Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Michigan. Section 8160

Mr. BURNS. Can the Senator from Michigan discuss the importance of this bill regarding commercial satellite imagery and ground stations to U.S. military?

Mr. BURNS. I have heard that the National Reconnaissance Office has recently completed an improved mobile ground station. I believe that it was built for receiving high-resolution commercial satellite imagery, such as the recently launched Ikonos satellite that is owned by Space Imaging. Is that correct?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the senior Senator from Missouri, who is also the chairman of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee responsible for the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, in a colloquy. This colloquy is to clarify the committee's position on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s funding in fiscal year 2000 to implement the regional haze rule. I have concerns about how the EPA may distribute fiscal year 2000 funding provided for this rule.

Mr. BURNS. I understand that in the conference report to the fiscal year 2000 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and independent agencies appropriations bill, $5,000,000 is provided to help the states and recognized regional partnerships implement the new EPA regional haze rule. Of this total, an unspecified amount will be provided directly to the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) and the remaining portion will be allocated among the states and other recognized regional partnerships. My concern is, given that 10 states are part of the WRAP, EPA may distribute a major share of the $5,000,000 to the WRAP and not provide any funding to these 10 states since they are involved with the WRAP. In essence, EPA could assume that funding for the WRAP constituted funding for these 10 states. This is not what I believe this report language intended. Thus, I believe that we need to ensure that EPA understands that funding for the states includes those states working in the WRAP.

Mr. BURNS. The purpose for this conference report language to directly fund the WRAP was based upon Congressional concerns with delayed funding in fiscal year 1999 to the WRAP. As of the end of fiscal year 1999, no funds from EPA had been allocated to the WRAP as had been appropriated. This delay in funding has jeopardized the program and progress of the WRAP to assist the states in addressing new regulatory requirements and deadlines of the regional haze rule. This delay also seems a bit ironic since EPA encourages states to form regional partnerships to implement this new law. Since the WRAP is faced with an October 2000 deadline to develop target levels for sulfur dioxide emissions and a contingent Market Trading Program for this new rule, direct funding in fiscal year 2000 is the most effective way to ensure the states meet this new rule.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chairman for this clarification. I trust that the Environmental Protection Agency will follow these guidelines in developing the distribution of the $5,000,000 to the states in fiscal year 2000.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, Chairman Cochran and his staff have done a highly commendable job of crafting a bill to help agriculture in these tough times. Important funding is included in the bill for agricultural research, nutrition programs, natural resource programs, food safety, export enhancement, rural development, and marketing and regulatory programs. I am exceptionally pleased with the funding that will go to Montana to carry out important agricultural research and promote rural development. Times are tough in agriculture. In Montana, thousands of farmers and ranchers are experiencing a severe price crunch. Commodities simply are not bringing the prices agricultural producers need to break even. Now is an essential time to provide producers opportunities for diversification and increased marketing opportunities. Times are tough and times are changing. The Federal Government has the opportunity to provide agricultural producers with enhanced options for marketing. We can do that through funding for agricultural research and rural development and policy changes for sanctions reform, country-of-origin labeling, rescission of the USDA grade, balance of trade laws, and price reporting. I am extremely pleased with the inclusion, at my request, of reporting in this bill. Mandatory price reporting is a milestone for livestock producers. For too long there has been too much mistrust between agricultural producers and meat packers. Four major packers control 79 percent of the meat-packing industry. Many producers raising and feeding livestock feel that packers can control the market by not providing data on either the number of cattle they buy or the prices they pay for it. The USDA collects the information voluntarily. This legislation mandates that packers will provide that data twice daily and make it easily accessible to ranchers. Mandatory price reporting provides Montana producers with all the pertinent information they need to make the best possible marketing decision. It means that a Montana rancher can check the daily markets. They will have the necessary data to make the decision to sell their livestock immediately or hold out for a better price. A five cent increase in the market can mean an extra $30 per animal. On a 300-head operation that means an extra $9,000. To those experiencing the best economic times in years, $9,000 doesn't seem like much. I can tell you--to a rancher who hasn't met the cost-of-production in three or four years, any amount of money in the black looks pretty good. Lately ranchers have not had the money even to buy necessities for operating expenses. Due to the nature of the business and risks involved, farmers and ranchers are used to utilizing credit and operating loans. However, this economic crisis has bankers and rural business worried. Main Street Rural America is hurting too. Producers making knowledge-based marketing decisions helps everybody. It helps agricultural producers--and it helps rural communities who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Kent and Sarah Hereim own a 300-head operation between Harlowton and Judith Gap, MT. Nine thousand dollars means to them a new computer. That gives them even more accessibility to marketing information and the ability to make better marketing decisions. A computer provides access to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or the Chicago Board of Trade for futures marketing options. It provides an updated mechanism to pay bills and keep spreadsheets on operating expenses. A computer can be a valuable tool for ranchers to keep production records, carcass data, grazing plans, and other management information. These records allow producers to be better managers and increase profits. Nine thousand dollars can mean a new bull in addition to the computer. Buying better seedstock increases genetic capability and produces better animals. Increase in quality increases profit. More and more emphasis is being placed on paying producers on a grid. Paying on a grid means ranchers are paid on the quality of their animals not merely the number of pounds. This gives producers who strive for better genetics and meat quality a clear advantage. Rural communities win too. An extra $9,000 helped the local computer store and it helped others in the industry. That new bull Kent and Sarah bought helps the seedstock (bull) producer who now has extra money to buy fencing supplies from the local agricultural supply store. The owner of that ag supply store now has extra money for Christmas gifts at the local clothing store. That clothing store owner puts extra money in a CD at the bank. In a rural community a dollar turning over makes a world of difference. This example is why it is so important to put control back in the hands of the livestock producer. It is exceedingly important to producers to have an assurance that they are receiving timely and accurate data. It doesn't make sense for those raising the commodity to be a passive price-taker. Having the information readily accessible puts the rancher in a position to make good marketing decisions and not be left fully at the mercy of the buyer. In Montana, livestock outnumber people by at least twice. These are less than a million people in Montana and over 2.5 million head of livestock. Sixty-four percent of the land in Montana is used for agricultural production. Livestock producers depend on the livestock markets for their livelihood. Mandatory price reporting gives them that data and the controls to use it. Also important to livestock producers is the Sheep Industry Improvement Center. This center, which is located at USDA, has a $30 million budget to assist the sheep and goat industries in research and education. I realize that no long-term solution will work until this current economic crisis is taken care of. This bill goes a long way in getting producers back on their feet and on the way to a better agricultural sector. Immediate funding needs of farmers and ranchers are addressed in a manner that will give them an opportunity to get back on track. The $8.7 billion package contains important funding for Agricultural Marketing Transition Act (AMTA) payments for wheat and barley producers in Montana, as well as $322 million for livestock producers and $650 million in crop insurance. I am pleased that important language for durum wheat producers was included in the bill. Before this change, the method for calculating loan deficiency payments (LDP) repayments unfairly presumed a high quality for durum, which resulted in a lower repayment rate for their crop. However, as a result of this language, the USDA has agreed to correct inequities in the current loan deficiency program (LDP) program for durum wheat. The crop insurance portion of the bill will provide $400 million to provide agricultural producers with a premium discount toward the purchase of crop insurance for the 2000 crop year. Currently, farmers would pay a higher premium for the year 2000 than for 1999 or 2001. With the lowest prices in years, agricultural producers cannot afford higher premiums. I am disappointed that sanctions reform was taken out of the bill. I believe these concerns must be addressed as soon as possible. I will support Senator Ashcroft in his efforts to exempt food and medicine from sanctioned countries. American farmers and ranchers stand much to lose by not having all viable markets open to them. Imposing trade sanctions hurts American farmers and ranchers. Sanctions have effectively shut out American agricultural producers from 11 percent of the world market, with sanctions imposed on various products of over 60 countries. They allow our competitors an open door to those markets where sanctions are imposed by the United States. In times like these our producers need every available marketing option open to them. We cannot afford lost market share. Trade sanctions are immoral. Innocent people are denied commodities while our farmers and ranchers are denied the sale to that particular country. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will see fit to open up more markets by supporting Senator Ashcroft. Farmers and ranchers must be provided a fighting chance in the world market, and the people of sanctioned countries must be allowed access to agricultural commodities. Again, I thank the fine chairman Mr. Cochran, and his staff, for all their work on this bill. I will continue to fight for Montana farmers and ranchers and provide a voice for agriculture.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of a group of farmers in eastern Montana who pulled together following a tragic accident to help the Family of Bill Wolff harvest their crops. Sadly, the Wolff family suffered a terrible loss on September 10, when a farming accident claimed Bill's life. In the midst of this tragedy, Bill's neighbor's gathered in an impressive effort to help the Wolff family harvest their grain. In all more than 20 trucks and 12 combines arrived in Glendive to assist in the harvest. Working simultaneously, the combines were able to cut 135 acres per hour and bring in the harvest for the Wolff family. Jim Wolff, one of Bill's nephews said, ``After experiencing the great teamwork here today, it's going to be difficult to go home and finish my own harvest by myself.'' In addition, many neighbors mirrored Jim's sentiment and expressed a sense of privilege that they were able to join with the Wolff family during their time of need. Montanans are truly a special breed of people--always quick to lend a hand to others. It says so much that these people took time away from their own extremely hectic harvest schedules to help the Wolffs, and I commend them for it. Their selflessness serves as an example of us all. I also extend my most sincere sympathies to the Wolf family. As evidenced by the outpouring of support from his neighbors. Bill was a man who was loved by a great many people and his loss will be shared by them also.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Cochran and his staff for putting together a bill that encompasses the needs of agriculture. I also thank Chairman Stevens for his cooperation during the agricultural appropriations process. I am pleased with the funding that went to my home State of Montana as well as to important national programs for agriculture. During this economic crisis in agriculture, immediate funding needs of farmers and ranchers must be addressed. I believe this bill does that. The $8.7 billion package contains important funding for Agricultural Marketing Transition Act, AMTA payments for wheat and barley producers in Montana, as well as $322 million for livestock producers and $650 million in crop insurance. Additionally, I am thrilled that price reporting was included in the final bill at my request. I have been trying to secure price reporting for our livestock producers for quite some time now. This legislation will provide producers with the information they need to make prudent marketing decisions, and take the control out of the hands of the meat packers. Four major packers control 79% of the meat-packing industry. It is necessary to have this price reporting information accessible to producers so that they may take advantage of the best possible market opportunities available. Additionally, they must have the assurance that they are receiving accurate data. The majority of livestock producers in Montana sell their feeder calves to feeder markets, which are highly concentrated. Increased concentration within the agricultural industry provides them fewer and fewer options open for marketing. Price reporting will increase market transparency and present producers an accurate view of the market. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Sheep Industry, and the National Pork Producers Council worked extensively with State producer organizations and the packers to craft a bill that will work for everyone and directly benefit producers. The end result of this work is the legislation included in agricultural appropriations as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture on July 29, 1999. I join all of these interested parties in directing the Department of Agriculture and the administration generally to this document for use in the correct interpretation and administration of this important law. I am disappointed that policy issues such as dairy and food-related sanctions were eventually stripped from this bill. I believe these concerns must be addressed as soon as possible. I will support Option 1-A legislation in H.R. 1402, in order to ensure my dairy farmers are taken care of. Additionally, I will support Senator Ashcroft in his efforts to exempt food and medicine from sanctioned countries. American farmers and ranchers stand much to lose by not having all viable markets open to them. Again, I thank the fine chairman, Mr. Cochran, for all his good work on this bill. I will continue to work for Montana farmers and ranchers to make sure they make not only a decent living but one that is profitable and fulfilling. I thank the Chair. Cloture Motion

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Chair. I listened to the exchange. It is very interesting. Why we are in this debate was not initiated by this side of the aisle. This whole process was not initiated by this side of the aisle. It was a reaction that was initiated by our friends on the other side. That is irrelevant right now. What is relevant is our Nation's security and the merits of this treaty and how it affects us and our national security. We have but one deterrent for the safety of the people who live in this country, and that is our reliable nuclear capability. Once it is questioned, then our ability to deter in this world of uncertainty would be damaged. I rise to record my opposition to Senate passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. This treaty bans all nuclear testing forever. Thus, it is a ban on ``bang'' for all time; it is not a ban on bombs. No one ought to be under the illusion that this treaty ends nuclear weapons development by America's foes. At home, an essential part of the administration's plan to implement the treaty is a ``safeguards package''. The mere existence of the safeguards package speaks for itself: without them, the treaty poses too many risks. Unfortunately, the treaty we are asked to vote upon contains none of the safeguards because the terms of the treaty expressly preclude making the safeguards package part of the treaty. In other words, the treaty prohibits meaningful reservations. Consequently, we are asked to bet on the come that the administration can deliver all that is promises in the safeguards package, not only in the next few years but far into the future. We are told that the Joint Chiefs of Staff support the treaty with the safeguards and is unable to comment on the merits of the treaty without the safeguards. I fully understand the Chain of Command. Our leaders also understand the Chain of Command. We do not have to read too much between the lines to conclude that without the safeguards package, this treaty poses unacceptable risks to our national security. A total ban on all nuclear testing for all time has never been supported by prior Presidents-and for sound reasons. This administration's best sales pitch for a total ban on bangs for all time is that it is an important step in the direction of doing away with the threat of nuclear war. This is a nice dream and a great idea for another planet. But on earth it is a downright dangerous false hope. The complete ban treaty has a fatal flaw in the real world: the treaty is unenforceable. In one sentence, the fatal flaw is that violations cannot be verified. The best intentions humans can conceive are of no use if the treaty is not implemented not only by us but also by the other nuclear players. And what is the score? Well Russia and China have not ratified this treaty and they are unlikely to do so. Even if they did, either one could veto any attempts at enforcement by the U.N. Security Council. North Korea did not even participate in the negotiations about the treaty. India and Pakistan have not signed on to the treaty. The score on rogue nations such as Iraq and Libya varies but we have to ask whether they could be trusted to keep their commitments anyway. The administration has, once again, gone off and negotiated a deal that is not acceptable to the Senate. I suppose the White House media spin will again be that the United States will suffer a loss of world leadership if the Senate does not buy this pig in a pike treaty. Well maybe the negotiators should have thought of that before they put American's credibility on the line. The spinmeisters should re-read our Constitution. Treaties must be acceptable to two thirds of the Senators. That requirement has been there since the founding of the Republic. The White House should not pretend to be shocked when the Senate turns down a treaty that it does not like because the treaty has no teeth. there are too many undefined characters in the world who are unaffected by this treaty. This treaty is not a good idea for a number of other reasons. The agreement puts international handcuffs on nuclear technology testing by the United States. Our country needs to have access to the testing of current and possible future nuclear weapons, defensive as well as offensive. We know that some nations play fast and loose with nuclear weapons technology. This is not the case generally in the United States and is not the case specifically in Montana where we maintain many Minutemen III missiles. Part of the Safeguard Stewardship and Management Program proposed by the Administration to sell this treaty is to assure us that the nuclear stockpile remains safe and reliable. But tests needed to create the data base and methodologies for stockpile stewardship have not been done during the seven year moratoria our nation has voluntarily followed on testing and would not be done under the mandatory terms of the treaty before us. Simply stated, the technology for stockpile stewardship is unproven. Key safety and reliability data can only be obtained from the actual testing of weapons. We cannot take a chance on when or whether our nuclear weapons will go off. Can you imagine putting all your faith in an airplane flying right without making actual flight tests.? The pilots I know still think an aircraft has to be flown before they are convinced of its safety and reliability. Likewise, data from past tests cannot adequately predict the impacts of ongoing problems such as aging taking into account the highly corrosive nature of materials with a shelf life of 20 years. What do we do in 25 years? The administration's answer is to rely upon computer simulations or, as a last resort, to withdraw from the treaty. The stakes are too high to depend upon theoretical models and any treaty can be killed by a later law. But I submit these actions are closing the barn door after the horses are gone. Montanans as well as all Americans must have confidence in the safety and reliability of the refurbished nuclear warheads remaining in our country. Our troops in the field must also have confidence in the nuclear weapons they carry. This test ban treaty precludes us from undertaking the technology testing that is essential for keeping confidence in our nuclear deterrent capability. The cold war may be over but the threat posed to the United States from nuclear weapons in hostile hands is far from over. Russia refuses to ratify Start II and continues to insist (along with the administration) on strict compliance with the 1972 ABM Treaty. If ever there was a lesson about not freezing nuclear technology in time, the ABM Treaty is the model. Most Americans still do not know that our country is absolutely defenseless against ballistic missile attack not only from Russia but also from any where else. There is mounting evidence that China has stolen priceless nuclear secrets from our national laboratories. Only a complete fool would think that the actions of the Chinese indicate that they would curtail their rapid advancement towards being a nuclear power, with or without this test ban treaty. Neither India nor Pakistan have signed on to this treaty and I suppose the administration will try to blame that on the Senate somehow. I submit, however, that the positions of Pakistan and India on their nuclear status have nothing whatsoever to do with this debate in the Senate. We are aware that there are half dozen rogue nations out there. They must really lick their lips when they think about America not testing nuclear weapons anymore. Who seriously thinks this treaty will slow down despots who pose current and future irresponsible and, perhaps, irrational nuclear threats to the United States? The administration is making a serious error in judgment in mixing up what States say at diplomatic conferences with what they go back home. This is not the time to handicap ourselves by assuming test ban obligations that we would keep but others would either violate or ignore. I have been called by many representatives of other states and heads of states. I asked one question: Will the signing of this test ban treaty change the attitude of the Russians? Answer: No. By the PRC, the Chinese? No. Will it change the attitude in India or Pakistan or North Korea or other suspected rogue entities? No. Then why do we put ourselves in jeopardy by not testing? In conclusion, I believe this treaty is fatally flawed because it is not enforceable and will be ignored by the very nations we distrust. Moreover, to retain a credible nuclear deterrent capability, we must retain our ability to test our weapon systems for safety and reliability. Therefore, this treaty hurts us while helping our potential enemies. My vote is to oppose advice and consent. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support an amendment that I feel to be extremely important to the small business owners of Montana. That amendment is the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence Act, the SENSE Act. This amendment makes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to do the sensible thing--wait for a scientific report before OSHA can impose any new ergonomics regulations on small business. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, the overall injury and illness rate is currently at its lowest level. Date shows that musculoskeletal disorders have declined by 17 percent over the past 3 years. But OSHA continues to aggressively move forward with an ergonomics regulation and ignoring the intent of Congress. I have been hearing from small business owners of across the State of Montana. Businesses that range from construction companies to florists that fall under OSHA's mandated ergo- nomics regulations are telling me something has to be done. They are being forced to comply with ridiculous rules and regulations that OSHA cannot prove to be harmful to employees. Before OSHA can move forward with any new regulations a few things need to be proven. First, OSHA needs to objectively define the medical conditions that should be addressed, not a broad category of all soft tissue and bone pains and injuries that might have resulted. Second, they need to identify the particular exposures in magnitude and nature which cause the defined medical conditions. Last they need to prescribe the changes necessary to prevent their recurrence. Right now OSHA cannot prove any of these things. We need to make sure that OSHA is not running free and loose. They cannot have free rein to enact new rules and regulations without having significant scientific evidence to back up their new mandate. This amendment, to put it simply, will delay moving forward with any ergonomics rule or guideline until completion of an independent study of the medical and scientific evidence linking on-the-job activities and repetitive stress injuries. This is a very complicated issue, and we need to make sure that there is sound science and through medical evidence to protect our small business and employees from misguided rules and regulations. The SENSE Act does not prohibit OSHA from continuing to research ergonomics or from exercising its enforcement authority, it just puts the small business owner on a level playing field. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to David ``Moose'' Miller, husband, father, friend, community leader, sports enthusiast, and owner of the nationally known watering hole, Moose's Saloon, who lost his life to cancer recently. Moose had battled cancer for the last year and convinced himself and others that he would beat it. Today, in Kalispell, Montana, family and friends are remembering Moose Miller and I would like to take a moment to make a special acknowledgement to such a great man. Moose played football for the University of Montana, served his country in the U.S. Army, and with his wife, converted the Corral Bar to the famous Moose's Saloon. Swinging doors, sawdust on the floor, initials carved into the heavy tables, the best pizza around, and the rustic atmosphere attracted people from all walks of life and all ages. Whether you're from Kalispell, Montana, Peoira, Illinois, or Washington, D.C., you likely know someone who knows of Moose's Saloon and Moose Miller. I had the privilege of knowing Moose. Moose not only owned and ran a successful business in the Flathead Valley, he gave back to the community in many ways. The Kalispell Chamber of Commerce honored him as its Great Chief in 1986, recognizing his years of community service. He and his ``elves'' made Christmas special for many people, especially the handicapped, each year for several years, he donated proceeds from the kitchen to support the March of Dimes, was an active supporter of the University of Montana and helped administer the Flathead Youth Foundation. Moose is leaving behind a wife, Shirley; his children; Bruce, Wallis, Royce, Lexie, Lee and Aimee; his grandchildren, Zach, Anne, Lexie, Leah, Alicia, Hannah, and Zane; and his sister, Marcie. I know that Moose will be missed by his family and friends, as well as the entire community. May God bless them all and may his memory live on.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to S. 82, the Air Transport Improvement Act. This amendment will establish a commission to study the future of the travel agent industry and determine the consumer impact of airline interaction with travel agents. Since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was enacted, major airlines have controlled pricing and distribution policies of our nation's domestic air transportation system. Over the past four years, the airlines have reduced airline commissions to travel agents in an competitive effort to reduce costs. I am concerned the impact of today's business interaction between airlines and travel agents may be a driving force that will force many travel agents out of business. Combined with the competitive emergence of Internet services, these practices may be harming an industry that employs over 250,000 Americans. This amendment will explore these concerns through the establishment of a commission to objectively review the emerging trends in the airline ticket distribution system. Among airline consumers there is a growing concern that airlines may be using their market power to limit how airline tickets are distributed. Mr. President, if we lose our travel agents, we lose a competitive component to affordable air fare. Travel agents provide a much needed service and without, the consumer is the loser. The current use of independent travel agencies as the predominate method to distribute tickets ensures an efficient and unbiased source of information for air travel. Before deregulation, travel agents handled only about 40% of the airline ticket distribution system. Since deregulation, the complexity of the ticket pricing system created the need for travel agents resulting in travel agents handling nearly 90% of transactions. Therefore, the travel agent system has proven to be a key factor to the success of airline deregulation. I'm afraid, however, that the demise of the independent travel agent would be a factor of deregulation's failure if the major airlines succeed in dominating the ticket distribution system. Travel agents and other independent distributors comprise a considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States. There are 33,000 travel agencies employing over 250,000 people. Women or minorities own over 505 of travel agencies. The assault on travel agents has been fierce. Since 1995, commissions have been reduced by 30%, 14% for domestic travel alone in 1998. Since 1995, travel agent commissions have been reduced from an average of 10.8% to 6.9% in 1998. Travel agencies are failing in record numbers. Mr. President, I think it is important to study this issue as well as the related issues of the current state of ticket distribution channels, the importance of an independent system on small, regional, start-up carriers, and the role of the Internet. I would like to ask my colleagues to support this important amendment. dekalb-peachtree airport

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will comment on an amendment we introduced last night and ask for the support of my colleagues. Before I do that, I want to recognize the chairman of the full committee, the Commerce Committee, and my colleagues on the subcommittee. There are many important provisions in this bill. Most importantly, I think it reauthorizes the funding mechanism for airport construction which has been going on around the country. I hardly find a place where there are not improvements being done to the infrastructure for air traffic. The legislation allows a limited number of exemptions to the current perimeter rule at the Ronald Reagan National Airport. Creating these exemptions takes a step in the right direction to provide balance between Americans within the perimeter and outside the perimeter. The current perimeter rule is outdated and restrictive to creating competition. We have the best and the most efficient modes of transportation in the entire world. No other country can make such a boast. With the exception, of course, of rail transportation and passengers, we have very competitive alternatives. Now is the time to further enhance our competitive aviation and rail alternatives, although some who live at the end of the lines sometimes question if we have competition in the right places. These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule will improve service to the nation's capital for dozens of western cities beyond the perimeter--while at the same time ensuring that cities inside the perimeter are not adversely impacted by new service. This is a fair balance which is consistent with the overall intent of the bill to improve air service to small and medium-sized cities. As a result, I believe our committee has crafted a limited compromise which protects the local community from uncontrolled growth, ensures that service inside the perimeter will not be affected and creates a process which will improve access to Ronald Reagan National Airport for small and medium-sized communities outside the current perimeter. Montana's communities will benefit from these limited exemptions through improved access to the nation's capitol. Throughout this bill, our goal has been to improve air service for communities which have not experienced the benefits of deregulation to the extent of larger markets. The provision related to improved access to Reagan National is no different. Today, passengers from many communities in Montana are forced to double or even triple connect to fly to Washington National. My goal is to ensure that not just large city point-to-point service will benefit, but that passengers from all points west of the perimeter will have better options to reach Washington and Ronald Reagan National Airport. This provision is about using this restricted exemption process to spread improved access throughout the West--not to limit the benefits to a few large cities which already have a variety of options. Let me be clear, if the Secretary receives more applications for more slots than the bill allows, DOT must prioritize the applications based on quantifying the domestic network benefits. Therefore, DOT must consider and award these limited opportunities to western hubs which connect the largest number of cities to the national transportation network. I request the support of my colleagues on a very important amendment I along with my colleague from Missouri have introduced to this bill. That amendment was added last night. This amendment will establish a commission to study the future of the travel agent industry and determine the consumer impact of airline interaction with travel agents. Since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was enacted, major airlines have controlled pricing and distribution policies of our nation's domestic air transportation system. Over the past four years, the airlines have reduced airline commissions to travel agents in a competitive effort to reduce costs. I am concerned the impact of today's business interaction between airlines and travel agents may be a driving force that will force many travel agents out of business. Combined with the competitive emergence of Internet services, these practices may be harming an industry that employs over 250,000 people in this country. This amendment will explore these concerns through the establishment of a commission to objectively review the emerging trends in the airline ticket distribution system. Among airline consumers there is a growing concern that airlines may be using their market power to limit how airline tickets are distributed and sold. Mr. President, if we lose our travel agents, we lose a competitive component to affordable air fare. Travel agents provide a much needed service and without them, the consumer is the loser. The current use of independent travel agencies as the predominate method to distribute tickets ensures an efficient and unbiased source of information for air travel. Before deregulation, travel agents handled only about 40 percent of the airline ticket distribution system. Since deregulation, the complexity of the ticket pricing system created the need for travel agents resulting in travel agents handling nearly 90 percent of transactions. Therefore, the travel agent system has proven to be a key factor to the success of airline deregulation. I'm afraid, however, that the demise of the independent travel agent would be a factor of deregulation's failure if the major airlines succeed in dominating the ticket distribution system. Tavel agents and other independent distributors comprise a considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States. There are 33,000 travel agencies employing over 250,000 people. Women or minorities own over 50 percent of travel agencies. Since 1995, commissions have been reduced by 30%, 14% for domestic travel alone in 1998. since 1995, travel agent commissions have been reduced from an average of 10.8 to 6.9 percent in 1998. Travel agencies are failing in record numbers. I think it is important we study the issue, get an unbiased commission together, and give a report to Congress. We will see how important the role played by the ticket agents and the travel agencies is in contributing to the competitive nature of travel in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment. We are dealing with a subject that needs to be dealt with; this bill needs to be passed. We are in support of it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that helps a large number of family farms on the border of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree that there is little value in having the federal government retain ownership. The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. Later, the Savage Unit was added in 1947-48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the number one industry in the area. The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 family farms rely on these projects for economic substance, and the entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a foundation for the businesses in the area. As we all know, agriculture prices are extremely low right now, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the ideals that have made this country successful. The 500 families impacted are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people to manage their own irrigation projects. Everyday, we see an example of where the federal government is taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of those efforts on an individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the government gets involved in new projects there are many that we can safely pass on to state or local control. The Lower Yellowstone Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Lilly Endowment for their exceptional contributions on behalf of educational opportunities for minorities. In particular, I would like to commend them on their recent announcement awarding $30 million to the American Indian College Fund. These dollars would be used to replace buildings at 30 tribal colleges on reservations in the West and Midwest. It is important that we continue to support ways to maintain educational opportunities for tribal colleges, who receive a significantly lower level of funding per student than mainstream community colleges. Because of these scarce resources, and the need to maintain and increase academic standards, capital improvements have been forced to the bottom of the priority list. This private donation from the Lilly Endowment is the largest ever made to a Native American organization. These funds will be used to pay for much needed construction of modern classrooms, labs and libraries. This extraordinary contribution will allow these colleges to give their students the best educational opportunities possible. It is critical that Tribal colleges have the resources to provide a combination of traditional academics and Native American culture for their students. American Indian students who attend tribal schools are far more likely to succeed at four year institutions. More Native Americans have been attending college, but still at a far lower rate than members of other minority groups. We need to ensure that they are helped to reach their full potential. As a Senator for a state with 7 tribal colleges, I understand the important role they play in the Tribes' hopes for future generations. Academic success is key to raising the standard of living and quality of life for all tribal members. Mr. President, I feel we need to do everything in our power until we are successful in addressing the many challenges facing the education needs of our American Indian population. I salute Lilly Endowment's increasingly generous efforts towards this goal. During my time in the Senate I have fought, and will continue to work to help make education accessible and affordable to all Montanans. Tribal colleges are a priority to me. I will continue to look for ways to increase federal spending at these institutions.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that helps a large number of family farms on the border of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree that there is little value in having the federal government retain ownership. The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. Later, the Savage Unit was added in 1947-48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the number one industry in the area. The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 family farms rely on these projects for economic substance, and the entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a foundation for the businesses in the area. As we all know, agriculture prices are extremely low right now, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the ideals that have made this country successful. The 500 families impacted are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people to manage their own irrigation projects. Everyday, we see an example of where the federal government is taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of those efforts on an individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the government gets involved in new projects there are many that we can safely pass on to state or local control. The Lower Yellowstone Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in my 11 years in the U.S. Senate I have rarely seen such an opportunity to fight against big Government and defend local decisionmakers like parents and teachers. The Democrats are signaling their intent to hamstring local schools by commanding them to focus their efforts on issues which are deemed important inside the Capital Beltway, not within their homes and communities. I feel Montanans know what is best for Montana; we don't need Washington to tell us how to teach our children. Congress should reject a one-size-fits-all approach to education and local schools should have the freedom to prioritize their spending and tailor their curriculum according to the unique educational needs of their children. For too long, Washington has been part of the problem with education, enacting many well-intentioned programs that result in more redtape and regulation. Though Washington accounts for only seven percent of education funding, it accounts for 50 percent of the paperwork for our teachers and principles. It is time for Washington to lend a helping hand to our states. Unfortunately, right now many of our Federal education programs are overloaded with so many rules and regulations that states and local schools waste precious time and resources to stay in compliance with the Federal programs. It is obvious that states and local school districts need relief from the administrative bourdons that many federally designated education programs put on States, schools, and educational administrators. I feel strongly and deeply that Montanans need to be in control of Montana's classrooms. I can not vote for anything that does not have local school control. I will continue to resist the attempts to take away your control of your child's schools. Our goal on the Federal level is to help States and local school districts provide the best possible first-class education for our children that they can. We need to get the bureaucratic excess out of the face of the local educators so that they can do their jobs more efficiently and effectively. Mr. President, we need to fix the problem of Federal controls in education. We need to allow the decisionmaking to be made by the people that we trust to educate our children. That is what really counts.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas. I also want to say it might not pass the smell test; it doesn't even pass the giggle test. I want to drop back a little bit, away from the rhetoric we have heard, and look at it from a practical point of view. We have heard a lot about big oil ripoff. What are folks in California paying for gasoline today? Do you think the oil companies are going to pay that? No, they are not going to pay it. The consumer is going to pay it. The people who buy the gasoline and the petroleum products are going to pay it. Big oil, little oil, or whatever is not going to pay that. Do you think they will eat this and swallow it? Get a life. One of these days, we are going to be hit by a big bolt of common sense around here and we will not be able to handle it. Let's step back and think. I know the Senator from California is concerned about schools and children. I want her to come to Musselshell, MT. The first oil was discovered in Montana in that county--very active. A lot of it is on public lands. Then we kept getting tougher and tougher, and pretty soon the oil industry left the county. We are closing schools because there are no kids to attend. Nobody is making a paycheck. Let's take a look and see what happens. Yes, the Government holds those lands in trust. They are public lands. Does the Government invest one penny in the drilling or the exploration of that resource? It does not. Does it buy any of the licenses? Does it offer any of the equipment? Does it pay any of the people to drill and to take the chance there may be oil here and there may not be? If there isn't, does the Government pay for the loss? Not a penny. A deal was struck. If we find oil there, the companies say: We will give the Government one-eighth ownership in that well. That means one out of every eight buckets that comes out of the ground in crude belongs to the Government, and it sells it wherever it wants to sell. If they don't like the price they are getting from the refinery, I suggest they can take a truck out there next to the well, and every eighth bucket that comes up, put that eighth bucket in their truck, and they can take it anywhere and sell it anywhere they want, and they will get market for it. There are a lot of buyers for it. That was the deal. That is getting your product or your royalty at the wellhead, as called for by law. Now we have some folks who say: That is not good enough; we want the retail price. In other words, we don't want to pay any of the transportation, we don't want to pay any of the refining, we don't want to pay all of the costs, but we want the end result. That is not the deal. This other is put together by law. That law is being changed by an unelected representative who wouldn't be known to my constituency if he or she walked out today. Who gets hurt by this change? It is not big oil. They don't get hurt because they will pass the cost on to the consumer. Again, I want to know what they are paying per gallon of gasoline in California. It is pretty high out in my State, too. Do you know who gets hurt? It is the little guy. It slows down their ability for capital formation, for exploration, and then when they find it, they are taxed more for it. They want to rewrite the law. An independent producer will have to pay a higher tax. I want that in all capital letters--T-A-X. That is what royalty essentially is. Then they will still have to compete with the low price of foreign oil. America, if you think you are secure tonight, 55 percent of our oil comes now from offshore. More and more public lands are being cut off from exploration due to some whacky laws and some people who do not understand the business. They do it in the name of the environment. Use common sense. Those folks who want to shut off the oil supply in this country don't know what lines are and don't know what an economy can't do if we have no oil. A while ago they talked about ethanol. I support the ethanol situation. It is renewable. It is clean. We still have some problems when temperatures get extremely low, as they do in Montana, but nonetheless it is an alternative. I support the tax credits for ethanol. A tax is essentially what a royalty is. The end result is that the little man can't do it; he simply cannot make a living. When times are looking better for domestic oil, the Federal Government comes rushing in and raises the cost of production. I can remember when Billings, MT, was pretty active with independent oil people, from land leasers to exploration to drillers. Those folks are just about all gone, because they have driven all of the little people away. They have closed off the lands that might have, and do have, great prospects for oil and gas reserves. Oil prices are not that strong. Have they stabilized? No, I don't think so. In fact, I will tell you now, no commodity is making money in this country. I don't care if you are talking about oil or products that come from mining or timber or farms; it does not make any difference. The spread between what we get at the production level and what is happening at the retail level is unbelievable. I will give you an example. If you want to go buy some Wheaties in your grocery store, it will cost you $3.75 to $4 a pound for Wheaties. Think about it. We cannot get $2.25 for a 60-pound bushel of wheat. Something is wrong. The same thing happens here because everybody has to have a little bigger piece in the process from where you take it from Mother Earth, who gives us all new wealth. The only place new wealth is produced is from Mother Earth. That is true to the time it gets to the consumer. Everybody has to have a bigger piece. Now the Federal Government comes along and says: I think we need a little more, too, because we need to collect some more taxes. We need to build a bigger bureaucracy. That is not the way we do business. Let's look at the royalty increase and put it in perspective of the entire industry. Oil prices still are not strong. Domestic oil production is still down. The industry is still hurting. Jobs are still being threatened. But our paycheck does not come from the oil patch, so we do not get excited. Our check comes every 2 weeks, just like clockwork. We risk not much--a little time. That is about all. Then all at once we are insensitive to those people who really power our economy--tax them again. I want to bring back to our attention what Senator Hutchison pointed out earlier. This cost will be passed on to the American consumers. You are kidding yourself if you do not believe it. Montanans rely on their private vehicles to get around. It is 148,000 square miles from Alzada, MT, to Eureka, MT. It is further than from here to Chicago, IL. We know what spaces are and we also know what it costs to drive them. We also have reserves in oil and gas, and if you keep raising these costs, the opportunity to get those reserves becomes more diminished every day. So while the Senator from California contends she is saving all this royalty money for the taxpayer, the person who actually knows the system tells us they will get less revenues during the period of chaos that will ensue as they try to sort out the flawed MMS proposal. Our income to the Treasury will go down; it will not be more. I have a letter from the Office of the Governor of Montana. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Reading a portion: The complexity and uncertainty inherent in the proposed MMS rules may be a disincentive for the industry . . . The moratorium will provide additional time for all interested parties to develop a fair, workable and efficient plan to collect federal royalties. In the meantime, royalties are lost. So let's get struck by a bolt of common sense. Let's quit being moon-eyed horses and jumping at shadows and the paper bag that blows out from the fence row. This is bad policy and we should not allow this to happen. I do not think the Senate should. I congratulate my friend from Texas for being the champion on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, reducing space transportation costs to enable more scientific research has been a priority of NASA and this committee. I am aware of several innovative programs developed by NASA and other agencies that attempt to dramatically reduce the cost of space access for missions through transporting individual science instruments within commercial spacecraft. However, I understand NASA is having some difficulty in implementing such ``secondary payload programs'' because of a lack of a definition of ``government payload'' in the National Space Transportation Policy. Therefore, I would like the committee to clarify that individual scientific instruments with full or partial government funding riding inside a commercial satellite are not ``government payloads'' for purposes of the Space Transportation Policy. Would the chairman agree with me that this is something we should address in the conference report?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to bring before the Senate my observations of a hearing that we held in Montana last Friday. It had to do with a pilot shortage in this country, something we have heard very little about but which some of us are quite concerned about. The hearing examined the impending problem. After the hearing was over, I will say it is moving from impending to maybe an acute pilot shortage, with the factors that contribute to that possibility. I think the results of that hearing are very serious. I think it is certainly serious to the citizens of Montana and rural States on routes not heavily traveled. Now, because the national economy has done fairly well, we have seen a tremendous expansion in airlines, the major airlines--the ``transcons,'' we call them. When business is good, they expand. Of course, expansion means hiring more pilots at almost record numbers, it seems. That creates a problem because pilots who start to work for the majors usually are drawn from the pool of pilots who fly for the local service or regional airlines. Now, what happens when these pilots are taken up? Regional and local service carriers get caught with fewer pilots, and that means, more times than not, canceled flights. We always wonder why they cancel a flight. Sometimes it is because we are just short of pilots. If this continues, then it is routes such as we find in rural areas in Montana that suffer--some of those routes might even be abandoned. So it doesn't take a doctorate in economics to figure out that the flights and routes that are canceled in these situations are those that are the least profitable; and the sad part, the less profitable a particular route tends to be for an airline, the more important it tends to be for the people who live in that region. As you know, Montana is a very large State. I was struck the other day that in a new route that had been put in, nonstop, from Missoula, MT, to Minneapolis, MN, the flying time is 2 hours 5 minutes, and the first hour is all spent in Montana. So we understand distances. If a regional airline is the only carrier serving a particular community and it cancels that route, what are the residents of that community supposed to do then? Air service is an essential lifeline to many individuals and communities. In fact, we have communities that are essential air service communities that have no buses and they have no rails. There is no public transportation, other than the local service airline. So our participation in the EAS, the essential air service program, has been a solution to that issue in the case of smaller, isolated communities, but it is jeopardized by operators who want to operate the routes but we have a shortage of pilots. Now, we talk about this business of the major airlines, and services, and the rights of passengers. Let's take a look at some of the basic problems. Maybe some of those problems are because of us. Who knows? Historically, the military has always supplied many pilots to the industry. But a large number of pilots who were trained by the military during the Vietnam era are getting to the point where they have to retire because of Federal regulations. Since the 1950s, airline pilots have had to retire when they reached the age of 60. I will tell you that some pilots aren't ready to retire at the age of 60. In fact, some pilots shouldn't be retired at 60. They are still able, physically fit, and mentally fit to fly airplanes past that age of 60. The age of 60 does not affect everyone the same way. In fact, I was thinking the other day that 65 doesn't sound nearly as old as it used to. But some pilots are fit enough to keep on flying. I understand there is great opposition to changing that rule until I look around the world and see what is happening when we have pilots flying major airlines in American airspace that have no age limit at all. Eight countries that fly into and connect into the United States have no age limit at all. In other words, if that pilot is 65, and fit mentally and physically, he still is a captain of that airplane. I think we have to take a look at that. Also, I find it disturbing that the Federal Government can apply a blanket regulation, such as the age of 60 rule, determining that a pilot exceeding that age is considered a hazard. I cannot accept that at all. There is also some question about flight and duty time rules that could worsen the pilot shortage and impact air service to those rural areas. I want the Appropriations' Subcommittee on Transportation and the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Commerce Committee to be aware that I think this issue needs a hearing in Washington at the full committee level to make them aware that we may be overlooking some things at the route level that could help us in providing more air service to this country. We all say our skies are full. Do you realize that commercial air service--basically 85 percent of the air service in this country--takes up only 5 percent of the airspace because of an old, outdated system that we have for vectoring and ITC across this country? I think maybe we should look at that. I appreciate the time given me by the chairman and the ranking member this morning. But that is the result of the hearing we had in Kalispell, MT. I think Senators should take a look at this and offer some comments. But I think we should have a hearing on this particular problem in Washington at the full committee level. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to withdraw my name as a co-sponsor of Senate bill S. 1172, the Drug Patent Term Restoration Review Procedures Act of 1999. After much research and thought I have decided to do this for the senior citizens of Montana. When I signed on this bill I believed that it was the right thing to do. Helping companies that have invested millions of dollars in research and development, only to see their property protections eroded by administrative delays, concerned me and I felt it was a good bill to help sponsor. After many meetings, lots of research and careful thought I have now come to a different conclusion. I now believe that there is already an established patent extension process to compensate brand companies for regulatory delays. I feel that by allowing brand companies to seek additional patent life for so-called ``pipeline drugs,'' this bill will deprive consumers, and especially the elderly with their limited incomes, the opportunity to purchase the more affordable generic drug equivalent. Generic drugs are often priced 25-60% below the brand name product. Mr. President, I feel that this is a good bill, but if I continue to support S. 3372 I would be blocking patient access to generic medicines for three more years, forcing millions of Americans to pay inflated prices for these drugs. I cannot do this to the senior citizens in my great state. They are having a tough time getting by as is. Higher drug prices just add to their problems.