Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the KSEN radio station in Shelby, MT, for 50 years of service to the Golden Triangle area in north central Montana. As a former broadcaster, I applaud KSEN for the valuable service they provide to the Shelby area, especially to the agricultural community. KSEN works hard to provide the area with farm and market reports, weather, local news, and sports broadcasting as well as national programs. KSEN radio is a very important tool for the area's farmers and ranchers. KSEN radio has won more broadcasting awards than any other station in Montana and is the smallest market in the United States to receive the Crystal Award from the National Association of Broadcasters for its outstanding public service. Congratulations to Mr. Jerry Black and the staff at KSEN radio in Shelby, MT, for a fabulous 50 years of service to our great State.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague Senator Gorton for the position he has taken in this Interior appropriations bill on the proposed buy-out of the Crown Butte mine in my State of Montana. I am very supportive of the position and the language he has in this bill to address a very complicated and unfortunate issue. A little over a year ago, while on vacation in Yellowstone National Park, the President took an action that still has me shaking my head. Using an administrative decision, the President circumvented the process that Congress enacted to provide for the protection of our natural resources in this country. The National Environmental Protection Act [NEPA] was designed to provide an indepth analysis prior to any action taking place on public lands throughout the Nation. The effect of this analysis is to make sure that any project being contemplated is safe for the public and takes into account the welfare of the natural resources. This administrative action which the President took, provides for a cash buy-out of the Crown Butte mine and entirely circumvented the NEPA process. The State of Montana, the mining company, and others had spent unlimited amounts of time and a great deal of money to go through the NEPA process. However, this work was completely undone by the actions of the President and the Council on Environmental Quality. With the NEPA process eliminated, to this day we still do not know what the results of the environmental impact statement would have been. The administration, overrode good, sound, scientific processes for a policy based on a feel good mentality. During the past year, several attempts have been made to come up with either property or money to fulfill the commitment made by this administration to the mining company. The first of these attempts, the Montana initiative, a plan which the State of Montana developed with the approval of the White House and would have swapped property in Montana for the Crown Butte property also located in Montana. This attempt failed, which would have provided compensation to the State of Montana for lost revenue, when the administration failed to bring the parties to the table to complete the negotiations. Later in the year, the Council on Environmental Quality decided they could take funds from one of the most successful environmental programs, the Conservation Reserve Program, to pay off the company. This, of course, proved unacceptable to numerous Members of Congress, the farmers of this Nation and several conservation and wildlife organizations. The administration's attempts to complete this deal have shown little regard for the public and their involvement in the process. Finally, as congressional leadership and the administration negotiated the Balanced Budget Act, an outline for coming up with funding was completed. I reiterate here, that this was just an outline, not an agreement for specific projects. This agreement provided for $700 million to be placed into the Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF], for priority land acquisitions. No specific projects were detailed in this agreement. Senator Domenici, who assisted in the negotiations as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, came to the floor earlier this week to spell out what exactly was detailed in the agreement reached in the Balanced Budget Act. Senator Domenici read from the agreement which proves that no specific projects were included in the agreement. The Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee was then placed in a position of deciding exactly how those funds would be expended. I congratulate the Chairman for the work that he did to come up with a reasonable approach to this issue. In dealing with this expenditure of funds, the Chairman has placed Congress back into the loop where they belong. The language in this bill provides that the funds will be set aside until Congress has the opportunity to authorize the spending on particular projects. Congress has a responsibility to the public to review any and all expenditures of this magnitude. I have been elected to address the concerns of all the people including the citizens of Montana who have been ignored by this Presidential directive. In this particular arrangement, the administration seemed to have overlooked one very important and vital person in this whole scenario. Ms. Margaret Reeb, the owner of the property on which the mine itself would have been located. What the chairman has done with this language is provide Ms. Reeb, Park County, and the State of Montana a chance to voice their concerns with the administrative action he has taken. They are the biggest losers in the action proposed by the President. In the case of Ms. Reeb, the property owner, her private property rights have been violated, as well as has her devotion to the heritage from which she came. As for the State of Montana and Park County, well in an area where mining provides some of the best paying jobs in the State, income and economic development have been thwarted without even the slightest consideration provided for this loss. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for the work and the position he has taken on this issue. He has shown great insight and provided leadership in the development of a solution that will provide Margaret Reeb and others an opportunity to voice their say on this matter. I thank the chairman and appreciate his hard work. Amendment No. 1221 (Purpose: To provide for limitations on certain Indian gaming operations)

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not think there is a Senator in this body who is not sensitive to families, is not sensitive to the working men and women of this country. Who do you think is employed by the mines? Do we just disregard the job opportunities? Do we deny America of a resource that is used in just about everything that we pick up, from pencils to what we tie our shoes with? Doesn't that involve families, children, and schools, and roads, and public safety? It is a resource. Families and people are involved. There is a basic fairness here. There is a human factor. All of this just doesn't jump out of the ground into the truck and then a faceless person drives a truck and a faceless person goes home to feed his family and pay his taxes, payroll taxes, insurance, workmen's comp. All of this is created out of commercial activity. Now, if none of that is there, then you have even taken away the opportunity for upward mobility for the greatest number of people in this country. There is not anybody here that is not sensitive to people and to the working men and women of this country or to families or even communities and all it takes to operate the communities, because to many of them, this is a commercial opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I am also supportive of this loan for the construction of a pipeline to transport the excess CO2 from the Great Plains Gasification plant to existing oil fields to enhance tertiary oil recovery. Some portions of these fields lie within the boundaries of my state of Montana, and would assist with the economic development of this area. I would like to thank both the Chairman and my colleague from North Dakota for working with me to reach some sort of understanding on the importance of language in the conference report. Regarding the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That's perfectly all right.

Mr. BURNS. I yield Senator Murkowski from Alaska 5 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. How much time do we have?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume the debate on the Ashcroft amendment following the expiration of the debate on the pending amendment offered by Senator Bryan.

Mr. BURNS. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne.

Mr. BURNS. I make that request because we are going to go over the time when we are supposed to be back on that amendment. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the amendment from the junior senator from Nevada. I urge my colleagues to oppose a drastically reduced forest road budget, an end of purchaser road credits, and a change in the county payments formula. This amendment is unworkable and unnecessary in the face of a road construction budget that is already declining. The amendment offered by Senator Bryan would reduce the proposed budget for new timber road construction by $10 million. This amendment does nothing more than carry out the extreme agenda of certain radical environmental groups. As they have acknowledged, their objective is to shut down the Forest Service Timber Program. Mr. President, Forest Service timber sales are sold using an open, competitive auction system process. All sales are sold at fair market value, with costs associated with the timber sales, including road work, apportioned and built into a minimum bid price, which sets the floor. There is no subsidy associated with timber sales or road construction. According to a recent economic analysis released by the Price Waterhouse accounting firm, ``the forest roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers--it provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road construction and reconstruction.'' Owners of private lands often provide access to their lands to purchasers of their timber. They can either construct the roads themselves and then charge more for the timber, or they can require the timber purchaser to construct roads and thereby receive less money for their timber. Landowners who require the timber purchaser to construct roads have developed many systems to compensate the purchaser for road construction activities. Purchaser road credits are a fairly common method for building roads. Many private landowners, as well as the State forestry agencies of Idaho and Oregon, have similar systems to build roads on their lands. No matter which system is chosen, the value of the timber sold will be reduced by the cost incurred by the purchasing party. The Bryan amendment, however, calls for the elimination of the Forest Service purchaser road credits program. Eliminating purchaser road credits would have serious implications. Under the purchaser credit program, timber sale contracts require the purchaser to reconstruct or construct roads and bridges. Purchaser credit is an off-budget means for the Forest Service to rebuild and repair existing roads and occasionally to build new roads at a significant savings to the taxpayer when compared with appropriated funds. There are many costs associated with the purchase and harvest of a timber sale, including bonding, road construction, road maintenance, logging, and trucking. When a company analyzes what it can bid for a particular timber sale, it considers all the costs and values associated with manufacturing forest products from the trees to be purchased. If the company is given credits for the road work, the bids will be higher because it is not a cost. As with the regular forest road program which uses appropriated funds, the purchaser road credit program primarily supports the reconstruction of existing roads. Of the total number of miles of the timber sales roads built or rebuilt nationwide in fiscal year 1995, about 90 percent were done with purchaser road credits. As funds for road construction have been reduced in recent years, purchaser credit has become a vital tool to accomplish road work in all regions of the country, especially reconstruction. About 80 percent of the program used each year for reconstruction on roads, especially for safety and environmental improvements. Congress and the administration must reject all efforts to eliminate or reduce purchaser road credits. Mr. President, Federal timber sales have declined precipitously, primarily from limitations placed on the Forest Service by environmental considerations and species protection efforts for spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and various species of salmon. In 1987, the timber sales program provided nearly 12 billion board feet of timber. Ten years later, less than 4 billion board feet were sold. It does not take rocket science to understand the dangerous consequences the Bryan amendment has for local communities. Small businesses account for two-thirds of all timber harvested in national forests. Those small operations are located in the rural areas, providing jobs and stability to their communities. The Bryan amendment would dramatically limit the forest road program, putting additional pressures on the timber sale program. Most supporters of the Bryan amendment are unaware that the Forest Service will spend many times more on reconstruction and repair of existing roads as they will on the construction of new forest roads. Most of the roads in the national forests are single-lane, dirt roads which are open to all forest users. Each year these roads allow millions of Americans to visit the national forests. Access is provided to wild and scenic rivers, national scenic byways, wilderness areas, and recreational facilities, including campgrounds, boat ramps, and picnic areas. These roads provide access for cutting firewood and Christmas trees, berry picking, hunting, fishing, and camping. The primary use of the national forest road system is recreation. All told, about 97 percent of the road system in any given national forest is open to recreational use. Ten years ago, recreation use on the national forests was less than 250 million visits. Today, recreation use is approaching 350 million visits, an increase of 40 percent. The Bryan amendment would also reduce the construction of roads in roadless areas. Road construction in roadless areas of the national forests is for the most part limited to emergency situations. Indeed, few if any miles of roads have been built in roadless areas of the national forests in recent years. However, building some roads in roadless areas is necessary on occasion to allow access to treat insect and disease outbreaks, to monitor forest health, or for wildfire management. Mr. President, the Bryan amendment would have a debilitating effect on the management of the national forest. I urge my colleagues to defeat this effort to further limit logging in roadless areas, to terminate the purchaser credit program, and to cut an already reduced forest road budget. This amendment is simply bad forest policy. The environmental groups who have drafted this amendment have only one purpose. It is to shut down the Forest Service Timber Program. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. Before I yield to my friend from Oregon--we are running down on time here--I just want to put my little plug in here. Mr. President, we have set records on recycling in this Senate. This old debate has been recycled every year since I have been here. We tend to forget in this country that we are dealing with a renewable resource. It is just like corn flakes on your table or the shirt on your back. All of these come from renewable resources. There has been one group of persons who have been left out of this debate, and it is the consumers of America. Has anybody priced any lumber lately, what it costs to build a house? Does anybody deal with the homeless in their States on how do we find housing and what it costs for affordable housing? There are people in this country who are in charge of producing not only food and fiber but also the shelter for America. That is what we are talking about here. You can mask it any way you want, but the way that we make a sale is pretty much time tested. It has worked, and it works every day, not only for the harvesting or the growing of a renewable resource. We see that great miracle of renewal every spring and every year. However, we also see the economic backbone of the economy of rural America being eroded by people who have forgotten what it takes to produce food, fiber and shelter. I tell you, you can go out there and look at that mountain all you want and, if it is a religious experience and you do not want it touched, that is fine and dandy. But at the end of the day you are going to go get a hamburger because you are hungry. It is the basic of life in this country. That is the first thing, or the second thing, we do every day when we get up. So I ask my colleagues just one question. In promoting what some think of as a ``green world,'' is that going to feed us and sustain us? Probably for a lot of us around here it fed us a little too good. Maybe we are caring a little too much. But I ask those who are not hands-on natural resource providers to just pay heed to what you are doing here, because everything we enjoy --our standard of living, our quality of life--starts with a little seed in the ground. That is where it starts. Every one of us goes about our way every day in feeding and in clothing--every one of us without exception. Yet we want to make that tougher because we do not think it is important. So after housing and shelter, I think we are talking about a bona fide serious problem here, and it is not fair to change the rules. It is not even right to those who grow and those who are in charge of the harvest. It is not fair to those who have to take a raw product and add value to it so that it serves all of us in this great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if I could be granted 5 more minutes in order to accommodate the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resource Committee.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I reserve the remainder of my time. Senator McCain wanted to make a statement on this bill, and I understand he is on his way. As a courtesy to him, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. I am pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction conference report for fiscal year 1998. Mr. President, this conference report was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 413 to 12 and sent to the Senate last night. Now it awaits final passage here. Mr. President, we worked very hard with our House colleagues to bring this military construction conference to a successful conclusion. Both sides did take a little bit different perspective on the allocation of military construction funding for the Department of Defense, but in the final conference report we met our goals of promoting the quality of life, other initiatives, and enhancing the mission for readiness. Mr. President, this bill has some points I want to highlight. It provides a total of $9.2 billion for military construction. Even though this is an increase of $800 million over the President's budget for fiscal year 1998, it is still a reduction of $600 million from what was appropriated just a year ago. That is an overall reduction of 6 percent. Some 42 percent of this bill is allocated to family housing, for a total of $3.9 billion, so this includes new construction, improvement in existing housing, and funding for operation and maintenance of housing. The base realignment and closure part of the bill accounts for 23 percent of our total funding, about $2.1 billion. Yes, there is talk of another round of BRAC, and I want to tell my colleagues that base closure does take up a lot of funds. This encompasses funding for environmental cleanup of the closing of those bases and for the construction of new BRAC-related facilities. Mr. President, I continue to be concerned about the growing cost of the environmental cleanup of our BRAC installations. These costs frequently continue long after the base is closed. In some way or another we have to get a handle on that cost. But right now it seems like it is almost impossible to do. We strongly protect the quality-of-life initiatives. We provide $724 million for barracks, $32 million for child development centers, $163 million for hospital and medical facilities. We provide a total of $640 million for guard and reserve components, a reduction of $100 million from the Senate-passed bill. Overall, this represents an increase of $290 million from the President's budget request. Many of those projects will enhance our readiness and mission capabilities of our reserve and guard forces. I have to say, they are vital in the overall national defense scheme. It seems like every year when the budget comes down from the administration, those two parts of our military complex are forgotten about. I thank my ranking member, Senator Murray of Washington State, for her assistance and support through this process. She and her staff have been extremely cooperative. I also want to commend our colleagues in the House, because we went through the conference, and I think it is a good lesson on get your work done before you go and it makes it a lot easier when coming to an understanding and bringing all the minds together. I commend this product to the Senate. I recommend that it be signed by the President without modification. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I commend the bill to the Senate, ask for its passage, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we take note of the Senator from Arizona. I just made a comment here that the complete emphasis on military construction has probably doubled toward the quality of life, just since I have been on this committee. We can make those moves as long as we are allowed to make those moves and to continue to fund those things that we think are important in the overall makeup of our military readiness.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of S. 1153, introduced by my colleague Senator Baucus, which will continue the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank [FARAD] Program. Although the recent E. coli scares are unfortunate, they present a good opportunity for the Senate to act on the issue of food safety. Public interest in the safety of our food supply is high, and the call for consumer awareness has never been greater. The FARAD Program stores and disseminates information on drug, pesticide, and environmental contaminant residue. This information allows veterinarians and producers to avoid problems with contaminated meat and helps ensure the integrity of our Nation's food supply. Producers and veterinarians can access FARAD information over the telephone, through e-mail, or even through two sites on the Internet, putting valuable data at everyone's fingertips. Information is also available in print material, such as FARAD's compendium on available drugs and the FARAD Digest column in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Unfortunately, a lack of funding has prevented FARAD's directors and employees from updating the databank. FARAD must contain complete and current data in order to continue protecting American consumers. And that's the bottom line. The public must be confident that the food on their plate is safe. I hope that my colleagues will support consumer awareness and support the FARAD Program.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I would like to clarify the intent of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and the full Appropriations Committee, with respect to the Rural Health Transition Grant Program. This program provides small, 3-year grants to assist financially troubled small rural hospitals as they attempt to adjust to changes brought on by new medical technology, changing practice patterns, and replacement of cost-based reimbursement with prospective, or fixed, payments. Last year Congress discontinued funding for rural health transition grants, but several facilities around the country were already in their grant cycle, having received their first or second year grants. These small hospitals were promised 3-year grants, and had relied on those grants, when the funds were cut off. Is it the intention of the Appropriations Committee to urge the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide, from the funds appropriated for program management, continuation grants to those rural hospitals which have received first or second year grants?

Mr. BURNS. I thank the subcommittee chairman for his clarification. amendment No. 1098

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Delaware. I rise today in support of this package. I guess every now and again we get into a situation where we have a big bill in front of us. I know that there is a good friend of mine on the floor now. I call him one of the greatest American slaves to his labor than anybody, and that is Senator Domenici from New Mexico on Budget, now with Senator Roth at the helm on Finance. A lot of things that we have tried to do in the last 6 or 7 or 10 years we get in this bill. We had a problem one time in the caucus. I can remember my good friend from Wyoming. It got kind of quiet. Nobody was coming up with any answers. He said, ``Our biggest problem is we are overthinking this thing.'' And we could be doing just that. But I want to remind America what it is all about. And that is middle America and what it means to young men and women who are starting out in agriculture on their farms. This is income averaging, because we are going to phase out subsidies, folks. We have to allow those who are starting off in the farming business, and those who want to sell a farm, to have capital gains relief--those who inherit farms. We are giving them some way that we can pass our farms and ranches on to the next generation. In other words, we don't have to sell the farm to save the farm, and income averaging, allowing a young man and a young woman on a farm to accumulate cash and save it in the good years so that they can make it through the bad years. That is basically what we want to do. And I call them farm friendly provisions of this budget deal. In small business, the ability and just a short time to write off 100 percent of your premiums for a tax credit on your health care insurance; you get your home office tax credit back; the alternative minimum tax for small businesses and farming operations. Yes, on that same farm or ranch they have children; and the $500-per-child tax credit, which, in my State, means that $200 million a year stays in that State. And the decision on who spends that money is left to the parents. That decision will be made around a breakfast table rather than around a conference table here in Washington, DC. So let us take a look at the big picture. Let us take a look at the people who really pull the wagon. They have been looking for relief a long time. It is in this package. I congratulate my good friend from New York and my good friend from Delaware because they have worked a long, long time. And, yes, you can find something in here that you do not like. But let us not let perfection stand in the way of progress. Let us at least take that one giant step in the right direction and let people control those dollars that they have worked so hard to earn. Across my State of Montana, we are agriculture and we are small business. So this package is just like a rifle shot; it is pointed right at those people who really are the heart and soul of any community, and, yes, the working men and women of this country. I am going to support it. I hope that all of my colleagues will support it. And then if there is something wrong, this body is not encased in stone. There is plenty of time to put some fixes in that maybe should be put in. But nonetheless, right now let us take that one giant step in the right direction. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I would like to pay tribute to a man who has given the American business community and millions of hard-working Americans over 2 decades of dedicated service. Dr. Richard Lesher, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will be retiring in mid-August of this year. Dr. Lesher has successfully steered the world's largest business federation during this era of global competition. After nearly a quarter of a century with Dr. Lesher at the helm, the chamber's membership has grown to over 215,000 business members, 3,000 State and local chambers of commerce and over 1,200 trade and professional associations. In addition to the national membership, the U.S. chamber works closely with international members from over 60 countries. Dr. Lesher has worked tirelessly to improve the chamber and to continually champion the goals of the free enterprise system. In order to give his members a stronger voice in Congress, Dr. Lesher has established the Grassroots Action Information Network, or GAIN. He has overseen the creation of the National Chamber Litigation Center in 1977, the only public policy law firm that represents American business interests before regulatory agencies and the courts. Dr. Lesher has been a constant source of inspiration and dedication in Washington, across the Nation, and throughout the world. His innovative ideas, superb leadership and knowledge of issues have made the U.S. Chamber of Commerce the Nation's leading business advocacy group. Dr. Lesher, thanks for your unfailing commitment to Americans and American business throughout your tenure. I wish you the very best in your retirement.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to correct an unintentional Federal burden that has been placed on a sector of our Nation's agricultural community. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 subjected operators of large trucks and buses to new regulations including the requirement that States devise a commercial driver's license [CDL] program by April 1, 1992. The intent of this act was to improve highway safety by requiring a higher level of qualification and knowledge for those engaged in commercial trucking activities and was primarily aimed at addressing the safety issue of over-the-road, long-haul truckers. In 1988, the Federal Highway Administration [FHwA] granted States the authority to waive the CDL requirements for farmers and others who operate large vehicles incidental to their occupations. States retained the right to impose restrictions and conditions on those for whom the waiver was applied. Unfortunately, the CDL requirement continues to apply to many vehicle operators who are neither a highway safety hazard or engaged in commercial trucking enterprises. Such is the case of those engaged in the unique, seasonal business of harvesting the Nation's crops. Custom harvesting is a service industry which, for a fee, provides farmers the personnel and equipment necessary to harvest their crops; relieving them of the need to invest, operate and maintain the costly, specialized equipment which can only be utilized on a limited seasonal basis. Incidental to this service is providing the transportation equipment and drivers necessary to deliver those crops to on-farm or local storage or processing facilities. This service harvests nearly 60 percent of the Nation's entire wheat crop from my State of Montana to Texas and many wheat growing States in between. The vast majority of miles driven in providing this service are off- road or on low traffic density rural roads and highways. Because of the unique nature of this business and the substantial investment in equipment, the owner-operator of these predominantly small, family- owned businesses devote a significant amount of time and resources to employee training and safety education which is relevant to the service they provide, rather than simply accepting the generally inappropriate standards based on the urban-suburban driving needs requires for a CDL. In addition, close supervision of the harvesting and transport activities is provided both during the actual harvesting operations and the movement of equipment from site to site. Given the failure of the FHwA to acknowledge the unique characteristics of the custom harvesting business and to provide a reasonable waiver to States to determine an appropriate level of regulation for this industry, we are introducing legislation to provide States the authority to grant an exemption from the CDL requirements. This legislation does not mandate that those engaged in activities such as custom harvesting will be unregulated. It does provide those States, who wish to do so, the opportunity to provide regulatory relief to an industry which is critical to the production of food and fiber in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to correct an unintentional Federal burden that has been placed on a sector of our Nation's agricultural community. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 subjected operators of large trucks and buses to new regulations including the requirement that States devise a commercial driver's license [CDL] program by April 1, 1992. The intent of this act was to improve highway safety by requiring a higher level of qualification and knowledge for those engaged in commercial trucking activities and was primarily aimed at addressing the safety issue of over-the-road, long-haul truckers. In 1988, the Federal Highway Administration [FHwA] granted States the authority to waive the CDL requirements for farmers and others who operate large vehicles incidental to their occupations. States retained the right to impose restrictions and conditions on those for whom the waiver was applied. Unfortunately, the CDL requirement continues to apply to many vehicle operators who are neither a highway safety hazard or engaged in commercial trucking enterprises. Such is the case of those engaged in the unique, seasonal business of harvesting the Nation's crops. Custom harvesting is a service industry which, for a fee, provides farmers the personnel and equipment necessary to harvest their crops; relieving them of the need to invest, operate and maintain the costly, specialized equipment which can only be utilized on a limited seasonal basis. Incidental to this service is providing the transportation equipment and drivers necessary to deliver those crops to on-farm or local storage or processing facilities. This service harvests nearly 60 percent of the Nation's entire wheat crop from my State of Montana to Texas and many wheat growing States in between. The vast majority of miles driven in providing this service are off- road or on low traffic density rural roads and highways. Because of the unique nature of this business and the substantial investment in equipment, the owner-operator of these predominantly small, family- owned businesses devote a significant amount of time and resources to employee training and safety education which is relevant to the service they provide, rather than simply accepting the generally inappropriate standards based on the urban-suburban driving needs requires for a CDL. In addition, close supervision of the harvesting and transport activities is provided both during the actual harvesting operations and the movement of equipment from site to site. Given the failure of the FHwA to acknowledge the unique characteristics of the custom harvesting business and to provide a reasonable waiver to States to determine an appropriate level of regulation for this industry, we are introducing legislation to provide States the authority to grant an exemption from the CDL requirements. This legislation does not mandate that those engaged in activities such as custom harvesting will be unregulated. It does provide those States, who wish to do so, the opportunity to provide regulatory relief to an industry which is critical to the production of food and fiber in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Federal Government should not manipulate the universal service fund to balance the Federal budget. I believe this for several reasons. The provision in the conference reconciliation package which manipulates the Federal universal service fund and allows the Federal Government to use this fund to balance the Federal budget is outrageously bad policy, and is, I believe, an unconstitutional takings. In States like Montana, the universal service fund is absolutely critical to the provision of basic telephone service at reasonable and affordable rates. However, lately it seems that this fund is becoming the ``ox that gets gored'' to resolve a variety of high profile problems or issues. Universal telephone service is a privately funded support system that works without Federal monetary aid. Unfortunately, due to its present on-budget status, this privately financed program is subject to the whims of the budgeteers. A couple of months ago, the FCC, at the urging of the Vice President, decided to add a further burden of $2.25 billion a year on the contributions to the fund to pay for linking schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities to the Internet. Now the Congress, by this reconciliation package, is seeking to balance the budget at the cost of universal telephone service. This will have extremely negative impacts upon basic telephone service in rural and remote areas of the country which depend upon the fund to keep prices for telephone service reasonable; consequently, here we are, in the name of balancing the Federal budget, effectively raising rates for telephone service for all customers who happen to live in states like mine. This effectively targets the rural customers and is simply unacceptable. Sound telecommunications policy must not be manipulated to comport with fleeting budgetary concerns. Rural Americans--and those others who receive affordable service as a result of universal telephone service--must not be subjected to the uncertainty of this process. Furthermore, I believe that, even if this provision were not such outrageously bad policy, we should not adopt it because it will likely be struck down by the courts as an unconstitutional taking of private property. Contributions to the Federal universal service fund are made by telephone companies and wireless telephone providers and, as such, are not the property of the Federal Government. The Telecommunications Act clearly establishes the manner in which universal telephone service funds are to be collected and disbursed. Pursuant to the act, universal telephone service moneys logically should not be classified as either Federal receipts or Federal disbursements and thus should not be associated with the Federal budget, as the administration has insisted, and as some in Congress have allowed. Clearly these are not Federal funds. Thus, the Federal Government's use of these funds interest free is, in effect, a governmental taking of that interest. Consequently, I believe that a constitutional challenge to this provision will likely be successful. Regardless, there is one thing of which we can be absolutely certain: this provision will end up in the court system, thus wasting phone company, and by extension phone company customer, and taxpayer money. Folks, this provision is a bad idea for any of a number of reasons, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing any efforts by either the administration or Congress to use the universal service fund to balance the Federal budget. Additionally, this ill-advised raiding of the universal service fund sets an absolutely terrible precedent. While I am confident that the budget agreement is based on sound numbers, what will happen if the economy takes a turn for the worse and the economic assumptions on which the balanced budget plan is based come up short? Will the budgeteers not look to increase the amount of money that is borrowed from the universal service fund? Even if that's not the case, and even if the money borrowed from the fund will be repaid, this amounts to a back-door tax increase levied on every American through his or her telephone bill. I don't believe that we need to raise taxes in order to balance the budget--that's why I joined every other Republicans member of Congress in voting against the ill-conceived Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993--but if we're going to raise taxes, we ought to be forthright about it. This scheme to raid the universal service fund is anything but forthright. universal service

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Indiana. (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1090 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the $1,675,000 request for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology [EPSCoT] Program reported in the Senate appropriations bill, S. 1022. EPSCoT, which is part of the Commerce Department's Technology Administration, is an important program for our Nation's rural States. Its aim is to help foster regional technology-based economic growth in the 18 States that are traditionally underrepresented in Federal research and development funding. EPSCoT evolved during the 104th Congress from a series of discussions between the Technology Administration and the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space which I chaired along with Senator Rockefeller, the ranking minority member. Dr. Mary Good, who retired as the Undersecretary of Technology in June, recognized the importance of initiating, maintaining, and enhancing research development and technology in all States of this Nation. Using the highly successful National Science Foundation Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] as its model, EPSCoT was originated to serve as its technology counterpart. The States are ready to proceed since they can use their existing EPSCoR State network to now help build a strong technology infrastructure throughout this country. This program receives bipartisan support. While EPSCoT will be a competitive, cost-shared, merit-based grants program, the actual details are now being worked out through a series of public meetings with representatives from State and local government, regional organizations, small businesses, and universities. In June, we held one of three regional policy forums in Billings, MT. We heard from the people that will be participating in this program. They provided the feedback and advice about how EPSCoT should be designed to meet their unique needs to develop and sustain a long-term technology-based economic infrastructure in the region. A successful EPSCoT program could also provide a mechanism to relieve some of the concerns raised in opposition to the Advanced Technology Program [ATP]. I believe that ATP plays an important role in the development of emerging and enabling technologies critical for sustaining a strong economy. However, it has been viewed as providing too much support to large companies and, as a result of the way industry is now clustered, limiting the support to a few specific regions within the country. There is a strong call for wider participation and greater diversity of partnerships in the Department of Commerce. In Montana, 98 percent of the businesses are considered small businesses. Generally, small businesses do not have the capacity or the resources necessary to undertake or maintain the research and support activities which larger businesses and industries maintain as part of their on-going activities. To the extent that such support exists in these States, it usually comes from local universities. EPSCoT is a vehicle to assist the largely rural States to develop regional clusters, spin-off companies, and other small high technology companies. It will help small businesses and industries which are emerging in Montana and other rural States to be successful and globally competitive. This program, with sufficient support, will be successful in stimulating technology development and transfer. EPSCoT will foster the scientific and technological infrastructure necessary for job creation and economic growth. Mr. President, for these reasons, I strongly support the funds provided to launch EPSCoT. This is an investment to spur economic growth in rural areas that are key to an overall healthy American economy. I yield the floor.