Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the hour for morning business be continued until 6:30 p.m., this date, with Senators able to speak therein for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce 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 rehabilation 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. Without 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 sin 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. The local control of this project is supported by a wide cross section of Montanan's. Governor Marc Racicot, the Lake County Commissioners and local irrigation districts are among the local government officials in support of this bill. Organizations which have voiced their support for the measure include the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Water Resources Association and the National Water Resources Association. The support of this measure in bipartisan in nature as well. Madam President. I am pleased to introduce this measure today, and I look forward to moving this bill forward through committee and to the floor in an attempt to give local control back to the people who depend on the Flathead Irrigation Project for their way of living.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Yellowstone National Park Community Participation Act. This is a bill to require the National Park Service to work in conjunction and consult with the communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park in both Montana and Wyoming. The communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park, are as directly affected by actions within the park, as anything in the park itself. These communities' stability and economic viability are in a large part dependent on the actions within the park. Their future is dependent upon the actions taken both by local park management, and the management of the National Park Service in Washington, DC. The Department of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service have stated that the management of the parks and the Park Service itself should work in a cooperative effort to make sure that the local communities, affected by actions in the parks, are consulted before action occurs. Well unfortunately this is not always the case. Last year in the 104th Congress, authority was given to the National Park Service to provide for a demonstration project as it relates to fees charged to enter our national park. This was done with the understanding that this would assist the parks in coming up with additional funding for the backlog of construction and maintenance in each individual parks. Dollars which are sorely needed in the parks and which it is hoped would be put to good use. Communities surrounding our parks, especially Yellowstone, understand the need for the repairs to the infrastructure in the parks. They are all very willing to work with park management to do what they can to assist in maintaining the parks and assisting management in working on a means for caring for the parks. Yet, when the Park Service asked for input and provided each individual park with an opportunity to use and develop a new fee structure for the parks not all the communities were asked or informed of the increases in the fees. This was the case in Yellowstone National Park. While the management of Grand Teton, just a few miles south of Yellowstone, worked with and notified the communities affected by the future fee changes. Providing these communities an opportunity to prepare for the effects these changes would have on their business and economic vitality. An announcement was made by the management in Yellowstone to address the upcoming changes without very much, if any interaction with the surrounding communities. This then affected their ability to provide the information necessary to people who use their communities as a staging site for their visit to Yellowstone. It put them in the unenviable position of either subjecting their businesses to a loss, due to the fact that they either accepted the additional cost for operating their park tours, or charging the difference to those consumers who were there on the spur of the moment. This is not what any of us would like to do to our customers, nor anything that the Government should require of taxpayers who are either living at the gates of our national parks or visiting them for recreation. Had a consultation occurred in this instance, it is possible that relations between the communities and the park management could have developed to find a way to work through this process. However no consultation occurred and as a result, relations between park management and the local communities have been strained. Another telling facet of this dissolution of relations between local communities and the park management, is what occurred just last winter. Due to what the park management called reduced funding, they changed the winter opening dates for the entrances to Yellowstone. This had a dramatic effect on the economic stability of the communities which are located at the entrances to Yellowstone. The basis for business in those communities at the entrances to Yellowstone, is not just the traffic they see during the summer, but rests in large part on winter tourism in and around Yellowstone. As beautiful and magnificent, as Yellowstone can be during the summer, the visual experiences a person can enjoy during the winter are multiplied. Many of the businesses in these local communities look upon winter tourism as a means of keeping them in business for the next year. When any change is announced, without suitable notification or adequate consultation, these communities suffer greatly. Last winter visitors arrived at Yellowstone with the understanding that the park would be open, to allow them to experience the beauty of the Nation's ``Crown Jewel'' as it lay under a winter coating of snow. However, when they arrived at the entrance to the park, they were greeted not with a welcome, but with a barrier which kept them from enjoying their park. This delayed opening had a devastating effect on the communities at the gateways to Yellowstone. Many tours were canceled and groups which had planned future winter events in the area, have since canceled those plans. Although it was not true, many of these tour and business groups were of the understanding that Yellowstone was closed to winter travel and activity. The language in this bill would assure stability for the future of those communities located at the gateways to Yellowstone National Park. The legislation would provide for an opening and closing date, which the people of the community of West Yellowstone, MT, could count on in planning for tour groups and the hiring of personnel to make the visitors' stays a memorable experience. I have attempted to work with the Park Service and the local communities to see if some means of consultation could be worked out among all the parties involved. Last January a series of meetings occurred, between members of the local community the Park Service and my staff, to discuss the problems which the local communities were facing due to the actions taken last winter. As a result of these meetings, it was hoped that the management of the park would be more receptive to the working with the local communities in the development of changes affecting their lives. So far this has not been the case. I am offering this legislation today, in an attempt to open dialog to find suitable arrangements for consultation between the park and the gateway communities of Yellowstone National Park. I will request a hearing on this matter to open that dialog and to seek a means by which all parties are comfortable in a process of exchange and consultation on the future of the business related to Yellowstone. I look forward to working with the Park Service and the local communities to find a means of keeping Yellowstone a treasure for all America and the world to enjoy, during all seasons of the year. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Yellowstone National Park Community Participation Act. This is a bill to require the National Park Service to work in conjunction and consult with the communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park in both Montana and Wyoming. The communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park, are as directly affected by actions within the park, as anything in the park itself. These communities' stability and economic viability are in a large part dependent on the actions within the park. Their future is dependent upon the actions taken both by local park management, and the management of the National Park Service in Washington, DC. The Department of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service have stated that the management of the parks and the Park Service itself should work in a cooperative effort to make sure that the local communities, affected by actions in the parks, are consulted before action occurs. Well unfortunately this is not always the case. Last year in the 104th Congress, authority was given to the National Park Service to provide for a demonstration project as it relates to fees charged to enter our national park. This was done with the understanding that this would assist the parks in coming up with additional funding for the backlog of construction and maintenance in each individual parks. Dollars which are sorely needed in the parks and which it is hoped would be put to good use. Communities surrounding our parks, especially Yellowstone, understand the need for the repairs to the infrastructure in the parks. They are all very willing to work with park management to do what they can to assist in maintaining the parks and assisting management in working on a means for caring for the parks. Yet, when the Park Service asked for input and provided each individual park with an opportunity to use and develop a new fee structure for the parks not all the communities were asked or informed of the increases in the fees. This was the case in Yellowstone National Park. While the management of Grand Teton, just a few miles south of Yellowstone, worked with and notified the communities affected by the future fee changes. Providing these communities an opportunity to prepare for the effects these changes would have on their business and economic vitality. An announcement was made by the management in Yellowstone to address the upcoming changes without very much, if any interaction with the surrounding communities. This then affected their ability to provide the information necessary to people who use their communities as a staging site for their visit to Yellowstone. It put them in the unenviable position of either subjecting their businesses to a loss, due to the fact that they either accepted the additional cost for operating their park tours, or charging the difference to those consumers who were there on the spur of the moment. This is not what any of us would like to do to our customers, nor anything that the Government should require of taxpayers who are either living at the gates of our national parks or visiting them for recreation. Had a consultation occurred in this instance, it is possible that relations between the communities and the park management could have developed to find a way to work through this process. However no consultation occurred and as a result, relations between park management and the local communities have been strained. Another telling facet of this dissolution of relations between local communities and the park management, is what occurred just last winter. Due to what the park management called reduced funding, they changed the winter opening dates for the entrances to Yellowstone. This had a dramatic effect on the economic stability of the communities which are located at the entrances to Yellowstone. The basis for business in those communities at the entrances to Yellowstone, is not just the traffic they see during the summer, but rests in large part on winter tourism in and around Yellowstone. As beautiful and magnificent, as Yellowstone can be during the summer, the visual experiences a person can enjoy during the winter are multiplied. Many of the businesses in these local communities look upon winter tourism as a means of keeping them in business for the next year. When any change is announced, without suitable notification or adequate consultation, these communities suffer greatly. Last winter visitors arrived at Yellowstone with the understanding that the park would be open, to allow them to experience the beauty of the Nation's ``Crown Jewel'' as it lay under a winter coating of snow. However, when they arrived at the entrance to the park, they were greeted not with a welcome, but with a barrier which kept them from enjoying their park. This delayed opening had a devastating effect on the communities at the gateways to Yellowstone. Many tours were canceled and groups which had planned future winter events in the area, have since canceled those plans. Although it was not true, many of these tour and business groups were of the understanding that Yellowstone was closed to winter travel and activity. The language in this bill would assure stability for the future of those communities located at the gateways to Yellowstone National Park. The legislation would provide for an opening and closing date, which the people of the community of West Yellowstone, MT, could count on in planning for tour groups and the hiring of personnel to make the visitors' stays a memorable experience. I have attempted to work with the Park Service and the local communities to see if some means of consultation could be worked out among all the parties involved. Last January a series of meetings occurred, between members of the local community the Park Service and my staff, to discuss the problems which the local communities were facing due to the actions taken last winter. As a result of these meetings, it was hoped that the management of the park would be more receptive to the working with the local communities in the development of changes affecting their lives. So far this has not been the case. I am offering this legislation today, in an attempt to open dialog to find suitable arrangements for consultation between the park and the gateway communities of Yellowstone National Park. I will request a hearing on this matter to open that dialog and to seek a means by which all parties are comfortable in a process of exchange and consultation on the future of the business related to Yellowstone. I look forward to working with the Park Service and the local communities to find a means of keeping Yellowstone a treasure for all America and the world to enjoy, during all seasons of the year. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce 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 rehabilation 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. Without 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 sin 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. The local control of this project is supported by a wide cross section of Montanan's. Governor Marc Racicot, the Lake County Commissioners and local irrigation districts are among the local government officials in support of this bill. Organizations which have voiced their support for the measure include the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Water Resources Association and the National Water Resources Association. The support of this measure in bipartisan in nature as well. Madam President. I am pleased to introduce this measure today, and I look forward to moving this bill forward through committee and to the floor in an attempt to give local control back to the people who depend on the Flathead Irrigation Project for their way of living.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, in the introduction of the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. This legislation will clarify a small provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, specifically section 110. Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 1998, an automated entry and exit control system to document the entry and departure of `every alien' arriving in and leaving the United States. This section, if not amended, would pose great hardship to Montana, and to most border States. The current procedure allows Canadians to cross the United States-Canadian border without requiring them to present a passport, visa, or border-crossing identification card. This assists our communities, on both sides of the border, to expand their economic growth. A large portion of our economic life is derived from the business we have that comes from Canada, whether it be from travel, tourism, or regular trade. The free flow of goods and services that are exchanged every day through the United States and Canada has provided both countries with enormous economic benefits. If not amended, this could drop dramatically. Congress did not intend to cause such a disruption of service when it passed the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 110 was principally designed to make the current entry-exist control system automated--so that the system would function better; it was not intended to expand documentary requirements and bureaucracy. This legislation will take the steps needed to insure that the law is read properly. This bill would require that the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop an automated entry-exit control system would not apply at the land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent residents or to any nationals of foreign contiguous territory from whom the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have already waived visa requirements. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will review this bill and understand the merits that it provides, not only for our border States, but also for the Nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its swift passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of S. 224, to allow Medicare--eligible military retirees to join the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, I am pleased to cosponsor S. 1334, introduced by Senator Bond. S. 1334 will create a demonstration project to evaluate the concept of increasing access to health care for military retirees by allowing them to enroll in the Federal employees plan. After hearing from military retirees in Montana, I am convinced that FEHBP + 65, as it's called, is a necessary step to help ensure that military retirees have access to quality health care. When military retirees turn 65, they no longer have guaranteed access to health care. The lucky ones can get services from military treatment facilities [MTFs] on a space-available basis, but the rest do not have access to MTF's. They must rely on Medicare, which has less generous benefits and significant out-of-pocket costs, despite the commitment they received for lifetime health benefits by virtue of their service to this country. They are the only group of Federal employees to have their health benefits cut off at age 65. That just not right. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is a popular program which provides good benefits at a reasonable cost. It will serve military retirees well and uphold the Government's commitment to provide quality health benefits. Our military retirees deserve no less.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, in the introduction of the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. This legislation will clarify a small provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, specifically section 110. Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 1998, an automated entry and exit control system to document the entry and departure of `every alien' arriving in and leaving the United States. This section, if not amended, would pose great hardship to Montana, and to most border States. The current procedure allows Canadians to cross the United States-Canadian border without requiring them to present a passport, visa, or border-crossing identification card. This assists our communities, on both sides of the border, to expand their economic growth. A large portion of our economic life is derived from the business we have that comes from Canada, whether it be from travel, tourism, or regular trade. The free flow of goods and services that are exchanged every day through the United States and Canada has provided both countries with enormous economic benefits. If not amended, this could drop dramatically. Congress did not intend to cause such a disruption of service when it passed the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 110 was principally designed to make the current entry-exist control system automated--so that the system would function better; it was not intended to expand documentary requirements and bureaucracy. This legislation will take the steps needed to insure that the law is read properly. This bill would require that the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop an automated entry-exit control system would not apply at the land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent residents or to any nationals of foreign contiguous territory from whom the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have already waived visa requirements. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will review this bill and understand the merits that it provides, not only for our border States, but also for the Nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its swift passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on the matter of the pending nomination, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act. This legislation will provide new opportunities for sportsmen with disabilities to hunt and fish on the numerous Department of Defense facilities across this Nation. This legislation will also allow the Department of Defense to work with private sector groups to build facilities and operate programs for the benefit of sportsmen with disabilities. The beginnings of this legislation originate from a program developed at the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, VA. The program, run by Lt. Col. Lewis Deal, is a prime example of the work that can be done to provide new opportunities for people with disabilities. Lieutenant Colonel Deal has combined private sector volunteers work with donations from other people to build permanent disabled accessible blinds for deer hunting, which are used during both gun and bow seasons. These blinds provide people living with disabilities many of the same opportunities for outdoor recreation that we all enjoy. There are plans underway at this time to construct a fishing pier on the Potomac River for access by people with disabilities. This pier is to be built with lower railings, and stops to provide access and security for disabled persons. This legislation, uses the current program at Quantico, to allow the Department of the Defense to provide access to it's 30 million acres of wildlands by disabled individuals, as long as it does not interfere with the primary mission of the military, that of our Nation's defense. The military installations around the Nation offer a number of recreational and outdoor activities for both military and civilian personnel. This legislation, will encourage the Department of Defense to give access to individuals with disabilities and allow the Department to accept donations or money and materials as well as use volunteers for the construction of facilities accessible to sportsmen with disabilities. The bill would allow this voluntary work to be done without cost to the Federal Government or the taxpayer. Madam President, this legislation has the support of numerous organizations, including the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans. Among sportsmen's groups the bill has the endorsement of the Wheeling Sportsmen of America, Safari Club International, Wildlife Management Institute, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. I join today with my friend Congressman Duke Cunningham to bring this important legislation to the attention of my colleagues. I hope that all my colleagues in Congress would join Congressman Cunningham and myself in supporting this legislation for disabled sportsmen in our country.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, 1997, beginning at 9 a.m. until business is completed, to hold a hearing on the Senate Strategic Planning Process for Infrastructure Support. A business meeting to consider pending legislative and administrative matters will immediately follow.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on HIV/AIDS: Recent Developments and Future Opportunities, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of B. Kevin Gover to be Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Special Investigations to meet on Thursday, October 30, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on campaign financing issues.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, October 30, at 9 a.m. for a nomination hearing for John M. Campbell and Anita M. Josey, nominees to the District of Columbia courts.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, October 30, 9:30 a.m., in hearing room SD- 406 on evidentiary privileges or immunity from prosecution for voluntary environmental audits.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, not to take away from the seriousness of the moment or the debate that we heard about the line-item veto and the debate we are hearing today, I will say about my chairman and ranking member of the full committee, since this circumstance has happened, it has sure picked up the most colorful debate in committees. That had been absent for quite a while. I want to congratulate my friend from West Virginia on laying out the situation as it really is. But we are here and we have to deal with the moment as it is, and given the President's desire to improve the quality of life for the men and women in uniform, and given the President's dedication to a balanced budget as reflected in the real world, and the real world is appropriations--that is where we actually spend the money. We can debate on the budget all we want to but accounting time is when we start appropriating dollars for the real world. The ranking member on military construction appropriations, Senator Murray, has worked hard with our colleagues in the House and also with the administration before we finally passed a conference report and sent it to the White House for the President's signature. We worked very hard to take out those items that would have been objectionable, and it reflected the intent of Congress, both through the budget statement and through the appropriations statement and the charge that was given us when appropriating the money. I believe we did a responsible job in working with everyone. Of course, of all the projects that are in this, we had to single out 38. Now we are offering some back. We have to remember that we are charged with covering the most basic defense requirements. After hearing from the military services, the Congress did add back $800 million to the President's budget, with the agreement from the President to fund those meritorious requirements that, as articulated to us, are essential to the services' operations. I guess since I've been working in this committee, we have tried to shift the focus in military construction to quality of life. We have a professional military now. It is not like it used to be. We have made those shifts primarily into the quality of life--the building of health care centers, the building of child care centers, new barracks for enlisted people--because everywhere that I have traveled, looked at our men and women in uniform, and especially with the rollbacks and the downsizing in the force structure, I am concerned, now more than ever, about the morale of our fighting men and women. I have visited the installations around the country. I have seen soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors sleeping on floors, airmen working in substandard facilities, and families forced to go on--would you believe it--on food stamps. They actually qualified for food stamps. Even though we have a professional military, we still ask them to defend our country on a moment's notice. I, for one, think they deserve better. That is why I question the veto of this President. I guess I'm even more familiar with the facilities in Montana. I had one of those lines that was vetoed, a dining facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, MT. I just wish the President had accepted my invitation to have lunch there. It didn't look much like the north side of the White House last night, I can tell you. He would see a facility that is in bad need of repair and renovation. I'm not real sure if the food preparation areas or where they serve the food would pass health inspection in the civilian sector. There is lack of ventilation and food storage space. It was an old commissary. The facility would sure flunk the most basic of all inspections. It is my strong view that the President used the line-item on this bill not as the Congress intended, or even his own stated intent. I would not feel so bad, I really wouldn't, had we gone over the budget agreement or had we gone over what we spent a year ago or even 2 years ago. The ranking member knows that we are almost $2 billion out of an $11 billion appropriation lower than we were 2 years ago in providing necessary items of need in the military construction for these projects. If we had gone over and had we just thrown money hand over fist and wasted it, I wouldn't feel bad about this line-item veto, but we did not do that. We did not approach this bill in that manner. We knew the line-item veto was out there. We knew that everything in this bill, No. 1, had to be authorized by the authorizers, and we knew the amount of money that we were expected to save in order to comply with the balanced budget and still get the job done for our military people. Every project on this list was carefully screened. It was authorized by the Armed Services Committee. It was included in the final Defense authorization conference for fiscal year 1998. Had we not gone through that process, had we not taken each item individually, had we not been sensitive to the need of our lifestyle and the quality of life, had we not done any of that--yet in consultation with the President and with the representatives of each one of the military services--had we not done that, I wouldn't feel so bad today. But we did that. We did it in the most conscientious way that we know, and that is human contact, actually talking to people through the whole process, keeping them informed about what was in there and what was not in there. Everybody was not happy with it, but it was a pretty big vote, 97-3. I think that is pretty overwhelming. It tells the story of the work that we did on this legislation. So I appreciate my ranking member and both sides of the aisle. I appreciate all the folks that worked on this piece of legislation. And, yes, I appreciate the people who represented the military services and the people who represented the White House as we were working on it. I appreciate them, too. But maybe some things I don't appreciate: Once you agree on something, then you walk away from it some 6 weeks later. That is not the way we do business in Montana, and I don't think that is the way we do business in Washington, Arizona, Georgia, or Kansas. I ask for your support on this. We will probably have more to say with regard to this piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, before my friend from Arizona speaks, we had a unanimous consent on the order. I ask unanimous consent that we go back and forth, which would mean that the next Senator allowed time would be Senator McCain from Arizona and, after that, Senator Cleland from Georgia.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we still have two more Senators who have indicated to us they wished to make statements on this particular issue, and we will give them a chance to get here. I warn Senators they should come to the floor and make their statements now because we want to get to a vote on this issue. We have other business pending in the Senate that we would like to get to. But if those Senators can get to the floor and make those statements, we will wait a few minutes on them. If not, then I would choose, with the permission of the leadership, to move to third reading on this bill. In the meantime, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. I think the Senator from Idaho has brought up a good point making the case for his facility because I think we found this throughout this whole message from the administration, that, again, they don't give us the criteria before we finally pass the conference report and send it down there. All at once, then the criteria change. I guess that should not surprise me. We ought to get used to dealing with folks who have goalposts on wheels; they sort of change every now and again. I hope we could make it through this thing and the Members realize that every project has been through the screens, two or three of them. The ranking member on this subcommittee, the chairman, and the ranking member of the full committee have set their satchel down, set certain standards, and we tried to meet those standards. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments.

Mr. BURNS. I will yield.

Mr. BURNS. One advantage of the line-item veto right now is it demands of us a dialog with the people who have to administer the programs. That is good. So I agree with the Senator's statement wholeheartedly, and I thank the Senator from Idaho. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.