Now to some people that's not a lot of money, but I know a lot of folks who think it is a lot of money. I urge the passage of this legislation, and I also hope this body will look with favor on the amendment I have sent to the desk which helps small businesses and farmers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3852, As Modified

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for this amendment to repeal federal excise taxes on telephone services. This tax was first introduced as a ``temporary'' luxury tax in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War. However, over 100 years later this tax remains in effect. The definition of temporary should not span an entire century. This tax is imposed on telephone and other services at a rate of 3 percent. Furthermore, these taxes are not applied to a specific purpose that enhances telephone service in our nation--rather these taxes are directed to the general revenue account. In other words, there is no reason we should not repeal this tax. Not doing so means only one thing--Montanans end up paying one more tax to encourage Government spending. As I said a moment ago, this tax was enacted to fund the Spanish- American War. Considering that war was ended a mere six months after it began, I feel it's time to repeal this tax. Instead, Montana consumers continue to pay this tax on all their telephone services--local, long distance, and wireless. It is time to eliminate this excise tax. At the time of enactment, this tax was considered a luxury tax on the few who owned telephones in 1898--this tax has now become an unnecessary burden on virtually every American taxpayer. Repealing this excise tax on communications services will save consumers over $5 billion annually. Furthermore, this tax is regressive in nature. It disproportionately hurts the poor, particularly those households on either fixed or limited incomes. Even the U.S. Treasury Department has concluded in a 1987 study that the tax ``causes economic distortions and inequities among households'' and ``there is no policy rationale for retaining the communications excise tax.'' Rural customers in States like Montana are also disproportionately impacted. This tax is even more of a burden on rural customers due to the fact that they are forced to make more long distance calling comparative to urban customers. This tax also impacts Internet service. The leading reason why households with incomes under $25,000 do not have home Internet access is cost. If consumers are very price sensitive, the government should not create disincentives to accessing the Internet. Eliminating this burdensome tax can help to narrow the digital divide. This is a tax on talking--a tax on communicating--a tax on our Nation's economy. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment to repeal this unnecessary and burdensome general revenue tax. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment that would provide tax relief for farmers, ranchers, and other small business owners. This amendment contains several provisions that are very popular among the Nation's farming and small business communities. Among those provisions is a bill I introduced in January along with over 40 of my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This bill, S. 2005, the Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000, would allow small businesses to pay the capital gains on the sale of their business over the term of the sale rather than in one lump sum at the time of the sale. Without this provision, the sales of small businesses will be disrupted or scrapped altogether. Many sales of small businesses use the installment sales method. This amendment will allow small business owners the opportunity to defer over the period of payments the capital gains tax on the sale of their business. We're not talking about major corporations--rather, we are talking about small businesses that support a community. This amendment will ensure that action is taken on this issue this year and also ensure that the present or future sales of small businesses are not adversely affected by this legislation. This amendment also contains several other tax relief measures for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. The amendment will not only create savings for farmers but also encourage savings for farmers to be used for future. The agricultural community is in a crisis. These are the men and women that produce our Nation's food products. It is important that we do all we can to help relieve these families of the burdens based on the unique fluctuations in agriculture. While a farmer may have a banner year, his next may be devastated by hail, disease or price. Mr. President, I can tell you that prices for agricultural products have hit rock bottom and there is no sign of improvement. I encourage my colleagues to support the small business owner by supporting this amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Senator from Illinois on striking section 116. Let me preface my point by saying the language in the bill is the same language that was in last year's bill. There is a reason for it. Contrary to the argument being voiced by one side of the aisle, this is compromise language. It passed the House and the Senate last year. It was cleared by the Council on Environmental Quality and signed into law by the President. As part of his speech, the Senator from Illinois showed us a picture of rangeland in poor quality. Well, I could take that same picture in Yellowstone Park. There is not one cow in Yellowstone Park, not one. There are a lot of buffalo, though. It is all managed by educated, competent land managers. The problem is, they have a hard time cutting back on the herd there. So let's not say that all the ranchers in the world are the rapers and the pillagers of the land, because we can see range in worse shape being managed by the National Park Service. I go back on open range, range country, with the BLM and Government land back to the 1950s, and even a little before that. I can remember riding into Chicago with cattle for J.C. Penney at the old International Stock Show. So I know a little bit about these cattlemen. I know a little bit about grass. I know a little bit about rain. I know a little bit about sunshine. If it had not been for the ranching community in our public lands States, there would also be no wildlife on that range because there is no water. For the most part, the land that was not claimed under the Homestead Act was land without water. Water was later developed on that land by the people who leased it from the government. To water their cattle they built reservoirs and wells. They also used pipelines. Anyplace livestock can graze, one will find wildlife. There was an organization formed just after World War II. The country was coming out of a depression and also some devastating years of drought in the thirties. There are probably not a lot of folks standing around here who know much about that. I do not see that much gray hair around. An organization was formed to improve the range. It was called the Society for Range Management, long before Government had established any kind of environmental rules, long before there was an establishment of the BLM and guidelines for the men and women who would judge the quality of the range. Government did not fund the Society for Range Management. It was strictly funded by those stockmen who ran livestock on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act was then established, and that is what governs how we handle permits today. I want to talk about the Society for Range Management. Every year-- and I started this in Montana by the way--we have Montana Range Days. About 300 to 400 people show up for a 3-day camp. They sleep on the ground, and they sleep in the back of pickups. The people run from little shavers in the first grade to seasoned stockmen. During the 3 days, we identify the grass, the foliage, noxious weeds, the carrying capacity of a particular strip of range. I started that when I went into the broadcast business in 1975 because rangeland is the basis for the economies in the eastern counties of Montana. And as a result, the grazing permits on public lands are vital for Montana. The range today carries a lot more livestock, a lot more recreation, and more activity overall because of a group called the Society for Range Management. They have been responsible, and that is something we should recognize. Oh, sure, you can take a picture of an area after a drought and it won't be pretty. But as I said, I can show you that in Yellowstone Park where the buffalo took the grass into the ground. I can show you that in Jackson Hole. I can show you that around Devils Tower in the Black Hills, and the rangeland of North Dakota. I could probably show you some pastures in the State of Illinois that are privately owned and are overgrazed. There are always one or two bad examples that one can magnify and say the whole world is doing this to my or our land. I have yet to see any government organization that has taken care of its land, or our land, as well as a private landowner who has made an economic and cultural investment in that land. It just does not happen. Last year, we compromised with those opposing the language that we would solve the problem of renewing the permits. We told them that in accepting this compromise, the language before us today, we would have to come back each year until the Bureau of Land Management cleared up the current backlog of permits. The State of Montana does not have as much BLM acreage as some other States. I do not think we have as much as our neighboring State to the south, Wyoming. They probably also have more people employed by the BLM because of the environmental laws that have been passed. Some of those BLM folks are very good land managers, but they are also hamstrung by some very narrow-minded people who think they know more about the rangeland than they do or the stockmen who run it. In the meantime, there is a huge backlog of grazing permits that have gone unapproved, and that is the heart of Section 116. If they get the backlog cleared up, this language goes away. What is to fear? If the permit work is done and the permits have gone before the board, this language goes away. We are making sure everybody plays fair--just fair. That is all we are doing. We are good to our word, and with the BLM's failure to process the backlog of permits, we have used the same compromise language we did last year to prevent kicking family ranchers off the land through no fault of their own. They get their work done. That is the bottom line. It cannot get any more definitive than that. I do not want America to think that what I heard spoken before is an accurate assessment of our public lands because I will show you land managed by a stockman that lays next to what the Government manages, and there is a big contrast. It is huge. I will take the stockman's land 9 times out of 10 because I have seen it. I have seen the growth. I have seen the maturity and the things we put in place in range country to make it better, and we have done it with our own money. We did not do it with Government money. We did it with our own money to improve that range country. I support my good friend from Illinois in the area of good environmental practices, but it is my belief that it is not just Government employees who understand good environmental practices. It is done all through farm and agricultural country, whether it be on public lands or private lands. This change does nothing to impact the compromise language of a year ago. I oppose striking section 116. I think it is necessary, understanding there are those who do not want anything, anybody, or any livestock on those lands whatsoever, and particularly people. I can put faces on the people who use these lands very conservatively and improve these lands. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my friend from Minnesota on this issue. I am not really sure if he was talking about families or not. The standard of living that this country enjoys has to be attributed in part to parents, moms and dads, grandmas and grandpas, and their ability to pass on some of their wealth to the next generation. We all work hard for our kids. I don't know of a parent who doesn't work for their kids in this country. While we were doing that, we elevated the standard of living and the wealth of this country for more people than any other society on the face of the planet. I didn't come from very wealthy folks. My dad was a small farmer in Missouri with 160 acres, two rocks, and one dirt. But last year, I lost one of my elderly aunts, a sister to my father. In her estate, I inherited only one thing in the will--a 1991 Lincoln Town Car. I have never owned a Lincoln in my life. But you know what happened to that old car? It was sold in the estate sale to pay for the taxes. I was mad. Well, I am not saying we are doing badly now; what I am saying is, forget about the top 2 percent that the other side talks about because they don't pay estate taxes, folks. They have CPAs and lawyers. They can set aside trusts and do a lot of things to guard their fortunes and pass it on to the next generation of the family. It is the middle who gets hit. It is the man and wife who started off as a young couple and built a business. They pass on, the Government taxes it again after it has been taxed all of those years. So how much do you want these folks to give? We could have been talking about a lot of things today. We could have already had an H-1B visa bill, which is being blocked by the other side. They didn't like a lockbox for Social Security. They didn't like education reform, so they blocked that too. Now we are talking about a simple estate tax. To give you an idea, I have some good friends who live up in the middle part of Montana, and they are not wealthy, either. But this is who gets hurt. This is real stuff, not pie in the sky. This is not philosophical. This is plain old middle America. These folks lost their father and were given, starting in 1991, estate taxes of $4,584.81. Then they started making regular payments. In 1992, $13,000; in 1993, $15,000; in 1994, $14,000; in 1995, $14,000; in 1996, $16,000; in 1997, $15,000; in 1998, $12,000; in 1999, $12,000, and they have another payment coming up this December. They have been paying on this for their father who has been dead for 13 years. These aren't wealthy people. I know them personally. That is who this falls on. The top 2 percent? That is a myth and everyone should know it. Some folks in Polson, MT, have a series of small theaters. They are in little bitty towns in Montana. They are scared to death of this thing. They are getting to the age now where they are starting to worry. They have to set up some ways to shield themselves, but they are finding out that being that small, they can't. That is what we are talking about. I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me, dated July 10, 2000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. I will yield.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I would like to engage my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Iowa on a couple of issues relating to the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. Access to healthcare in Montana is often inadequate. I would like to focus on a couple of projects that must be addressed in the state in order to address some immediate rural healthcare needs. The first is a mobile health clinic. St. Vincent Hospital in Billings has partnered with Ronald McDonald House Charities to operate a mobile health clinic in Eastern Montana. They hope to begin operating this clinic later this year. This mobile health clinic will focus on providing preventive health care to children at no cost in small rural communities. These communities are in dire need of medical services. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harkin, this is no small matter--31 Montana counties are designated as ``medically underserved'' by the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). Twenty-three percent of Montanans lack access to a primary health care provider.

Mr. BURNS. The second concern is the fact that there is a need for additional dental hygienists, but Montana is the only state without a dental hygiene education program. There are currently 333 active licensed dental hygienists in Montana. A survey of all Montana dentists and dental hygienists was conducted late in 1996 which indicated a need for additional hygienists to fill current and future vacancies. The lack of a dental hygienist in a practice reduces the number of hours the dentist is available to deliver care only he or she is able to perform. Licensure as a registered dental hygienist in Montana requires graduation from an accredited dental hygiene program of either two or four years. Montana's only dental hygiene education program was closed in 1989 at Carroll College. Since that time efforts to open a new program have been unsuccessful, but are ongoing. Montana students desiring hygiene degrees must travel out of State. Of the current 28 students at Sheridan Community College in Wyoming, half are from Montana. Montana has fewer dentists per capita than the U.S. average. Many communities, especially rural areas, are losing dentists (to retirements and other factors). A large percentage of Montana dentists are expected to retire in the coming decade, while the number of available dental school graduates has been declining. With two-thirds of Montana's active dentists age 45 years or older and more than a quarter over age 55, concerns over the effect of retirement in coming years has grown. If a dental hygiene program were established in Montana, hygiene graduates would be available to perform hygiene tasks which presently are being performed by dentists. This would free the dentists to perform diagnosis and treatment services which only the dentist is trained to provide. The establishment of this program would be of vital importance to eliminating the strong prevalence of under-served areas in Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the Military Construction Conference Report for fiscal year 2001. The Senate and the House went into conference with very different recommendations for projects and unfortunately, not enough money to go around. We have worked hard with our House colleagues to bring the Military Construction Conference to a successful conclusion. This agreement represents a tremendous amount of work and great deal of cooperation between the House and Senate. Mr. President, the military construction portion of this bill has some points I want to highlight. We have sought to recommend a balanced bill that addresses key, military construction requirements for readiness, family housing, barracks, quality of life and funding for the reserve components. In the final conference agreement relating to military construction, we met our goals of protecting quality of life and enhancing mission readiness throughout the Department of Defense. It provides a total of $8.8 billion in spending, an increase of $200 million over the levels recommended by both the House and Senate, and an increase of $800 million over the President's budget request. It is my hope that we can move this bill forward very quickly and send it to the President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the achievement of the Carey Cattle Operation in Boulder, Montana. In the late 1800's Bart Carey settled in the Boulder Valley. Two of his sons worked the mines and mills in Montana and Idaho hoping to stake their own ranches in the Valley. Frank, the patriarch of the operation, followed the gold rush north to Alaska, enduring shipwreck and a winter living with an Eskimo family. After returning to the Valley he established a ranching legacy that endures to this day. Frank and his wife Mary Ellen have 12 children and 45 grandchildren. Their legacy of cussed independence, integrity, and determination instilled in their children the qualities of hard work, responsibility and most importantly a deep abiding faith in God. This attitude of responsibility fostered a deep sense of patriotism and resulted in their son, Martin B., answering his nation's call during World War II. He was joined by four sisters--Lillian, Agnes, Eleanor, and Josephine--who served as Navy nurses. Service to our country, in spite of the demands of managing a thriving cattle operation, and the concessions that were available under such conditions saw their youngest son Tom, the current patriarch, answering the call during the Korean conflict. As the only remaining son, Tom and his extraordinary wife Helen, carry on the tradition. Operating out of the main ranch they have endeavored to instill these same values in their children and grandchildren. In spite of the current condition of American agriculture they are making every effort to ensure that their children and the children of Tom's siblings have every opportunity to continue their ranching legacy. As the Carey family gathers for a reunion this Fourth of July they will find a base of operation being restored to its original state. They understand the importance of preserving history and their role in this dwindling aspect of the great American west. I would like to extend my congratulations and sincere best wishes to the Carey family for high grass, plentiful water, and most importantly a fair market price for the fruits of their labor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to America's local fire fighters who put their lives on the line every day protecting the lives and property of their fellow citizens. When the call comes in, they answer without question or hesitation. Unfortunately, local and volunteer fire departments are in dire need of financial support. The health and safety of fire fighters and the public is jeopardized because many departments cannot afford to purchase protective gear and equipment, provide adequate training, and are short staffed. It is time for Congress to lend them a helping hand. That is why I have cosponsored a bill in the Senate called the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement or FIRE Act. This bill, S. 1941, authorizes a program granting up to one billion dollars for local fire departments across our great country. The money would be available to volunteer, combination, and paid departments. It would help pay for much needed equipment, training, EMS expenses, apparatus and arson prevention efforts and a variety of education programs. Wildfires across America and Montana are a growing threat. The FIRE Act is especially critical for rural states such as Montana as we rely heavily upon our volunteer firefighters to protect those things we hold dear. Quite often these volunteer departments are the only line of defense in these rural communities. It's time we provide them with the needed funds for proper training and equipment to better protect their communities. I offer my sincere gratitude to our Nation's fire fighters who put their lives on the line every day to protect the property and safety of their neighbors. They too deserve a helping hand in their time of need. I commend Senators Dodd and DeWine for introducing this important legislation, and urge all my colleagues who have not done so to sign onto this bill. I would like to encourage the Committee to hold hearings on S. 1941 and suggest that we continue to move this bill forward toward ultimate passage. Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I commend Senator Abraham, Senator McCain, and Chairman Bliley for their hard work in the conference on the digital signatures bill, which grants online contracts and other transactions the same legal force as those conducted with pen-and-ink. I should add that Senator Leahy and Senator Wyden made significant positive contributions to the bill. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and I am very pleased with the conference report before the Senate today. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of the conference report by a vote of 426-4. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, which is a bipartisan product that will allow businesses to take advantage of the speed and efficiency of the Internet while also protecting consumers. I have no doubt that the passage of this legislation will help to make sure that electronic commerce can meet its full potential. The issue of online authentication is one of the most important issues to the development of electronic commerce. Electronic commerce holds great promise, in particular, for states like my home state of Montana, where businesses and consumers have to deal with vast distances. E-commerce is expected to continue its upward surge to about $1.6 trillion by 2003, up from $500 billion last year. The explosion of information technology has created opportunities undreamed of by previous generations. In Montana, companies such as Healthdirectory.com and Vanns.com are taking advantage of the global markets made possible by the stunning reach of the Internet. This bill allows for consumers to enter into binding contracts over the Internet and eliminates the need to engage in needless, burdensome exchanges of paper documents. This bill will create a uniform system where contracts have the same validity across all 50 states. The bill is also technology-neutral and does not impose government mandates on what formats or software businesses or consumers choose to use to conduct online commerce. Numerous consumer safeguards are included in the conference report, including the requirement that consumers confirm that they are able to read the format that companies use for online contracts. Also, safeguards are contained in the bill that will still require that critical notices such as insurance cancellation and mortgage foreclosure notices be sent on paper. Furthermore, consumers still have the right to receive any documents on paper if they so choose. The passage of the digital signatures bill is a critical step in ensuring the continued growth of the Internet-driven economy. This legislation grants additional choice and convenience to consumers and will also translate into more efficient products and services. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues of the work of Senator Abraham and Senator McCain, Chairman Bliley in the other body, Senator Leahy, and Senator Wyden who had quite a lot to do with this. Of course, it came out of the Subcommittee on Communications. This is just one more of the digital dozen we set our goals to pass during this Congress. So far, we are up around the eighth or ninth bill out of that digital dozen that will probably lend greater credence to the Internet and the way we use it as a tool in business and in our personal lives. I thank those Senators who were instrumental in passing this legislation. I congratulate them and I yield the floor. consumer consent provisions

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to address an issue today that means an awful lot to Montanans. That issue is the very right to have access to a choice of cars and trucks that will meet the rigorous needs of rural life. I don't know how many of those listening today have driven in Montana, but it is a much different story than driving in more densely populated states. CAFE standards have a huge effect on Montanans in a lot of different ways that many people here today would not understand. Today, some of my colleagues have cited statistics about the impact of large vehicles harming occupants of smaller vehicles. This is extremely unfortunate, but large vehicles are not a luxury. For many of us they are a necessity. Just as 18 wheeled diesel trucks keep our country's goods moving on our interstate system, large vehicles are a necessity to keep our rural economies alive. Hauling a heifer to market just is not feasible in a Geo Metro. Now, in the Washington, D.C. area, there are many more small, economical cars on the road than there are in Havre, Montana. But, I have to remind you that in Montana we have winter for a large part of the year. A long, cold winter with plenty of snow and ice. It is the kind of weather that makes 4-wheel drive a life saving device. When you are driving your family down the road in the middle of December and the weather is miserable and cold, you want to be confident you will all be safe. This generally means a sturdy vehicle with four-wheel drive. It'll help you stay on the road, which is important considering it could be a very long time before you see anyone else, and the nearest town could be 80 miles away. If you are unfortunate enough to slide off of a two-lane road in the black of night it is nice to know your family will be protected. This is the reality in parts of Montana, as hard as it is for some of my colleagues in the Senate to imagine. Similarly, when you live in an area of Montana that is geographically isolated, and there are very few that are not, you need to be prepared to buy more than one bag of groceries at a time. Maybe you need to buy a month's worth of groceries, and feed for the animals, and fence posts, any other odds and ends you might need and bring them all home at the same time. How you will fit that all into a little car is a mystery. You'd better leave the kids home, that's for sure Besides that fact that stricter CAFE standards could hurt rural Montanans and the general safety issues that concern me, I think there is more at stake here. We are basically telling consumers that they have no right to choose the car they want to drive. This isn't right. In recent years, the American automobile industry has made great strides in developing better cars in every possible way. On the whole, our cars are becoming safer, and cleaner than ever before. This ingenuity is what makes American industry great. We have done a good job of making sure the manufacture of automobiles is consistent with the environmental goals we want to reach. But to step aside and allow federal regulators to enact a blanket policy that punishes those people who use large vehicles as a necessity of every day life, and stifle the right to choice for rural consumers, is the wrong approach.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for a bill which I have co-sponsored. The bill, S. 2330, will repeal federal excise taxes on telephone services. This tax was first introduced as a temporary luxury tax in 1898 to fund the Spanish American War. However, over 100 years later this tax remain in effect. The definition of temporary should not span an entire century. This tax is imposed on telephone and other services at a rate of 3 percent. Furthermore, these taxes are not applied to a specific purpose that enhances telephone service in our nation--rather these taxes are directed in the general revenue account. In other words, there is no reason we shouldn't repeal this tax. It means only one thing--Montanans end up paying one more tax to encourage government spending. As I said a moment ago, this tax was enacted to fund the Spanish American War. Considering that war was ended a mere six months after it began, I feel its time to repeal this tax. Instead, Montana consumers continue to pay this tax on all their telephone services--local, long distance, and wireless. It is time to eliminate this excise tax. At the time of enactment, this tax was considered a luxury tax on the few who owned telephones in 1898--this tax has now become an unnecessary burden on virtually every American taxpayer. Repealing this excise tax on communications services will save consumers over $5 billion annually. Furthermore, this tax is regressive in nature. It disproportionately hurts the poor, particularly those households on either fixed or limited incomes, Even the U.S. Treasury Department has concluded in a 1987 study that the tax ``causes economic distortions and inequities among households'' and ``there is no policy rationale for retaining the communications excise tax.'' Rural customers in states like Montana are also disproportionately impacted. This tax is even more of a burden on rural customers due to the fact that they are forced to make more long distance calling comparative to urban customers. This tax also impacts Internet service. The leading reason why households with incomes under $25,000 do not have home Internet access is cost. If consumers are very price sensitive, the government should not create disincentives to accessing the Internet. Eliminating this burdensome tax can help to narrow the digital divide. Mr. President, this is a tax on talking--a tax on communicating--a tax on our nation's economy--I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill to repeal this unnecessary and burdensome general revenue tax.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to today in support of a bill I introduced last week along with my friend Senator Moynihan and 26 other members on both sides of the aisle. The bill, S. 2698, the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000, crates tax incentives for the deployment of broadband (high-speed) Internet services to rural, low-income, and residential areas. This bill will ensure that all Americans gain timely and equitable access to the Internet over current and future generations of broadband capability. The legislation provides graduated tax credits to companies that bring qualified telecommunication capabilities to targeted areas. It grants a 10-percent credit for expenditures on equipment that provide a bandwidth of 1.5 million bits per second (mbps) to subscribes in rural and low-income areas, and a 20-percent credit for delivery of 22 mbps to these customers and other residential subscribers. This bill has been endorsed by a number of organizations, including Bell Atlantic, MCI/Worldcom, Corning Incorporated, the National Telephone Cooperative Association, the Association for Local Telecommunications Services, the United States Distance Learning Association, and the Imaging Science and Information Systems Center at Georgetown University Medical Center. Mr. President, in a few short years, the Internet has grown exponentially to become a mass medium used daily by over 100 million people worldwide. The explosion of information technology has created opportunities undreamed of by previous generations. In my home state of Montana, companies such as Healthdirectory.com and Vanns.com are taking advantage of the global markets made possible by the stunning reach of the Internet. The pace of broadband deployment to rural America must be accelerated for electronic commerce to meet its full potential, however. Broadband access is an important to our small businesses in Montana as water is to agribusiness. I am aware of all of the recent discussion regarding the ``digital divide'' and I am very concerned that the pace of broadband deployment is greater in urban than rural areas. However, there is some positive and exciting news on this front as well. The reality on the ground shows that some of the ``gloom and doom'' scenarios are far from the case. By pooling their limited resources, Montana's independent and cooperative telephone companies are doing great things. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Morgan, a fellow on Senator Edwards' staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of the DOD appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring your attention to the fact that the Smurfit-Stone Container Plant in Missoula, Montana has received the Jefferson Smurfit Group Worldwide Award as plant of the year. As you know, Montana's wood products industry has been hit extremely hard with federal regulation and the lack of available federal fiber to keep our mills running. Despite these hardships, our mill workers and managers continue to take great pride in their work and continue to do the best with the hand they have been dealt. The result is that Missoula's Smurfit-Stone Container employees have ensured that their mill rose above the other 563 Smurfit facilities world wide and defined themselves as being able to increase productivity and reduce operating costs while actually improving safety and the quality of production. These accomplishments were worker driven and accompanied a 20% reduction of OSHA incidents last year. Some times efficiency comes at the expense of safety or environmental responsibility. This is not the case at the Missoula plant. In addition to reducing injuries, the plant was able to increase paper efficiency while reducing waste, energy consumption and maintenance costs. While Montana's wood products industry relies on renewable natural resources, we are keenly aware that these resources must be conserved and used responsibly. Smurfit- Stone container consistently looks for ways to make the fiber available to them go as far as possible. It makes sense from both a business and an environmental standpoint, and it is a goal that makes them one of the top employers in Montana. As I mentioned, Montana has been hit extremely hard by federal restrictions on the wood products industry. As a result we have lost 17 mills in Montana over the last decade. These mills provided jobs for thousands of families and numerous communities. While times are extremely tough, Montanans involved in the industry still take great pride in what they do. This is reflected in the honor recently bestowed on the Missoula Smurfit-Stone Container paper mill. Clearly, this mill deserves recognition not only by their parent group, but by Congress as well.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for legislation introduced today by my colleague, Senator Baucus, that will transfer ownership of the Miles City, Montana Veterans Hospital from the Veterans Administration to Custer County, Montana. Indeed, I am co- sponsor of this bill for the reason that within the Veterans Administration there are unused properties that have become liabilities that detract from the mission of the VA, which is to take care of our veteran population. At the same time, these resources could be assets to the communities where they exist. This is exactly the situation we have in Miles City, Montana. Maintaining a facility that is no longer needed costs the VA approximately $500,000 that would otherwise be dedicated to improving access and quality of care for Montana's veterans. At the same time, the community of Miles City has need of additional space for use by the community college and other entities designed to enhance the quality of life and economic development opportunities for all the people of southeast Montana. This legislation represents a creative solution that serves the best interest of all involved. The situation is not unique to Montana but we are willing to address the issue and take the first step towards a more efficient Veterans Administration. We need to dedicate the limited resources of this agency to the essential task of maintaining our commitment to America's veterans with adequate health care rather than to excessive administration and maintenance costs. At the same time, what is a liability for the VA will be an asset to a community that has an inadequate tax base to support the development of infrastructure that will have a significant and long-lasting impact on jobs creation, educational opportunity, and will ultimately enhance the tax base as well. The concept that is inherent in this bill is a win-win situation for all the affected parties and I encourage positive consideration by my colleagues.