Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I would also like to address another important matter in our state. The Great Falls Airport is the home to a Federal Express regional hub. Fed Ex employs numerous employees in the Great Falls area. Our problem originated when the FAA mandated the airport find another option for Fed Ex's operations. That mandate has required the airport to begin immediate construction of an apron to accommodate Fed Ex's Great Falls operations. I met with Jane Garvey on this issue and was appreciative of the interest she has taken. Although she and her staff have indicated their support of this project, the FAA is unable to provide funding considering the Airport Improvement Program has lapsed. Mr. Chairman, dirt has been turned on this project and we cannot afford to turn back at this time. Further delays will mean loss of revenue, possible job loss and increased funding requirements. Construction season in Montana is short and we must take action on this project immediately. I would like to request your assistance obtaining the $4.5 million required to solve this problem. We will need to address this problem immediately during this year and soon after the beginning of the 2000 Fiscal Year. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURNS. I would like to engage my colleague from Alabama on a number of issues relating to the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill. Montana's roads and airports are inadequately funded. I would like to focus on a couple of projects that must be addressed in the state immediately or we will be facing serious economic loss as a result. The first is the Big Mountain Road. This is a forest service access road, private property access road and also provides access to Big Mountain Ski area. During the winter when conditions are worst, this steep road is traversed frequently and while the road is covered with snow and ice. Montana winter conditions are not friendly to our paved roads. I would like to express my support of funding for this road. In 1996, the state estimated reconstruction costs to be around $6.5 million. The road is presently one of the busiest roads in the state awaiting reconstruction. Mr. Chairman, this is no small matter--every year Montanans are either killed or injured in accidents on this dangerous road. The freeze thaw conditions we face make this road an important project in our state.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a matter important to my State's participation in the upcoming Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration. As you and other history buffs may know, the Corps of Discovery led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark spent much of their travels in what is now my State of Montana. This celebration will have an enormous impact on the State's economy and infrastructure. We have a number of sites on the Missouri River that have retained historic ferry transportation. Currently, in the Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, the committee has included $2 million for the upgrade of the McClelland Ferry. A more fiscally responsible use of these funds would be to spread this funding level out over three ferry sites on the historic Missouri River. Those sites are the McClelland, Virgelle, and Carter Ferry sites. I would like to also indicate that is important to recognize that these upgrades should maintain all of the historic features of the traditional ferry site. It is not my intention to replace these historic ferries with bridge work or new ferries.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. It will only take about a minute. I am opposing the amendment, so the Senator may want to rethink the allotment of that time.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Oregon. I will be very brief. In the Commerce Committee, we struck a deal with the airlines. Today they are going to the FAA with their plan. What we have seen to this point is an outline of what they plan to do. What they plan to give to the FAA, with the FAA exceptions, we should agree to and keep the word of the Commerce Committee that that is the way we are going to do business. I think we are trying to micromanage. I expect I am the only one who should be concerned about seat width. I fly just as much as anyone else. In fact, to go round trip between here and Montana, we probably have more seat time than we really want. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation on the Commerce Committee had a very successful hearing in Kalispell, MT. We ought to look at the root of some of the problems, and that is pilot shortage. We had an outstanding hearing on how it affects rural States such as my State of Montana. I shall oppose these two amendments. I thank my good friend from Oregon. He has been more than gracious with his time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the pending resolution that will give the Department of Transportation the green light to raise CAFE standards. According to the proponents of the resolution, the amendment just lets DOT ``study'' the issue. I am concerned that is not accurate. The DOT has already recommended up to a 35 percent increase in light truck standards. The CAFE program has been in place for 25 years. We know this program doesn't work. We know this program has not reduced America's dependence on foreign oil. In fact, America's dependence on foreign oil has increased from 35 to 50 percent. Pollution controls on today's automobiles have driven down pollution levels in this nation. It's the older automobiles that have been targeted--it's the folks who cannot afford to buy a new $30,000 fuel efficient car. Believe it or not Mr. President, but a 1982 Chevy pickup is a very popular vehicle on Montana's highways. We can't expect to make new cars affordable if we make them more expensive by driving up the cost of these new cars through increased government regulation. Fuel economies in vehicles have been reduced as a result of manufacturer efforts. Since 1980, light trucks fleet fuel economy has increased by nearly 2.5 miles per gallon. Passenger car fleet fuel economy has increased by nearly 4.5 miles per gallon. In my state of Montana, we are very highway dependent. Our roadways are our only means of transportation. We cannot efficiently rely on transit modes of transportation. Montana is also dependent on vehicles that have adequate clearance and power for roads that are not up to the standard of a paved highway. We have farmers, ranchers, outdoorsmen and sportsmen that use these roads often. CAFE standards have failed to achieve their goals. Despite these standards, oil imports are up and Americans continue to drive more miles annually than they did in the 1970s. CAFE standards force automakers to produce many smaller, lighter vehicles to increase fuel economy. Studies have demonstrated an increase in highway injuries and deaths as a result. We know it's not government regulation that drives fuel economy. Rather competition drives fuel economy. That is why I will not support this amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today as one of the proud cosponsors of the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act. This bill offers much-needed changes in the area of risk management for farmers and ranchers. Managing risk in agriculture has become perhaps the most important aspect of the business. Agricultural producers who are able to effectively manage their risk are able to sustain and increase profit. An effective crop insurance program will provide farmers and ranchers possibilities for economic sustainability in the future and help them out of the current financial crisis. The Federal Government can help facilitate a program to unite the producer and the private insurance company. The control must be put ultimately in the hands of the agricultural producer. Although he cannot control risk, an effective management plan will help him to manage the effects of risks, such as weather, prices and natural disasters. This bill addresses the inadequacies of the current crop insurance program. The problems and inconsistencies with the current program make it both unaffordable and confusing to agricultural producers. Costly premiums are the biggest problem. In years of depressed market prices, crop insurance, though badly needed, is simply unaffordable for farmers. This bill inverts the current subsidy formula, in order to provide the highest levels of subsidies to producers at the highest levels of buy-up coverage, and thus alleviate the unaffordable premiums. It also allows for the revenue policies to be fully subsidized. Another important provision in this bill is to allow an additional subsidy for risk management activities. If a producer uses futures or options, utilizes cash forwards, attends a risk management class, uses Agricultural Trade Options or FFARRM accounts or reduces farm financial risk, they will receive a 5 percent write-down on their premium for taking part in two of the above risk management tools. This bill also takes into account lack of production histories for beginning farmers or those who have added land or use crop rotation. This will make it possible for those producers to get a foot in the door and receive affordable crop insurance. Many times, especially in Montana, multi-year disasters occur. This bill helps producers that take a blow several years in a row, which reduces their Annual Production History (APH). If a producer has suffered a natural disaster during at least 3 of the preceding 5 years and their APH was reduced by at least 25 percent they may exclude one year of APH for every five years experience. During this time, the producer's APH may increase without limit back up to the level before the multi-year disaster began. Specialty crops such as canola or dry beans, are another important addition to this bill. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) will allocate at least 50 percent of their Research and Development funds to specialty crop development. Additionally, RMA is authorized to spend up to $20 million each fiscal year to create partnerships for developing and implementing specialty crop risk management options. This bill will also ultimately put more control in the hands of active producers by including four active producers; as well as one in crop insurance, and one in reinsurance. The board would also include the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Under Secretary for Rural Development and the Chief Economist of USDA. In addition, it mandates that the Board Chairperson be one of the non- governmental members. These are important steps to ensure that the new program is run for the producers by the producers. This bill is an important tool to reform the current crop insurance program into a risk management program, designed to help the producer in the long-term. It is vital to find a solution to provide a way for farmers to stay in agriculture. They must be able to continue to produce and distribute the world's safest food supply at a profitable margin. I look forward to working with Senators Roberts and Kerrey on this important piece of legislation. I believe this bill will pave the way for massive crop insurance reform and help agricultural producers out of this economic crisis.

Mrs. BURNS

Mrs. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Cliff Gullickson family and a group of North-Central Montana farmers that pulled together in true Montana tradition this harvest season. Cliff Gullickson was killed in a farm accident when the grain truck he was driving to Big Sandy rolled on August 8. Neighbors rallied together the way only agricultural folks can to harvest the Gullickson's grain. Some of the combines came from 50 miles away for the harvest and all started the day with a prayer for their safety and for Cliff Gullickson. In four hours the remaining 170 acres were harvested. Don Jenkins, who lives on the north-east border of the Gullickson's farm said, ``This is what you do when there's a tragedy. This is their bread and butter. This is their livelihood sitting out in this field.'' That statement summarizes the attitude and depth of feeling prevalent in farming and ranching. I extend my deepest sympathies to the Gullickson family for the loss of a fine person who dedicated his life to agriculture and also commend them for their hard work and dedication to the agricultural community. Additionally, I commend each and every neighbor who lent a helping hand this harvest season in the face of a tragedy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, this morning as I returned from Montana and I was listening to the local news, I heard a 30-second spot advising folks to call the White House to stand up, to stop this disappearance of the national forest lands. It was paid for by the Heritage Forest--some group. We have not been able to run it down yet. The message went on to say we have to stop this because our forests will be gone forever. We can talk about semantics. We can talk about budgets. We can talk about where we apply the money. Let's face it; the $11 million for road maintenance that we increased is mostly being used for road obliteration. It seems we fight these little fights every year because there are those who completely do not, and I say this in all disrespect, know one whit about what is a renewable resource and how we are to manage it. It seems to me this is the reason a person on his ranch or farm does not run that ranch or farm by a committee. If we did, we would not get a crop in; we would not grow anything, and we sure would not get a crop harvested. I would say the good Lord above does have a sense of humor. If you want to look at what a committee does, I always thought a horse was a camel put together by a committee. Everything is an afterthought. Let's dispel some of this myth that seems to be going across our land. In the Flathead National Forest alone, we are growing 120 million board feet of lumber a year. The Forest Service, in their plans, only planned to harvest 19 million. Let me tell you, due to laws and roadblocks and lawsuits, we will be lucky to cut 6 million board feet. This does not include our wilderness areas or recreational areas. These are in managed forest areas. This is about a third of what historically has been responsibly forested and harvested. However, due to litigation and other roadblocks, only 6 million will be harvested. We cannot survive with that scenario and neither can the forest. Understand that. Neither can the forest. It will burn. Trees are similar to any other renewable crop: they sprout, they grow, they get old, and like every one of us in this building, they will die. What happens to them? They hit the forest floor, there is a fuel buildup, there is infestation by the pine beetle, there is dry weather, there is lightning, and there is fire. I realize that doesn't mean much to those of us who sit in this 17-square miles of logic-free environment because we get our paycheck every 2 weeks. We are very comfortable. But out there, their paychecks stop right then. Their equipment is burned up. The cycle starts all over again. Is that an environmental benefit to this country? I don't think so. We have seen what happened in 1988 in Yellowstone National Park, the crown jewel of all parks, we are told. Fire swept across that park; and you should have seen the water that ran from that park for the next 3 years because there was nothing to hold the soil that had been turned sterile by the heat of the fires. So according to the misinformation thrown around by the self- proclaimed environmentalists, leaving the land to rot, they believe, is best for the environment; the forests are gone forever whenever they are harvested. I wonder if they think it was all a barren land up here until one Friday we got up and, lo and behold, there was a forest. Just like a bolt of lightning, it was there. When you get a haircut, is that head of hair gone forever? To some it might be. Who knows. But I don't think so. Currently, most of our national forests in Montana, and throughout the West, we face a 25-percent tree mortality in the next 15 years. We will lose 25 percent of our forests just to mortality, getting old and dying. So I am saying land management, proper land management saves our forests. I can take you to one of the worst areas there is in the Forest Service--it happens to be up in northwest Montana--and even the foresters themselves will tell you that we are ashamed of the condition of this forest. But because of litigation, they are powerless to do anything about it. Fuel loads, beetle infestations, it is not a pretty sight. It is not a pretty sight. Healthy forests are usually the benefit of good management. Harvesting of timber is healthy, and it is all part of management. That is aside from the faces of the people who live in these forest communities. Two weeks ago, we shut down a mill in Darby, MT. We sold it at auction. Jobs are gone. A tax base is gone. The ability to build roads on private lands, to maintain services, and to build schools--all that revenue is gone. The opponents of timber production would have you believe we still clearcut entire forests when we do not do that anymore. They would have you believe we have industrial lawn mowers big enough to mow down the great redwoods as we clear swaths from seed to seed, and we do not do that anymore. In fact, there are more trees in this country than during the time of Lewis and Clark. It is hard to believe, isn't it? But it is true. When we put together this appropriation and this budget, there was balance. It brought balance of wildlife, balance of timber and new timber growth, balance of timber that we could harvest for the benefit of Americans, for those folks who build homes, and for those folks who work with timber. If one looks across the Nation right now, not many commodities are making money--gas, oil, no farm commodities. If you look at all the litigation, timber is not making any money either. Anything that comes from mining is not making any money. Why should we do it? Where would those industries move? What other land on this globe will be devastated because we are not allowed to manage our renewable resources? I can remember dirt under the fingernails and the ability to produce a crop every year was pretty honorable. Madam President, 1.5 million Americans provide all the food and fiber for the other 260 million. That is not bad. We do a pretty good job, and we do it under conditions that are getting more and more difficult all the time. Modern forestry, of course, with some rules and regulations passed by Congress, is being regulated more and more every day. Environmental laws require foresters to take a look at the impact of what they are doing. It employs independent timber firms that know the land. They are harvesting. All of this costs money, and yet they will say below-cost- timber sales. If we lump all the rules and regulations, all the hoops we have to jump through for one timber sale on a forest, it probably could be called a below-cost-timber sale. Those are hoops we have to jump through. So we increased the budget. It costs more money to complete a timber sale. We do not clearcut areas with disregard. We spend more time making sure everything we do is done in a responsible manner. Dispel the misinformation, get away from the inflammatory words of growing a commodity and harvesting a commodity. In Montana, the people who harvest timber are the same ones who come back to hunt and fish. They do it every weekend. They recreate all that same forest. Contrary to the doomsayers, we want our land to be usable. We want healthy wildlife populations, we want clean water, and we want to make sure our native fish are healthy. Let's talk about this wildlife habitat. Most of the wildlife habitat is found on public land in the summertime. When they have to make it through the winter, do you know where the deer, the elk, the moose winter? On private lands, in my neighbor's hay meadow. Did you know we have to board up our haystacks in the West or the elk and the deer will eat all the hay and leave us none for our own livestock? They do not winter on public lands because there is no water and there is no feed. It is covered up. They have to winter on private lands. So are we so bad? I do not think so. We would not have it any other way because we are all hunters and fishermen and we enjoy the sights of big game. We want to maintain the habitat. We enjoy seeing those elk. We enjoy this season of the year when they start bugling. Go out and listen. That is what makes my State worth living in. It costs more money and the timber sale budget offers us an opportunity to feed our Nation's need for raw materials while employing Montanans and making and protecting habitat. We are talking about balance. Someone is buying that lumber or we would not have the demand to harvest it. Harvesting a crop is not a sin. To the contrary, it keeps this country moving forward. It provides the timber to build our homes, and it provides the paper that often gets shuffled back and forth in this town. Quite simply, a timber sale budget is essential to America for food and fiber by proud producers. That is what it is all about. They do not like to be lied to. They do not even require much support. They ask very little. They ask to grow, to plant, nurture, and harvest. That is what it is all about. How did those people who work in natural resources and agriculture-- and this is agriculture in its highest form--who are responsible for 22 or 23 percent of the Nation's GDP become bad folks? How did we get that way? Because we used the resources around us, and our definition of conservation is the wise use of a natural renewable resource. Think about that. Twenty-three percent of the GDP in this Nation is in the production and the feeding of this country. It is unbelievable how that can be overlooked. I ask my colleagues to contemplate the alternative. Let's say we quit harvesting trees in America, and that is what some extremist groups want us to do, or they want to make it so expensive we cannot compete on the open market. Do you realize that I have mills in Montana that are hauling logs 500 miles, out of where? Canada. So is your demand for lumber so high that you want to so-called devastate the Canadian land? I do not think so. Why do people like to visit States such as Montana? No. 1, we are kind of authentic. Because we have done a pretty good job of taking care of it. And it is true of our good neighbors to the west in Idaho. It makes us the friendliest and the nicest people you will ever meet. But our people are starting to get cranky because their livelihood is being taken away from them, their ability to take care of themselves, by the rest of the country in its desire for the food and fiber that it takes for us to subsist. So if you want to see our forests die in front of us, if you want to see our wildlife choked out of its habitat, and if you want to see our rural communities die, and to see foreign corporate timber production unfettered, fueled by our need for fiber, then vote for the Bryan amendment. That is what it is all about. But there is balance here. I urge my colleagues to vote to maintain that balance. We believe in the balance of our forest lands and good stewardship. If you want to talk about stewardship, we have a stewardship plan that is getting started on a trial basis in Montana that is being participated in by a lot of people, including very small harvesters. So if you say you want a stewardship program, you have one. It is a good one. It is a dandy. It will work. But we cannot make it work unless we have funds to balance the needs of our forests. I thank the Chair and my chairman and yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this amendment. I think it sets a bad precedent because I think it is bad politics. I just came back from my State, as most of us did, and talked to my agricultural producers. We have a predator problem in Montana. Let me tell you about a conversation I had with a good friend in Glasgow, MT. They are sheep producers. They run from the Fort Peck Reservoir south towards Circle, MT. That is McCone Valley and Roosevelt County. They have trapped and killed 90 coyotes on their ranch, and they are still run over with them. This lies along the CMR Wildlife Refuge in Montana along the Missouri River. Those sheep are smart enough to stay in that refuge. The only time we can get them is when they come out. They lose about 300 lambs a day. I don't know how many people can sustain that much loss. But this particular trap is sort of needed, whether it be in the use of predator control, whether it be used on the refuge, or on BLM or private land. I said yesterday that on one of the amendments one of these days this body is going to be hit by a large bolt of common sense. Then I don't know what is going to happen. We will not know how to deal with things here. But I will tell you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposes this amendment. They are the ones who manage the refuge systems. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies that represents the 50 fish and wildlife agencies and conservation groups-- which includes the Izaak Walton League of America--all oppose this amendment. They oppose it for the simple reason that we get a little loose with definitions. I think the point is that nobody likes to see the suffering and catching the wrong animal in the wrong trap. I would question the 80 to 90 percent wrong animal figure. I would question that because no trapper I know, whether they did it as a sportsman for recreation, whether they did it to prevent predation on livestock, or whether they did it for a living, worth his salt, who knows how to trap, has figures similar to this. There is none that I know. And we have quite a few of them in my State. So I ask we oppose and defeat this amendment. It is taking away some of those tools that do not meet the definition. We say, if States OK it for recreation, then define recreation. We know it has a habit of spilling over into areas where, if we cannot use these traps to prevent predation, then we are again put at the mercy of predators, of which we have many. Businesses cannot sustain those losses. Maybe no one cares whether businesses sustain themselves or not. Let's face it; they have human faces, too, in this situation. So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be divided as follows: Senator Daschle or his designee in control of the first 30 minutes; Senator Thomas in control of the second 30 minutes. I further ask consent that immediately following the use or yielding back of those times, the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 today for the weekly policy luncheons. I further ask unanimous consent that following the votes at 2:20, Senator Feingold be recognized to speak in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Therefore, I now ask for the yeas and nays on Calendar Nos. 173 and 175.

Mr. BURNS. I also ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time on both nominations.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 173 and 175. I further ask unanimous consent that following 5 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form, the Senate then proceed immediately to two consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations with no intervening action or debate. I also ask unanimous consent that following the votes on the nominations, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the impassioned plea of my friend from Oregon. Last week, we sold a lumber mill in Montana. Darby Lumber went down because they could not get logs. Mills are hauling logs in from Canada, 500 miles, and it is like my friend from Oregon said--we are decimating our neighbors' lands because we have not had the nerve to be honest with the American people. To give you an idea, up in the northwestern part of Montana, we are growing about 120 million board feet of lumber a year. The Forest Service makes plans to harvest about 19 million board feet. The truth is, America, we will be lucky if we harvest 6 million board feet. Opposition to section 329 flatly contradicts previous positions taken by the environmental community and this administration on the best methods for protecting wildlife. Section 329 would restore to the administration the authority to plan and account for wildlife protection by surveying habitat--a method employed for over two decades and that has been approved by seven Federal courts, including three circuit courts of appeal. The recent Eleventh Circuit decision contradicted this consensus judicial opinion and would require the agency to provide protection to wildlife by counting--not once but twice--the number of members of each of 20 to 40 management indicator and sensitive species before undertaking any ground-disturbing activities in our national forests--be it timber harvesting, be it watershed restoration, be it trail building, be it maintenance, or be it for the prevention of fire. I guess this is one reason you can't run a pretty good ranch or a pretty good farm that depends on renewable resources by a committee, for the difference of opinion on how we should do things. If left to that, we would never get in a crop. America would never have a substantial, sustaining supply of food. The emphasis the Forest Service has placed on habitat availability instead of counting the members of individual species is exactly the policy advocated by the environmental community. I wonder, at this time when they change the policy, what is the motive here? What is the motive? Is it us against them? I don't think so. I don't know of anybody who stands in this body to decimate the environment. But I wonder, of all the fires that are burning in the West today, if a little management on fuel buildup could not have prevented some of those. But somebody thought a mouse was too important that we can't disturb the land, and it burns. Virtually every environmental organization has insisted the law be reformed to address habitat protection and away from narrow species-by- species focus. Indeed, the provision in the Endangered Species Act that the environmentalists most frequently quote in both the Senate and the House, and in Federal courtrooms across the country, is the first phrase in the statement of purpose in section 2(b): The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be preserved. Now, we can argue on philosophy, but I think we are arguing on politics, and what is at stake is families. Also, what is at stake is the forest itself. I invite the Senator from Virginia to go with me this weekend. I will take him up in the Yak, where we have infestation of the pine beetle, dying trees, and a forest that would just shock him. It would absolutely shock him to his shoes. He would be devastated, looking at that forest. Yet the environmental community has made up its mind that we are not going to harvest; we are going to let it burn. I don't think that is why the Senator from Virginia wore the uniform as long as he did, to protect that kind of mismanagement of the country he so loves, or even the people he so loves. The administration has been even more adamant in insisting on a habitat approach to wildlife protection. That is what they told us when they first came to office. It has championed two land management concepts--ecosystem management and biological diversity protection-- that rely entirely on methodologies which concentrate on habitat rather than individual species. Certainly, ecosystem management is a fancy way of saying habitat management. I don't have very many of those fancy words; I have to write them down. But it is funny what you can see from horseback. Sometimes you can see over tall mountains and tall buildings and over very high-minded ideas that don't work. They have never worked; they never will work. So, too, when biological diversity is considered, conservation biologists insist on treating habitat as the source of wildlife and plant diversity and resist focusing on individual species. They have always done that. We have embraced that philosophy and that approach. That means we can do something about managing our land in the highest standard of environmental protection and still harvest the crop with which the God above has so blessed this country. Finally, the capstone of this administration's wildlife policy is the habitat conservation planning and incidental take, permitting it is conducting with private landowners helping them provide habitat for endangered species. How can a man stand here and even talk about endangered species when you have only one crop that you get paid once a year for and you see wolves killing right out of your own pasture not 300 feet away from where you live? And there is not a thing you can do about it. Does anyone want to go out and face that man and tell him and his family, well, we have some folks that like to hear that yipping and howling? After they get done with their kill, they will go across the creek, which is only about 400 yards, and they will lay there and they will rest until they get hungry again. That is almost unbelievable to me. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about something that doesn't work. We are talking about people who are very smart and very intelligent but have little or no wisdom--higher than thee, elitist--who prevent men and women who were born of the soil, born of the land, worked the land, and will die and go back to the land. I guess one could say we are all just circling the brink because that is where we are going to go. Maybe you never know how that is going to turn out. Despite the solid momentum away from attention to single species and toward consideration of habitats, we now see the very advocates of this approach criticizing it in their attacks on section 329. I wonder how they will feel when they are successful in stripping 329 from the bill only to discover that the U.S. Forest Service--one of the first agencies to adopt a habitat approach to wildlife protection--must now abandon it to follow the expensive--in fact, it is too expensive. We know that the money will never be appropriated. So it will not be done. It is an outdated process of counting individual members of one species after another, like I said, not once but twice. I am just asking that we have an attack of common sense--just common sense, everyday common sense that the rest of America uses every day just to subsist. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. so that the weekly party conferences can meet. Following the conference meetings, the Senate will move to executive session for the consideration of two judicial nominees. Therefore, Senators can expect two consecutive votes at 2:15 today. When the Senate returns to legislative session, it will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. Amendments are expected to be offered, and therefore Senators can expect additional votes throughout today's session. It is hoped that the Senate can complete the Interior appropriations bill on Thursday at a reasonable time. As a reminder, there will be no votes on Friday in observance of the Rosh Hashanah holiday. The majority leader looks forward to a productive legislative period as we complete the appropriations process, and he thanks all Senators in advance for their cooperation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. I welcome our colleagues back from the August recess.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a significant, but often overlooked historical event in our nation's past-Montana's Mann Gulch Fire which occurred 50 years ago today. This event continues to capture the nation's attention because thirteen brave, young men died fighting this fire. LIFE Magazine ran a big story shortly after this fire. In 1952, Hollywood made a movie about this unfortunate disaster called ``Red Skies of Montana.'' And Norman Maclean, who wrote the famous book ``A River Runs Through It'', wrote a haunting bestseller entitled ``Young Men and Fire'' in 1992. But even more remarkable, this single event marked a turning point in the way the federal government fights wildland fires. It was a hot summer day in August 1949, not unlike what we have recently experienced, when a Forest Service Fire Guard, James Harrison, reported a small fire in a little, funnel-shaped gulch along the Missouri River. The temperature was 97 degrees with a light wind from the north and east. The fire was located 20 miles north of Helena, Montana in a roadless area called the Gates of the Mountain. Parachuting 15 smokejumpers was decided to be the best approach to reach this remote area quickly to control this relatively ordinary fire. Once on the ground, the smokejumpers joined the Forest Service Fire Guard to fight the fire. As they moved down the gulch toward the Missouri River, the wind quickly shifted from the south, funneling a strong wind up the gulch. As they got near the Missouri River, a wall of fire blocked their access to the river. The fire was getting hotter and swiftly moving up the gulch. Retreating back was their only solution, however, it was a hard hike back up the steep rocky slope of the gulch. As the firefighters retreated, dropping their equipment, a 30 foot wall of fire raced toward them and eventually overcame them. In the end, only three firefighters survived--Wagner ``Wag'' Dodge, Walter Rumsey, and Robert Sallee. Thirteen firefighters died as a testament to the power of a fire ``blow up'' which had raced down and back up the slopes of Mann Gulch faster than men could travel. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to name those thirteen brave young men who lost their lives that day--Robert Bennett, Eldon Diettert, James Harrison, William Hellman, Philip McVey, David Navon, Leonard Piper, Stanley Reba, Marvin Sherman, Joseph Sylvia, Henry Thol, Jr., Newton Thompson, and Silas Thompson. This tragic loss 50 years ago, however, should not be remembered only in a somber way. We should remember the many positive changes that have come from this disaster. After investigating the Mann Gulch Fire, the federal government made a stronger investment in fighting wildland fires. For example, in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower personally opened the Aerial Fire Depot in Missoula, Montana. Understanding how wildland fires behave and how to best fight them also increased with the opening of research laboratories in Missoula, Montana and Macon, Georgia. Development of new techniques, such as ``safety zones'' and new technologies, such as reflective ``fire shelters,'' were made to increase the protection of fire fighters in the midst of a fire. These changes were made in large measure due to the sacrifice these thirteen brave men made on August 5, 1949. There is one last step that needs to be taken. Congress needs to address some of the problems in maintaining the high quality of our nation's fire fighting crews. Yesterday I introduced legislation which will do that. I trust my colleagues will join with me in supporting this bill to ensure its passage. What could be a more fitting tribute to all the brave men and women who have lost their lives fighting wildland fires than to enact legislation this year to strengthen the quality of our nation's firefighting crews. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring these brave men for their dedication, sacrifice, and contributions to protect America from wildland fires. To these men who revered honor and honored duty, we salute them.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madame President, I am very pleased to introduce the ``Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999,'' along with my colleagues Senator Wyden, Senator Lott and Senator Hollings. This critical legislation was championed last year by my good friend and former colleague Senator Ford. The Commerce Committee unanimously reported this bill on October 2, 1998 but unfortunately there was not sufficient time to complete action on the bill. Low power television stations (LPTV) offer their communities significant services including valuable local and other specialized programming to unserved and underserved audiences throughout the United States. As secondary service broadcasters, they remain vulnerable to displacement and encounter huge problems with capital formation but have significant infrastructure requirements. This legislation has a very simple but important purpose. It provides an opportunity for LPTV licensees to convert their temporary licenses to permanent licenses. While the opportunity is available to all licensees, the legislation provides that only those who do a significant amount of local programming in their service areas are eligible for the class A permanent licenses. To ensure a serious and high quality level of local broadcasting by all class A licensees, this bill also requires that all class A licensees comply with the operating rules for full power stations. I would like to emphasize that this bill takes into account the hearings that were held last year before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, during which the Federal Communications Commission noted that the previous bill was not sufficiently flexible to address unforeseen engineering-related problems concerning the transition to digital television. The current bill provides that flexibility to ensure that the Commission can make whatever engineering changes that are necessary, even channel changes, to ensure that every full power station in the U.S. can achieve digital television service replication of its analog service area. I thank my colleagues for their support on this vital piece of legislation and look forward to seeing it passed by the Senate and into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has unanimously passed the ``e-911 Act of 1999.'' The e-911 bill is simple--it makes 911 the universal emergency number. This bill will help save lives and is supported by a broad range of public safety, emergency medical, consumer and citizen groups. These groups represent the operators and users of the 911 system, those with direct experience with the problems with today's system. Over seventy million Americans carry wireless telephones. Many carry them for safety reasons. People count on those phones to be their lifelines in emergencies. In fact, 98,000 people are counting on their wireless phones in emergencies everyday. That is how many wireless 911 calls are made a day, 98,000. But there's a problem. In many parts of our country, when the frantic parent or the suddenly disabled older person punches 911 on the wireless phone, nothing happens. In those locations, 911 is not the emergency number. The ambulance and the police won't be coming. You may be facing a terrible emergency, but you're on your own, because you don't know the local number to call for emergencies. ``The e-911 Act of 1999'' will help fix that problem by making 911 the number to call in an emergency--anytime, everywhere. The rule in America ought to be uniform and simple--if you have an emergency, wherever you are, dial 911. More and more, wireless communications is the critical link that can help get emergency medical care to those in the ``golden hour'' when timely care can mean the difference between life and death. I thank my colleagues for their hard work in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madame President, I am very pleased to introduce the ``Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999,'' along with my colleagues Senator Wyden, Senator Lott and Senator Hollings. This critical legislation was championed last year by my good friend and former colleague Senator Ford. The Commerce Committee unanimously reported this bill on October 2, 1998 but unfortunately there was not sufficient time to complete action on the bill. Low power television stations (LPTV) offer their communities significant services including valuable local and other specialized programming to unserved and underserved audiences throughout the United States. As secondary service broadcasters, they remain vulnerable to displacement and encounter huge problems with capital formation but have significant infrastructure requirements. This legislation has a very simple but important purpose. It provides an opportunity for LPTV licensees to convert their temporary licenses to permanent licenses. While the opportunity is available to all licensees, the legislation provides that only those who do a significant amount of local programming in their service areas are eligible for the class A permanent licenses. To ensure a serious and high quality level of local broadcasting by all class A licensees, this bill also requires that all class A licensees comply with the operating rules for full power stations. I would like to emphasize that this bill takes into account the hearings that were held last year before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, during which the Federal Communications Commission noted that the previous bill was not sufficiently flexible to address unforeseen engineering-related problems concerning the transition to digital television. The current bill provides that flexibility to ensure that the Commission can make whatever engineering changes that are necessary, even channel changes, to ensure that every full power station in the U.S. can achieve digital television service replication of its analog service area. I thank my colleagues for their support on this vital piece of legislation and look forward to seeing it passed by the Senate and into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to one of Montana's greatest citizens, the Honorable James F. Battin, Sr. Jim Battin was born in Wichita, Kansas, and at the age of four, moved to Billings, Montana, where he was raised. After graduating from high school, he served for three years in the U.S. Navy during World War II, spending most of that time in the Pacific theater. Following the war, Jim returned home to continue his education, graduating first from Eastern Montana College in Billings and later receiving his J.D. from George Washington University. He continued his career in public service as a city attorney in Billings, and in 1958, he was elected to the Montana state legislature. Only two years later, he successfully ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was quickly assigned seats on the House Committee on Committees, as well as Ways and Means, two very prestigious seats for a freshman member of Congress. Jim later served on the House Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees, and was ultimately elected five times by the people of his district, which then covered the eastern half of the state of Montana. During his congressional career, which lasted from 1961 to 1969, Congressman Battin played an instrumental role in a good deal of legislation, including the bill which created Montana's Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, at the time the largest wildlife area in the United States. Jim also served as one of two U.S. Congressional Representatives to the Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration, which met in Geneva. This group helped individuals who were expelled from behind the Iron Curtain to re-establish businesses in other countries, or to find work in other occupations. In 1968, Congressman Battin was President Nixon's representative to the Platform Committee at the Republican National Committee, and shortly thereafter, in early 1969, he became President Nixon's first judicial appointment. He served as a U.S. district judge for the district of Montana for 27 years, becoming its Chief Judge in 1978. During his time on the bench, Judge Battin issued key rulings affecting the lives of Montana citizens, among them his ruling which preserved access to the Bighorn River for people throughout the state, and his creation of the precedent for the now universally accepted six-man federal jury in civil cases. A dedicated and hard working man, James F. Battin Sr. remained on the bench until his passing in the autumn of 1996. It was with these facts in mind, Mr. President, that led to my support of H.R. 158, a bill which would designate the United States courthouse located at 316 North 26th Street in Billings, Montana, as the ``James F. Battin United States Courthouse''. Congress passed H.R. 158 earlier this year, and it was signed into law by the President on April 5th, 1999, as Public Law 106-11. I believe that the renaming of this courthouse, which Judge Battin presided over for so long, is the most fitting tribute that the United States Congress and the people of Montana can pay to this great man, whose outstanding career in public service spanned over 40 years. Come next Monday, when this building is officially rechristened with its new name, I think all of us should take a moment to tip our hats in thanks to Judge Battin for a job well-done. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas. I will be very brief. I do not know of any piece of legislation that has ever been proposed having to do with agriculture that has been perfect. If there is one place where it is hard to find a one size fits all, it is in this business of agriculture because we are diverse in climate, in growing conditions, in crops, and everything else. It is pretty tough to find that perfect bill. What we have sought is balance. On balance, I think this addresses the needs as we think they are now, and also it is a step towards what we think it will be at the end of the crop year. I think it is very important that the commitment to agriculture is here. Without changing programs, putting cash on the farm as fast as we possibly can is in this piece of legislation. Let's take it for what it is. Sure, we can sit and pick it apart. Yes, we would like to see some things changed for Montana that won't fit the things in Mississippi. But I think what we have is balance. With the leadership of Senator Roberts and Senator Craig, and a lot of us who have worked very hard on this for a long time, knowing the prospects in front of us, I thank them for their leadership. I yield the floor.