Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. It is high time we eliminated this Depression-era provision which penalizes motivated senior citizens for working to augment their Social Security income. As the law currently stands, if a person between the ages of 65 and 69 earns more than $17,000 per year, their Social Security benefits are reduced by $1 for every $3 they earn above $17,000. That just isn't right. Ours is a society which values hard work; only our Government would devise a scheme to penalize people for working. Before too long, in 2025, Montana will have the third largest proportion of senior citizens in the Nation. This growth rate is nationwide, however. Our country is aging and the programs which our parents relied on in their golden years need to change if they are to keep pace with the changing face of American society. Most of the senior citizens affected by this unfair provision are those who can afford it the least. These are the very people who struggle to make ends meet every month. Many may face the impossible decision of putting food on their tables or prescriptions in their drug cabinets. We expect retirees to augment their Social Security income with money from outside resources but then turn around and penalize them for working. Isn't it about time to bring consistency into Social Security? Eliminating the Social Security earnings limit is one important step in reforming the laws which affect our senior citizens. I urge the Senate to follow the House of Representatives by expediting passage of this important legislation. Working seniors deserve no less. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I extend my sincere appreciation to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, House Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley, Representative Markey, and all of the other Members of the Senate-House conference for working together in a bi- partisan manner on satellite reform legislation. Through the dedication of the conference, and in particular Chairman Bliley, the 106th Congress can now present President Clinton with the opportunity to sign into law a meaningful bill that will enhance market competition and benefit consumers everywhere. When I undertook the challenge of guiding legislation through the Senate that would encourage genuine competition in the rapidly evolving international satellite communications industry through deregulation, I declared five basic principles that would serve as the foundation for my effort. (1) The legislation must enhance competition in the global satellite communications market; (2) The legislation must be consistent with the United States' existing treaty obligations; (3) The legislation must enhance global satellite connectivity to all areas, including remote and rural; (4) The legislation must ultimately increase consumers' choices, enable technological innovation and lower costs; and (5) The legislation cannot impose any unnecessary new regulatory schemes on this vibrant global industry. These principles were incorporated into The Open Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act, known as ORBIT, S. 376 which the Senate swiftly and unanimously passed. I am very pleased to note that the conference agreement now before the Senate retains the core principles reflected in ORBIT while accommodating the concerns articulated by Chairman Bliley and his House colleagues. This compromise legislation represents the desire of Congress to inject more competition and more privatization into the international satellite communications market. Specifically, the conference agreement achieves these important objectives by: Establishing definite and reasonable criteria and dates certain for the privatization of INTELSAT and Inmarsat. Calling for an IPO of the privatized INTELSAT of October 1, 2001, but prudently recognizing that market conditions must be taken into account and therefore, allowing the IPO date to be extended to no later than December 31, 2002. Eliminating INTELSAT's and COMSAT's privileges and immunities while protecting COMSAT for action taken in response to instructions of the U.S. Government in carrying out its responsibilities as the U.S. signatory. Eliminating upon enactment the antiquated ownership and board restrictions on the U.S. signatory to INTELSAT, thereby allowing Lockheed Martin to complete its acquisition of COMSAT upon enactment of this bill without conditions. Creating a competitive, level playing field in the satellite industry. Removing the intrusive role of government in the commercial satellite industry. Using access to the U.S. market as a strong incentive to keep INTELSAT's privatization effort moving forward without delay. I am especially pleased that the conference agreement rejects any notion that the government should be interfering in the contractual arrangements between COMSAT and either its customers or INTELSAT. The government should not be permitting, let alone encouraging, abrogation or modification of any such arrangement. Among my serious concerns, I concluded long ago that this would be contrary to the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The bill before us is very clear on this point. This legislation in no way directs the FCC to take any action that would impair private contracts or agreements. On a related point, the conference agreement also flatly rejects ``Level IV direct access'' in any form. Permitting or requiring Level IV direct access would have unfairly forced a divestiture of COMSAT's INTELSAT assets. I am pleased that the conference agreement flatly rejects Level IV direct access. Let me also commend Senator Stevens and our good friend, Mr. Dingell, in the other body for improving this bill in conference with the addition of language to preserve our national security interests. The conference has produced an agreement that will encourage expeditious privatization of INTELSAT and Inmarsat and allow Lockheed Martin to reinvigorate COMSAT as a competitor in the international satellite marketplace. At the end of the day, the conference agreement will lead to enhanced competition in telecommunications services, resulting in real consumer benefits of more choices, lower prices and new services. For this, we should all be very proud. I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23, 2000.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the Environmental Protection Agency FY 2001 budget during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23, 2000, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. to hear testimony regarding the U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement on China's Accession to the WTO.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on the President's Budget Request for Indian Programs for FY 2001.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 23, 2000, at 10 a.m., in SD--226.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Lands of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Surface Transportation/Merchant Marine Subcommittee on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on February 23, 2000, at 10 a.m. on AMTRAK oversight.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 23, 2000, to conduct a hearing on the Federal Reserve's first semi-annual monetary policy report for 2000.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 23, 2000, in closed session, to receive testimony on the situation in Kosovo.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for the next 15 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BURNS. Are we in morning business or are we on a specific subject?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce a bill that is designed to clean up a terrible mess at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, dealing with civil rights. Last year, a finding was made that the USDA had, for decades, been guilty of violating many of America's producer's civil rights. When these producers tried to take advantage of the programs offered by the USDA they were treated differently than their friends and neighbors. Many cases have been pending for too long. At least one has been on the list for up to ten years. Due to USDA's inaction, Congress waived the statute of limitations on certain USDA discrimination cases, giving farmers until October 21, 2000, to file or re-file cases that allegedly occurred between 1981 through 1997. In addition to the cases that have been pending, that added another major backlog. While we realize there is a massive backlog of cases to be dealt with, we feel Congress has made a good-faith effort to assist the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in every way possible. We have written countless letters and met with Rosalind Gray, the Director of the OCR to discuss this issue. In addition, in 1998 the Senate included money in the agricultural appropriations bill, to deal with this back-log of cases. However, despite numerous phone calls and letters, no progress has been made in resolving these cases. I have invited Department officials to come to Montana and speak with the civil rights complainants so that we may solve these cases more quickly. So far, I have not seen enough action and not nearly enough closure. The horror stories about the treatment civil rights complainants have received from the USDA are numerous and unbelievable. These complaints are simply being ignored. The inadequacy of this process is adding insult to injury. These people are being put on hold while the USDA plods through their cases. Many have been forced to the brink. They don't even know if they can still make agriculture their livelihood should USDA finally decide in their favor. Operating costs alone are placing many producers at a disadvantage. Add to that, the costs associated with filing a complaint and you can see why many feel completely helpless, and hopeless. I have constituents calling my staff at home because they are on their last leg. The OCR has continually ignored requests for information from my staff, or delayed sending pertinent information to these people. Those affected by these decisions cannot afford to waste more precious time listening to the USDA's excuses while they try to find a way to buy next month's food. Allowing these cases to go on for years and years is a travesty. How can these people get on with their life? The USDA has taken away their livelihood. Without equal treatment from the USDA they can't run their operations. Without a working farm, they have lost everything they had. Secretary Glickman has stated publicly and repeatedly that the civil rights issue within the Department of Agriculture is an extremely high priority on his agenda. It should be. But still, I have seen very little action. These constituents cannot get on with their lives until the USDA does take action. My bill will give the OCR 270 days to resolve the complaint after it has been investigated. If, after 270 days the complaint is not resolved, the complainant may petition the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ shall then conduct a review and make a recommendation to the OCR within 30 days. This law will also broaden the statute of limitations. As I said earlier, legislation passed by Congress waived the statute of limitations on certain USDA discrimination cases, giving farmers until October 21, 2000, to file or re-file cases that allegedly occurred between 1981 through 1997. However, I want to make sure that civil rights cases do not fall through the cracks of that waiver. If an act occurred prior to February 22, 1998, for example, that person could not file for discrimination. This legislation will cover that gap. These cases must be resolved soon. These producers have suffered too much already. They cannot afford to wait any longer. We look forward to working with members of other states affected by this abuse of the civil rights program to resolve these complaints as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce a bill that is designed to clean up a terrible mess at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, dealing with civil rights. Last year, a finding was made that the USDA had, for decades, been guilty of violating many of America's producer's civil rights. When these producers tried to take advantage of the programs offered by the USDA they were treated differently than their friends and neighbors. Many cases have been pending for too long. At least one has been on the list for up to ten years. Due to USDA's inaction, Congress waived the statute of limitations on certain USDA discrimination cases, giving farmers until October 21, 2000, to file or re-file cases that allegedly occurred between 1981 through 1997. In addition to the cases that have been pending, that added another major backlog. While we realize there is a massive backlog of cases to be dealt with, we feel Congress has made a good-faith effort to assist the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in every way possible. We have written countless letters and met with Rosalind Gray, the Director of the OCR to discuss this issue. In addition, in 1998 the Senate included money in the agricultural appropriations bill, to deal with this back-log of cases. However, despite numerous phone calls and letters, no progress has been made in resolving these cases. I have invited Department officials to come to Montana and speak with the civil rights complainants so that we may solve these cases more quickly. So far, I have not seen enough action and not nearly enough closure. The horror stories about the treatment civil rights complainants have received from the USDA are numerous and unbelievable. These complaints are simply being ignored. The inadequacy of this process is adding insult to injury. These people are being put on hold while the USDA plods through their cases. Many have been forced to the brink. They don't even know if they can still make agriculture their livelihood should USDA finally decide in their favor. Operating costs alone are placing many producers at a disadvantage. Add to that, the costs associated with filing a complaint and you can see why many feel completely helpless, and hopeless. I have constituents calling my staff at home because they are on their last leg. The OCR has continually ignored requests for information from my staff, or delayed sending pertinent information to these people. Those affected by these decisions cannot afford to waste more precious time listening to the USDA's excuses while they try to find a way to buy next month's food. Allowing these cases to go on for years and years is a travesty. How can these people get on with their life? The USDA has taken away their livelihood. Without equal treatment from the USDA they can't run their operations. Without a working farm, they have lost everything they had. Secretary Glickman has stated publicly and repeatedly that the civil rights issue within the Department of Agriculture is an extremely high priority on his agenda. It should be. But still, I have seen very little action. These constituents cannot get on with their lives until the USDA does take action. My bill will give the OCR 270 days to resolve the complaint after it has been investigated. If, after 270 days the complaint is not resolved, the complainant may petition the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ shall then conduct a review and make a recommendation to the OCR within 30 days. This law will also broaden the statute of limitations. As I said earlier, legislation passed by Congress waived the statute of limitations on certain USDA discrimination cases, giving farmers until October 21, 2000, to file or re-file cases that allegedly occurred between 1981 through 1997. However, I want to make sure that civil rights cases do not fall through the cracks of that waiver. If an act occurred prior to February 22, 1998, for example, that person could not file for discrimination. This legislation will cover that gap. These cases must be resolved soon. These producers have suffered too much already. They cannot afford to wait any longer. We look forward to working with members of other states affected by this abuse of the civil rights program to resolve these complaints as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, there are a lot of truckers in town, protesting what they say is an unwarranted increase in fuel costs that is putting them out of business. It really doesn't surprise me. It seems every year we come to the floor of the Senate to criticize the administration's failure to implement a domestic energy policy that would support a sustainable oil and gas industry. We argue for tax relief, common sense royalty collection, access to oil and gas reserves on Federal lands. We do this because there are a lot of us who watch figures, and every day we can see that we are growing more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. Oil traditionally coming from the Middle East and gas coming from Canada in ever increasing volumes despite large, untapped reserves in America. I have been joined by numerous Senators from around the Nation in bringing those concerns to the floor. We have proposed numerous pieces of legislation to combat the problem, yet we have not been successful in getting many of them enacted into law. As a result, we are faced with what is happening today: Oil prices are now around $30 a barrel, with few domestic producers reaping any benefits, and with most of our oil coming from offshore. There are few domestic producers enjoying the rise in oil prices because the Administration's energy and environmental policies have just about run them all out of business. That is sad. I speak not only for the oil and gas industry, the trucking industry and the transportation industry, but also for all consumers. A case in point is that we are already witnessing a surcharge being put on airline tickets; the same thing will happen soon with rail transportation as well. When I take a look at my home State of Montana, fuel costs are at least 50 percent higher than they were just a year ago. We have cause for frustration. Montanans are at the end of the line. I don't care if you are receiving goods or shipping product, it hurts us. This is especially true for our number one industry, agriculture. We end up selling wholesale, buying retail, and paying the freight both ways. One has to remember that these costs have to be absorbed by somebody. This somebody is generally the person least able to afford it. Now we have to ask ourselves a question. Are we doing anything about fixing the root of the problem? What are we doing to fix the root problem we have in energy development? Today's rally of long-haul truckers underscores the reality that all consumers and all producers are being faced with fuel increases resulting from a failed domestic energy policy. Prices are simply raising out of sight. We have 26,000 people in Montana who are employed by the trucking industry. They are being impacted by these increases. Farmers are coming upon the planting season. They are facing higher fuel costs which add to their uncontrollable costs of production. Costs of producing in the agricultural industry cannot be passed on; they never have been in the past. It is a buyers' market and you sell for what they offer. End of story. Just because our fuels costs go up, does not mean we get to charge more per bushel. We also aren't faced with the luxury of turning a tractor off and waiting for fuel prices to go down. Mother Nature dictates when you plant, when you till, and when you harvest. She doesn't care if diesel is 50 cents a gallon, $1 a gallon, or $1.80 a gallon. When the time comes, you go. We have seen some improvement in the livestock industry, but we have not seen any kind of improvement in the grain industry. There again, with grain, we get hit harder by energy costs than anywhere else. So far, the administration's only action has been to send the Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, to ask OPEC to release more oil and reduce prices. That tells me we are not in a very strong bargaining position. That is upsetting when we could have taken steps to avoid our current plight. The problem of inaction by the administration carries over into other areas of energy. One example is the production of clean coal. We have a lot of coal that is clean coal and considered ``compliant coal'' by the Clean Air Act. It has low SO2 levels, and low emissions. But so far, the Department of the Interior has blocked any sale of that coal, which lies right at the top of the earth. The only thing that has to be done is to take the overburden off, mine the coal and reclaim the area. The result of this inaction has been--and it will show up later on in America's power bills--that soon we will face a shortage of clean coal and stringent emissions controls, and all at once our electric bills will increase because we haven't done a very good job in managing our clean coal resources. Secretary Richardson has testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that clean coal will be an integral portion of our Nation's energy portfolio for the next 30 years. But after they say that, they have done nothing or they are unwilling to ensure that the political actions of the Department of the Interior do not endanger the supply of clean coal. It doesn't make a lot of sense. How about hydroelectric production of electricity? Secretary Babbitt wants to be known as the first Secretary to tear down large dams that are placed along some of our major waterways, and he offers no response when asked how we are going to replace the power produced by those dams. In light of the recent action on the nuclear waste bill, the administration has also opposed any cohesive policy for nuclear energy management, instead desiring to sit back and posture on the debate. Again, we see evidence of a failed energy policy. Today we see the truckers coming to town, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Department of the Interior has thwarted any attempts to reinvigorate the domestic gas industry. They have closed vast areas of our Outer Continental Shelf to gas. They will release a statement saying they fully support the natural gas industry, yet fail to deliver on any of the policies to help it along. The same has been done throughout the Rocky Mountains. We have reserves of natural gas across Montana that could be used to fuel this nation. There is a large supply, yet we cannot tap it because of the Department of the Interior and this administration's policy seal it away development. I want to bring up one more fuel related problem we are faced with in Montana. In my hometown of Billings, MT, we have three refineries. They produce gas, diesel, and other refined petroleum products, not only for domestic use in Montana but also for the entire region, including eastern Washington. We have to reroute a pipeline that lets those products flow to the Spokane area, and it has to cross about 60 miles of Forest Service managed public lands. This reroute has been vigorously opposed by this administration. What happened? The Yellowstone Pipeline Company went to the Forest Service and said: Give us an estimate for the reroute proposal. We have to do an environmental impact statement. We want to do it right. This was back in 1997. What will it cost they asked. Less than a million dollars was the response from the Forest Service. Good they responded, let's go ahead with the EIS process and find a viable route. Three years later, the Yellowstone Pipeline Company has paid $5 million to resite those 60 miles of pipeline, and just a week and a half ago the Yellowstone Pipeline was forced to pull the plug on the project because the Forest Service refused to acknowledge that their preferred alternative was too expensive to build. A pipeline, the cheapest way to move fuel and distribute energy across this country, now is in jeopardy, if not dead. The result will be that these 60 miles absent of pipeline will be crossed in another way. We are going to rail it or truck it. We will probably have an accident, even the Forest Service's EIS documents acknowledge this. A spill will probably result--we have already had one at Alberton. We might also truck it. However, with energy costs as high as they are today, that will increase the cost to consumers. It also, in that 60 miles, exposes traffic to large semis on a two-lane road. Lives will be at stack. The Forest Service has also acknowledged that, but continues to forge along proposing an unbuildable route. The hazards to the public, and the costs to the consumer, increase. That is just an example of what this administration has failed to do to ensure that we have energy prices that are affordable and energy is accessible to all Americans. So we feel for those truckers out there. We know what it is like to go down that road and try to deliver the goods to America in an efficient and safe way, and to get the products to market in a competitive manner so they fall within the consumers' reach of affording them. Two years ago, we were buying gasoline for around 85, 90 cents a gallon. It didn't take us long to get spoiled, did it? But now we find that through that we usually have to pay the piper one time or another. It is us, the consumers, that will pick up the bill of a failed energy policy. The administration will be gone, but we will be left holding the tab. It is our economy that will slow, and it is our families that will have to do with less. We see it happening today in our oil and gas production. Let's not see it happen in our electricity production. This economy we have been enjoying all these years could go away in a flash--just a flash. It takes a while for an administration's action to lead to a tangible impact, we are beginning the impact of this administration's failed energy policy today. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Brent Stanghelle who has been an integral asset to Montana's agricultural scene. Brent Stanghelle has been the voice of agriculture for North Central Montana for several years. Broadcasting from Great Falls, Montana at KMON, Brent has brought the agricultural news to producers faithfully. Brent has proven himself to be a true friend of Montana's natural resource-based economy. Brent Stanghelle has made the decision to move on and pursue other agriculturally related interests in his life. With his parting, there will be a quiet spot on the air for many listeners. I extend my thanks to Brent Stanghelle for a job well done. He was trusted and relied upon by many producers. He has dedicated many years to keeping the voice of agriculture alive and ``on the air'' in North Central Montana. His work and dedication have not gone unnoticed.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery Authorization Act of 2000. As you may know, the Fort Peck project was built in the 1930s to dam the Upper Missouri River. The original authorization legislation for the Fort Peck project, and subsequent revisions and additions, left a great many promises unmet. A valley was flooded, but originally Montana was promised increased irrigation, low-cost power, and economic development. Since the original legislation, numerous laws have been enacted promising increased recreational activities on the lake, and also that the federal government would do more to support the fish and wildlife resources in the area. In this day and age, economic development in rural areas is becoming more and more dependent upon recreation and strong fish and wildlife numbers. The Fort Peck area is faced with a number of realities. First, the area is in dire need of a fish hatchery. The only hatchery in the region to support warm water species is found in Miles City, Montana. It is struggling to meet the needs of the fisheries in the area, yet it continues to fall short. Additionally, an outbreak of disease or failure in the infrastructure at the Miles City hatchery would leave the entire region reeling with no secondary source to support the area's fisheries. We are also faced with the reality that despite the promises given, the State of Montana has had to foot the bill for fish hatchery operations in the area. Since about 1950 the State has been funding these operations with little to no support from the Corps of Engineers. A citizens group spanning the State of Montana finally decided to make the federal government keep its promises. Last year the citizens group organized, and state legislation subsequently passed to authorize the sale of a warm water fishing stamp to begin collecting funds for the eventual operation and maintenance of the hatchery. I helped the group work with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that $125,000 in last year's budget was allocated to a feasibility study for the project, and Montanans kept their end of the bargain by finding another $125,000 to match the Corps expenditure. Clearly, we are putting our money, along with our sweat, where our mouth is. Recreation is part of the local economy. But the buzzword today is diversity. Diversify your economy. The Fort Peck area depends predominately on agriculture. More irrigated acres probably aren't going to help the area pull itself up by its boot straps. But a stronger recreational and tourism industry sure will help speed things up. A lot of effort has already gone into this project. A state bill has been passed. The Corps has dedicated a project manager to the project. Citizens have raised money and jumped over more hurdles than I care to count. But the bottom line is that this is a great project with immense support. It is a good investment in the area, and it helps the federal government fulfill one thing that it ought to--its promises. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge that this legislation is still a work in progress and many of the specifics will change as the Corps completes its feasibility study on the project. It may cost slightly more. It may cost less. The cost share requirement may need to be altered to make the project work, but I feel this legislation must be introduced now to expedite its consideration.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery Authorization Act of 2000. As you may know, the Fort Peck project was built in the 1930s to dam the Upper Missouri River. The original authorization legislation for the Fort Peck project, and subsequent revisions and additions, left a great many promises unmet. A valley was flooded, but originally Montana was promised increased irrigation, low-cost power, and economic development. Since the original legislation, numerous laws have been enacted promising increased recreational activities on the lake, and also that the federal government would do more to support the fish and wildlife resources in the area. In this day and age, economic development in rural areas is becoming more and more dependent upon recreation and strong fish and wildlife numbers. The Fort Peck area is faced with a number of realities. First, the area is in dire need of a fish hatchery. The only hatchery in the region to support warm water species is found in Miles City, Montana. It is struggling to meet the needs of the fisheries in the area, yet it continues to fall short. Additionally, an outbreak of disease or failure in the infrastructure at the Miles City hatchery would leave the entire region reeling with no secondary source to support the area's fisheries. We are also faced with the reality that despite the promises given, the State of Montana has had to foot the bill for fish hatchery operations in the area. Since about 1950 the State has been funding these operations with little to no support from the Corps of Engineers. A citizens group spanning the State of Montana finally decided to make the federal government keep its promises. Last year the citizens group organized, and state legislation subsequently passed to authorize the sale of a warm water fishing stamp to begin collecting funds for the eventual operation and maintenance of the hatchery. I helped the group work with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that $125,000 in last year's budget was allocated to a feasibility study for the project, and Montanans kept their end of the bargain by finding another $125,000 to match the Corps expenditure. Clearly, we are putting our money, along with our sweat, where our mouth is. Recreation is part of the local economy. But the buzzword today is diversity. Diversify your economy. The Fort Peck area depends predominately on agriculture. More irrigated acres probably aren't going to help the area pull itself up by its boot straps. But a stronger recreational and tourism industry sure will help speed things up. A lot of effort has already gone into this project. A state bill has been passed. The Corps has dedicated a project manager to the project. Citizens have raised money and jumped over more hurdles than I care to count. But the bottom line is that this is a great project with immense support. It is a good investment in the area, and it helps the federal government fulfill one thing that it ought to--its promises. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge that this legislation is still a work in progress and many of the specifics will change as the Corps completes its feasibility study on the project. It may cost slightly more. It may cost less. The cost share requirement may need to be altered to make the project work, but I feel this legislation must be introduced now to expedite its consideration.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will repeal a little-noticed, yet extremely detrimental, installment tax provision on small businesses. This provisions, enacted at the end of last year's congressional session as part of the conference report of H.R. 1180, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 was placed into effect on December 17 when President Clinton signed the bill. According to this provision, many small-business owners who sell their businesses will now have to immediately pay in one lump sum all capital gains taxes resulting from the sale, even if the sale's payments are spread out in installments over a period of several years. Under previous treatment, the capital gain tax payment could be spread over the life of the installment note. An unintended consequence of this provision has been to adversely affect the sale of small businesses. Most sales of these businesses use the installment sales method. Larger publicly traded corporations are not impacted as they tend to use other financing methods involving cash or stock transactions. According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), it is possible that most of the 200,000 small business sales which occur each year will be adversely affected by this provision. Some estimates show that, depending upon the circumstances, this provision could reduce the sale price of a business by 5, 10, 20 percent or more. My legislation will repeal the elimination of this provision giving small business owners the opportunity to defer over the period of payments the capital gains tax on the sale of their business. Mr. President, the American public is aware of this tax. I have seen press releases, newspaper articles and even a story on a national news network. This will effect not only the liquidity and price a seller is required to accept for a business. We're not talking about major corporations--rather, we are talking about small businesses--a local hamburger joint, a laundromat, a car wash, the businesses that support a community. I encourage my colleagues to support the small business owner by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will repeal a little-noticed, yet extremely detrimental, installment tax provision on small businesses. This provisions, enacted at the end of last year's congressional session as part of the conference report of H.R. 1180, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 was placed into effect on December 17 when President Clinton signed the bill. According to this provision, many small-business owners who sell their businesses will now have to immediately pay in one lump sum all capital gains taxes resulting from the sale, even if the sale's payments are spread out in installments over a period of several years. Under previous treatment, the capital gain tax payment could be spread over the life of the installment note. An unintended consequence of this provision has been to adversely affect the sale of small businesses. Most sales of these businesses use the installment sales method. Larger publicly traded corporations are not impacted as they tend to use other financing methods involving cash or stock transactions. According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), it is possible that most of the 200,000 small business sales which occur each year will be adversely affected by this provision. Some estimates show that, depending upon the circumstances, this provision could reduce the sale price of a business by 5, 10, 20 percent or more. My legislation will repeal the elimination of this provision giving small business owners the opportunity to defer over the period of payments the capital gains tax on the sale of their business. Mr. President, the American public is aware of this tax. I have seen press releases, newspaper articles and even a story on a national news network. This will effect not only the liquidity and price a seller is required to accept for a business. We're not talking about major corporations--rather, we are talking about small businesses--a local hamburger joint, a laundromat, a car wash, the businesses that support a community. I encourage my colleagues to support the small business owner by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the prime sponsor of S. 1547, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 486, I would like to make remarks on a technical edit to H.R. 486. I believe Sec. 3(f)(1) of Sec. 5008 needs some clarification. Subsection (1)(D) states very clearly that the ``Commission shall act to preserve the contours of low-power television licensees pending the final resolution of a class A application.'' The Commission's function to preserve the protected contours is very clear. But creating separate subsections for the certification and application processes may have created some uncertainty regarding the timing of when the Commission should begin to provide this protection. I want to assure my colleagues that I agree with the prime sponsors of H.R. 486 that the front-end certification process is an integral first step in the application process. It is clearly our intent that as soon as the Commission is in receipt of an acceptable certification notice, it should protect the contours of this station until final resolution of that application. Of course, this provision does not exempt licensees from other provision of this act. Thank you, Mr. President.