Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to read one part of the Governor's letter. He states ``the Ninth Circuit is simply too large to effectively respond to the needs of those it serves.'' State legislatures of the Northwest consistently and overwhelmingly call on Congress to split the ninth circuit. On the other hand, the bill is opposed by judges and lawyers in the ninth circuit who would lose control over their fiefdoms. It is also opposed by special-interest groups that apparently care little about the troubles that are caused by the ninth circuit. Mr. President, as you may know, since I came to the Senate in 1989, I have sponsored numerous bills and amendments that would achieve a split of the ninth circuit and I commend the Commerce, State Justice, Subcommittee on their willingness to again take up the fight in the 105th Congress. It's an old axiom that justice delayed is justice denied. For too long the people of the ninth circuit have been caught in the cogs of the wheels of justice. I want to put a stop to this inequity by dividing this court before its growth overwhelms us all. Mr. President, in looking at what has been said by some, that it has not been heard, that it has not been studied, let's just take a look and see what has been done since. In 1974, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on S. 729 to realign the fifth and ninth. It was reported out of committee. Nothing happened. On March 7, 1984, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts held hearings on S. 1156, the Ninth Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1983. No action was taken. On March 6, 1990, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practices held hearings on S. 948, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1989. And there was no action taken. In 1990, the Intellectual Property and Administration of Justice Committee held hearings on H.R. 4900, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1990. Still no action was taken. H.R. 3654 died in committee without hearings. In 1995, the full Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on S. 956, the Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1995. An amended version passed the Senate by voice vote, but it died in the House Judiciary Committee. So it is not that this has not been looked at and studied. It has always gotten bogged down. Basically that is what we are talking about here. We continue to talk about the bar association doesn't want it, the judges of the ninth don't want it. When do we start listening to the people who have to use it? Mr. President, I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Bennett]. The Senator from California.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment that would strike the provision from the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill to divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We have heard so much said today about how the bar associations oppose it, the judges oppose it, and nobody has said anything about the people. Are they secondary in our justice system? We are supposed to be serving the people, and I think the bar associations do, too. I happen to believe that they believe very strongly in the kind of service that they deliver to their clientele. But we haven't heard that today. If there were a judicial equivalent of baseball's famous ``Mendoza line,'' marking the mediocre batting average of .200 below which players dread dropping, then the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would be laboring in the farm leagues. In terms of the rate at which its decisions are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the ninth circuit's record for failure is practically unblemished. In recent years, on average, more than 80 percent of rulings by the ninth have been overturned. This past term, the Supreme Court reviewed 29 cases from the ninth circuit--it reversed, in part or in whole, an astonishing 28 of them. The ninth circuit in 1996-97 alone was reversed, often 9 to 0, on decisions asserting the right to die, requiring sheriffs to conduct federally required but unfunded background checks on people who buy guns, and denying the right of groups who were economically harmed by the Endangered Species Act to sue even though the law gives legal standing to any person. While the high court undoubtedly chooses many cases with the express intent of reversing them, the ninth circuit this past year has wrecked the curve. For instance, the eighth circuit, which had the second-most cases reviewed, had a reversal-and-affirmance record of only 4 to 4. But ``this isn't baseball,'' says Judge Stephen S. Trott of Boise, ID, according to a recent Los Angeles Times article. Agreed. The jurisprudence of our Federal appellate court system is far more serious than a game. In my view, the fact that the ninth circuit is undeniably out of step with the rest of the Nation is perhaps the least of the multitude of reasons to consider splitting this giant court. First, the ninth circuit outstrips the other circuits in all measures of size, both physically and legally. The ninth circuit encompasses a land mass the size of Western Europe. Its nine States and two territories--Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands-- stretch from the Arctic Circle south to the United States-Mexico border and west across the international dateline. It has a population of nearly 50 million people, about 1 in 5 Americans, and is expected to grow by 43 percent over just the next 13 years. Second, the ninth's caseload is the largest. More than 8,500 appeals were filed last year, and that number is expected to jump by nearly 700 percent in the next 25 years, making the ninth less than a model of fair and speedy justice. In fact, of the 11 regional circuits and the District of Columbia circuit, it ranks next-to-worst in the duration of pending appeals--an average of 429 days, usually more for criminal cases, compared to the national average of 315 days. These delays are costly. Appeals take time and money, and they're putting the squeeze on my State. Litigants and attorneys who must make frequent and expensive trips to San Francisco are pleading for reform. Third, the problems of geography and population are two factors that contribute to judicial inconsistency on the ninth. Because the 28 judgeships of the ninth--nearly twice the maximum number recommended by the U.S. Judicial Conference--are scattered so far and wide, the court has experimented with limited en banc proceedings in which a panel of 11 judges decides the most important cases. By relaying on this approach, conflicting court decisions are common. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. As a result, decisions by the ninth are often narrow and set few precedents for use by judges in other cases. In fact, several of the Supreme Court Justices criticized the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Washington versus Glucksberg that the due process clause of the 14th amendment guarantees critically ill individuals a limited right to assisted suicide. Even some liberal members of the Court, such as Justice Ginsburg, expressed concern that the Ninth Circuit opinion seemed to give Federal courts a ``dangerous power.'' Size was a factor leading a congressional commission in 1973 to urge splitting the fifth and ninth circuits. Congress chose to split the fifth, while the ninth has become bogged down in political squabbles and has had to make due with its enormous size. One cannot make the argument this has not been heard, or that it has not been studied when in actuality it has. Some press accounts have portrayed the debate as a clash of party ideologies, of conservatives who favor the split versus liberals who do not. But such a view is short-sighted. These press accounts overlook the bipartisan support behind dividing the ninth. For many of us, it is just as simple as wanting a court that is closer in every sense to the people it serves. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has publicly noted the merit of division. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently said ``the sheer size of the Ninth Circuit, even without its attendant management difficulties, argues for its division.'' Montana Governor Marc Racicot, a former State attorney general, favors the idea. And I would now like to submit a letter from Governor Racicot supporting this split. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bill that will provide further regulatory relief for our farmers and ranchers. Let me give you some background on this issue. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation published a rule under the HM-200 docket which severely restricts the transportation of agricultural products classified as hazardous materials. This aspect of the HM-200 rule could cost the agricultural retail industry and the farm economy millions of dollars every year. Currently, States model their regulations concerning the transport of hazardous materials on Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations [HMR's]. However, some States with large farm economies provide exceptions from the State HMR's to the agricultural industry for the short-haul, intrastate, retail-to-farm transport of agricultural inputs. HM-200 would supersede all State HMR's, eliminate these exceptions, and apply Federal regulations to the short-haul, seasonal and mostly rural transport of farm products. The cost of this regulatory burden is estimated to be in excess of $12,300 a year for each agricultural retailer. Industrywide, it is estimated that it could cost the agricultural economy nearly $62 million annually. We all want safe highways, safe food production, and a safe workplace, but when DOT, OSHA, and EPA regulations are stirred together in a pot, the stew can turn out to be quite rancid. Placing these Federal burdens on the backs of farmers and ranchers in Montana's rural communities, can mean the difference between flying or dying. HM-200 will require agricultural retailers to comply with time consuming and costly regulations that will not make our rural roads safer, but only increase the cost of doing business, cause confusion, and require unnecessary paperwork. These expenses will be passed on to farmers who already are burdened with slimming margins and ever higher cost of production. States and the agricultural community have an excellent track record for protecting the environment and keeping the public safe. The agricultural retail industry complies with numerous safety measures such as requiring all drivers to have Commercial Drivers Licenses [CDL's] drug and alcohol testing for drivers, HAZMAT handling experience, and so forth. Additionally, States which do not provide exceptions to their own HMR's for the agricultural community will face a new regulatory burden since these States rarely enforce the regulations that they have in place. The U.S. DOT has made it abundantly clear that they will expect all States to actively enforce HM-200, thereby making it an unfunded mandate. Despite petitions for reconsideration from the agricultural community--all of which have gone unanswered by DOT--HM-200 is due to be implemented on October 1, 1997--it was published in February of this year. This legislation seeks to delay implementation of HM-200 with respect to agricultural transports, until October 1, 1999, or until the reauthorization of Federal Hazardous Materials legislation. By allowing for a delay in HM-200 implementation, I believe we can properly address and examine the facts as they stand with regard to the need for this new regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and help keep our agricultural community from having to bear a needless expense which has little safety value to the public.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to provide for farm-related exemptions for certain hazardous materials and transportation requirements. I send it to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I lift the objection. That will be fine.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't think I will. I have not seen the Bryan amendment and I think in your unanimous consent you stated that there could be no second-degree amendments, is that correct?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on July 14, 1997 Mary Frances Burns died in Gallatin, MO. She was born there, a daughter of a farmer and stockman and a sister to four brothers and two sisters. She married Russell Burns in 1931 and they farmed just northwest of Gallatin all of their lives. Mom was so typical of the farm women of the American prairies. She was wife, partner, mother, homemaker, field hand, and gardener. She could coach younger girls in 4H, teach a Sunday School class, attend a school board meeting, cook all three of the daily meals, keep an old gas powered Maytag wash machine going, and still have time to play an active role in Democratic Party politics. She and her husband were married 61 years until dad died in 1992. They navigated this family through the droughts of the 1930's and the Great Depression. Yet through it all, she maintained a great sense of faith and humor. The times were hard in the Depression as anybody who lived in that era could attest. The actions and conversations of mom and dad were always of hope and optimism in the American dream, of the American system, and their dream of a better life. It was the time when America was being tested again and again was about to cast into a great world war. They witnessed husbands, sons, brothers, and a few daughters leave for war and they were there to welcome them home. As a family, we cried and prayed with the families who lost loved ones to that terrible war and we celebrated with the ones who came home heroes. We helped them to put their lives back together again and America was whole again. They skimped and saved and worked. Mom never had much but was never denied. She made a very happy home. Christmas was an orange, home made toy, and home made clothes. All holidays meant good cooking with a special little twist for her family and relation in times of unbelievable stress and uncertainty. Memories will always remain of the wonderful smells and aromas emanating from mother's kitchen. It was there she cooked for harvest and hay hands over an old wood range during the hot humid days of summer. Those same smells were even better after chores on a cold winter day. The badge of authority to the woman of the prairies and a true symbol of womanhood was the apron. It was worn everyday. It was made of anything from feed sacks to the finest cotton. There were those for everyday and those for Sunday or welcoming unexpected callers. Company was always welcome if at meal time, never left unfed. Mom could gather the eggs, pick the garden, move baby chicks and kittens. The apron was used to haze milk cows to the barn, run wandering livestock out of her garden--along with some colorful language--wipe the tears from a crying child, dust from a husband's eye, and sweat from a working brow. It was spotted and stained from ripe strawberries, black berries, an overly excited pup, and grease from a spark plug out of the old wash machine. It had the smells of newly picked sweet corn, fresh baked bread, lye soap, and once in a while, the light scent of perfume. She was the center of our home and was a part of a generation that understood love, life, and death. She understood the value of honesty and openness, a healthy fear and love of God, and the core values of the American Midwest. She was the daughter of this land. The soil that she loved and sustained her has now received her back. We are the benefactors of her qualities and teachings. We, as a nation, are what we are because of her and the millions of women like her of the American prairies. She was one of the silent builders of the United States of America.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for no more than 2 minutes for the purpose of introducing a bill.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1056 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining. I thank the chairman of the ag appropriations bill for his courtesy. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bill that will provide further regulatory relief for our farmers and ranchers. Let me give you some background on this issue. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation published a rule under the HM-200 docket which severely restricts the transportation of agricultural products classified as hazardous materials. This aspect of the HM-200 rule could cost the agricultural retail industry and the farm economy millions of dollars every year. Currently, States model their regulations concerning the transport of hazardous materials on Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations [HMR's]. However, some States with large farm economies provide exceptions from the State HMR's to the agricultural industry for the short-haul, intrastate, retail-to-farm transport of agricultural inputs. HM-200 would supersede all State HMR's, eliminate these exceptions, and apply Federal regulations to the short-haul, seasonal and mostly rural transport of farm products. The cost of this regulatory burden is estimated to be in excess of $12,300 a year for each agricultural retailer. Industrywide, it is estimated that it could cost the agricultural economy nearly $62 million annually. We all want safe highways, safe food production, and a safe workplace, but when DOT, OSHA, and EPA regulations are stirred together in a pot, the stew can turn out to be quite rancid. Placing these Federal burdens on the backs of farmers and ranchers in Montana's rural communities, can mean the difference between flying or dying. HM-200 will require agricultural retailers to comply with time consuming and costly regulations that will not make our rural roads safer, but only increase the cost of doing business, cause confusion, and require unnecessary paperwork. These expenses will be passed on to farmers who already are burdened with slimming margins and ever higher cost of production. States and the agricultural community have an excellent track record for protecting the environment and keeping the public safe. The agricultural retail industry complies with numerous safety measures such as requiring all drivers to have Commercial Drivers Licenses [CDL's] drug and alcohol testing for drivers, HAZMAT handling experience, and so forth. Additionally, States which do not provide exceptions to their own HMR's for the agricultural community will face a new regulatory burden since these States rarely enforce the regulations that they have in place. The U.S. DOT has made it abundantly clear that they will expect all States to actively enforce HM-200, thereby making it an unfunded mandate. Despite petitions for reconsideration from the agricultural community--all of which have gone unanswered by DOT--HM-200 is due to be implemented on October 1, 1997--it was published in February of this year. This legislation seeks to delay implementation of HM-200 with respect to agricultural transports, until October 1, 1999, or until the reauthorization of Federal Hazardous Materials legislation. By allowing for a delay in HM-200 implementation, I believe we can properly address and examine the facts as they stand with regard to the need for this new regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and help keep our agricultural community from having to bear a needless expense which has little safety value to the public.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to provide for farm-related exemptions for certain hazardous materials and transportation requirements. I send it to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Certainly.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in response to Senator McCain, there are over 891,000 men and women in uniform who serve in one of the six Reserve organizations. They represent 38 percent of the total force. For these Reserve forces, the President's budget request contained a total of $173 million--less than 2 percent of the total military construction bill allocated to the Reserve components. More specifically, the National Guard military construction program supports over 474,673 soldiers and airmen in communities throughout the Nation. They constitute approximately 20 percent of our total Armed Forces and represent all 50 States and 4 territories. The units and the missions of the Reserve components have changed significantly in the last 30 to 40 years. The mission and the equipment is much more complex and requires larger working bays and parking areas. The increased lethality and range of modern weapons restrict indirect firing ranges and training areas and creates new requirements necessary to ensure safety. The Army Guard alone has more than 23,360 facilities, with a current plant replacement value of $17.3 billion. Over 50 percent of these facilities are inadequate by current Army criteria. There is a construction backlog of $2.3 billion, which as a direct impact on modernization and readiness. The Pentagon requested only $45 million for the Army National Guard for military construction in the fiscal year 1998 budget. There are 367,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard--$45 million does not go very far in meeting their mission and quality of life requirements. If the Congress did not act to provide additional military construction funding to the Reserve components each year, these forces would be severely handicapped as far as their ability to achieve full operational capability and their objective readiness level. Just because a project is for the Guard or Reserve does not mean it is not meritorious, it signifies that the Pentagon has decided to let the Congress foot the bill for building and maintaining the Reserve components' infrastructure.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS. I can assure both Senators from New York that both projects will be given every due consideration when the conferees meet.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Ford and McConnell.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction appropriation bill and report for fiscal year 1998. This bill reflects the bipartisan approach that the ranking member, Senator Murray of Washington, and I have tried to maintain regarding military construction and this subcommittee. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Murray, her staff, and the members of the subcommittee throughout this process. I very much appreciate all of their support. Mr. President, this bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee last Thursday by a unanimous vote of 28 to 0. The bill recommended by the full Committee on Appropriations is for $9,182,900,000. This is $799 million over the budget request and almost equal to the corresponding House bill. The bill provides $610 million less than what was appropriated last year--a reduction of 6 percent in overall spending authority for the committee from fiscal year 1997. Further, the bill reflects a reduction of 21 percent since fiscal year 1996--almost $2 billion less from just 2 years ago. We have sought to recommend a balanced bill to the Senate, and we believe it addresses key, military construction requirements for readiness, family housing, barracks, quality of life and the Guard and Reserve components. This bill honors the commitment we have to our Armed Forces. It helps ensure that the housing and infrastructure needs of the military are given proper recognition. Also, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the bill is within the committee's 602(b) budget allocation for both budget authority and outlays. Mr. President, this bill has some points I want to mention. We added $152 million to provide better and more modern family housing for our service personnel and their families. On another quality of life measure, we have added substantially to the budget request for medical and hospital facilities, increasing the request by almost 50 percent. We have provided $660 million for barracks construction to provide single service members a more favorable living environment. The committee also fully funds the budget request of $104 million for funding 24 class I violation environmental projects. We also addressed the shortfalls that continue to plaque our Reserve components. The Department continues to walk away from the total force concept. Recognizing this, we have again lent support by adding $395 million to the Guard and Reserve accounts. In each case, the funds will help satisfy essential mission, quality of life or readiness requirements. Mr. President, 22 percent of the bill, or $2.1 billion, is for downsizing defense infrastructure, or better known as the Base Realignment and Closure Program. This includes funding for the last three rounds of BRAC. Almost a quarter of all military construction dollars goes toward the base closure and realignment process. All of the projects that we have recommended are included in either the Senate- or House-passed versions of the defense authorization bills. We will work very closely with the Armed Services Committee, as we put together a conference package for military construction. We have tried to accommodate the sizable administration request for overseas projects in such places as Korea, Germany, and the Middle East. Mr. President, 24 percent of the administration's budget request for military construction projects is for overseas areas. This seems out of proportion when only about 16 percent of our total force is actually stationed overseas. We have funded only the essential of those projects. We are also concerned about the recent decision made at Madrid to expand NATO and the additional costs required to implement that decision. With future defense spending constrained, this expansion has the potential to degrade the U.S. military construction and defense program seriously. I have requested a detailed report that lays out the additional funding requirements associated with the expansion, including logistical, communications, construction and other needs anticipated for the NATO infrastructure account. This will help us understand the potential costs to the U.S. taxpayer of NATO expansion. There are many other issues that I could speak about at this time. I urge the Members of the Senate to support this bill and move it forward expeditiously. I would say, also, we are finding in the BRAC, or base closures, that we are spending dollars that were unexpected just in environmental cleanup. The environmental cost of cleanup of these bases so they could be moved into either contract hands or private hands has been very, very high. So I appreciate my ranking member, the work she has done, and now I yield to my ranking member, Senator Murray.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Bumpers amendment. As previous chairman and present member of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space that provides the authorization for NASA, I would like to state my support for the space station program and the Senate appropriations bill, S. 1034. The Bumpers amendment is not new. This is an annual event here in the Senate like the first day of summer in Montana. We always know it is coming but it just never happens. Let me start by saying that I support the missions performed by NASA. Just like the pioneers that came to Montana and settled the West, exploration in unchartered territories of space is a way to achieve our dreams of new beginnings, and visions of a better life. This is clearly illustrated by the excitement generated around the world by the Mars Pathfinder and its Sojourner rover. Every day Americans wake up to learn more information about the Mars' rocks named Scooby-Doo, Yogi, and Barnacle Bill. Record numbers of hits on the NASA website have been registered. Why? Because the Mars Pathfinder opens the door to our imagination and a new period of exploration. This is not the only accomplishment by NASA within the past year. A rock has been found in Antarctica which excited the world with the possibility of life on the planet of Mars. The Galileo spacecraft has beamed back the intriguing photos of existence of seas on Jupiter's moon, Europa, again raising speculations of life-related chemicals. Technology is developing, like the X-33 prototype for a new generation of reusable launch vehicles, which will increase reliability and lower the costs of putting payloads in space. These endeavors inspire and expand the horizons of the pioneer spirit of all Americans and the space station is part of that endeavor. NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to undertake civilian research, development, and flight activities in aeronautics and space. Since its creation, NASA has undertaken a wide variety of successful programs and projects. The idea of a space station is not new. In the 1970's, Skylab provided a station to carry out experiments in astronomy, space physics, materials processing, and biomedical research. After its success, NASA began its plans to develop a permanent orbiting laboratory for conducting life science and microgravity research and to conduct human exploration of space. Since its original authorization in 1984, the program continues to evolve to achieve its admirable goals. Today, it is a partnership between Canada, Japan, 10 European nations, as well as Russia. I cannot stand here before you today and say that the space station is not without problems. We are all aware of these problems and I have personally addressed them over the past several years during oversight hearings. We are aware of the risks and problems resulting from the Russian participation, the increased costs, and the technical challenges in the space station design. And we will continue to have hearings to address these issues and hold NASA accountable. NASA is also aware of these problems and are actively seeking solutions. Mr. Goldin and NASA have been successful in streamlining and restructuring NASA's operations and facilities without compromising safety, productivity, or the goals and missions of the space program. Mr. Goldin and NASA have been successful in reducing costs, increasing efficiency, and living up to his motto of a faster, better, cheaper agency. Today, NASA is doing more for less. So today, Mr. President, we again hear the arguments for the elimination of the space station. These are arguments to eliminate our dreams. Let's retire these arguments once and for all and begin working together to overcome these difficulties to ensure our future presence in space. Mr. President, again, I thank my friend from Missouri. Mr. President, this is an annual thing. It kind of comes like Christmas and every other holiday that comes around. We hear from those folks who really think probably this is a great waste of money. We have all stood and marveled at the expedition to Mars. It came in under budget and was done in less time. But that is 300 million miles from where we stand today. When America does not dream, or fails to reach out, then we become a stagnant people. Right now, as we speak, there is a reenactment of the Mormon Trail that was blazed from Omaha, NE, to the great Salt Lake Valley. Using the same mentality, we would still be driving the same vehicles now that carried those folks westbound across Nebraska and Wyoming and into Utah. Let me start off by saying that I support the missions performed by NASA. I am from Montana, so I don't have a big stake in what NASA does, from the standpoint of my home State of Montana. But I will tell you that when we reach out and explore the unknown--where we are going now is a little more than just a wagon train from Omaha to Salt Lake City. We have seen it clearly illustrated this week and the excitement generated around the world by the Mars Pathfinder and its Sojourner recovery. Every day Americans wake up to learn more information about the Mars rocks named ``Scooby-Doo'' and ``Yogi'' and ``Barnacle Bill.'' More than anything else, when we talk about NASA, there is another little program that catches the eye and support of the American people called Mission Planet Earth. With our new technologies in sensoring, we know more about this piece of mud that we are whipping through space on called Earth. We have done it because somebody dared to dream and somebody dared to do it. I do not think the American people, this society should back off from the challenges of exploring space. And, yes, the space station is a part of that. Now, I chaired the authorizing committee on science, technology and space--NASA. We changed this a little bit differently. We went out to seek partnerships, and we got some commitments, but maybe it is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Maybe we are also put to the test. Can we do it? Can we captain it? I think we can. It is American know-how, it is American technology that has put us where we are. And we do not know what the benefits are. I would guess there are probably a lot of digital wristwatches around here on a lot of people's arms that were the result of the space program--new composites. We know more about Earth. We know a lot more about everything that is not written up in newspapers every day because newspapers would rather print those negative kinds of things, I guess. We changed the way we were going to complete the challenge of a space station because we have a lot of things to learn before we go the extra step--not back to the Moon but before we go into deeper space, and so that is why we have a little rover up there on Mars telling us a lot about that planet, the red planet. We changed our tactics because we had one primary contractor, and now we have the hardware that is ready to go to start building this so that we may take the next step into space. So I tell my colleagues on this floor that we have changed the whole mission of NASA, and, yes, we have brought the costs down at NASA almost a third just in the time that I have been in this Senate, so we are getting there quicker, under budget and using less money and collecting more knowledge and technology as we move along. Dan Goldin, who is the Administrator of NASA, has done a wonderful job in repairing----

Mr. BURNS. A bureaucracy that was almost without a mission. Now we have a mission. I strongly oppose the Bumpers amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield my time back.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS. I thank Senator Murray's staff, Dick D'Amato, Emelie East, and also on my staff Sid Ashworth, Kelly Hartline, and Jennifer Chartrand. I also thank Ben McMakin and Mazie Mattson. It was a pleasure working with these folks. They did the majority of the work. I yield the floor.