Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, as amended, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand there is an amendment at the desk offered by Senator Kassebaum, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture be immediately discharged from its further consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, passed as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today to support many of the goals of the Chafee-Breaux amendment to the Budget Act of 1997, but to voice concern regarding how to pay for those goals. On the top of the list of essential tax reforms that this amendment addresses is a reduction in the capital gains tax. This tax is fundamentally unfair because it is not linked to inflation and taxes people on phantom income. No other nation in the world has a tax on capital gains and at least a reduction in this tax is in order. Because a clear majority of Americans own their own homes this tax relief lifts a huge burden off the backs of the middle class. It also allows businesses to buy and sell property and equipment based on their need and not on the Tax Code. It frees money trapped in deteriorating assets to be used to invest in new and improved equipment and expand the economy. This in turn benefits all Americans. Another essential tax reform is eliminating the estate and inheritance tax. These taxes are very destructive to the family. It forces family businesses to be sold and increases the pain already felt by the loss of a loved one. The ability for each generation to pass on it's family heritage should not be blocked by the Federal Government's grab for money. These taxes must be eliminated. Middle class tax relief was promised by the President in 1992 and by the Congress in 1994. The President vetoed it repeatedly last year, but it is just as important now as it was then. It is time to cut taxes for families with children. In the last 30 years it has become increasingly more expensive to raise children. The typical child costs upwards of a quarter of a million dollars to raise and send to college. A $250 per child family tax credit would go a long way to relieving some of the stress of raising children in the typical American family. Since the average family pays 38.2 percent of its income toward taxes, surely we can agree to give some of it back to those that need it the most. All of these reforms are needed and necessary and I support them without reservation. However, I am concerned about the way the Breaux- Chafee amendment pays for these reforms. By tinkering with Federal employees retirement plans, we are in essense breaking our word to them. I believe that the Government should keep its commitment to these hard-working folks and not change the rules this late in the game. For this reason, I will cast my vote in opposition to the Breaux-Chafee amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this Chamber has been treading a difficult path in the last year. We want a balanced budget in the year 2002. We want a balanced budget for the next generation. I believe that as we set the budget for the coming years, we can find plenty of room for responsible cuts. This is also the chance to prioritize programs to get the best money can buy. One important priority is accessible air service to all communities, rural and urban, across the country. The benefits of airline deregulation did not apply evenly to every community. In other words, fears that unconditional deregulation would compromise the quantity, affordability, and quality of air service to small, rural communities have come true. That's the very reason that Essential Air Service was created. It was developed in response to fears that deregulation would leave holes in service throughout the country. And although EAS does not fill the holes completely, it does help connect many of our small towns. Air service is too important to our communities and their future to ignore. In a time when communication is instant through computers, faxes, and cellular telephones, people need to move around quickly and efficiently. Community growth through economic promotion and employment opportunities is hinged on adequate and accessible air service. Air service is vital not only as a dependable mode of transportation, but as a way to pull communities together and promote economic development. In my home State of Montana, where there are a great many miles between the dots on the map, there are few transportation alternatives. Amtrak serves the High-Line, and there is some bus service in the southern and western parts of the State, but for the most part there aren't many ways to get from here to there. Add to it the unpredictable weather and you get a mix that makes travel often difficult and occasionally impossible. Small, rural communities across Montana and America rely on air service for transportation, economic development, delivery of merchandise and services, and medical purposes. Every year Essential Air Service comes under fire, but it is still what the name implies: Essential. It is essential to the national transportation system; it is essential to the development and growth of small communities. amendment no. 4006 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Congress and the President should immediately approve legislation providing homemakers with equal retirement savings opportunity) Insert at the appropriate place: (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the assumptions of this budget resolution take into account that-- (1) by teaching and feeding our children and caring for our elderly, American homemakers are an important, vital part of our society; (2) homemakers' retirement needs are the same as all Americans, and thus they need every opportunity to save and invest for retirement; (3) because they are living on a single income, homemakers and their spouses often have less income for savings; (4) individual retirement accounts are provided by the Congress in the Internal Revenue Code to assist Americans for retirement savings; (5) currently, individual retirement accounts permit workers other than homemakers to make deductible contributions of $2,000 a year, but limit homemakers to deductible contributions of $250 a year; and (6) limiting homemakers individual retirement accounts contributions to an amount less than the contributions of other workers discriminates against homemakers. (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the revenue level assumed in this budget resolution provides for legislation to make individual retirement accounts deductible contribution limits for homemakers equal to the individual retirement accounts deductible contribution limits for all other American workers, and that the Congress and the President should immediately approve such legislation in the appropriate reconciliation vehicle.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. It looks out for the long term, not just the short term.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today with America on my mind to applaud our favorite Republican Senators and Republican Congressmen who have worked so diligently in trying to present a budget that stays in balance and would balance the budget in 6 years and still would not raise taxes. It is interesting that my colleague from North Dakota would also put in there that he likes the balanced budget. We would like to see him vote for one. Take-home pay, if the budget is balanced, will increase, predictability in the marketplace, predictability of jobs. That is what worries people today: ``Will I have my job in a year?'' Government has to be more responsible when it comes to spending. I look here at this cartoon. ``What are you looking at?'' He says, ``Our paychecks!'' He takes a magnifying glass to see it. The Republican budget will balance by the year 2002 and does it by living within its means without raising taxes. This budget provides real welfare reform, real welfare reform that the President and the administration has called for but has vetoed. It provides tax relief for job expansion, predictability in the workplace, and, more importantly, it gets us on the road of saving and preserving Medicare for future generations, of which our colleagues, some of them, have stuck their heads in the sand.

Mr. BURNS. I would like to make my statement, and then I have a committee meeting to go to, if the Senator does not mind. Balancing the budget, without raising taxes, and deals also with Federal spending. You know, spending money, especially other people's money, is sort of like alcoholism. A fellow asked, ``Does he have a drinking problem?'' And he says, ``No, he has a stopping problem.'' That is what we have in this Government. But if we deal with the spending problem, here is what has to happen. Families have to balance their budget. Government does not have an income problem. It has a spending problem. Mr. President, 38.2 percent of the family's income right now goes for taxes. So there is no doubt about it, a balanced budget will put more money in the pockets of Americans, not just a selected few, all Americans--single-income taxpayer, double-income taxpayer, newlyweds, farmers, ranchers, high tech, low tech. Everybody wins with a balanced budget. The best way to increase our take-home pay, not only earn more but save more, to keep more in your pocket at the end of the month--it is better than any other program--is to go with a balanced budget. I applaud my colleagues who have worked so hard on this budget, presenting it to this Congress later on this week. I stand in support of that budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning, again, with America on my mind and American families on my mind. Today, they are working harder and they are worrying more about job stability, and they are wondering about what the future holds, especially when this Government wants to call all of the rules and regulations from here throughout the country. Most families live from paycheck to paycheck, and they struggle every month just to make ends meet. They are frustrated because the money they used to be able to live on does not get to the end of the month. Some would say, ``There is a lot of month left over at the end of the money.'' Families, from Montana to Maine, want freedom from Washington and the crushing burden it puts on the backs of all Americans. Let us talk about taxes first, as we have been doing all week. We need to give some of the 1993 tax increases back to families. That is what repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax would do. I thought a lot of the comments yesterday of my friend from Missouri, when he says, ``Let us give it back to the people.'' This really stresses people who have to go to work every day, and it goes to people that will not work. That is not fair. These are the people that are trying to make America work. Tax freedom day is now after 128 days because of that big tax increase in 1993. Total taxes are now running around 38.2 percent on family income. This repeal starts to at least give some of the money back to American families and also helps them along with their savings, and with the education of their young folks. Also, let us talk a little bit about Government regulation this morning. Flextime. What we have been talking about is the ability--and the TEAM Act--of people, of employers and employees, sitting down and ironing out some of the factors in a workplace that make a company go. That is what we are doing here, and talking about what is wrong with this communication between an employee and an employer. What is wrong with some of them setting some rules and some parameters which help not only the employee but the employer and also help the company to survive? Home office deduction telecommuters. We fought very hard for that. I think back in 1991 or 1992, we put an amendment in the Transportation Act that says we ought to study the impact of folks who stay home and do their work because they have new technology such as computers, such as fax machines, such as telephones. So we said, do a study and see what impact that has on our transportation system and on our highways because right now we know we cannot outbuild the roads to stay ahead of America's love for the automobile. So what is wrong with having a designated spot in a home in telecommuting maybe where even the employees here in Washington who did not want to come up I-395--as you know, I-395 from 6 o'clock in the morning until about 9 o'clock in the morning has been termed the world's largest parking lot. What is the impact on the environment? What is the impact on our fuel consumption, and on energy consumption? Why can we not look at our tax bracket and say, ``OK. Maybe you can stay home maybe 1 or 2 days out of every week and still get your work done, still be in contact, still communicate with everybody in the office and your customers or people in other places.'' What is wrong with the TEAM Act? What is wrong with making these kinds of agreements for a better workplace? Where I come from, the people I am talking to sure want higher wages. The Government got their increase. In 1993, it was taken away from you; stagnated wages. If you look at a State like Montana, everybody wants to put the miners out of business where the best blue-collar jobs in Montana are in natural resources and the management of natural resources.

Mr. BURNS. So this morning, Mr. President, I ask that we take a long look at the total picture of families and what makes them tick. How do we secure their wages? How do we give them some permanence, and how do we contribute to a better life for families in all of America? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2937, the White House Travel Office legislation. A cloture motion was filed on the pending Dole amendment to that measure, with that cloture vote occurring on Friday, unless agreement can be reached otherwise. Rollcall votes are, therefore, possible during today's session. Leader time shall be reserved.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a young Montanan. Ms. Danetta Faith Fisher-Raining Bird has been awarded a Rockefeller Brothers Fund Fellowship, as 1 of 25 outstanding minority students entering the teaching profession. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is in their fifth year of awarding these fellowships and I am proud that Danetta joins with four other native Americans from Montana who have received this award since the award began. With the stiff competition nationwide, it took a very strong commitment to the education of minorities and to improving teaching in public schools to be selected. No doubt Danetta met that challenge. This award will allow Danetta to take part in a summer project and to go on to graduate school to pursue further training in education or a related field. And once she begins teaching, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund will help with loan repayments. This is exactly the type of private sector involvement that our education system needs. And it is exactly what students like Danetta depend on in order to succeed these days. I congratulate Danetta on this achievement. I know she will put this award to good use and I am hopeful that she will not only continue her studies in our great State, but use her valuable training to improve the education for other native Americans. I am proud of her as a Montanan and as a representative of our future and I wish her all the best.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Texas, for allowing me to speak for about 5 minutes leading off today. Again, when we come to this time of the year, America does weigh strongly on everybody's mind, because I rise today to celebrate tax freedom day. Actually in Montana, it comes around May 3, but I did not get around to getting my work done on time, and I would like to talk about that just a little bit. The average American will work 128 days this year to pay for the Federal, State, and local taxes and sets a new record high for this country at 38.2 percent of his or her yearly income. Now, think about that a little bit. We wonder why our bank accounts do not grow and our savings accounts are almost nonexistent, and we think about stagnation. It is not really stagnation, it is trying to pay for this moderately huge Government that was talked about back in January by our President who said the era of big government was over, and now he says ``it is kind of over.'' In my State of Montana, for an average family of four making around $39,000, $40,000 a year, to average it out, Federal taxes come to $7,400. Total State and local taxes are around $5,700. Mr. President, $13,216--and this has all been verified--is the tax burden of that family of four living in my State of Montana. One-third--one-third--of the money they earn is going to the support of government. And we wonder where our money goes. So the President's words ring sort of empty. The words do not match the actions. Then we have to decide whether we want to go on with this kind of rhetoric, because he vetoed the balanced budget, he vetoed the tax cut, he vetoed welfare reform, he vetoed product liability--all those contribute to a mounting, mounting tax burden. Contrary to popular belief, government has not always been big or moderately huge, as this would indicate. Back in 1925, freedom day was February 6. In 1945, it was April 1. And in 1965, it was April 14. On the average, since World War II, the date has moved up nearly a week every decade. One has to ask oneself, when does it stop? I know we work on averages in this body, and it seems to me that if you had one foot in a bucket of ice and the other in the oven, on the average you should feel pretty good. But we know that does not always work, that there is somebody who falls through the cracks. Basically, that is what is happening to our society today. We are all very familiar with the 1993 tax increase, and now is the time to give part of it back to America's working families. The Clinton crunch has to come to an end, despite the rhetoric we hear out of the White House. Taxes must come down, spending must be restrained, and government must be put on a budget, and I mean a balanced budget. Now is the time to do it. With America on my mind, let us not let another day be added next year to the burden of this year. Let us work to move it back a day or two. Let us dedicate ourselves, because there are a lot who think this is the most important debate of this century, and we need the help of the American people because our country has to figure out a way to eliminate this devastating debt that we are passing on to our young. Let us put our Government back on a balanced budget. Let us make Government work for the people instead of the other way around. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, 3 years ago, President Clinton raised America's taxes in the misguided effort to reduce the Federal budget deficit. He claimed that it was time for the rich to ``pay their fair share,'' but as usual, the middle class felt the brunt of his tax hikes. Mr. President, with the gas prices soaring to record levels, I rise today with America on my mind to call for the immediate repeal of the punitive and regressive gas tax hikes that you put in place and the Democratic Congress in 1993 forced on America in the name of ``fairness.'' You see, I do not believe that it is fair to force families, and especially families that have to have a certain product or item for agriculture, who are in charge of producing the food and fiber, the very necessity of America, to get the taxes hiked on them around 30 percent just to pay for programs like AmeriCorps while ignoring the real problems like welfare reform, saving Medicare, or our criminal justice system. Since 1992, his 4.3-cents-per-gallon tax increase has generated over $11 billion for the Federal Government. It has come directly out of the pockets of America's families. I believe it is time to put that money back. President Clinton is inconsistent. In 1993, he raised America's taxes claiming he cared about the deficit, but when it came around to 1995, he vetoed a budget that would have balanced the budget. The President's plan is more taxing, more spending, more rhetoric. It is time to stop taxing, time to stop spending, and it is time to stop the rhetoric and help America's families keep more of their take-home pay in their back pocket. In the State of Montana, we have quite a lot of dirt between light bulbs in that part of the world--148,000 square miles, 850,000 people. People rely on their automobiles in Montana as much as those who live in a big city, maybe more so. We also have a very healthy tourist industry that thrives there. That is based on fuels and the availability of fuels. So families and agriculture suffer from the high gas tax, and so do businesses. The price of processing, the price of transportation for all the products that are produced in rural America, significantly adds to the expenses. They cannot always be passed on to the consumer. America's families and businesses are hurt by this tax. The truth is that President Clinton raised the gas tax for purely political reasons. He had a choice of cutting spending, but he chose not to do it. He had an opportunity to forgo a regressive and punitive tax on the middle and lower class, but he chose not to do it. I believe it is time to fix this political mistake by not only eliminating the 4.3-cents-per-gallon gas tax, but also increasing the family's take- home pay with a $500 per child bonus. We need other tax cuts for families. We are in a time when the cattle market is really low. We have farmers suffering. And, of course, yes, the grain market is very high. But if you want to do something for agriculture and take out the sort of ``pockets of pain,'' we should look at income averaging again, allow agriculture at the production level to keep some of their money in their pockets during the time when it is profitable so they can ride out the rough years that will come--always come--in agriculture. We promised to do that for the middle class. That was vetoed. All rhetoric. It is time to lessen that tax burden, not only to working families, but all Americans. In an era when he proclaimed big Government is over, Government keeps on growing. So with America on my mind this morning, I call upon all of us to take a look at this gas tax, to cut Government spending, and to get our country back on a budget that will keep us fiscally responsible and fiscally solid. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the order of the day?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pro-CODE bill, or the Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era Act of 1996, with the following cosponsors: the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, Senator Pressler, Senator Leahy, Senator Murray, Senator Wyden, Senator Nickles, Senator McCain, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Faircloth. Like the title of the bill states, my primary objective with this legislation is to promote commerce both domestically and abroad. But I have two other goals that I believe will be achieved by Pro-CODE: one is to improve the competitiveness of American software companies with their foreign competitors, the other is to protect the intellectual property and privacy of both businesses and individuals. Mr. President, Pro-CODE would have a profound impact on our economy and the way each of us lives our life from day to day. It is a relatively simple bill, but it deals with a term few of us are familiar with: encryption. Encryption is simply the use of a string of letters or numbers--or a key--to render our computer files and transmissions unreadable by people who have no business reading them. If you have the right key, you can unlock the code and have access to that information. Unfortunately, American businesses and computer users face a threat-- and it is a threat from their own Government--because the current administration will not let American companies export encryption at a level higher than 40 bits. This is a fancy word, but it means is that it is a level of security that can be cracked by your basic supercomputer in about one-thousandth of a second at a cost of a tenth of a cent. Companies can sell stronger encryption here at home, but it is too expensive to create two different standards, so they do not. What this means is that commerce and communication on computer networks including the Internet is not reaching its full potential. How many of you would feel secure sending your credit card number over the Internet--especially when you learn that reported invasions by computer hackers increased ninefold between 1990 and 1994? Or when Internet World magazine estimates that the actual number of unwanted computer penetrations in 1992 alone was 1.2 million? If you were a business, how many of you would feel secure passing sensitive information to your branches around the world or around the Nation? If you were an ordinary citizen, would you feel secure knowing that many of your records and files are subject to the kind of security that the cyber-criminals of today just laugh at? Yet that is the problem we face today, and my colleagues here today and I find it unacceptable. Just 3 months ago we passed a historic telecommunications law that is designed to make it easier to interact with each other. But the law--that vehicle which will take us along the information highway--is useless without the engine of information security driving it forward. Mr. President, our bill would allow the unrestricted export of mass- market or public-domain encryption programs. It would also require the Secretary of Commerce to allow the export of encryption technologies if products of similar strength are available elsewhere in the world. Finally, it would prohibit the Government from imposing a mandatory key-escrow system in which the Government or another third party would have a back door to your computer files. I come from a State where distances can often keep us apart. From Eureka, MT, in the northwest to Alzada, MT, in the southeast is the same distance as from Washington, DC, to Chicago. Anything to bring us closer together will give us benefits only enjoyed now by folks in larger areas. It will also give the mom-and-pop businesses in our smallest communities a leg up on their bigger competitors as we enter the information age. But my concern is also based on the effect the current policy is having on jobs and industry in this Nation. Because of our current ill- advised policy, American companies will lose their share of the world market--which now stands at 75 percent--to foreign companies who do not have to abide by such restrictions. For example, I have discovered a World Wide Web page from a South African company that boasts 128-bit encryption. In many cases, these encryption programs are available to download from the Internet. Mr. President, American companies clearly are at a competitive disadvantage. A study by the Computer Systems Policy Project found that within just the next 4 years, American companies could lose $60 billion in revenues and American workers could lose 216,000 high-tech jobs. Our bill is a jobs bill that I'm sure the administration can agree with. But it is not only that. As you can see, it is also a consumers bill. One of the questions I have heard is, ``How does this legislation differ from a bill you are also sponsoring with Senator Leahy?'' The answer is, not a lot. However, Pro-CODE is narrower in its scope. It deals exclusively with the issue of commerce and omits the criminality provisions. In addition, it does not set up guidelines for a voluntary key-escrow arrangement. This is a streamlined measure that I hope to move quickly through the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, which I chair. We will have hearings on this bill, hopefully as soon as this month, and I hope to have at least one of those in the field where the people are affected most by this bill. In addition to the diverse and bipartisan group of Senators you see before you, support for this legislation in the private sector is both broad and deep. There are two homepages on the Web that are dedicated to tracking encryption legislation and making people aware of why it is needed. As with the blue-ribbon campaign, Internet users will be encouraged to download the golden key and envelope symbol. They will then be able to link to one of the two encryption pages and show their support for this effort. I am also sending today an open letter to the Internet community encouraging support for this bill, and I expect it to be made available to hundreds of thousands of Internet users. I will also make myself available for at least two online forums to discuss my bill with computer users. Mr. President, I urge support for this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1726 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Utility Consumer Service Improvement and Protection Act of 1996. This legislation would modify a Federal regulation which is unnecessary, burdensome, and which costs millions of dollars each year in return for negligible benefits. This regulation costs the Government itself hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for the personnel and overhead needed to implement, track, and enforce it. More importantly, it imposes unnecessary costs upon almost every family and business in the United States, due to higher rates imposed on consumers' utilities--electric, telephone, natural gas, water, sewer, garbage disposal, and even cable television. The regulation in question is the Department of Transportation's hours- of-service truck-driving rules as they are applied to the utility industry. When we examine the hours-of-service truck-driving regulations as applied to public utility service vehicles, there is no evidence that these costly regulations improve public safety or provide any other tangible benefits whatsoever to the American public. To the contrary, there is significant evidence that these regulations needlessly increase costs and threaten the reliability of basic utility services for average American consumers. By imposing higher costs and reducing the reliability of basic utility services, the DOT regulations themselves pose an increased risk to the health and safety of the public. In regard to utility vehicles, this hours-of-service regulation is a classic example of a well-intended regulation which simply does far more harm than good--the costs greatly outweigh any potential benefits, and it should be immediately modified to the extent that it applies to the utility service vehicles which are vital to the installation and the maintenance of utility facilities across our country. DOT over-reacted in issuing its regulations, which limit the number of hours drivers can be on duty at his or her job, and still operate a heavy vehicle. The DOT regulation makes no distinction in the manner in which a vehicle is operated, neither does it recognize and accommodate the purposes for which different kinds of vehicles are operated. The hours-of-service regulations apply to virtually all drivers of all vehicles which exceed a certain weight, regardless of how the vehicle is actually used. Almost of utility service vehicle owners and drivers are subjected to the regulation, even though they are only driven an average of 50 miles per day. Many thousands of trucks and motorized heavy equipment units owned by public utility providers exceed the DOT regulatory weight threshold, and are thus subject to the regulations. This directly increases the cost to consumers for basic utility services, and interferes with utility providers in their job of maintaining reliable service. When the electricity goes out, persons who are dependent upon various kinds of mechanical equipment are suddenly faced with a life- threatening situation. When the phone lines are down, people with emergency situations cannot call for the ambulance, or the fire department, or the sheriff's office for help. A regulation which makes it more difficult and expensive to rapidly restore or maintain vital utility service becomes in and of itself a much greater threat to public health and safety than the very limited highway operation. This same bill, H.R. 2144, was introduced in the House of Representatives last year. It would simply have exempted utility service vehicles and their owners and drivers from the DOT hour of service regulations. While some portions of H.R. 2144 were incorporated into Public Law 104-59, the National Highway System Act, much of the costly and restrictive DOT hours of service truck driving regulation still applies to utility service vehicles, costing consumers unwarranted regulatory expense and still interfering with utilities' ability to ensure reliable service and repairs. The legislation I am introducing today will complete the job started last year. My bill will exempt utility service vehicles and their drivers from the DOT hours of service regulations effective only for those vehicles and drivers while they are actively engaged in legitimate and necessary utility activities. I want to point out that this exemption does not relieve owners from any established equipment mechanical safety standards or inspections, nor does it weaken in any way the licensing standards and testing required of drivers. It does not interfere with or pre-empt any state- imposed regulations which may affect driving-time hours. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its passage. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter written by the Montana Electric Cooperatives' Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today to recognize National Park Week from April 22-28. Mr. President, Montana is known for its wonderful landscapes, abundant game, and a Big Sky. Montana is also known as a tourist's haven because of the State's access to two of the Nation's most beautiful treasures, Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park. Our complex National Park System includes the likes of the crown jewel itself, Yellowstone National Park, but also includes the more urban historical treasures in Washington, DC. The caliber and diversity of our National Park System is uncontested throughout the world. However, so is the cost of maintaining such a vast ecological system. We in Congress have worked to preserve our national parks and ensure the public's access to these native gems. In an effort to meet the costs of preservation without limiting public access, the 104th Congress has passed legislation that increases entrance fees. The fees are our guarantee that national parks can maintain quality services and preservation practices that make each visitor's experience a memorable one. Our National Park System provides a popular retreat for families. I believe the parks should be accessible to all people of all ages regardless of physical abilities. The parks do not belong singularly to the hearty wilderness explorer, they belong to all Americans. So whether your view is of Glacier's majestic snow covered peaks overshadowing the Going-To-The-Sun road, or Yellowstone's Lamar Valley boasting its elk, waterfowl, buffalo, and the occasional grizzly, the preservation of the national park system will be secured.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to recognize April 22, 1996, as Earth Day. On their 1804 expedition through my present day State of Montana, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark wrote of the abundant game, vast horizons, shining mountains and crystal clear streams littered with rainbow and cutthroat trout. Today the Treasure State remains largely unchanged. As stewards of the land, Montana's farmers realize the importance of sound conservation methods in cultivating the soil. Montana ranchers have employed grazing practices that renew healthy foragable grasslands. In an effort to increase the sustainability of Montana's ranges, Montana stockgrowers with grazing lands around Fleecer Mountain just south of Butte and in the Wall Creek area near Ennis participate in a rotational grazing practice that utilizes and stimulates healthier forage on state lands. This new grazing practice ensures that livestock and wildlife alike will have access to healthy forage without overgrazing lands managed by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department. This effort of cooperation is just one example of what can be accomplished when local decisions are made in place of those coming out of Washington, DC. It is another piece of evidence that Montanans make sound environmental decisions compared to what has been mandated at a Federal level. I believe we need to protect our environment. Generations of Montanans have made their living off the land and in return have learned to reap the benefits of preserving the land. I greatly appreciate the environmental beauty of Big Sky Country, and I want my children and grandchildren to be able to appreciate it in the same way I have been able to.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in 1994, in my campaign for reelection to the U.S. Senate, term limits was part of that campaign, and the Senator from Tennessee has picked up the yoke, so to speak, and is trying to do something about that. I was not convinced, when I first came to the U.S. Senate, that term limits was needed, but I am even more convinced now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for just the next 4 minutes.