Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice in support of the juvenile justice bill currently before the Senate. This is an extensive, thoughtful approach to try to decrease the juvenile crime rate and to try to intervene in today's high-risk youth. I stand before you to tell you that this is not only an urban problem. In our largest city, Billings, we have about 80,000 people, small by most States' standards. However, we also have gangs. Size and closeness of community doesn't innoculate us from the effects of our society. Even our tribal population is affected by juvenile crime. Youth on our reservations are being solicited for gang enrollment at increasingly earlier ages. From Billings to Fort Belknap, from Helena to Havre, from Gallatin to Glasgow to Great Falls, no area of the state is immune from the problem of juvenile delinquency. This bill finally tries to provide a focused approach to both reach today's youth and to prosecute violent criminals. I would like to say that I agree and support all provisions of this bill. However, like most major legislation, there are some minor issues that cause me concern. But what we are really trying to do here is to intervene early in a youth's criminal career. By stopping the spree early, we prevent a lifetime of crime and create a contributing member of society. Let me highlight why this bill is so drastically different from any previous juvenile justice legislation. First and foremost, this bill establishes a $450 million block grant program for state and local governments to establish youth violence programs. This almost doubles the FY 99 spending in equivalent programs. These funds can be used for record keeping, detention facilities, restitution programs, anti- truancy programs, gang intervention, crime training programs, and vocational training. In addition, it encourages the establishment of programs that will punish adults who knowingly use juveniles to help commit crimes. This is a key provision, since often adults will use kids in crime specifically because they are exempt from some of the stiffer penalties that apply to adults. I have long been a proponent of enforcing existing laws. Right now, there is little additional penalty for repeat juvenile offenders. This law provides for graduated penalties to put some real teeth into law enforcement. There is also a juvenile version of the ``Brady bill,'' which prevents a person convicted of a violent felon of possessing a firearm. Overall, this bill provides $1 billion specifically for juvenile crime programs. It covers everything from education to intervention. This comprehensive package will make significant strides in trying to keep our most precious commodity, our youth, out of harms way. I will be casting my vote in favor of this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today, along with Senator Inhofe, the Schools and Libraries Internet Access Act of 1999. This bill addresses a timely and critical issue, that of the implementation of the schools and libraries program. Recently, new charges began appearing on people's telephone bills. These are the charges which providers are assessing to pay for the expansion of ``universal service'' in the form of the ``schools and libraries'' program. This bill is especially timely since Chairman Kennard announced last week that he's calling for a $1 billion annual increase in the e-rate program. That's an additional Billion in taxes that would be enacted without any review or commentary in Congress, and, most importantly, without a vote by our citizens' representatives. Congress needs to step to the plate and provide specific funding for this program that we all feel is important for rural and low-income regions. I don't think anyone in the Senate ever thought that the limited language which we included in the 1996 Act would be used to create a massive new entitlement program through universal service. Universal service has historically meant the provision of telecommunications services to all Americans, regardless of geographical location. The FCC has expanded the definition of universal service to include broad- ranging social programs, which has caused the Commission's progress toward maintaining universal service to be delayed. While such goals as providing Internet access to schools and libraries may be laudable, they were never meant to be part of universal service as it has traditionally been known. Indeed, a huge additional burden has been placed on rural states like Montana in meeting these newfound definitions. I want to make it clear, however, that I have always supported the goal of connecting all of our schools to the Internet, as well as the provision of advanced telecommunications services to rural health care centers. I just felt that it was wrong to fund these programs on the backs of American consumers. It is with this in mind that I have proposed using an outdated 3 percent excise tax on telephones to fund the schools and libraries and rural health care programs. Currently, none of the money collected by the tax goes to fund telephone service for Americans. This tax was designed to fund World War I and was instituted in an era where telephones were a luxury. Well, World War I should be paid for by now and phones are certainly no longer a luxury item. The 3 percent tax was kept alive to provide revenue to offset the deficit. In today's climate of budgetary surplus, this justification no longer makes sense. My proposal calls for cutting the excise tax by two-thirds and using the remaining third to fund the schools and libraries program and the rural health care program. This proposal is a win/win solution. It's a win for consumers, since it would eliminate the need for new charges on telephone service. It's a win for taxpayers, who would see billions of dollars in current taxes eliminated. It's a win for our schools, libraries and rural health care centers, who would see their programs fully funded without threatening universal service. With the support of the other members of Congress and the leadership of the Senate, I believe this proposal can solve the current crisis we face in funding the schools and libraries and rural health care programs. The Schools and Libraries Internet Access Act of 1999 is an important effort to shape the future of online access. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today, along with Senator Inhofe, the Schools and Libraries Internet Access Act of 1999. This bill addresses a timely and critical issue, that of the implementation of the schools and libraries program. Recently, new charges began appearing on people's telephone bills. These are the charges which providers are assessing to pay for the expansion of ``universal service'' in the form of the ``schools and libraries'' program. This bill is especially timely since Chairman Kennard announced last week that he's calling for a $1 billion annual increase in the e-rate program. That's an additional Billion in taxes that would be enacted without any review or commentary in Congress, and, most importantly, without a vote by our citizens' representatives. Congress needs to step to the plate and provide specific funding for this program that we all feel is important for rural and low-income regions. I don't think anyone in the Senate ever thought that the limited language which we included in the 1996 Act would be used to create a massive new entitlement program through universal service. Universal service has historically meant the provision of telecommunications services to all Americans, regardless of geographical location. The FCC has expanded the definition of universal service to include broad- ranging social programs, which has caused the Commission's progress toward maintaining universal service to be delayed. While such goals as providing Internet access to schools and libraries may be laudable, they were never meant to be part of universal service as it has traditionally been known. Indeed, a huge additional burden has been placed on rural states like Montana in meeting these newfound definitions. I want to make it clear, however, that I have always supported the goal of connecting all of our schools to the Internet, as well as the provision of advanced telecommunications services to rural health care centers. I just felt that it was wrong to fund these programs on the backs of American consumers. It is with this in mind that I have proposed using an outdated 3 percent excise tax on telephones to fund the schools and libraries and rural health care programs. Currently, none of the money collected by the tax goes to fund telephone service for Americans. This tax was designed to fund World War I and was instituted in an era where telephones were a luxury. Well, World War I should be paid for by now and phones are certainly no longer a luxury item. The 3 percent tax was kept alive to provide revenue to offset the deficit. In today's climate of budgetary surplus, this justification no longer makes sense. My proposal calls for cutting the excise tax by two-thirds and using the remaining third to fund the schools and libraries program and the rural health care program. This proposal is a win/win solution. It's a win for consumers, since it would eliminate the need for new charges on telephone service. It's a win for taxpayers, who would see billions of dollars in current taxes eliminated. It's a win for our schools, libraries and rural health care centers, who would see their programs fully funded without threatening universal service. With the support of the other members of Congress and the leadership of the Senate, I believe this proposal can solve the current crisis we face in funding the schools and libraries and rural health care programs. The Schools and Libraries Internet Access Act of 1999 is an important effort to shape the future of online access. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to join my Senate colleagues in supporting the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Benefit Improvement Act of 1999. This bill corrects a discrepancy between what Congress intended at the creation of this Act in 1972, and how it eventually got implemented. I have always believed that the people most affected by military service are not the service members, it is the family. The spouses that raise kids on their own during a deployment. The sons and daughters that change schools in the middle of a school year because a parent got assigned to a new base. It's hard to make up for missed soccer games and scout meetings. The Senate has already passed legislation to try to improve some of these areas of quality of life, but S.4 was passed absent one item that I feel is very important, especially to our elderly military retirees living in Montana. The uniformed services spousal benefit annuity provides 55 percent of retirement pay for a surviving military spouse, as long as the spouse is under age 62. Once the survivor reaches age 62, the benefit drops as low as 35 percent of retired pay. Let me put it on a more familiar level. If a Korean War-era Marine had signed up for this plan after his 20 years of military service, when he passed on, his wife would only get 35 percent of his eligible retirement pay, instead of the 55 percent she would have received if she was under age 62. No other federal retirement plan has this age-oriented cut. It was also intended for Congress to pay 40 percent of the benefit, and premiums for the plan were set up with that target in mind. Unfortunately, the actuaries were too pessimistic, and as a result, premiums now pay for 73 percent of the cost, with congress paying for 27 percent. This is a far cry from the 40 percent we originally intended. Other federal civilian survivor benefit plans pay up to a 50 percent subsidy with no reduction after age 62. This bill corrects the problem by stepping up the federal share of military retirement to 45 percent by FY 2005. Given the sacrifices by our service men and women and their families, it's time we provided fair survivors benefits and fulfill our original Congressional intent. I'm grateful to Senator Thurmond for introducing this legislation to correct this discrepancy and for letting me vocalize my support for this bill by including me as a co-sponsor. I'm confident that the Armed Services Subcommittee will give this a favorable review, and I look forward to supporting it when it comes to the floor. I encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this important provision as well.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, shared appreciation agreements have the potential to cause hundreds of farm foreclosures across the nation, and especially in my home state of Montana. Ten years ago, a large number of farmers signed these agreements. At that time they were under the impression that they would be required to pay these back at the end of ten years, at a reasonable rate of redemption. However, that has not proved to be the case. The appraisals being conducted by the Farm Service Agency are showing increased values of ridiculous proportions. By all standards, one would expect the value to have decreased. Farm prices are the lowest they have been in years, and there does not seem to be a quick recovery forthcoming. Farmers cannot possibly be expected to pay back a value twice the amount they originally wrote down. Especially in light of the current market situation, I believe something must be done about the way these appraisals are conducted. I am aware of one case in which the amount of the shared appreciation agreement was estimated at $167,500. The increased value was estimated at $335,000! When agricultural prices are at nearly an all-time low, farmers can barely keep up with their current payment schedules. They certainly cannot pay twice what they already owe. USDA is attempting to fix the problem with proposed rules and regulations but farmers need help with these agreements now. I cannot stand idly by and wait for bureaucratic regulations to go through the ``process'' while farmers and ranchers are forced out of business. The USDA has issued an emergency rule which will allow people who are unable to pay their shared appreciation agreement on time, to extend their current loan for up to three years. The interest rate on this extension will be at the government's cost of borrowing. Also, the USDA is allowing farmers to take out an additional loan at an interest rate of 9.25% to pay off the amount owed on the shared appreciation agreement. There is also consideration being given to decreasing the number of years on shared appreciation agreements from ten to five. I appreciate the efforts by the USDA to alleviate the financial burden these shared appreciation agreements impose upon farmers, and hope that farmers are able to take advantage of them. However, as I have stated, time is of the essence. Another proposed regulation, which will require a public comment period of 60 days, will exclude capital investments from the increase in appreciation. However, this proposal has not yet been published and is not expected to be for at least another month. After that, the comment period will further drag out the process and in the meantime more farmers will be forced into foreclosure. To ensure this regulation on excluding capital investments from the increase in value is carried out, I intend to make it mandatory by legislation. Farmers should not be penalized for attempting to better their operations. Nor can they be expected to delay capital improvements so that they will not be penalized. Additionally, my legislation will require the appraisal to be conducted by a certified appraiser from the state where the land is located. This will prevent out-of-state appraisal businesses from conducting appraisals in land areas they know nothing about. How can an appraisal company in Arizona be expected to do an accurate appraisal on land in Montana? It is not fair to the producers on that land to have their appraisal conducted by outside interests. I look forward to working with members in other states to alleviate the financial burdens imposed by shared appreciation agreements. I hope that we may move this through the legislative process quickly to provide help as soon as possible to our farmers. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, shared appreciation agreements have the potential to cause hundreds of farm foreclosures across the nation, and especially in my home state of Montana. Ten years ago, a large number of farmers signed these agreements. At that time they were under the impression that they would be required to pay these back at the end of ten years, at a reasonable rate of redemption. However, that has not proved to be the case. The appraisals being conducted by the Farm Service Agency are showing increased values of ridiculous proportions. By all standards, one would expect the value to have decreased. Farm prices are the lowest they have been in years, and there does not seem to be a quick recovery forthcoming. Farmers cannot possibly be expected to pay back a value twice the amount they originally wrote down. Especially in light of the current market situation, I believe something must be done about the way these appraisals are conducted. I am aware of one case in which the amount of the shared appreciation agreement was estimated at $167,500. The increased value was estimated at $335,000! When agricultural prices are at nearly an all-time low, farmers can barely keep up with their current payment schedules. They certainly cannot pay twice what they already owe. USDA is attempting to fix the problem with proposed rules and regulations but farmers need help with these agreements now. I cannot stand idly by and wait for bureaucratic regulations to go through the ``process'' while farmers and ranchers are forced out of business. The USDA has issued an emergency rule which will allow people who are unable to pay their shared appreciation agreement on time, to extend their current loan for up to three years. The interest rate on this extension will be at the government's cost of borrowing. Also, the USDA is allowing farmers to take out an additional loan at an interest rate of 9.25% to pay off the amount owed on the shared appreciation agreement. There is also consideration being given to decreasing the number of years on shared appreciation agreements from ten to five. I appreciate the efforts by the USDA to alleviate the financial burden these shared appreciation agreements impose upon farmers, and hope that farmers are able to take advantage of them. However, as I have stated, time is of the essence. Another proposed regulation, which will require a public comment period of 60 days, will exclude capital investments from the increase in appreciation. However, this proposal has not yet been published and is not expected to be for at least another month. After that, the comment period will further drag out the process and in the meantime more farmers will be forced into foreclosure. To ensure this regulation on excluding capital investments from the increase in value is carried out, I intend to make it mandatory by legislation. Farmers should not be penalized for attempting to better their operations. Nor can they be expected to delay capital improvements so that they will not be penalized. Additionally, my legislation will require the appraisal to be conducted by a certified appraiser from the state where the land is located. This will prevent out-of-state appraisal businesses from conducting appraisals in land areas they know nothing about. How can an appraisal company in Arizona be expected to do an accurate appraisal on land in Montana? It is not fair to the producers on that land to have their appraisal conducted by outside interests. I look forward to working with members in other states to alleviate the financial burdens imposed by shared appreciation agreements. I hope that we may move this through the legislative process quickly to provide help as soon as possible to our farmers. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand in support of S. 880, Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, to provide relief for small businesses and to increase security of information from potential terrorists. This bill will specifically exclude toxic flammable fuels from Section 112 of the Clean Air Act which requires businesses provide public information on stored flammable fuels and how they would respond to emergencies should a disaster occur. When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, Congress required the Environmental Protection Agency, under Section 112, to provide public information on a list of 100 substances which might cause injury or death to humans or adverse effects to the environment in an accident. EPA added flammable fuels to this list of 100 substances. This means that people who store and distribute flammable fuels are required to provide public information about their operations and how they would respond to an accident. These Risk Management Plans provide information on hazards associated with the fuels, safety measures and maintenance, and a worst-case scenario with an emergency response plan. This detailed information, although intended to provide citizens near a fuel facility knowledge about their local risks, also provide dangerous information to potential terrorists. The worst-case scenario information especially could provide potential terrorists with valuable information about how to destroy a flammable fuel facility. I recognize the constant struggle between providing public access to and security protections of information about flammable fuels. However, given that public safety is adequately protected through existing federal laws and state building and fire codes, I believe no further requirements are needed. Also people who store flammable fuels are very safety conscious given the unstable nature of the product they work with. The safety record on the storage of flammable fuels is good and demonstrates that current regulatory requirements are adequate. Without any clear problem of the existing framework of protections, I do not see why these substances should be further regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. By regulating flammable fuels under this provision of the Clean Air Act, fuel distributors might be hurt. For example, distributors might reduce their storage capacity of flammable fuels affecting their ability to meet local customer demands. Also if businesses and farmers reduce their stored levels of flammable fuels, fuel switching might be encouraged further adversely affecting distributors. This could limit the flexibility and health of these small businesses and farmers. Basically, it would ensure that the ``Hank Hills'' of the world (a character on the Fox network who is a propane small businessman) are not put out of business. Thus, I trust my colleagues will rise with me to support this bill to provide relief for small businesses and farmers struggling to survive while ensuring security against disclosure of explosive information to potential terrorists.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I join my friend from Washington in welcoming Father Mackay. His family has deep roots in the State of Montana. If you ever hear of the brands TopHat and LazyEL, those are famous brands in our State up in the Red Lodge country and Roscoe, MT. We have bumper stickers saying, ``Where in the world is Roscoe?'' I welcome Father Mackay. He comes from a family of folks who have donated resources and time to public service. He was also the pastor in Billings before going to Washington. We hated to lose him from the Billings community. But when you look at the family and his uncles and going back to his grandfather, they have a rich tradition and great American values. Of course, I thank Dr. Ogilvie for allowing this privilege today and welcome Don to the Senate and to Washington, DC. I often call this 17 square miles of logic free environment, but knowing Father Mackay, he will have it all figured out by the end of the day. So welcome. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. Today is April 15, Tax Day, and I would like to remind my colleagues how many Americans define this day. On May 10, 1773, the British parliament authorized the East India Tea Company to export a half a million pounds of tea to the American colonies for the purpose of selling it without imposing upon the company the usual duties and tariffs. It was their intention to try to save the corrupt and mismanaged company from bankruptcy. The effect was that the company could undersell any other tea available in the colonies, including smuggled tea. The disruption to American commerce was unacceptable to many, including Sam Adams of Boston. On November 27, 1773, three ships loaded with such tea landed at Boston and were prevented from unloading their cargo. Fearing that the tea would be seized for failure to pay customs duties, and eventually become available for sale, Adams and the Boston Whigs arranged a solution. On the night of December 16, 1773, a group of colonists, disguised as Mohawk Indians, snuck aboard the ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. The King's response was the passing of the Intolerable Acts which precipitated the forming of the First Continental Congress to consider united resistance. As we all know, this was the beginning of what is today the longest standing Democracy in the history of civilization. It is important to reflect on the actions taken on that day in that harbor. It is also important to recognize today is not very different from that historic day. Generally speaking, governments are short-lived and short-sighted. It is the responsibility of Congress to represent the wishes of the people. It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure the people are not abused by the federal government. Acts of arrogance will not be tolerated. Acts of aggression will be punished. It has long been instilled in our land to criticize the Internal Revenue Service. Last year, Congress had the opportunity to address many of these criticisms. But I need to ask the question--Is the IRS listening? Over 123 million families will file 1040 returns this year. I have heard from many of these families. I have spoken with Montana families about their trials with the IRS. I have spoken with Montana families about the difficulty of scratching out a living on modest wages and then being forced to pay a significant amount of that on taxes. Where does the blame lie? Federal spending is the gorilla on the taxpayer's back. The problem also lies with our Nation's Tax Code. How complicated is the Tax Code? Complicated enough to require significant revision--in fact, I think we should scrap the code for a simpler version providing equitable treatment. Here are the facts on the confusing nature of our Nation's Tax Code: The IRS employs 96,000 workers to collect Federal taxes amounting to $1.8 trillion and to administer the 1.5 million word income tax code. The IRS expects to receive 120 million phone calls for assistance this year. A new Associated Press poll finds that the percentage of Americans who say that Federal taxes have gotten too complicated is up to 60 percent. The Federal Tax Code is so complex that about half of American families now require the services of tax professionals to file their tax returns. The IRS estimates that taxpayers will spend an average of 11 hours preparing their 1040's this year. At a minimum, the cost of collecting the federal income tax, including the value of the billions of hours that taxpayers spend filling forms, is at least 10 cents for every dollar of tax revenue collected. After the hearings we held last year, I admit I continue to be dismayed over what I consider to be a continuation of the arrogant attitude conveyed by the actions of the Internal Revenue Service. While the IRS expects taxpayers to fill out their tax forms accurately, the General Accounting Office has just released a report criticizing the agency for poor bookkeeping and failing the same sort of audit that the agency imposes of American taxpayers. IRS management must recognize that they have a difficult job-- promoting quality customer service. Not an easy task considering the historic attitude toward the IRS. The founding of this great Nation's history begins with the Boston Tea Party--a revolt against tyrannical rule and unfair taxation. Taxes are a necessary evil but, if kept in check, important to all levels of government. Taxes have created the world's greatest highway infrastructure, contributed to the protection of our nation's borders, and supported the most successful democratic government in history. But waste and abuse of tax dollars have burdened the American taxpayer with one of the highest levels of taxation in recent years. Tax collection needs to reflect it's controversial history--the IRS does not have the right to use harassment and extortion as tax collection methods. In blunder after blunder, the IRS is flailing in a dismal fall from effectiveness--wasting those same taxpayer dollars they are collecting. The IRS hearings during the 105th Congress were a very solemn wake-up call. Customer service will never be considered as an IRS attribute, but that's what the IRS needs to pound into their employees--the people who need to learn to work with American taxpayers--not against them. Perhaps part of the blame lies with Congress. We should not be fooled by IRS reports telling us ``we're working out the problems.'' As the representative body of our Nation, Congress must hold the IRS to a zero tolerance standard. I have been contacted earlier this tax season, by numerous Montana constituents bearing complaints about the IRS. Most of the constituents are very disgruntled with the length of time it takes to have a resolution processed. They send me folders and files of correspondence. During the lengthy bureaucratic process, debts grow fantastically high with interest and penalties. One of those cases involves the IRS's denial of due process of legal challenge for past tax years'. But it is not just one--it is many--too many. A fairer less complicated tax system may help to clear up some of the IRS abuses. By simplifying the tax system, one can only think we would simplify our revenue collection system. Mr. President, tax collectors have a long history of public persecution. Today, my colleagues and I stand here not to tar and feather the tax collector, but to put an end to the abusive culture that has spread like a bacteria throughout the IRS.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, in introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Online Privacy Protection Act of 1999. Last year, Congress worked together to protect our most vulnerable citizens from unprincipled information gathering online by passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. That law provided online privacy protection for children up through age 13. Although teens and adults have a greater ability to identify the risks associated with online shopping and browsing, some guidance and protection is needed to ensure that web sites treat information in a fair and uniform way. Before I tell you what this bill does, let me first tell you what this bill does not do. It does not bury online companies with regulatory paperwork. It does not impose a congressional mandate on privacy policies. It does not force compliance with arcane rules. It does not regulate the internet. I want to be clear. We are trying to pilot the ship of internet commerce with a very light hand while trying to encourage the efforts currently underway within the online industry. This bill sets very general guidelines for how an online company treats information it gathers from people interacting with their web sites. First of all, there must be a clear and conspicuous posting of the companies information collection policy. They must note what information is collected, and what they do with it. There must be a clear means for people to opt out of providing this information, if the data collected is not relevant to the web transaction. In fairness, we do allow the web site host to cancel the online transaction if the site visitor doesn't provide all of the needed information. For example, if a person buys a product, but won't give a mailing address, the company can terminate the sale. A key provision of this bill allows people access to information that was collected and shared with outside companies. We recognize that there are many web sites that collect information to better serve their visitors. Amazon.com keeps track of book requests to help identify other potential books of interest to the customer. We appreciate the prosperity of that data and its use and want to protect and encourage that creativity. As long as the company discloses up front what information it is collecting and keeps that data internal, it won't be forced into disclosure and lose its competitive edge. However, all companies are required to establish and maintain procedures to protect the information that it collects. To the uninformed listener, this may sound like a lot of regulation and paperwork for online companies to follow. The good news is that this bill recognizes the continuing progress being made in the commercial sector in providing secure and private transactions for customers. Concerns about misuse of information can drive many customers away, and many companies are recognizing the need for establishing some type of privacy rules. It's telling that 60 percent of Fortune 500 Chief Information Officers in a recent poll stated that they wouldn't divulge personal information online. Fortunately, we finally got the right balance in crafting privacy policy on the internet. It isn't through congressional or FTC mandates. It's by encouraging private industry to band together to establish minimum requirements for a safe haven for consumer information. Companies can meet the intent of this bill by showing that their privacy policy complies with the Safe Haven requirements established in industry. Congress and the FTC are only there to give the Safe Haven some teeth by providing incentives and ensuring compliance with these self-established regulations. We also allow states to use existing law to challenge and remove irresponsible online privacy behavior. A strong team of business, Congress, States, and regulators will bring a balanced and fair approach to the needs of consumers. The Online Privacy Protection Act of 1999 is an important effort to shape the future of online commerce. By getting out front and then staying out of the way, we can create an electronic medium free from big-brother mentality that allows people to move freely through commercial sites without fearing for the data trail they leave behind. This bill is good for industry and good for consumers. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about some good news for a change. I want to introduce the ``E-911 Act of 1999.'' The purpose of this legislation is to improve 911. By linking some of the amazing innovations in wireless technology to 911 and medical and emergency response professionals we bring our 911 systems into the 21st century. All kinds of technologies exist today that can greatly reduce response time to emergencies and help victims get the right kind of medical attention quickly. But right now these technologies are not connected in ways that can be used for emergencies. That's why this effort to upgrade our 911 systems across the nation is so important and necessary. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has conducted studies showing that crash-to-care time for fatal accidents is about a half hour in urban areas. In rural areas, which covers most of my home state of Montana, that crash-to-care time almost doubles. On average, it takes just shy of an hour to get emergency attention to crash victims in rural areas. Almost half of the serious crash victims who do not receive care in that first hour die at the scene of the accident. That's a scary statistic. In 1997 there were 37,280 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States--41,967 people died as a result. Of that number, 2,098 were children. Now obviously there is no piece of legislation that can instantly prevent these kinds of tragedies. But there are definitely things we can do to help reduce them. Upgrading our 911 response systems, which this legislation promotes, is a solid step toward preventing many horrible tragedies. Drew Dawson, who is the director of the Montana Emergency Medical Services Bureau and the president of the National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Directors, strongly supports the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. He tells me that the bill will help bring better wireless 911 coverage to Montana and will enhance our statewide Trauma Care System. Mr. Dawson believes this legislation will help him and his emergency folks do their jobs better, which means it will help them save more lives than they already do. I have to say a word about all of the good work that folks like Drew Dawson in Montana and other emergency professionals do all over the country. The United States has the most skilled and dedicated group of medical and emergency professionals in the world. We need to give them better tools. There is technology out there that can help these professionals and that can help all of us citizens, if, God forbid, we ever find ourselves in an emergency situation needing this kind of help. The E-911 Act of 1999 will help all of us and will make our emergency services even better than they are today. Mr. President, Let me take a moment to summarize the important sections of this bill. It makes Congressional findings and specifies the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is ``to encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure for communications, including wireless communications, to meet the Nation's public safety and other communications needs.'' It assigns to the Federal Communications Commission, and any agency or entity to which it has delegated authority under Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, the duty to designate the number 911 as the universal emergency telephone number within the United States for reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities and requesting assistance. The universal number would apply both to wireless and wireline telephone service. The Commission, and any agency or entity, must establish appropriate periods for geographic areas in which 911 is not in use as an emergency telephone number to transition to the use of 911. It establishes a principle of parity between the wireless and wireline telecommunications industries in protection from liability for: (1) the provision of telephone services, including 911 and emergency warning service, and (2) the use of 911 and emergency warning service. The bill provides for wireless providers of telephone service to receive at least as much protection under Federal, State or local law from liability as local exchange companies receive in providing telephone services. States cannot impose procedural barriers, such as requiring wireless providers to file tariffs, as a condition for wireless providers to receive the substantive protection from liability for which the legislation provides. The bill also provides for users of wireless 911 service to receive at least as much protection from liability under Federal, State or local law as users of wireline 911 service receive. It amends Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) to provide appropriate privacy protection for call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service, including such information provided by an automatic crash notification system. The provision authorizes disclosure of such information to emergency dispatch providers and emergency service personnel in order to respond to the user's call for emergency services. The provision also is intended to allow disclosure of such information to the next- of-kin or legal guardian of a person as necessary in connection with the furnishing of medical care to such person as a result of an emergency. Finally, the customer of a commercial mobile radio service may grant broader authority (for example, in the customer's written subscription agreement with the service provider) for the use of, disclosure of, or access to call location information concerning users of the customer's commercial mobile service communications instrument (e.g., the customer's wireless telephone), but the customer must grant such authority expressly and in advance of such use, disclosure or access. It provides definitions for terms used in the legislation. That is the long version of what this bill is about. The short version is: it's about saving lives. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues will join me and help pass this important legislation.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the Members of the Senate know, for several years I have advocated the enactment of legislation that would facilitate the use of strong encryption. Beginning in the 104th Congress, I have introduced legislation that would ensure that the private sector continues to take the lead in developing innovative products to protect the security and confidentiality of our electronic information including the ability to export such American products. I am pleased to rise today to introduce with my Chairman, Senator McCain, the PROTECT ACT of 1999 (Promote Reliable On Line Transactions To Encourage Commerce and Trade). The bill reflects a number of discussions we have had this year about the importance of encryption in the digital age to promote electronic commerce, secure our confidential business and sensitive personal information, prevent crime and protect our national security by protecting the commercial information systems and electronic networks upon which America's critical infrastructures increasingly rely. I am extremely pleased to join with him in introducing this important legislation. While this bill differs in important respects from the PRO-CODE legislation I introduced in the previous Congress, I do think it accomplishes a number of very important objectives. Specifically, the bill: Prohibits domestic controls; Guarantees that American industry will continue to be able to come up with innovative products; Immediately decontrols encryption products using key lengths of 64 bits or less; Permits the immediate exportability of 128 bit encryption in recoverable encryption products and in all encryption products to a broad group of legitimate and responsible commercial users and to users in allied countries; Recognizes the futility of unilateral export controls on mass market products and where there are foreign alternatives and so permits the immediate exportability of strong encryption products whenever a public-private advisory board and the Secretary of Commerce determines that they are generally available, publicly available, or available from foreign suppliers; Directs NIST to complete establishment of the Advanced Encryption Standard with 128 bit key lengths (the DES successor) by January 1, 2002 (and ensures that it is led by the private sector and open to public comment); and Decontrols thereafter products incorporating the AES or its equivalent. Today, we are in a world that is characterized by the fact that nearly everyone has a computer and that those computers are, for the most part, connected to one another. In light of that fact, it is becoming more and more important to ensure that our communications over these computer networks are conducted in a secure way. It is no longer possible to say that when we move into the information age, we'll secure these networks, because we are already there. We use computers in our homes and businesses in a way that couldn't have been imagined 10 years ago, and these computers are connected through networks, making it easier to communicate than ever before. This phenomenon holds the promise of transforming life in States like Montana, where health care and state-of-the-art education can be delivered over networks to people located far away from population centers. These new technologies can improve the lives of real people, but only if the security of information that moves over these networks is safe and reliable. The problem today is that our computer networks are not as secure as they could be; it is fairly easy for amateur hackers to break into our networks. They can intercept information; they can steal trade secrets and intellectual property; they can alter medical records; the list is endless. One solution to this, of course, is to let individuals and businesses alike to take steps to secure that information. Encryption is one technology that accomplishes that. I am proud that today I have been able to join with Senator McCain to introduce this legislation which will enable Americans to use the Internet with confidence and security.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about some good news for a change. I want to introduce the ``E-911 Act of 1999.'' The purpose of this legislation is to improve 911. By linking some of the amazing innovations in wireless technology to 911 and medical and emergency response professionals we bring our 911 systems into the 21st century. All kinds of technologies exist today that can greatly reduce response time to emergencies and help victims get the right kind of medical attention quickly. But right now these technologies are not connected in ways that can be used for emergencies. That's why this effort to upgrade our 911 systems across the nation is so important and necessary. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has conducted studies showing that crash-to-care time for fatal accidents is about a half hour in urban areas. In rural areas, which covers most of my home state of Montana, that crash-to-care time almost doubles. On average, it takes just shy of an hour to get emergency attention to crash victims in rural areas. Almost half of the serious crash victims who do not receive care in that first hour die at the scene of the accident. That's a scary statistic. In 1997 there were 37,280 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States--41,967 people died as a result. Of that number, 2,098 were children. Now obviously there is no piece of legislation that can instantly prevent these kinds of tragedies. But there are definitely things we can do to help reduce them. Upgrading our 911 response systems, which this legislation promotes, is a solid step toward preventing many horrible tragedies. Drew Dawson, who is the director of the Montana Emergency Medical Services Bureau and the president of the National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Directors, strongly supports the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. He tells me that the bill will help bring better wireless 911 coverage to Montana and will enhance our statewide Trauma Care System. Mr. Dawson believes this legislation will help him and his emergency folks do their jobs better, which means it will help them save more lives than they already do. I have to say a word about all of the good work that folks like Drew Dawson in Montana and other emergency professionals do all over the country. The United States has the most skilled and dedicated group of medical and emergency professionals in the world. We need to give them better tools. There is technology out there that can help these professionals and that can help all of us citizens, if, God forbid, we ever find ourselves in an emergency situation needing this kind of help. The E-911 Act of 1999 will help all of us and will make our emergency services even better than they are today. Mr. President, Let me take a moment to summarize the important sections of this bill. It makes Congressional findings and specifies the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is ``to encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure for communications, including wireless communications, to meet the Nation's public safety and other communications needs.'' It assigns to the Federal Communications Commission, and any agency or entity to which it has delegated authority under Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, the duty to designate the number 911 as the universal emergency telephone number within the United States for reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities and requesting assistance. The universal number would apply both to wireless and wireline telephone service. The Commission, and any agency or entity, must establish appropriate periods for geographic areas in which 911 is not in use as an emergency telephone number to transition to the use of 911. It establishes a principle of parity between the wireless and wireline telecommunications industries in protection from liability for: (1) the provision of telephone services, including 911 and emergency warning service, and (2) the use of 911 and emergency warning service. The bill provides for wireless providers of telephone service to receive at least as much protection under Federal, State or local law from liability as local exchange companies receive in providing telephone services. States cannot impose procedural barriers, such as requiring wireless providers to file tariffs, as a condition for wireless providers to receive the substantive protection from liability for which the legislation provides. The bill also provides for users of wireless 911 service to receive at least as much protection from liability under Federal, State or local law as users of wireline 911 service receive. It amends Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) to provide appropriate privacy protection for call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service, including such information provided by an automatic crash notification system. The provision authorizes disclosure of such information to emergency dispatch providers and emergency service personnel in order to respond to the user's call for emergency services. The provision also is intended to allow disclosure of such information to the next- of-kin or legal guardian of a person as necessary in connection with the furnishing of medical care to such person as a result of an emergency. Finally, the customer of a commercial mobile radio service may grant broader authority (for example, in the customer's written subscription agreement with the service provider) for the use of, disclosure of, or access to call location information concerning users of the customer's commercial mobile service communications instrument (e.g., the customer's wireless telephone), but the customer must grant such authority expressly and in advance of such use, disclosure or access. It provides definitions for terms used in the legislation. That is the long version of what this bill is about. The short version is: it's about saving lives. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues will join me and help pass this important legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the Members of the Senate know, for several years I have advocated the enactment of legislation that would facilitate the use of strong encryption. Beginning in the 104th Congress, I have introduced legislation that would ensure that the private sector continues to take the lead in developing innovative products to protect the security and confidentiality of our electronic information including the ability to export such American products. I am pleased to rise today to introduce with my Chairman, Senator McCain, the PROTECT ACT of 1999 (Promote Reliable On Line Transactions To Encourage Commerce and Trade). The bill reflects a number of discussions we have had this year about the importance of encryption in the digital age to promote electronic commerce, secure our confidential business and sensitive personal information, prevent crime and protect our national security by protecting the commercial information systems and electronic networks upon which America's critical infrastructures increasingly rely. I am extremely pleased to join with him in introducing this important legislation. While this bill differs in important respects from the PRO-CODE legislation I introduced in the previous Congress, I do think it accomplishes a number of very important objectives. Specifically, the bill: Prohibits domestic controls; Guarantees that American industry will continue to be able to come up with innovative products; Immediately decontrols encryption products using key lengths of 64 bits or less; Permits the immediate exportability of 128 bit encryption in recoverable encryption products and in all encryption products to a broad group of legitimate and responsible commercial users and to users in allied countries; Recognizes the futility of unilateral export controls on mass market products and where there are foreign alternatives and so permits the immediate exportability of strong encryption products whenever a public-private advisory board and the Secretary of Commerce determines that they are generally available, publicly available, or available from foreign suppliers; Directs NIST to complete establishment of the Advanced Encryption Standard with 128 bit key lengths (the DES successor) by January 1, 2002 (and ensures that it is led by the private sector and open to public comment); and Decontrols thereafter products incorporating the AES or its equivalent. Today, we are in a world that is characterized by the fact that nearly everyone has a computer and that those computers are, for the most part, connected to one another. In light of that fact, it is becoming more and more important to ensure that our communications over these computer networks are conducted in a secure way. It is no longer possible to say that when we move into the information age, we'll secure these networks, because we are already there. We use computers in our homes and businesses in a way that couldn't have been imagined 10 years ago, and these computers are connected through networks, making it easier to communicate than ever before. This phenomenon holds the promise of transforming life in States like Montana, where health care and state-of-the-art education can be delivered over networks to people located far away from population centers. These new technologies can improve the lives of real people, but only if the security of information that moves over these networks is safe and reliable. The problem today is that our computer networks are not as secure as they could be; it is fairly easy for amateur hackers to break into our networks. They can intercept information; they can steal trade secrets and intellectual property; they can alter medical records; the list is endless. One solution to this, of course, is to let individuals and businesses alike to take steps to secure that information. Encryption is one technology that accomplishes that. I am proud that today I have been able to join with Senator McCain to introduce this legislation which will enable Americans to use the Internet with confidence and security.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill on an issue of great importance to my state and the agricultural industry. The issue is that of rescinding the USDA Grade Stamp on foreign meat products coming into America from other countries and unfairly receiving the USDA Grade Stamp. This language offered today will insure that all meat products imported from a foreign country will not be graded USDA. For years other countries have used the USDA Grade Stamp to their advantage. Particularly, Canada and Mexico ship livestock into the United States and reap the benefits of the premium given for USDA Prime, USDA Choice or USDA Select. USDA Prime and USDA Choice grades are given a premium price. Competition from foreign countries effectively prevents that same number of American livestock producers from receiving a premium. USDA should mean just that the meat was raised and slaughtered in the United States, and given the stamp by the United States Department of Agriculture. Currently, boxed beef is not eligible to receive the USDA Grade Stamp. However, agricultural producers across the border ship livestock to the United States and feed them for a short period of time in order to bypass that restriction. The animals are then slaughtered here as United States product. This is not only unfair, it is a betrayal of trust. It is one that we will no longer tolerate. My bill provides for a 90 day feeding period to prevent this from happening, yet maintain the profits light-weight cattle from foreign countries bring to American feeders. The huge influx of imports from both Canada and Mexico that American agricultural producers are currently faced with has provided an added hardship to the agricultural economy. Additionally, when consumers see the USDA Grade Stamp on a meat product they are under the assumption they are buying U.S. made product. In fact, this is usually not the case. Even though carcasses are required to have a ``foreign origin marking'', it is trimmed off for marketing purposes. Essentially, this bill will protect both the American producer and the American consumer. The USDA Grade Stamp on foreign product is a detriment to both. It is a detriment to the producer because foreign countries get the benefit of the grade stamp, without having to pay for it. America's producers need the assurance that the USDA label really means just that--produced in the U.S. It is a detriment to the consumer because they deserve to know that they are buying American. I've said it before and I'll say it again. U.S. consumers deserve to know that they are buying absolutely the safest food supply in the world, which is grown by American farmers and ranchers. With this in mind we then should be informing the American consumer that they really are purchasing American product. I am proud and very pleased to serve as sponsor of this bill and I look forward to moving it through the legislative process so we may give our consumers and producers the information and advantage of knowing their meat was produced in the USA.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues in introducing The National Monument Participation Act of 1999. This bill would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to clearly establish the roles for public participation and Congressional involvement in declaring national monuments on federal lands. This bill requires specific processes and requirements to ensure that the public, local, state, and Federal government are both informed and involved in the formulation of any plans to declare national monuments on federal lands. It requires that the public be actively involved in the formulation of any plans to declare a national monument. Considering the recent controversy surrounding the designation of monuments with the stroke of a pen rather than through open debate and assessment, it only makes sense to include the public in any future designation decisions. I remind my colleagues and the administration that we are managing our land resources for the people. This bill suggests that perhaps we should listen to them before drastically changing the management of our land resources. Additionally, the legislation requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture perform an assessment of current land uses on the land proposed for designation. This is necessary to provide information about the impact of declaring any national monument before recommendations are made by the President. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue designation changes without learning what is at stake. What mineral interests are affected? Does it change traditional grazing uses? These are questions that will have to be answered before new monuments are designated. The legislation also requires that we look at the impact a monument would have on state or private land holdings. Once again, common sense is needed. If the federal designation change affects state an private lands, Congress must be informed of these impacts before a decision is finally reached. It is irresponsible to make decisions without the proper information. Finally, this legislation would require the President to submit his decision on these recommendations to the Congress for final review and approval. If we are going to change our designations and impact local communities, Congress must weigh in on the decision. Public involvement in federal decision making is critical today to ensure that local citizens are involved in the decision changing how federal lands near their homes are used. This bill will mandate broader involvement to ensure the public and the legislative branch have an opportunity to participate in any plans to establish new national monuments on federal lands. In addition, this ensures the information is available for the public and ourselves to understand the impacts of any proposed declaration and make an informed decision. Overall, I believe this bill establishes a clear set of roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in the declaration of new national monuments on federal lands to ensure that such decisions are made in a manner that respects the rights of both local communities and the interests of the nation as a whole. I encourage my colleagues to carefully examine this legislation and lend their support to its ultimate passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I stand in support of the Senate's Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2000 since I believe it establishes the right priorities and balance for the Federal Government going into the next millennium. It preserves the future retirement and health care for our aging population by ensuring the financial integrity of the Social Security and Medicare Programs. It reduces the financial burden of the Federal Government on American taxpayers by reducing the national debt and returning excess taxes to them. And finally it limits the growth of the Federal Government by adhering to the statutory spending caps agreed to between Congress and the President in 1997. Saving Social Security is not a partisan issue. Principles, not politics should guide us when it comes to providing for our senior citizens who have been our guide through life thus far. We need to fix this program not only for our parents but also our grandchildren. We need to trust the American people that they can make their own choices on how their retirement will be financed. I believe all Americans should be given the opportunity to invest in a personalized savings account to control their own future. I do not agree that we should mandate the creation of a politically constituted Federal commission to control the investments of Social Security trust funds in the stock markets. The President's plan doesn't add up. His FY 2000 budget projects a $4.5 trillion surplus over the next 15 years. One half of that $2.3 trillion, is the surplus for the Social Security trust fund. That leaves us with a working surplus of $2.2 trillion. I just don't understand where we come up with the $2.8 trillion for the Social Security trust fund out of this non-Social Security surplus of $2.2 trillion especially after the President proposes to spend $1.7 trillion of the remaining $2.2 working surplus. His plan just doesn't add up. As we say in Montana--looks like it, smells like it, taste like it, glad we didn't step in it. Medicare is another tricky issue that we need to fix. I want the record to show that Republicans have never proposed cutting Medicare. Rather Republicans have allowed Medicare to grow at twice the rate of inflation. Our FY 2000 Budget Resolution assures that Medicare is fully funded--every dollar that is projected to go to beneficiaries will do so instead of what the President proposes with $9 billion in cuts to Medicare. This means that the Republican plan will continue to preserve Medicare for our seniors in this FY 2000 Budget Resolution. In the State of the Union, the President proposed that $1 out of every $6 of the surplus will be used to guarantee the soundness of Medicare until the year 2020. What he claims actually is to set aside $700 billion--15 percent of the $4.5 trillion total budget surplus of the next fifteen years--and then credit this with another $300 billion in interest payments. While this sounds attractive, the President doesn't have the money to implement this plan plus his claims are based on IOUs and phony numbers. However, the worst part is that his plan still wouldn't help Medicare. Since the total Federal budget deficit was eliminated in FY 1998, the FY 2000 Budget Resolution will focus now on eliminating the on-budget deficit in FY 2001--the first time this has occurred since the 1960s. Furthermore, the FY 2000 Budget Resolution will cut the public debt over the next 10 years by 50 percent versus the 20 percent reduction proposed in the President's budget. Correspondingly, Federal interest payments on the national debt will be cut in half--from $229 billion this year to $115 billion in 2009--releasing capital previously set aside to pay for interest on the national debt to more productive private economic activities, such as helping our struggling farmers and ranchers. Also we will not have to make the American public go further into debt. The statutory debt limit for the total government (currently at $5.95 trillion) will not have to be increased until 2004 as opposed to the President's budget which would have to raise the statutory debt limit as early as 2001. The FY 2000 Concurrent Budget Resolution further accommodates a tax cut of $15 billion in the first year and $142 billion over the first five years from the non-Social Security surplus. Congress is not only receptive to paying down the national debt, but also to refund excess taxes to the American people. Let me assure you that the Republican tax cut will have no effect on Social Security or Medicare because they are not funded by general revenues but by dedicated payroll taxes. Also, tax cuts from a surplus discretionary budget have no impact on Social Security or Medicare. With a budget surplus well over $100 billion, I believe it is arrogant for the Administration to believe it has the best perspective on how to spend the American taxpayers money. Furthermore it is even harder to believe tax increases are justified as the President proposes. Our nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates, under current law, American taxpayers will overpay their taxes by $787 billion over the next 10 years which is the equivalent of $7,000 for every American taxpayer. However, two areas of importance to me in the Budget Resolution are increased spending for education and agriculture. I support the increase of $47.4 billion over the Senate Budget Committee baseline and by $21.2 billion over the President's request for the next ten years. The FY 2000 Budget Resolution also provides for a $28 billion over five years and an $82 billion over ten years net increase in discretionary spending for elementary and secondary education. Overall discretionary spending for education increases by $2.4 billion in 2000--double the President's request--and $31 billion over the next five years--five times the President's request. The President's budget for the coming fiscal year contains 66 new programs and $45 billion in tax increases. His budget plans for the next 15 years call for over $500 billion in new spending and not one dollar in non-credit tax cuts. I am pleased that the FY 2000 Budget Resolution contains a mandatory spending allocation of $6 billion for the next 5 years (FY 2000-2004) based upon legislation proposed by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. I am also pleased that the Committee-reported Resolution provides a total of over $4 billion more in budget authority for mandatory programs. Farmers need protection against the weather related and economic losses they have sustained this past year. It is critical that Congress provide adequate Federal funding in the FY 2000 Budget Resolution so the Agriculture Committee can address the severe problems faced by our nation's farmers and ranchers. Unfortunately, every credible economic forecast indicates the farm economy will recover slowly at best. The Agriculture Committee needs adequate budget authority to develop and strengthen programs which provide production credit, risk management, and economic assistance to farmers and ranchers. Beyond these concerns, I call upon my colleagues to support the Budget Resolution for FY 2000 to continue the progress Congress has made to strengthen our financial future into the 21st Century. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator should be heard.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have heard the debate on this floor. Now what is at hand? How many questions have we asked ourselves? Are we crossing international boundaries to inflict heavy damage or to destroy the ability to make war in a sovereign nation? Are we not making war? Are we not using a treaty organization to participate in a civil war? Is there a possibility that we are being used to deal with a very acute and serious problem in the stability of a region? No one should question the motive of any vote on this issue. Every Member of this body is capable of casting the hard vote. One cannot clear his or her conscience of the atrocities that have been committed, and one can see the desperation on the faces of those who are being displaced. But I say to you, the nations that are most affected must now assume the responsibility that confronts them. To ask us to participate in a civil war, which is not our character, is a lot to ask. Can we help? Yes, we can. We can do it in different ways. But to ask us to place our men and women in harm's way, to force submission of a people with deep resolve in an area where not very many folks have ever been beaten into submission, that is asking of us a great deal. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. John Ramney, a fellow Montana, who has spent 37 years in public service as an Agriculture Extension Agent for Yellowstone County, Montana. Over this period he has helped farmers, downtown business folks and the media with agricultural-related questions, in a professional manner that is a role model for exemplary public service today. Mr. Ramney's career served Montana's agriculture industry with a unique quiet dedication not usually seen today. He began his career as a county agent in training in Thompson Falls and Great Falls, Montana. He then became a 4-H Agent with the Yellowstone County Extension Office in 1961. After serving as an assistant county agent in training in Billions for six years, he became a full fledged County Agent for Yellowstone County. His job has involved educating the agricultural producers in Yellowstone County, Montana to enhance their productivity. He has done this primarily by providing information from research done at Montana State University or other experiment stations. He has also conducted numerous meetings and workshops to strengthen the farmers' knowledge and capabilities as Yellowstone County moved from a rural to a more urban county. In addition, he tirelessly maintained personal contacts with local farmers to ensure their understanding about crops, livestock, farm machinery, and land leases were up to date. Over his almost 40 years as a County Agent, Mr. Ramney always acted in a positive and helpful manner. He said that even though he has answered many, many questions over the years, he has learned that everyone who calls or stops by teaches him something. For example, he noted that a lot more calls were looking for information that people heard about from other universities and experimental stations in other parts of the country. With the advent of better communications, farmers knew more about what was happening in Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. As Mr. Ramney said, ``They ask for it and I hunt for information wherever it might be.'' Ms. Mary Zartman, Personnel Director of the Montana State University Extension Service stated, with the news of Mr. Ramney's retirement, ``He'll be a hard act to follow.'' Please join with me in recognizing an unusual American and a great Montanan.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as one of the proud cosponsors of S. 629, the Crop Insurance Improvement Act of 1999, sponsored by Senator Craig. The issue of crop insurance reform is and will continue to be a primary issue for agriculture this session. The language offered today brings important changes to crop insurance, especially for specialty crops. This bill drastically improves procedures for determining yields and improves the noninsured crop assistance programs. This bill, S. 629, also improves the safety net to producers through cost of production crop insurance coverage. This is another important tool to reform the current crop insurance program into a risk management program, which will return more of the economic dollar back to the producer. It is vital to find a solution to provide a way for farmers and ranchers to stay in agriculture. They must ultimately regain the responsibility for risk management the Federal Government withdrew. To help agricultural producers do that, the Federal Government must fix the current crop insurance program and make it one the producer can use as an effective risk management tool. Eventually, I envision a crop insurance program that puts the control in the hands of agricultural producers. It is the Federal Government's role to facilitate a program to unite the producer and the private insurance company. It is of utmost importance that we get the producers of this country back on track. Crop insurance reform is one sure way to do that. I urge my colleagues here today to consider the positive effect crop insurance will and must have on the farm economy. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Craig on crop insurance reform. I will have some amendments forthcoming, that I believe will make this bill even more effective. I also plan to introduce a bill this session that I believe will make even larger strides in the area of crop insurance reform.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I rise today to bring attention to Doug Swingley's second victory in the Alaskan Iditarod. Doug hails from Simms, Montana, where he raises and trains his dogs. As you all know, the Alaskan Iditarod is a grueling dog sled race from Anchorage to Nome, Alaska. The race covers 1,161 miles and is run in some of the harshest weather in the world. Doug Swingley began mushing in 1989 with plans of running the Iditarod. He ran his first Iditarod in 1992 and was the top-placing rookie hat year. He has competed in every Iditarod race since 1992 and won the event for the first time in only his third attempt. I am sure that Doug's second victory will disappoint my good friends Senators Stevens and Murkowski, because Doug is the only non-Alaskan to win the Iditarod. He has proven that a kid from Montana can take on our friends from the North and beat them at their own game and win. Like his first victory, Doug pulled his team away from the competition, and showed incredible speed through the final stages of this demanding race. I am impressed by his dedication and hard work, and I am proud to know that Montana is full of people like Doug.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced a bill to transfer the operation of an irrigation project in Montana from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the local irrigators. This is a bill, which has been before Congress before, but has been changed to address the concerns expressed by the BIA and groups which have opposed this legislation in the past. Years of management by the Bureau of Indian Affairs has led to a project in poor physical condition. Rather than being an asset for the government and the users, the Flathead Irrigation is rapidly becoming a liability. Using current estimates, the project is in need of $15 to $20 million worth of repair and conditioning. Government managers admit that costs associated with rehabilitation of this project could be as much as 40 percent higher than if the project were under local control. The irony of this project however, is the fact that studies on locally owned irrigation projects in Montana and Wyoming show that the costs of operation and maintenance of the Flathead project are some of the highest in the Rocky Mountain Region the condition of the project may be worst in that same region. What do these people, and for that matter the taxpayer, get for the higher costs associated with the current management? Not much if anything at all. Let's take a moment here to see what local control of this irrigation project would mean to the irrigators and to the taxpayer. First of all, local control will mean increased accountability of the monies collected by and used in the operation of the Flathead Irrigation Project. At the current time the BIA is unable, or unwilling, to provide basic financial information to the local irrigation districts. This despite the fact that the local farmers and ranchers pay 100% of the costs to operate and maintain the project. At the same time, the current management cannot even deliver a year-end balance of funds paid by the local irrigation users. Local control will also create savings over the current operation management. By using these savings the local management could be used to restore the Flathead Irrigation Project to a fully functioning, efficiently operating unit. Wihtout the transfer to local control, the residents of the Flathead face an uncertain future. This irrigation project is located in one of the most beautiful valleys in western Montana. Current trends in agriculture have put farmers and ranchers in a difficult position. Montana farmers and ranchers have always been land rich and cash poor. In the case of this valley in Montana, this is the rule and not the exception. They live in an area that is being changed daily due to the number of summer home construction, because of the beauty and a temperate climate for Montana. The family farmers and ranchers in this area continue to face economic pressures from outside. Which has led to a number of folks packing up and subdividing their land for residential home sites. Those who have packed up and left the area, have taken their land and subdivided it for the residential development, removing the land from agricultural production. The subdivision of the land has a number of negative impacts on this valley and Montana and the Nation. The landscape is dotted with magnificent homes which impacts on the landscape and open spaces, and of course wildlife. Another of the major impacts is on the local and state economies and governments. Agriculture land in Montana pays approximately $1.29 in property taxes for every dollar invested by the local government for services. Residential subdivisions only pay approximately $0.89 for every dollar they receive in local government services. Preservation of the small family farm and ranch in the Mission, Jocko and Camas valleys in Montana is dependent upon local control. As local control of the Flathead Irrigation Project will provide these hard working Americans an opportunity to control and have input on the costs associated with the operation of this vital water source.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is vitally important for the Northeast corner of my great state of Montana. As you are aware, water is the most valuable commodity in the West. Unfortunately, in many parts of the West the water available is unsafe to use. This is the case on the Fort Peck Reservation and in the surrounding communities. These communities are currently dependent on water sources that are either unreliable or contaminated. In some areas the ground water is in short supply, in others high levels of nitrates, sulfates, manganese, iron, dissolved solids and other contaminates ensure that the water is not only unusable for human consumption, but even unusable for livestock. Quite simply, the water is not safe. Safe drinking water is a necessity in all communities, however, these communities have a very unique set of needs that underscore the importance of clean water. This legislation would ensure the Assiniboine and Sioux people of the Fort Peck Reservation a safe and reliable water supply system. One of the largest reservations in the nation, the Fort Peck Reservation is located in Northeastern Montana and is the home of more than 10,000 people. In addition to a 75 percent unemployment rate, the residents suffer from unusually high incidents of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. These health problems are magnified by the poor drinking water currently available on the reservation. In one community, the sulfate levels in the water are four times the standard for safe drinking water. In four other communities, the iron levels are five times the standard. Some families have even been forced to abandon their homes as a result of the substandard water quality. In many cases, residents of the reservation purchased bottled water to avoid illness. While this isn't a big deal to those who can afford it, we are dealing with an area living in extreme poverty. To add insult to injury, one of the largest man made reservoirs in the United States is right down the road. Why must we continue to ask the residents of these communities to place their health at risk when a clean, safe, stable source of water is readily available? The economic health of the region is also affected by the poor water supply. In fact, a major constraint on the growth of the livestock industry around Fort Peck has been the lack of an adequate watering sites for cattle. Only an adequate water system will solve this problem, and hopefully serve to spur economic activity on the reservation. Recently the administration designated this area as an ``Empowerment Zone.'' The purpose of this designation is to help the tribal government enhance the economic and social well-being of the area's residents. What better foundation can we provide than a safe and reliable water infrastructure. This region's aspirations towards being healthy, both economically and physically, will continue to be stifled until we reach out a helping hand and work towards providing a safe water system. This legislation, which has the support of Fort Peck residents and the endorsement of the Tribal Council of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, would authorize a reservation-wide municipal, rural and industrial water system for the Fort Peck Reservation. A safe and reliable source of water would improve the health status of the residents and increase the region's attractiveness for economic development. As the future water needs of the Fort Peck Reservation expand, I believe that it is only right that we take action now. The people of the Fort Peck Reservation and the State of Montana are making a simple request--clean, safe drinking water. Thank you Mr. President.