Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I understand the benefits that the Maritime Security Program will bring to the United States. However, I am concerned that, because this program will be funded through yearly appropriations, folks will come looking for offsets every year, which might result in new tax proposals, user fee proposals, new duties, or other revenue raising mechanisms to be imposed upon the maritime industry at some point down the road. This would be devastating to the export/import trade in my home State of Montana, as well as in other States, because a tonnage tax is particularly harmful to bulk commodities. Bulk commodities, as we all know, are highly price sensitive in the extremely competitive world market--an increase of a few cents a ton, caused by new taxes or fees, can make the difference between whether a foreign purchaser buys U.S. grain or grain from some other country. I do not believe that exporters and importers should bear the burden of funding--through tonnage taxes or user fees--this program. On the contrary, because the program is designed to benefit the country as a whole, it should be funded from general receipts from the treasury, and, as I understand it, that is what this act does, is that correct?

Mr. BURNS. So this act does not, in any way, contemplate funding this program by imposing new taxes, user fees, or other revenue raising devices that would adversely affect the maritime industry customers like the good farmers in Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I join my colleagues in calling for hearings on this important issue. This issue deserves our immediate attention and I look forward to working with the chairman in developing a record on this issue. The ``Age 60 Rule''

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from Georgia. We have just got in some interesting figures from Montana. I guess that is why some of us are very concerned about this, not only from a political standpoint--this is the season, and nobody can lift that out of this, out of the element of debate--but if you ask Americans today, ``Do you feel safer than you did 4 years ago,'' we hear an overwhelming, ``No.'' People are feeling threatened more and more in society. I think it comes from this old mindset of ``only obey the laws you agree with.'' It is a mindset. Just in my State of Montana, violent crime has gone up 8 percent last year, and overall crime has gone up 16 percent since 1994. That concerns me because we are a small State. We are known as a State with hardly any crime, but there was a murder every 10 days last year--that concerns me--a rape every 38 hours; a robbery every 34.5 hours; property crime occurred every 13 minutes; and burglaries happened at a rate of 1 every 2 hours. That sort of concerns me a little bit. Before I had the opportunity to serve here in the U.S. Senate, I served on the board of county commissioners in Yellowstone County. We built a new jail facility and went through that process of detention centers, and we also received a very nice award for a youth detention center. I was convinced, as we went through that process, that somewhere in this crime prevention, or how we deal with crime, there has to be some common sense injected in here. We know that we cannot outbuild the criminal element to just lock up everybody. So we have to find ways not only to deter--one of them is not getting on television and having a low disregard for the laws of the land. You know, as adults, we teach our youth every day, some days we even use words. But that concerns me more than anything else because I have a young son, I have a daughter who will graduate from medical school next year, and they are concerned about crime and crime among the young people. When we take a look at what we did in Yellowstone County in a youth detention center, I think we have to work with States, because the real violent offenders in crime, I don't think we can do much but just hold down on them and keep them in confinement. I think we should work to abolish the very liberal parole rules that some States have. I do not think there is anything wrong--and why should it be wrong--to require drug testing for those under supervision in the criminal justice system. I ask the American people why it is wrong to establish a registry for the release of violent sex offenders, the Megan's law. I see no reason why we should not move forward on that. And child pornography, we have to move on that. But juvenile crime worries me more than anything else, because I guess I got into politics because of youth. I have sort of a soft spot in my heart for them. I have worked very much with 4-H groups and FFA groups, and those are kinds of groups--can you imagine any other kind of group than the Future Farmers of America where you can pour 31,000 of them, with those blue jackets, in downtown Kansas City, and you never have to put an extra cop on the beat? We need to be promoting those kinds of youth groups that espouse their way of thinking and the way they act. I know every Senator in this body gets calls from their local FFA chapters across this country. So we have to do some things that deter crime. We have to promote those groups and organizations that do have their values in the right place. We have to ask some of the hard questions. But some of them are going to have to have common sense, too. The alarming increase of teen drug use, marijuana use, between 12- and 17-year-olds has increased some 200 percent in the last 2 years--200 percent. Why? We had it going down for a while. We had it going down by just one little statement from the First Lady in the White House, who said, ``Just say no.'' We need to help them say no; and when they say no, stick by them. That is what we have to look at. It is concerning to me that we would look at it any other way. Do we want to prosecute juveniles as adults for adult crime? Maybe sometimes. Maybe we should use some common sense there and provide past criminal records for juveniles in sentencing. There is nothing wrong with that. We came a long way in attacking the root cause of crime and drugs in the inner city a few short weeks ago when we passed the welfare reform bill. It deals with dependency and illegitimacy in ways that have never been tried before. It is a big step in the right direction, and yet the job is not over. When we take a look at what is ahead of us, we have to start appointing judges that interpret the law--do not make the law, interpret the law. The elected officials of this country make the laws. Judges interpret them. We need to start appointing Federal marshals and prosecutors that want to prosecute drug dealers and child pornographers rather than making excuses for them that they were just victims of society. If there has ever been a cop-out in America, it is some psychologist or some person who is saying, ``Well, they're victims of society, and leniency should be shown.'' That is a one-way ticket down the drain for this country, when we start making excuses for people who knowingly break the law. Let us take another end of it--victims' rights. I think we ought to have an amendment to the Constitution. Victims have to have some rights. All the rights are not with the felon. It is time to reform the court system, limit appeals, and punish criminals quickly. Keep violent criminals behind bars so they cannot commit more crime. It is time to stop these election-year games and take a stand for what is right. We should just do what is right. I was in Illinois on Saturday for my friend Bob Dole. How many mothers did I talk to that are concerned--they have teenagers in high school in rural areas. Where they have never had problems before, they are coming up with these problems and saying there has to be a more liberal way of dealing with discipline and all those elements. I imagine most of us who serve in this body, when we were in school, if you got a licking in school, you got one when you went home. They did not ask why you got a licking. They did not even ask. My dad did not even ask whether I was right or wrong. The fact is you got a licking, and if you warranted one there, you warranted one here. There was a time I was a victim of society. There was a time when the whole world was against me and I was that victim. I do not think it hurt very many of us. I want to say one word. Not only can we do something here, but we adults, like I said a while ago, we teach every day. Some days we even use words. We are going to have to get on the ground with these young people and we are going to show them they have support to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. It has to be done here. It has to be done across our Nation, and, yes, the national leaders have to set the example. I am asking America, what kind of example are we setting? I yield back my time.

Mr. BURNS. I cannot have the rest of that?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we are on rewind again. We have been down this little debate before. It never ceases to amaze me how we can compare apples and oranges and oranges and tangerines, and then we compare everything else with rocks. It is easy for me to go home and explain this vote for the simple reason that the majority of people that live in Montana, that live in the West, where there is a large prevalence of Federal lands, they understand that. When I first went to the State of Montana, I did not have a real good understanding of public lands and the policies on those public lands and how those policies were developed. I did not have a real keen interest in what is regarded in the West as water rights. Where I was raised in Missouri, we did not file for--if you put a well down, we did not worry about water. It seemed like it came down every river, and our wells were full all the time. We enjoyed anywhere from 35 to 45 inches of rain every year, so water was not a big issue where I came from as a young lad growing up on a small farm. But when you live there for a while, and these issues come up, then all at once your interest grows in it and on the development of that public lands policy. I do not think we want to get into a class warfare type thing. I know if I was a rancher in the State of Montana, I would like to have the opportunity to grow bigger if I could and do it, and do it the way that most of them did. So whenever we start comparing State lands and private lands and BLM land, it is not even a close or a fair comparison. I have been to the Senator's State of Arkansas. I would like to have some of the grazing land that they have in their great State. I would like to range some cattle there and graze some cattle there, because I know what it will do and the season it takes. I was raised in Missouri, so I know what the cost is and how much they will gain on the kind of forage that they have. It is a little bit different as you move West, where the soil thins, and so does the forage. In some places there is hardly any forage at all. The BLM lands are the lands that were sort of left over, because when this country was settled, they did not have the technology or the way to develop water supplies and to deal with everything that you are going to have to have on that range to run livestock. I will tell you something else along with that. In the old days, there was not any wildlife out there either, because everything it takes to sustain wildlife on those ranges it takes to sustain livestock. That is why we have more whitetail and mule deer, more antelope and more elk now than we have had since the Great Depression. The improvement in those ranges has been done in part by the individual permittee, the person who held the permits, because he was the one that had to lay out the money to build the pipelines, to build the reservoirs, and to create in some places where there has never been water but there is now, to where that resource, that resource called grass, the only way it can be harvested is through the cattle or sheep. But as our technology grew and our ability to develop those water resources on semiarid to arid land, we made use of more of that country than had ever been used before. Then we all at once started developing another little organization after World War II looking at the ranges and the condition of the ranges and knowing that the future of agriculture, especially animal agriculture, west of the Mississippi is going to depend on how well we take care of our resources. There was an organization that was founded and had as much to do with the improvement of the range. It is called the Society for Range Management [SRM]. They started having neighborhood meetings and they started bringing new practices and they said not only do we have to do a better job in our grazing, but we have to do a better job in our water management and our soil management. We have to watch out for wind erosion. We do not have to watch out for wind erosion in this part of the country. We have to watch out for water erosion. Sometimes it sounds like it is going to rain here, wash us all right down the Potomac River. That is the forecast anyway. We do not have to worry about that out there. We have to worry about it maybe sometimes in the spring of the year when the runoff goes off, but it does not last very long. But we have wind erosion. In order to prevent wind erosion, you have to keep pretty good forage on that land. So we had to go to different grazing. We grazed some a long time; we grazed some a very short time. But through those practices and trial and error and with that organization, the range improvements in the West have been phenomenal over the last 50 years. One has to remember, you do not change the direction. You do not improve land, you do not improve anything in just 1 year, put a big Band-Aid on it and it is fixed, because it takes a long time. I will admit, the Homestead Act probably did as much damage in the West to the resources there as any law that we ever had, although it did move our public lands into private hands and started building the farms and the ranches across this country. But they also plowed up some country that should never have had a plow stuck in it. That all had to go back into rangeland. Some of those scars still exist today, but we are dealing with that. It takes time. Mother Earth heals, but sometimes it takes a long time. Those lands never were held in private hands. They were always in the Government. They were the leftover lands. In the State lands, they lump everything together. In some places, you have great tracts of timber and some sections of State lands and farmland which produces a nice, great profit to the rancher who farms that land. It is either wheat, barley, or grain, and that returns a nice little check to the Treasury without any livestock ever being on it. That is part of that rent. That is part of that scheme of $4 over there. What we are talking about here, we cannot compare private lands, public lands, and State lands. Take a county like Garfield County, MT. I heard the organizations that are sponsoring this amendment or endorsing this amendment, and they do not want cattle on these lands. This is the bill to move them off the land. To a county like Garfield County, whose tax base for personal property taxes has to be in livestock because there is very little out there to tax, it pays for schools, roads, public safety. All those things are paid for by animal agriculture in the vast amount of the counties east of the mountains in the State of Montana. The Government does do very well when you take into account all of the multiple uses on that land, grazing included. And I saw the comparison of my friend from New Hampshire. If I am investing $50 some odd million, whatever the figure is, and only get a return on $14 million, I think I would look at how I am operating my business. Maybe the secret is not the grazing fee, maybe it is in the way that we are operating our land or our business. Maybe there is a better way. Also, if I was doing it that way--and some of the hoops that the Bureau of Land Management has to jump through were created by laws here in this body. When I went to Montana, only the BLM managed all the land in Montana, with around perhaps 30 or 35 people, and now there are 500 people there. I would take a look at that. Maybe we have an organization that is a little on the bloated side when it comes to managing our public lands. Do not be fooled by the comparison of the lands because there is no comparison. We are trying to pass a rangeland reform bill. The cloud of a Presidential veto is over that bill as we work with it here in this body. Now you tell me that is trying to solve some of the problems that we have in developing public lands policy, because if it is not just exactly the way we want it, we are just going to veto it. That does not tell me that this administration or Mr. Babbitt is trying to get along with the folks who are dependent on the use of public lands, multiple use of those lands in the West. Keep in mind any commercial development, along with the recreation and the access to those lands, is very important to all Americans, all Americans, as they are the benefactor of this, even as we speak today. Not very many of us have a hungry night, for we have a wonderful way of producing food and fiber in this country. I know we will have more to say on this issue later, but take a look and see what we are doing. The comparisons just are not there. Regarding this, I suggest we reject this amendment. It has been rejected before, and it was rejected basically on common sense--common sense. Sure, we can make a case where maybe it ought to be $10--or, to be fair, go to $20. Take them all off the land. Who needs them? It is just a handful of people. Not very many. America, who needs them? I think we need them. They are very important to my State. They are very important to this country.

Mr. BURNS. I have to think about that, but I do not think you can single out people and put them in a class over here and have another class over here. I do not think I like that very much.

Mr. BURNS. I have to say to the Senator that you just cannot single out a few people to say whether you would like that or dislike it. That is the way it is set up for all of us.

Mr. BURNS. I wonder some days, I wonder about the wisdom of that on occasion. Every time we try to single out somebody to pay higher fees or put them under a different set of laws, then somebody else who is running under the same conditions--everybody gets hurt. In other words, those people did not get big from being dumb, so there are other ways to get around it. I think it limits a little man growing. What is wrong with the little guy starting out and wanting to grow? Is that not the American way?

Mr. BURNS. I sure do not want to lose them as a viable corporation. They do a lot of business in my State. They buy my barley. They are not just a one-faceted company. They pay a lot of personal property taxes in my county, the county government. I was a county commissioner before I came here. I know about those checks. They foot the bills on a lot of education. They buy a lot of pickups, and they buy a lot of services in counties. Once it leaves or once that has eroded, that business has a hard time coming back. Senator, we cannot live on just tourism or recreation alone on that land, because recreation will not pay for it. They will not pay you $1.36 an AUM.

Mr. BURNS. If you had some preference, you would rather lease private lands for even more than that, Senator, because we know the services that go with it. The cattle will be ridden and we will get gain on the cattle. That is not guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed on the public lands. We will get control. The State lands are a little better lands. Like I said, you cannot compare these lands. You are comparing apples and oranges. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I think if it becomes unprofitable for them, it would be unprofitable for a small man, too. I do not think that will open up the availability of more of those permits to a smaller rancher.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my colleague.

Mr. BURNS. You can take as much as you want.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the legislation now before us, H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, I rise today to express my strong support of this bill. This straightforward legislation does just two things: First, provides that no State shall be required--I repeat, no State shall be required--to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex marriage. Second, the Defense of Marriage Act defines the word ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of Federal law. Though this bill is short in length--just 2\1/2\ pages in fact--it is long in substance. As most of you are aware, the issue of same-sex marriages and consequently the introduction of the Defense of Marriage Act has come to the political forefront in part because of a 1993 Hawaii State Supreme Court decision. In the case of Baehr versus Lewin, the Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that the Hawaiian Constitution discriminates against the civil rights of same-sex couples by declaring that a legal marriage can only exist between individuals of the opposite sex. In response to this decision,the Hawaii State Legislature has since indicated that the question of same-sex marriages is one of public policy and that the court therefore had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The legislature has further held that the institution of marriage is inexorably linked with procreation and therefore may be validly limited to male/female couples. Though Hawaii's Legislature has made it unmistakably clear that marriage is limited only to a man and a woman, the same-sex marriage issue still thrives in the Hawaii courts, and a lower court is scheduled to begin considering the issue this month. Should this court rule in favor of legalizing same-sex marriages, the repercussions of such a decision would have quite a legal effect. Mr. President, because article IV, section I of the U.S. Constitution, requires that every State honor the ``public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings'' of every other State, the Hawaii court decision could potentially create a situation in which the remaining 49 States, including Montana, would have to recognize same- sex marriages if couples from or married in Hawaii move to another State. In addition, because there is currently no definition of marriage on the books, the Federal Government would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages for Federal benefit purposes. Since the word ``marriage'' appears in more than 800 sections of Federal statutes and regulations, and the word ``spouse'' appears more than 3,100 times, Federal benefits, such as Veterans, Health and Social Security, would all be subject to revision. Given the budget difficulties we are currently facing, it would be an understatement to say that this could have an enormous financial impact on our country. That troubles me deeply. I know that there are people who are concerned that this bill will diminish the power of States to determine their own laws with respect to marriage. Now, let me say that anyone who knows me well, understands that I have always supported giving power back to the States. And I would have serious reservations about supporting this legislation if it mandated to the State of Hawaii, the State of Montana, or any other State for that matter what marriages they can legally recognize. As written, this bill in no way does that. By adding a second sentence to article IV, section I of the Constitution that reads, ``And the Congress may be general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be approved and the Effect thereof,'' the Framers of the Constitution had the foresight to give Congress the discretion to create exceptions to the mandate contained in the ``Full Faith and Credit Clause.'' Therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act, as provided for by this exception, permits us to tackle the issue of same-sex marriages head on and, I am pleased to note, allows States to make the final determination concerning same-sex marriages without other States' law interfering. Let me say that another way. This bill will not outlaw same-sex marriages, it simply exempts a State from legally recognizing a marriage that does not fit its own definition of marriage. Under this bill, States will still be free to recognize gay marriages if they so choose. Under this bill, States will still be free to recognize gay marriages if they so choose. That is the way it should be, individual States deciding what is best for themselves. Beside protecting the right of States to set their own policies on same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act puts Congress on record as defining the word marriage as ``the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,'' and the word spouse as ``a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.'' This is not ground- breaking language. It merely restates the current understanding. This language reaffirms what Congress, the executive agencies, and most Americans have meant for 200 years when using the words marriage and spouse--that a marriage is the legal union of a male and female of certain age in a holy estate of matrimony. Mr. President, numerous polls show that the majority of American people, no matter their religious belief, clearly support protecting the sanctity of marriage. As a Nation we understand that the institution of marriage sets a necessary and high standard. Though most of us agree that everyone should have the right to privacy, most Americans believe the institution of marriage should be cherished and respected and so do I. Although I know that this bill will not solve the problems that take place within individual marriages--particularly in light of statistics showing that one out of every two marriages in this country now ends in divorce--this legislation reaffirms that marriage between one man and one woman is still the single most important social institution. Marriage and the traditional values it represents is the heart of family life and has been shown to promote a healthy and stable society. Principles we sorely need to uphold in our country today. Mr. President, at a time when it is becoming the exception, we have an opportunity today to reaffirm our commitment to the traditional two parent family. And I want to take a moment to thank all of those on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to bring this legislation to this point. I particularly want to commend Senator Nickles for leading the way on this issue. On that note, because of Senator Nickles efforts, and with the overwhelming support this bill received in the House earlier this summer, it looks as though we are going to see our way clear and pass this bill through Congress. In closing, Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have delivered sound and eloquent arguments both in support of and in opposition to this bill today. I truly believe they do so with the most honorable of intentions. Let me remind my colleagues on both sides of this issue, however, that we are not the only voices speaking today. I have received literally thousands of letters and phone calls asking me to uphold the institution of marriage by voting for this legislation. I am sure many of my colleagues here in the Senate have as well. I trust you will listen to those voices. Though I am fully aware that a vote for the Defense of Marriage Act will provide a reason for some to label me as intolerant, a bigot or uncompasionate--which I might add is not true--I am going to vote to send this bill to the President. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to do the same. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand we have about 4 minutes left on the debate on the MilCon appropriations conference report. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time.

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BURNS. Again, I thank my friend from Nevada for his support and contribution to this subcommittee this year. We could not have put this bill together without him and his staff. He is backed by an able staff that understands what is needed and how to get it done: Dick D'Amato, B.G. Wright, and Peter Arapis. I also thank Jim Morhard on the committee staff, Julie Lapeyre in my office, Warren Johnson, and Mazie Mattson. Mr. President, I know of no other further debate on this conference report. I think it is a fair and equitable conference agreement and I urge its approval by the Senate. So, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the conference report and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference report on the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. Mr. President, the conference report is within the revised 602(b) budget allocation for both budget authority and outlays. The conference agreement is $850 million over the President's budget request. This amount is the same as what will be authorized in the armed services conference report. This conference agreement is $1.2 billion under the amounts approved by the conferees last year. Mr. President, I believe the military construction budget is not being adequately funded. We have never recovered from the reductions that were made in anticipation of the base realignments and closures. I want to give the Pentagon fair warning. During this period of troop reductions and base closures throughout the United States and the world, we should have been dramatically modernizing our defense infrastructure. It is no longer business as usual. We must address these mounting deficiencies. I would like to mention briefly some provisions in this conference agreement. First, the conferees approved $2.5 billion for implementation of the base realignment and closure decisions. This amount includes $1.2 billion for the 1995 round. There is also $776 million for environmental cleanup of these facilities. We have now funded the majority of BRAC requirements. Now we must make sure these funds are being correctly spent. Mr. President, $4 billion of this appropriation is for housing the families of our military. This is 41 percent of our appropriation. I am happy to say this percentage is growing. It was 38 percent last year. We must address the quality of life issues we have ignored for so long. Also, we have created a new initiative which will start to relieve some of the burden of providing adequate housing for our single soldiers. It is like Secretary Perry's efforts for family housing. Mr. President, the conference agreement provides an additional $185 million for the National Guard. This includes additional funding for planning and design. The Army National Guard especially needs this funding to properly execute their construction program. I am confident that the President will not veto this bill. This bill includes funding for Incirlik, Turkey, where our Air Force has been flying the mission over the northern part of Iraq. Also, there is funding for Aviano, Italy, where our Air Force and Marines fly missions over Bosnia. We must all support our troops at this critical time. There is one issue my colleagues should be aware of. We have tied funding for the Army programs overseas to the Army National Guard. For years we have directed the Army to start supporting the Reserve components. Each year they have chosen to ignore the direction of the Senate. Mr. President, the appropriations conferees took a strong course of action on this issue. This year we have language which directs the Army to program $75 million for the Army National Guard. Officers within the Army have suggested that it is only report language. They do not think they need to follow our direction unless it is in bill language. What they do not understand is that this body supports the citizen soldier. We know that we will call on them if we ever have to face another major conflict. The Army has not figured this out. I want to put them on record. The Army is going to have a difficult time, until they start supporting the Guard. On a brighter note, we have included a sense of Congress which calls for the Secretary of the Army to name a new administrative facility, at Redstone Arsenal, AL, the Howell Heflin Complex. This is a small tribute to one of the great Senators of our time. I wish my friend well and hope he enjoys his coming years. Mr. President, this is good bill. It is a bill that meets the demands of our national security interests. I urge the Senate to approve the conference action on this issue. I now yield the floor and ask for the comments of the ranking member of this committee who has just been a joy to work with. We have worked on this a long time and, being very comfortable with the bill, I think it warrants passage. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair very much. We have been working very closely with my ranking member, Senator Reid, from Nevada. He has one little duty to perform before he comes to the floor. I would hate to start without him here because we have worked so closely on this piece of legislation. I will suggest the absence of a quorum until he arrives.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Smith motion. A while ago, the chairman of this subcommittee on appropriations said that we run into a lot of things in this business, and especially here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, that we do not quite understand. I chair the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and, of course, Space, and NASA. That is the committee that provides the authorization for NASA. So I state my support for the Bion Program and, of course, this appropriations here which rejects the House language that prohibits the funding of the Bion 11 and 12 missions. In science and technology we run into a lot of things that we do not quite understand because I do not think there are very many of us on this floor that are scientists. The Bion Program is an important cooperative space venture between the United States, Russian, and French space agencies for international biomedical research using Russian-provided support systems, their spacecraft, payload and, of course, the rhesus monkeys. It is a cost- effective program. It is based on sound science. It has been peer- reviewed, I think, four times. I could be wrong, but I think four times. And every time they have come away with the recommendation that the research should move forward. Some of the results are likely to provide insights into understanding complex physiological processes which occur during the normal aging process or are involved in Earth-based diseases such as anemia, osteoporosis, muscular atrophy and the immune system dysfunction. In Billings, MT, the Deaconess Research Institute there has the largest data base on osteoporosis in women that there is in the country. Because of a stable population in my town of Billings, MT, they have been able to move forward on a lot of this research. But the research that is done in space becomes evermore important. Indeed, the first 10 missions of the Bion Program have already benefited our lives through technological spinoffs, such as the development of devices to monitor human fetuses following life-saving surgery and to noninvasively test bone strength in patients suffering from bone diseases. These benefits to our health and well-being are an addition to the knowledge gained to help NASA protect the health and safety of our space travelers. Yes, there are those who would like to scrap the space program altogether. I am not one of those. I am saying that this society, this American society, in fact the unique American is a person that is always reaching out, going into the unknown, exploring the unknown. When we quit doing that, then we lose a part of ourselves. Basically, I have a hunch that this amendment is not really about NASA. It is an anti-animal research amendment. The animal welfare groups have targeted the Bion project for elimination. They claim that research is not necessary and it is inhumane and it wastes the taxpayers' money. And all of that could not be further from the truth. Animal welfare groups are waging an all-out campaign against the program simply because four Russian rhesus monkeys are scheduled to be used in the Bion 11 and 12 missions. Because of this continued pressure, the Bion Program has been continuously scrutinized and it has been continuously peer-reviewed. The experiments were peer-reviewed in 1988, 1992, and again in 1993. In December 1995 the Administrator of NASA, Daniel Goldin, again requested an external panel of scientists to review the research. And the 12-person panel of independent experts strongly recommended that NASA proceed with the remaining Bion missions. As in the previous reviews, their findings reconfirmed the importance of the program and its scientific merit. The panel concluded that the science is excellent; rhesus monkeys are the appropriate species to address the scientific objectives; and there are no alternative means for obtaining the essential information that will be gained from this research. So the Bion Program is being debated here because the most radical animal rights activists have elevated their own agenda above the interests of good science and, further, above the lives of human beings. I think this amendment, if it is passed, will have very serious repercussions on other Federal agencies. I think these agencies include the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans' Administration. Their support for research in the biomedical and life sciences can also be jeopardized by the outcome of this vote today. There is a well-established scientific process leading to awards of Federal support. Being chairman of that committee, we deal with this every day. The proposed experiments undergo peer review by experts, and this includes the review of the use and care of animals that are used in research programs. So this is nothing new to the authorizing committee that I chair. This amendment contradicts existing Federal policies, contradicts the procedures for scientific peer review and laboratory animal welfare that has already been put in place by Congress. It sends a message that Members of Congress, not scientists, are the best judge of the quality of the science projects. I, therefore, challenge any Members of this body, as certain projects come before us, especially in the area of research science and science development, that if everybody is an expert on everything that we talked about and allocated money to do research for, I would really be surprised. But we do have a peer review system, and, thus, if the passage of this amendment were successful, it would undermine the whole foundation that has been assumed on scientific research. Animal research plays an integral part in all of our lives. It has been said that without animal research, most, if not all, of the medical advances in the last century might never have occurred. For example, we could still have polio, and today nearly 38 million Americans would be at risk of death from a heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, for the lack of medication to control their high blood pressure. I could go on and on. I am getting more of an education in that field all the time. I happen to be a very proud father of a doctor who graduates medical school next spring. So I have a feeling that my education is going to continue until they put me in the ground, so to speak. The antianimal research amendment forces NASA to withdraw from a signed contract with the other nations--Russia and France. It derails scientific peer review and thwarts the Animal Welfare Act. Is this the message, I ask this body, that we want to send? Allowing a single interest group that totally opposes animal research to dictate NASA's or other Government agencies' research goals cannot be tolerated. I have seen these groups work. Sometimes they have a less-than-candid view of what has to happen as far as science and technology is all about just to further their own cause. So, Mr. President, the Bion Program is worthy. The amendment is not truly about the merits of research or the costs, because the costs are nothing. What it is about is the welfare of animals being used for research. I support appropriate procedures to protect the safety and well-being of animals, but this amendment is simply inappropriate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.