Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill due for its second reading.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1745, the Department of Defense authorization bill. At 12 noon, under the previous order, there are expected to be five rollcall votes as follows: First on the passage of the DOD authorization bill, followed by a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1788, the national right-to-work bill, followed by votes on or in relation to the Dorgan amendment, the Kassebaum amendment, and final passage of the TEAM Act. Following those votes at noon, an additional period of morning business is anticipated and the Senate will begin consideration of the Defense appropriations bill. Therefore, rollcall votes are expected throughout the day and into the evening in an attempt to make substantial progress on the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, over the Fourth of July, I guess our break was taken a little bit differently. Due to circumstances of a personal matter in both my wife's family and my family, we did not get to spend as much time in our home State of Montana as we would have liked. Generally, a couple rides on an airplane, but basically we drove across this Nation, across the heartland of this Nation, all the way from the Rocky Mountains back to Washington, DC. But I flew into California. We were talking yesterday about the encryption issue, an issue that allows people to encode their messages that are sent on the information highway and that there is some reliance that those messages are only received by the folks they are intended for, and when the folks receive those messages, they have confidence that it was sent by the right person and the message has not been tinkered with before they received it. That happens to be something in this new technology, this information age, that we will be talking a lot about. But as I sat on the airplane, I met a young couple, and I opened the newspaper to the situation with the FBI files at the White House, of which the young woman said, ``That doesn't make a lot of difference to me,'' because she was a supporter of this President and she was going to vote that way anyway. I did not argue with her. She did not know me from Adam, but I asked what she did for a living and she said she was a computer analyst. I said, ``Well, does your company do business with the Government?'' She said, ``Yes, we do.'' I said, ``In sensitive areas like defense or security, or whatever?'' And she said, ``Well, I don't know about those things.'' I said, ``Well, would it make any difference if your records were at the White House?'' All at once, it started to become a thing of conversation. I did not say anything more about it, but she and her husband talked about it for the rest of the trip. When we talk about this issue of encryption and key escrow and those kinds of new terms that will filter into the conversations of America, we have to talk about trust. That is key--trust. We look at the situation as it is with our young people today and we say, ``Well, maybe midnight basketball didn't work.'' We know that juvenile crime is on the upswing again. It is up 11 percent. Juvenile murders are up 8 percent. Juvenile robberies are up 16 percent. Marijuana use is up 200 percent. That tells me that our young people are in a sense of hopelessness; that we leaders have not talked enough about trust and we have not talked enough about hope and what this great country offers. We only hear that there will not be money for education. They are scared they will not be able to go to school after all the rhetoric that we hear. We ought to be talking the other way around. It is what we talk about and how we put it. We should talk about hope and opportunity. Only this country offers all kinds of opportunities for young people in today's age. And they yearn for discipline. They want to talk about hope and what is out there, and this new world of technology offers that. So when we think about encryption, we think about the new technologies, we hear those new words that are going into the conversations, but there is one old standard standby. It is who do we trust and how do we tell our young people today, how do we tell them that there is hope and their opportunities are greater than of any generation, because electronically they open the doors of opportunity around the world and it can be done in 5 seconds. It is trust. We who are put in positions to represent a constituency teach our young every day. Some days we even use words. Some days we use words, and that is what I think this is about when we start talking about this issue and the issue of what goes on on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The keyword is an old standby word called trust.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to my legislative assistant, Lori Anne Staley. She logged over 4 years time with me and I will certainly miss her. Lori joined my staff almost in the beginning back in 1989 as a staff assistant. She quickly learned the ropes and helped to keep my office running back in the early days when many of us were still figuring out how to get around the Capitol. Although she is from Ohio she easily adapted to Montana and soon Montana adopted her. She has worked hard for Montana and Montanans appreciate all that she has done. Her biggest compliment is when people forget she is not a native Montanan. Lori left my office for a couple of years and then came back, proving that you can come home again. She returned as a legislative correspondent and after 2 months took over international trade and foreign relations as a legislative assistant, continuing to add to her list of duties over the course of 3 years. Today she not only handles trade, foreign relations, and defense issues, but she is also responsible for my duties as a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. She has been willing and able to tackle any issue and has a broad understanding of the way Washington works. From trains, planes, and space shuttles, to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, and B-2 bombers, to GATT and NAFTA, Canadian Durum wheat, and product liability reform--Lori knew the issues well and was always able to keep me informed and up-to-date. She was able to juggle her multiple issues while keeping the big picture in perspective and knowing how Montana fit into it. No matter how big or small the task she had a good sense of how to get the job done right. I teased her as being hard hearted, but I knew I could always count on her for a clear assessment of any issue in a snap. I admire her energy and devotion to her job and to Montana. We have spent many late nights together as it seems the Senate gets the most work done in the wee hours of the day. Whether preparing for committee hearings or monitoring floor debate I knew she was working overtime to keep things running smoothly. In her 3 years as part of my legislative team her accomplishments have numbered many. She was instrumental in helping agriculture shippers during the sunsetting of the Interstate Commerce Commission. She planned a small business committee field hearing in Kalispell, MT on proposed OSHA regulations for the timber industry--two issues which didn't know anything at all about when she started. She has also promoted distance learning which was showcased in a Commerce subcommittee hearing earlier this year. Whether working with NASA or the Montana Department of Transportation her ability to work through problems and get the job done shone through every time. We will miss more than just Lori's work around the Office. Even in stressful times she managed to keep her good humor. Everyone on staff knew they could turn to her for an amusing story, some good advice, or a helping hand. Indeed we will also miss her cheerful smile. Lori has changed a great deal since she first arrived on Capitol Hill 7 years ago and started her first job in my office. I know that neither of us will forget this period of time and I hope that she leaves my office with a feeling of having made a difference. She has done almost every job and covered almost every issue as a part of my staff and every time she goes in with a smile and comes out on top. Today she is moving on to start a new adventure. I'm certain that she will miss all the people she's worked with here in Washington, DC, and back home in Montana. Everything she has learned and all of her experiences will be a part of her. And in return when she moves to her new job she will leave a little part of herself with us. In closing, I would like to bid good luck, but not good-bye, to my legislative assistant and friend, Lori Staley. I know she will go far. Lori, thanks for your good work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we have all come off of a week of vacation with a lot of travel. You get to visit with a lot of people. We think that the whole world is focused in on what happens here in Washington, DC. To our surprise it is not. Maybe that is something to be thankful about. Mr. President, I am baffled after coming off this vacation that I can be sitting in a committee hearing with CEO's and president's of companies like Netscape, like Microsoft; like all of the companies that have come to be, within the last 10 or 15 years, powerful; and companies in the new technologies that we are using today, listening to these president's and CEO's argue for strong encryption technology that is vital to the future of businesses while at the same moment this administration is apologizing to the American people for the exposure of confidential FBI files--I just find absolutely unbelievable that this kind of snafu could be permitted by and enacted by several of the employees at the White House that have unlimited access to extremely--I say ``extremely''-- confidential information on hundreds of prominent Americans. After this incident, it gives me pause. And it might be clear that not only does this President believe in big Government, but, I add, does he also believe in Big Brother? Contrary to popular opinion, Big Brother is probably watching and listening to all of us. A startling fact revealed this week is that over the last 4 years electronic eavesdropping has increased by 100 percent; from 340 in 1993 to an estimated 700 in 1996. Does that mean that we have more criminal activity? I do not think so. I think in fact that most of the crime figures are going the other way. The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act mandates that all of the Nation's telephone carriers build special access for Government wiretappers as these new telephone companies develop new digital telephone systems, and that access makes it easier for the Government to listen to just about anybody or anything that they want to. Right now in this country among the business community--and after the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that allowed this new superinformation highway to be built and to be advanced--we are seeing that information highway used for many purposes: Business creation, national security, communications, and exchanging information. Most of the integrity of that information highway will depend on the kind of encryption or the codes that we can put so that whoever we mail to we make sure that it is for their eyes only and that it has not been monkeyed with or tampered with. Any of the three is crucial in doing business on today's information highway. It is just like you drive a truck. If you want to ship some goods to Pennsylvania, you use a public highway. That could be called the Internet. What do you do? You lock the truck. The truck gets on the highway, gets off the highway. You want to make sure that your property is protected. That is very essential in this business, this business of high tech and using the information highway. So basically, we need security through encryption technology to protect our bank transactions, our health transactions--telemedicine is a reality nowadays. We will deliver our medical services via the information highway. Your medical records should be kept secure-- Internet commerce; in other words, if you are doing business on the Internet, you have communiques for your people, their eyes only--and, of course, software security. There is intense international competition in the technology of encryption. So, Mr. President, we do not live in a vacuum. Other countries are developing encryption technology. But American software companies are hurt by the old World War II-type mentality to encryption technology. Ironically, the only obstacle to creating the safe environment in cyberspace is none other than the White House. The President actually argues it is imperative for Government to keep a decoder key, a decoder key--they call it key escrow--of each company's encryption codes for public safety. I am wondering whose safety they are really looking out for. This graph sums it up for us. Confidential FBI files and back door gateways to our computers are off limits. It is off limits. People can understand a snafu, but they do not understand when their privacy has been invaded without their knowledge and without them giving authority to look at that information. If you are having security troubles with confidential paper files, how can the Government be trusted with highly sensitive proprietary encryption codes for multibillion-dollar high-tech companies? I just happen to believe that the American people have real concerns about Big Brother. It is called trust. They just do not trust the Federal Government to have any kind of control over their privacy anymore. And using the FBI to investigate anybody is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the potential for corruption in the computer industry. I have America on my mind today, and I am really concerned about the stand that the administration has taken on encryption. I was in Palo Alto on Monday, a week ago, talking about this very thing and, yes, it is something that we are not allowed to export, an encryption that goes beyond the 40-bit-link standard. We can buy it in this country. We can use it in this country. It is about a $15 billion a year export business that was locking our software production. You can talk about strictly a business deal, but basically we must have encryption if we are to move more things electronically, even for national security. I urge the President to rethink his position on encryption technology and just support the efforts to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens. I take that very seriously. I think this Government should take it very seriously. And I think the people of this country should have very, very serious concerns with even a little snafu. And it is not a little snafu, folks. It is not little. It is big. And it is just the basis of a free society. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Georgia.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to say farewell to my legislative assistant, Patty Deutsche. She has been with me for over 7 years and I will certainly miss her. She arrived in my office with almost no knowledge of Montana but quickly became one of us. It did not take long for her to figure out that 60 miles on a map did not necessarily mean a car ride of 60 minutes. And since she began as my scheduler, that was important. She ran my life for 2 years--both in the office and on the road--and made my new life in Washington, DC, that much easier. When she moved to the legislative side, I knew she would attack the issues with just as much energy and competence. Though the issues she handled fell under committees on which I did not serve, they tended to be the hot topics. From health care to welfare, Medicare to Social Security, small business to labor unions, veterans and the aging to abortion, education and family issues--she learned the issues, knew them well, and was always my dependable source when I needed an update. She had her finger on the pulse here in the District of Columbia and her finger on the pulse in Montana and I know my constituents appreciated that and benefited from that. Being a Californian in Montana is not easy, but she was quickly accepted by even the most ardent Montana natives. They never had an opportunity to question her loyalties. She worked for Montana and Montana's residents as if it were her own home State. After 5 years handling these many legislative issues, she has accomplished a lot. She has been instrumental in promoting rural health care, from the fight over health care reform in 1994 to the promotion of telemedicine. She has helped me fight for small businesses--and that is crucial to my State. And she has always been a voice of reason when it comes to questions of morals, ethics, family values, and what is right. I have teased her about being to the right of Attila, but I always knew I could count on her opinion to be well thought out, strong, and conservative. But aside from her tremendous dedication to her work, her sense of humor will be missed. She brought levity to stressful times. Her counseling chair was always available, not just to me but to other staff as well. Whether providing an open ear, objective advice or a funny story, Patty managed to find time for others as well as get her work done. Mr. President, longevity is not the norm on the Hill and keeping staff as long as 7 years is rare. I have been lucky to have Patty on my staff almost since I first arrived in town. And though I will miss her terribly, she knows she will always have a home here and in Montana. She is moving to Louisville, KY, to be the manager of government relations for Vencor, Inc. And I hope they realize what a treasure they are getting in Patty. I have no doubt that she will embrace her new job and that Louisville will embrace her. Patty Deutsche has served me well and she has served Montana well. I know the folks with whom she has built relationships in the Big Sky Country will feel her absence, but Patty is the type that will continue to nurture those relationships, whether she represents Montana or not. That is just the way she is. Today is her last day working for me and she will soon leave for Kentucky. I wish her the best of luck and all the happiness in the world. God bless you, Patty.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the managers amendment includes projects that were accepted by the Armed Services Committee while they were on the floor. We have added the following projects. First, a consolidated education center for the Army at Fort Campbell, KY. Second, phase III of the western Kentucky training site for the Army National Guard at Greenville, KY. Third, phase I of the National Range Control Center at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Fourth, the Undersea Weapons Laboratory at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center at Newport, RI. The offsets for the Army and Navy projects will come from reductions to the planning and design lines of that service. We are also taking funds from the Army National Guard minor construction account to pay for the one Guard project that is in this amendment.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction appropriation bill and report for fiscal year 1997. Mr. President, this bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee last Thursday. The bill recommended by the full committee on appropriations is for $9,832,000,000. This is $700 million over the budget request, $200 million under the House bill, and $1,344,000,000 under the level enacted last year. 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. My colleagues should know that the Committee on Appropriations in the House approved an appropriations bill that was $900 million over the budget request. Once again we will be faced with a difficult conference with the House. We have over $1 billion in differences. The addition of projects to the Defense authorization while it was on the floor has even further strained the process. Mr. President, this bill has some points I want to mention. The bill funds the base closure and realignment accounts. The base realignment and closure account comprises 26 percent of our appropriation. It includes $353 million for round two of the BRAC process, $972 million for round three and $1,183,000,000 for the final round. We made sure that there would be no impediments to moving forward with the decisions that the President approved. Last year, I was concerned with the growth of this program. The base closure program should not replace the regular military construction program. I am pleased to see that this account has been reduced below last year's level. It has come down by over $1.3 billion. The program has been reduced by a third. We supported the Secretary's initiative to provide more housing to our military members. This is part of the $4 billion included in this bill for family housing. We did not, however, support the Army and Air Force's request to build new general officer quarters. We will not support building new homes for generals when there are enlisted people with families on waiting lists unable to get a home. We also addressed the shortfalls that continue to plague our Reserve components. The Department continues to walk away from the total force concept. Recognizing this, we have again lent support by adding $366 million to the Guard and Reserve accounts. In each case the funds either are for quality of life or readiness. Mr. President, the administration has available to it the same information used by the subcommittee to develop this bill. The administration knows that the construction backlog of the Army and Air Guard, and the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves is billions of dollars and that this backlog is growing, even as the force levels have been reduced. Instead of increasing the funding, the Office of the Secretary of Defense deleted every project that we added last year which was in the future years Defense plan for many of our Reserve components. This left the Reserve components with very little in the future years Defense plan. Afterwards the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee used a criteria which required projects to be in the future years Defense plan. The Department was pleased to walk away from the Reserve component. The Armed Services Committee only funded projects within the future years Defense plan. We now have a situation where we have unilaterally given up our duty to check and balance the President's request. We have also given up our option to represent our States which each have their own military department. So against this construction requirement, the administration budgeted only $194 million for all the Reserve components of the Department of Defense. We could not allow this to happen. The $194 million is not adequate. We cannot expect the National Guard to continue to be capable of performing their mission. Mr. President, that mission is not one to be taken lightly. It is defending this country. We have only reduced the administration request of $197 million for the NATO Security Investment Program by 13 percent. We believe this is a responsible reduction considering the requirements that NATO may incur in the near future. We recommended $36 million for the Homeowners Assistance Program which provides partial compensation to homeowners for their financial losses incurred in the sale of their homes at closed or realigned bases. We also recommended $20 million for the family housing improvement fund which will be used to build or renovate family housing by utilizing private capital and know how. Mr. President, before I close I want to thank the ranking minority member for his participation and his contributions to the subcommittee this year. I also want to thank Dick D'Amato and B.G. Wright of his staff as well and Warren Johnson and Jim Morhard on my staff. We would not have gotten here without their effort and expertise. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's interest in this matter and I share his admiration for Governor O'Callaghan. What he suggests is entirely appropriate and fitting. I would point out, to my ranking member, that there is no precedent in a military appropriations bill for naming a facility after an individual. My fear is that there would be many requests, legitimate requests, for the committee to do so in the event that we were to take this action on this bill.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, that is a fair solution, and agree that revisiting the issue in the conference committee is entirely appropriate if the circumstances that he describes occur or appear likely. Amendment No. 4362 (Purpose: To make available $6,600,000 for construction of a consolidated education center in Kentucky; $10,800,000 for construction, phase III, at the Western Kentucky Training Site, Kentucky; $10,000,000 for construction of phase I of the National Range Control Center at White Sands Missile Range, NM; and $8,900,000 for construction of the Undersea Weapons Systems Laboratory at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, RI; and to provide offsets for such amounts)

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate two thoughts. No. 1, which is the inconsistency with which the present administration deals with land use policy decisions. No. 2, the concept of balance in dealing with land use policy. Earlier this month the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service announced that they propose to withdraw from mineral entry approximately 19,100 acres in the area surrounding Cooke City, MT. This follows a pledge made by the President to disallow mineral entry into this area for a period of 2 years. This is an area that is surrounded by lands which already protect the land in question. Congress has previously acted to create a National Park and a Wilderness area to protect the fragile lands in this area. Now the Secretary of the Interior wants to put more land in Montana out of reach for the people of Montana. In the statement that the Secretary included with the proposal, he has stated in numerous locations that it is the policy of Federal agencies to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of stable domestic mining. The document also discusses that there will not be any effect on valid existing claims, referring to the New World Mine site presently under study by the Federal land management agencies and the States of Montana and Wyoming. The purpose of this proposal is exactly the opposite. Before the States can finish their purposed action on mining in this area, the Federal Government steps in to say that they know what is best for everybody. They state that they will consult with local communities on the process. Yet when it comes to the final process they give little or no credit to the words and thoughts of the people that will be most directly impacted by their actions. All this is stated very clearly in a letter written by Mr. David Rovig of Montana. His letter sets forth a precise description of the inconsistencies in the proposal put forth by Secretary Babbitt. Mr. President, I ask that the letter by Mr. Rovig be printed in the Record following my statement. In recent years our Government has fallen prey to the actions of special interest groups that seek to exempt others of the future they are so privileged to have lived. If we are to increase the stability of our country and to develop our future we need to open our minds and eyes to balance, and not close the door on development. We need to be prepared to use our resources to protect the land. These are the aims that the Government needs to seek. It is the goal of the State of Montana to find sound science in the development of the resources my State has been so blessed with. Work is being done in Montana to protect the future and the land. What Montana seeks is work and jobs to move into the future. The letter follows: Rovig Minerals, Inc., Billings, MT, June 21, 1996. Senator Conrad Burns, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Conrad: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Montana Mining Association in my position as President. I was recently made aware of a Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service action (see attachments) whereby they propose to withdraw from mineral entry approximately 19,100 acres in the Cooke City area. This administrative action is purportedly being undertaken at the request or direction of Secretary Bruce Babbitt of the Department of the Interior. It follows on the heels of President Clinton's promise, catering to the environmental community, that this area would be suspended from mineral entry for a period of two years. I think you know the history of this hoax--the President flew over the area at 10,000 feet and then determined in a secret meeting with multiple environmental groups that he would save the area from the nasty miners. The continued effort now being foisted on us by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service is a very expensive attempt to appease environmental groups with taxpayer money while in reality accomplishing nothing. Cooke City sits in the middle of a multi-million acre area of previously withdrawn wilderness and national parks. The 19,000 or 20,000 acres represented is one of the very few areas in this gigantic enclave where any degree of free enterprise can be pursued. The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Secretary and the environmental community keep trying to portray the Cooke City area as a forgotten or overlooked part of their personal preserve. The reality is that the New World Mining district was specifically excluded when Yellowstone Park was formed by virtue of the fact that it was an active mining district. Furthermore, in the 1970's when the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area was formed, it was again specifically excluded by virtue of its intense mineral potential. That mineral potential still exists today as demonstrated by the reserves recently drilled out by Crown Butte Mines, Inc. In the government support information, the following statement was made, ``The withdrawal has been proposed by the Secretary of the Interior to maintain, to the extent practical, resource values in the area and on adjacent lands in Yellowstone National Park and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area.'' It is obvious from this statement that the Secretary has redefined resource values to exclude mineral resources. Yet in the accompanying information sheet dated June 1996, we see the following paragraph: ``Under the Mining and Mineral Policy Act, it is the policy of all Federal agencies to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation industries; and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs.'' There are many other inconsistencies in the government's position such as the statement: ``The withdrawal would not affect those lands in the area for which there are valid existing rights of mineral entry or any other associated rights, such as access to private land or existing mineral claims.'' This is inconsistent since the very concept of mineral entry allows for the staking of mill site claims to help develop a mining claim. Under Babbit's proposal new mill site claims would not be allowed thus denying owners of valid existing mineral rights, their other associated rights. The information sheet makes the absurd statement that: ``The New World Mine proposal, being analyzed by the Gallatin National Forest, is not considered as a `connected action' to the withdrawal proposal and will not be considered in the analysis. The New World Mine proposal applies to an area for which there were valid rights established prior to the proposed withdrawal.'' Anyone who has followed the proposed development of the New World Mine knows very well that the withdrawal issue would never have arisen were it not for Clinton's secret meeting with the environmentalists. Of course, the New World Mine proposal should be considered a connected action, and the very fact that its multi-volume Environmental Impact Statement has been written to cover the very heart of the proposed withdrawal demands that it be considered as a connected action, thus proving the district's mineral viability. Even if you accept the position that this proposed activity will not affect existing mining activities and claims, then you must seriously question why the government wants to take this very expensive multi-year action to withdraw the surrounding ground. Another major consideration is the concept of administrative withdrawals on our ever dwindling mineral resource locales. The prospector and the wildcatter cannot find their minerals where no minerals exist. We must be allowed to look in those places where geologic conditions allow for the presence of commercial minerals. Already thousands of acres of highly prospective mineral locations have been lost to the bureaucratic procedures that simply do not recognize the incredible importance of minerals to this country's past, present and future. There are no great nations that do not have near self-sufficiency for their mineral needs. I hope that through the budget process, or some of the other magic that goes on in Washington, you can stop this wasteful and unnecessary proposal but, if not, I plead for you to work with us to ensure that a degree of logic and common sense is incorporated in the procedure. This would include review of the studies by the United States Bureau of Mines, the United States Geological Survey and various states agencies. It must also consider how small this area is when compared to the vast wilderness and park system that surrounds it. It is clear to me that if Babbitt's mineral withdrawal succeeds there will be subsequent steps to pick away at the area until it ultimately would be consumed by the wilderness system. As a matter of standing policy, the Montana Mining Association is opposed to administrative withdrawals of any lands from mineral entry. In this instance, the egregious violation of the intent of the withdrawal procedure for the sole purpose of mollifying preservationist interests solidifies our resolve. We firmly believe that the continual hijacking of established procedures to achieve political ends must stop. Please help us help ourselves and the country to thwart this effort. Very truly yours. David B. Rovig.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I guess whenever we start talking about appropriating and budgeting for certain needs of our military, we always hear the argument that there are things unrequested by the Pentagon or unrequested by the President. I am wondering if we as individuals in this body and the House do not have the same responsibility of taking a look and making up our own minds on the needs of our men and women in uniform. In this bill that has been authorized, the greatest share goes to quality of life. Quality of life leads to retention, the retention of the good people who are now serving in our respective services. The Senator from Nevada and I have worked--and I do not know of anybody who is easier or better to work with when we start going down through the priority list on military construction than Senator Reid from Nevada. He understands what has to be done, understands that, no, the administration never sends any request down for projects or any support for the National Guard or sometimes even our Reserve units. In fact, if we would look at the backlog of construction for our Reserve units, it is in the billions of dollars, because it has been put away. I want to remind my colleagues that this bill, this authorizing bill, and the appropriations that we are going to mark up tomorrow is cut $1.3 billion from a year ago. So if the Senator from Ohio and my friend from Arizona say they are having an effect, they are having an effect. We are spending less money than we did a year ago in military construction. But quality of life and readiness, because we have changed that since the cold war is over--in other words, money goes to the base closing and realignment, environmental cleanup of those bases; but for the retention of the people that we need, the biggest share of our thrust has been in the quality of life. I will tell you that I have been in some barracks that were not very good. I would not ask my employees to live there. Those projects have to be done if we are going to retain the people in our military. And as to the morale, it adds to everything. But keep in mind that, yes, we are $1.3 billion under a year ago. Then you have to sit down, like Senator Reid and I did and our staffs, and set some priorities. But the Pentagon should not be the only one that has any kind of judgment on the needs of some of our military people, nor the administration. We have an obligation to our military people, too, just like anybody else. So I think this is a pretty frugal bill when it comes to military construction. There is not very much in here that is not needed and requested by the military. With that, I say to my colleagues that this amendment should be defeated, and I ask for its defeat. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today to wish all those young cowboys and cowgirls that are participating in the College National Finals Rodeo good luck. These fine young men and women are at the heart of the sport of rodeo and deserve to be commended for their hard work and determination. The CNFR is especially important to all these young riders because of the great opportunity for college scholarships and prizes. For many, this competition will determine which school they will be able to afford, if any. These generous scholarships are provided by the U.S. Tobacco Association and they should be given applause for their work to strengthen the sport and help these young riders obtain a college education. The city of Bozman has also contributed a great deal to the CNFR. Celebrating the 25th anniversary of hosting the rodeo, the Brick Breeden Field House has provided the perfect location for the finals and hopefully will continue to do so well into the future. You have good reason to be proud of your sport and what you do. As the only original America sport, you are carrying on a tradition that was started over 100 years ago. When the cowboys of the Old West were driving their herds across the plains, little did they know that their friendly competitions would become a multimillion dollar sport. Your dedication to the rodeo honors them and their hard work and commitment to the land. My hats off to you and the best of luck.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I understand there is a technical amendment at the desk offered by Senator Nickles, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 307, S. 1406.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Thursday, June 6, further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then immediately resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment; further, that the time between 9 a.m. and 11:20 a.m. be equally divided in the usual form with Senator Byrd to be recognized from 10:50 to 11:10 a.m. and Senator Hatch be recognized from 11:10 to 11:20, with the remaining time until 12 noon divided between the two leaders as previously ordered.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we have all listened with a great deal of interest all day as this debate has gone on. We look at it from different angles, I guess. There are some of us who come to this body and engage in this debate, and we take a look at the world from different angles. I happen to look at it from the bottom up. I have been pretty much one of those people at the working end of the American spectrum, I guess. I came up the hard way. You know, for once, I had an idea that this year maybe common sense would prevail. I really had hopes of that. I am not a lawyer, not highly educated. When you think about how simple this little debate is, it is just about sending an idea to be considered by the people who live in our respective States. That is all it is about. It is not about pain, or hurting, or what we are going to do. If we had a constitutional amendment that said we have to balance the budget, do you think it would cut down on the little squabbles we have in our debates on the budget? No, I do not think so, because everybody has a different set of priorities. But the idea is just to send it to the States, to let America take a look at it, and to let the citizens turn over in their own minds whether we need an amendment to force Congress to balance the budget. You know, Americans watch us every day, and folks at home say, ``Why do you not get along better up there?'' ``Why do you have these heated debates?'' I guess I have listened to the Senator from Arkansas and his speech regarding mining. I have listened to that for 7 years now, almost 8. It never changes. And some who do not really understand the issue sometimes get confused. As we talk about this issue, this issue of a balanced budget--and, remember, it is no sin to oppose it. In fact, it may be good that some would oppose it because that adds something to the debate. You have the right to oppose, but you do not have the right to distort the facts. We are talking about passing a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States and sending it to the States for ratification. My friend from Illinois had it right. As Americans watch us, he said, ``Do it.'' Do we have the courage to do it? We have heard all of the arguments. Of course, if common sense is not going to take over, then we have to argue another end of it. Basically, I kind of come from the philosophy on taxation that, yes, a certain amount of Government is needed and desired by most Americans--in fact, I would say all of them. But we still have a responsibility to that earner to allow him or her to earn more and to keep more so they can do more for themselves and their communities. I do not have the right to jerk the future away from young people. I have a daughter that will graduate from medical school a year from right now. I do not have a right to jeopardize her future to practice her profession. I have a son that has the same kind of a future--a very bright future. But I, as a legislator or citizen do not have the right to jerk that future away from him. Do you know what? I do not think anybody else does either. You have the right to oppose this amendment. You do not have the right to distort. Last year, Congress passed a budget that would have balanced in 7 years. President Clinton vetoed it. In fact, in order to avoid a balanced budget, he forced a shutdown of the Federal Government--not once, but twice. Congress was finally able to pass the budget for the year, but it fell short of its goal and did nothing, fundamentally, to change the way Government spends the hard-earned money of our citizens. Eighty percent of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment. And the country is watching right now, this week, to see if this Congress caves in to the President once more. More than any other piece of legislation that we vote on this year, this constitutional amendment will have the longest and the most lasting effect that we will do in this 104th Congress. So I stand here as a supporter of it and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look. Just think, and use your good old common sense, and do the right thing. President Clinton proved one thing last year: One man can stand in the way of real progress, and he can stand in the way of real reform. Last year, the President pressured six Democrats, who already voted for the amendment in previous votes, to kill the amendment when we had a chance of passage. One vote. It proved that he alone was the man that stood in the way of success. Ironically, President Clinton used to support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. In 1985, when he was a Governor, he boasted about his work with the National Governors' Association, and he said, ``The NGA is on record in a resolution as supporting a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, something Republicans could never have passed without the help of Democratic Governors, and I was one of them.'' He referred to his own State's constitutional requirement to balance the State budget as his own salvation. Now, does the President want a balanced budget? He says he does nearly every time he is asked. But I am wondering if his words are supporting his actions. But irrespective of that, do we, as Members of this Congress--irrespective of what the President thinks--do we have the courage and do we have the discipline to pass this amendment and send it to the States? Well, as I already mentioned, the President rallied the Democrats in Congress to kill the balanced budget amendment last summer. On top of that, only one of the record five separate budgets that President Clinton submitted to Congress even came close to balancing the budget. He vetoed the Republican budget and shut down the Federal Government, not once but twice, and the Republican budget would have created balance by the year 2002. Is it not ironic today, when we turn on the television and there are the trustees of the Medicare trust fund saying that we were wrong last year in saying that the trust fund will be completely out of money by the year 2002. We were wrong. It is going to be out of money in 2001. We have heard Senator after Senator stand on this floor and say, ``We can take care of it, and we do not need all of these draconian, these extreme measures,'' when actually we were allowing the trust fund to grow at around 7 percent a year. They called that a cut. This is the only town in America where that can happen. And because we did not have the nerve to deal with that situation a year ago, we are now a year behind in taking actions to make sure that the Medicare trust fund is solvent, is strong, and will be there for generations to come. Some chose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. If that sort of makes you a little bit mad, whoever is listening and watching, it is supposed to. We did not do our responsibility last year when we were told by the same set of trustees, three of which work for the President in his administration as Cabinet Secretaries--yes; they were on the television today telling us that we are in deficit spending now, and we will continue to be and will be broke and out of money by the year 2001. Despite the President's action, the public debate about the balanced budget has been won. Look at the polls. Look at the polling. One says that if you love this country, there are two kinds of freedoms, and the basic of all is economic freedom, because there can be no political freedom unless we have economic freedom under our system. We can change the system and all be ruled by a benevolent ruler. Even he operates the Treasury, and we all become servants and subservient to an all-powerful being. I think when our forefathers put together this great Constitution, I will say that as the debate went on, they would probably, the American people, if that had been televised, they would have been a little bit cynical about Government then, because there were some great debates. What did our forefathers do when they put together the Constitution? I will tell you. They probably did not have the great vision of seeing America as it is today, but they had a very, very strong sense of history. And if we learn anything in the study of history, it is that those who forget it are damned to repeat it. When we revive history to make it suit our own taste or to be politically correct, then we are tinkering with the compass because we are going to make some decisions based on history. Those forefathers were products of a feudal system. They knew that in order for ``free men''--two words--to survive in self-government, it took about three things. It took education, it took discipline, and also it took those who studied history and do not forget it. I ask my colleagues by voting for a balanced budget amendment now, we are taking one of the many steps that is needed in order to secure a stable future for our children. We do not do anything in this body for immediate action. Maybe some of us do. We cast votes that make us feel good. It is not always good for the Nation, but it makes us feel good. Look what we have done. We do it because the effects of our action here come many, many years later. It is the foundation that was laid by our fathers and our grandfathers that enabled us to do the things today, what we have to do, and we have to protect that heritage and that great history, and pass it on to the next generation. We cannot continue to have runaway deficits and accumulate mountains of debt and expect to remain competitive and financially solvent in today's global economy. So we stand in support of a balanced budget. It is even more important today. Just think of the technology that we have today--three little inventions, three little inventions that have, in comparison, or relative to this building, brought the world down to the size of a basketball. We can talk and interact with anybody in any other place in the world, wired or wireless, in 5 seconds. Those three inventions are the transistor, the jet engine, and the silicon chip. It changed our whole life. We cannot go back to the old days. We cannot do it. And the only way that we stay a leader in a global economy is if we stay economically solvent. No other nation has the potential of leading the rest of the world than this country, the only superpower that is left. Yet, we would allow the power to be eroded by not being careful with our funds as we should be. Just because we have a balanced budget amendment does not mean that we are not going to have--my good friend, the Senator from Florida is on the floor, and he is going to have different priorities than I have. He just is. We would expect that, but we can work them out when both of us know that we have to solve problem No. 1 on the ground, and it has to be solved within certain parameters. My heavens, common sense may take over. Who knows? Sometimes in this town, though, they say there is a vaccine for that. It is called Potomac water. So I support the balanced budget amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it just from the standpoint that it is like good old Quaker Oats; it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Graham appear at an earlier point in the Record during the debate on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.)

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Graham of Florida, and that his statement appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will continue the debate on the balanced budget amendment with the vote to occur on passage of House Joint Resolution 1 at 12 noon. All Senators should be prepared to be in the Chamber at noon for this important vote. On Thursday, the Senate may also consider other legislative or executive items. Therefore, additional votes are possible during tomorrow's session.