Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Tennessee. I thank the Chair. I have Americans on my mind today, and I am concerned that maybe some of us are not listening, especially the President and the Democrats, to America as closely as they should. One stark realization, when I was home over the Easter break a few days ago, is that I filed and paid my taxes, like 115 million other Americans did. I imagine that most of them were a little bit upset after they paid the taxes. More than two-thirds of all taxpaying Americans, in a recent poll, think taxes are too high. Well, that is not a very revealing thing, because we know two-thirds of them probably pay taxes and they probably think they are too high. A third think they are about right, and just 1 percent think they are too low. Americans are a little upset--the people I talked to--and they have good reason to be. The Federal Government demands more and more of their hard-earned money and gives less and less in return. But there may be a blessing in that. Maybe we are lucky we are not getting all the Government that we pay for. But I believe that this President, in the 1993 tax bill or the budget that at that time would put the biggest tax increase on the American people that this country had ever seen, was wrong on taxes and was also wrong on spending--both ends of the spectrum. I think it is time that we extended the debate on the role of the Federal Government. In fact, if 1994 taught us anything, it is to say, ``Let's reexamine the role of Government at all levels, State, local, and Federal, and identify what we are supposed to be doing.'' Americans are on my mind, because the average hard-working American now works 2 hours 47 minutes of every single day just to pay their taxes. The average family pays 38.2 percent of the total income in taxes paid each year. This means that he or she will work 128 days, until May 7 of this year, just to pay its taxes. A typical family pays the Federal Government before it pays its mortgage, before it puts food on the table, before it puts clothes on their kids' back. We must change the direction that the curve is headed. We must change and we must stop that curve. Government is hard put because taxes are easy to raise. Most Americans may be astonished to know that their taxes have been raised 16 times in the past 30 years, as opposed to being lowered only once. With only a simple majority required to raise taxes, it is easier to pass a tax hike than it is to cut runaway entitlement programs. President Clinton proved this in 1993 when he pushed through the Democratic Congress the largest tax increase in Congress, and I alluded to that before. Even today, the Federal debt continues to skyrocket because President Clinton refuses to sign a budget that brings down the yearly deficit. Not only has the President blocked passage of a balanced budget, but he has also taken away the middle class tax cut that Republicans promised in 1994 and that he also promised in 1992. I want to bring up one figure, too, that a lot of folks do not realize. Here is how important this is. Forty percent of the income taxes you paid this year to the Federal Government just went to service the national debt, to pay the interest on the national debt--40 percent. We cannot allow that to happen if our children and their children are to have the same opportunities that we had in our growing up and the opportunities to live in a great and free country. Americans are on my mind today because of high taxes on American families, businesses are strangling, the economy is hurting, and they are hurting our children's future. They have to come down. So, as Americans are on my mind, and I think they are on the minds of many of my distinguished colleagues who represent real people in a real world, we must demand this Government to tighten its belt first rather than making you tighten yours. It is a problem that is magnified every day in the private sector. All one has to do is go home and just go down that path. Before we ever become Senators or Representatives, before we ever have anything to do with Government, in our private life, we should talk to the real folks that make America great.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I associate my remarks with those recognizing Oklahoma City. That tragedy and what we learn from it is another sign that America continues to be great. The wounds will heal. There will always be scars, but we pick up and we continue to thrive and thrive in this great and free country. So we salute Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and all the Americans whose lives were touched by that tragedy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National County Government Week from April 21 to 27. National County Government Week is an important opportunity to remember the values on which our country was founded. County governments have an advantage over the mammoth Federal bureaucracy-- county governments are able to keep in touch with their constituency. Before the voters in Montana asked me to represent them in Washington, DC, the voters in Yellowstone County asked me to be their commissioner. I know from experience that county governments can easily maintain a high level of efficiency. Local governments don't compromise the sovereignty of the individual, which tends to be the case with the Federal Government. Mr. President, as the role of today's Federal Government expands, so does its intervention into the privacy of individuals. The Montana Association of County Governments, also known as MACO, along with its national parent organization NACO, has the ability to reallocate the power of the Federal bureaucracy in a manner that would benefit all Montana taxpayers. The goal of the Republican agenda, a goal I heartily support, is the redistribution of Federal power to the State, county and local governments. As a former Yellowstone County commissioner, I had face- to-face encounters with Montana taxpayers on a daily basis. If a Montanan had a concern about local, State, and even Federal issues, all they had to do was pick up the phone and call me at the office or at home--my number was listed. And whether they wanted to talk about the neighbors' cattle that seemed to always be loose or potholes you could lose a tractor in, my experiences as a Yellowstone County elected official were a valuable lesson in where the rubber really meets the road.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas. We are redrafting different language where one committee says the first shall be the last and the last shall be first. I would like to yield the floor to my friend from West Virginia who has, I believe, an amendment to offer.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this amendment is sponsored also by my friend from Iowa Mr. Harkin. The Health Care Financing Administration has been reviewing telemedicine demonstration projects across the country. They have been studying them about 2 years now. They are analyzing the cost effectiveness of providing health services via telecommunications and how to reimburse health care providers. Telemedicine is a technology that is spreading--thankfully--because rural areas and inner-city areas are in desperate need of health care. Getting health care services can be a challenge, especially if you are 180 miles away from a specialist. But even if that specialist is willing and able to visit his patients via telemedicine, HCFA will not reimburse him for those services. And as you can imagine, many health care providers aren't too willing to give their time without being compensated. The study is already underway. But there is no anticipated deadline to finish the study and put the issue of reimbursement behind us. In fact, at a recent telemedicine conference, a HCFA representative stated that there would be no decision until Congress mandated one. My amendment basically instructs HCFA to decide on reimbursement of telemedicine services by March 1, 1997. That gives them almost an entire year--in addition to the time they have already spent studying the issue--to compile their data, gather data from other ongoing demonstrations, if they choose, and determine the fee-for-service reimbursement for services provided via telemedicine. There is no cost associated with this, since the study is already ongoing. I am simply asking that they finish the study and let rural areas and urban residents access the health care services that are currently out of their reach. The Health Care Financing Administration has been in this process now for a couple of years and we think it is about time that they bring this to a close and recommend to the Congress how they are going to deal with it. We have this new technology. We passed a telecom bill that allows a lot of things to happen in distance learning, telemedicine, and these kinds of things, and we think it is now time that we move into the next generation of providing health care to our rural areas via telecommunications. I appreciate my good friend from Iowa being a part of this. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, an important bill was recently reported out of the Senate Labor Committee and I hope it will make its way to the Senate floor quickly. This is a bill that was designed with not only children in mind--and that is foremost--but with the needs of teachers, administrators, and parents of children with disabilities. That can be a delicate balance, but I think it was achieved. S. 1578, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act reauthorization, ensures that children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education. At first, that may sound like something we would assume is a guaranteed right of any American citizen. And it is. But many children with disabilities have special needs--needs that neither the parents nor the schools can meet without sacrifice. And it seems that when this bill was first enacted in 1975, the burdens on some were increased. And 21 years later, we have the opportunity to make some positive changes. Let me just highlight a few of the changes that are proposed that prompted me to sign my name on this bill. To begin with, S. 1578 reduces the bureaucratic maze that schools have been required to fight their way through. Right now, State and local education agencies must submit a plan or application every 3 years. Now, they will only have to prepare that plan once, unless they institute substantial changes. And the data they are required to collect is cut in half. Some may say, ``But how will that affect my child's education?'' As I've visited with school administrators and teachers around Montana, it has amazed me to hear how many resources are tied up with paperwork generating, reporting requirements, and tracking. If it wasn't required by law, I wouldn't be surprised if schools refused to enroll children with disabilities. The amount of time it takes a school employee to keep up with the regulations, the amount of financial resources that are used to document school activities and student performance--it's almost a miracle that the school has the time to educate the children. When we reduce the paperwork, the reporting requirements, the documentation, we free up time and money to devote to the education of our children and we allow those children with disabilities to achieve as much as they can possibly achieve. It allows the teacher to get back to the classroom, the administrator to get back to making sure the school is safe and the curriculum is top-notch, and the parents to rest easy knowing that their child is receiving the same educational opportunities every other child is receiving. But one of the most common remarks I've heard from Montana schools is that they need more flexibility. And this bill gives them that. In particular, the question of discipline is often raised. Current law prohibits schools from suspending a disabled child for more than 30 days even if the child brought in a dangerous weapon or threatened a teacher or student. S. 1578 gives the school some flexibility in deciding how to handle that violation. If a child with a disability violates such a policy, that child may be suspended for up to 10 school days. In that time, the IEP team may designate an alternative placement for up to 35 days. And, if the behavior was not related to the disability, the child can be disciplined as any other nondisabled child would be. Mr. President, I want to make sure that all children have access to a free, appropriate public education. Whether a child has a disability, mental or physical, whether a child is poor or disadvantaged, whether the parents of schoolaged children have the resources to afford special care or not--we need to take the responsibility of educating our future generations very seriously. And there is a balance we need to maintain. Order and discipline in our schools is essential to creating an environment conducive to learning, for disabled and nondisabled children alike. There should be a balance between the parents involvement and the schools efforts in educating a child with disabilities. And there is a balance to be kept between making sure schools are accountable for the Federal dollars they receive and overburdening them with red tape. This bill, S. 1578, strikes that balance. I join my colleagues in supporting this important legislation and I commend Senator Frist for his hard work in making sure that both parents and schools were consulted in proposing these changes. With the bipartisan support it enjoyed in the Labor Committee, I look forward to seeing this bill brought to the Senate floor soon. Our Nation's future--our children--depend on it.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I recently became a co-sponsor of S. 295, the Teamwork for Employers and Management Act, a bill that is scheduled for markup today in the Labor Committee and which the Small Business Committee, on which I sit, will consider tomorrow. This bill is very important to small businesses. It is important to all business but, with 98 percent of Montana's businesses considered small, those are the folks I'm hearing from. Many of the businesses that have contacted me were in shock. They had no idea that the committees they had formed with their employees were in violation of the law. As far as they were concerned, they were just good business practice. The committees kept the employees involved in operations and improved customer satisfaction. But according to the National Labor Relations Act, employee involvement is illegal. The intent of the law, established in the 1930's, was to prevent employers from dominating a labor organization. And labor organization is defined as a group of employees that discusses terms or conditions of employment with the employer. That may be well and good as far as collective bargaining is concerned--at the time, the NLRA wanted to stop employers from establishing these company unions to keep independent unions out--but the law is being interpreted to mean that discussions of safety, productivity, and quality are considered conditions of employment. That's causing more than a little heart burn. Let me give you an example. There is a Montana company I have heard from, and I will not name them since, understandably, many small businesses are afraid of having their practices brought to the attention of the NLRB. But this company, with diversified interests, has formed a committee on safety--safety not only of employees who work with a variety of equipment but of the thousands of visitors who use their facilities every day. This committee gives the employees ownership of their surroundings and results in a safer workplace for everyone. This same company also has a committee on customer satisfaction. The employees survey the facilities periodically and decide on changes in decorations, improvements in the surroundings, how to make the area more customer friendly--basically how to draw business in and keep it. Once again, this is not only a good business practice, it is a way to keep the employees energized about their work conditions. How can this possibly be against the law? That is not only the question they are asking, it is one we should all ask. Yet, if the National Labor Relations Board learned about these employee involvement teams, according to the law, they could penalize the employer. And in a number of cases, they already have. That does not even make sense. Now, I know that the Government is famous for not making sense--and that is what our regulatory reform efforts are about--but here is one specific place we can make a difference. By passing this bill, the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, without any taxpayers dollars, without any new volumes of paperwork, we can let business get back to business without fear of the heavy hand of Government coming down on them. By simply amending the National Labor Relations Act, we can allow teamwork to continue, and allow businesses to form teams to safeguard working conditions, improvement productivity and efficiency, and boost the quality of their products. This does not just benefit the employer and the employee, it helps our economy. Mr. President, this provision of the law may have served its purposes 60 years ago, but it is not necessary today. Small businesses need all the help they can get to survive in today's competitive market and being flexible is vital to that success. Small business owners need the input, the advice, the cooperation, and the labor of their employees. To prohibit that involvement is to squash innovation and prosperity, the very ideals that make up the American Dream. I strongly support this legislation, Mr. President. I hope we can bring this to the floor quickly and relieve the stress on our small businesses around the Nation who have learned of their allegedly ``illegal'' business practices. Let us get the government off their backs once again, and let business do what they do best--create jobs and produce high quality goods and services for the world to enjoy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to echo what is probably on the mind of everybody who ever attended school at the University of Montana, and every Grizzlies fan in my home State. Coach Don Read, the football coach of the last 10 or 11 years, is retiring. He told us all Monday that he was retiring in order to spend more time with his wife, Lois, and the rest of the family, and to move in a new direction. We are losing a legend in Missoula. We are saddened by that, even a little bit stunned, because Coach Read is the winningest coach in the history of the University of Montana. When he arrived in Missoula 10 years ago, he recruited heavily, ushering in the ``Read Era'' of UM, an era that culminated in the university's first-ever Division One-double- A national championship just this past season. It was a thrilling ride for every one of us in Montana, and we cannot help but think of what is ahead for the Griz because of the foundation and the base that Coach Read has laid. Mr. President, Vince Lombardi, the legendary coach of the Green Bay Packers, said ``winning is a habit.'' No one typified the winning habit more than Coach Read. Since taking over the University of Montana football program in 1986, he has never had a losing season. His overall record there was 85 and 36. That is a winning average of better than 70 percent, the best any coach at UM and the sixth best in the history of the Big Sky Conference. In his tenure at the University of Montana, Coach Read even managed to pull off 10 straight wins against his cross-state rival and another one of my favorite teams, Montana State University. His overall coaching record including his many years coaching in Oregon is an impressive 154 and 127 and one--he had one tie. Mr. President, I could go on about all the ``firsts'' and the ``mosts'' and the awards of Coach Read and what he has earned in his time at the University of Montana. Most wins by a Griz football team in a single season, five playoff appearances, three-time Big Sky Coach of the Year, selected Division One-double-A Coach of the Year by two national magazines, but all of that pales in comparison to Don Read as a man, and as a man that I know. He is loved and respected by his players and his colleagues and he is a fiercely devoted family man. You know they say the coach will probably be judged on the wins and losses. But basically, what effect he has had on the young men who have played on his team is just absolutely--you cannot measure that. By his own words, the demands of coaching is a 16-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week job. It has a way of catching up with you. Coach Read wants to make sure that his players will have a full-time coach that devotes all of his energy toward that team. In that respect, I admire him for putting the needs of a team before his own. So the University of Montana is really losing one of the great ones. We want to thank him for the season just passed. The national championship is one that is not written about and is not voted on by sportswriters. It is played. Of course when you want it, he beat Marshall here in the State of West Virginia. It was a great thrill for all of us who live in the State of Montana. Coach Read said he believes his replacement will be the best coach ever. I hope he is right. But I tell you he will be stepping into some awfully big shoes. Just like anybody else, he will have to get his cleats the old- fashioned way. He will have to earn them. That is the way it will be. Mr. President, we bid farewell to a man who has brought so much respect and so much quality to the University of Montana and the football program, and we say goodbye, but we do not say so long. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, might I inquire, are we in morning business?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. In favor of the bill.

Mr. BURNS. Two minutes or less.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Ag Committee, and of course Senator Lugar, who has displayed great leadership crafting this legislation. I rise today in support of the conference report of the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996, now known as FAIR. I see this as a positive move forward for agriculture and agricultural production in America. This is a bill--and an idea--that is overdue and now the time has come for the implementation. As I review this conference report, I see many components that I favor, and of course there are provisions that I think are softer than they should have been for the good of the producer and the good of the Nation and its economy. Positive steps have been taken in the Commodity programs and in the marketing and foreign trade provisions. However, I do believe that we could have provided greater flexibility for our producers in some of the conservation programs. I have listened to many of the Members of the Senate in the past day discuss that this will doom the future of agriculture, and that we are providing welfare for the American farmer. This is truly not the case. This act will provide for the future of the American farmer in a way that Congress has not had the nerve to address for almost 60 years. This bill will assist many young farmers to have access to the land and allow for the future development of agricultural production in this country. I have heard many times that we have not provided for a safety net for the small farmer. As I look at the programs that were enacted to protect the small family farmer in the past, they have not done a very good job at offering protection to these people that make their living of the land. In recent years, due to many circumstances, we have seen a decline in the number of small family farmers. What we have done is bring American agriculture into the future. Gone are the days that a producer can take grain to the elevator and figure that the job is done as they watch the grain drop through the grate. American producers are going to have to take an active role in marketing their own products, from the field to the final product. I suggest that with the passage of this bill our work has just begun. We now need to work on the improvements for the future of agriculture in our Nation. With the passage of this measure we will finally take a step toward getting Government out of the farming business. We need to set our sights on those areas of law and Government assistance that Government should work on. The role of Government in this new future will be those areas that the individual farmer has little or no real access to. The role of government in the future should be in the development and expansion of research assistance in the marketing in both domestic and foreign markets. This is how we can and should develop the future for our producers. As we place our producers in the world market, we need to provide them with the tools to compete in this market. To do this we need to offer to them the advancements that will keep American agriculture a lead player in the world. At a time when we see a trend in declining yields, we need to provide our producers with the best research in developing resistant crops. The market is there for them to be active in, but they need the tools available to them to see meaningful gains in the amounts that they can earn from their had labor. Just recently, we have found the presence of a fungus in grain that could, if it was not properly dealt with, permanently damage our access to foreign markets. I would like to commend the Department of Agriculture for the work that they have done with the recent discovery of karnal bunt within our country. With a meaningful and dedicated research effort, we can and should be able to find a way to develop a resistant seed to this and many of the diseases that target our crops in the United States. In addition, we need to offer to our producers the understanding and assistance in marketing their commodities. As I have previously stated, many producers think that their job is done when it reaches the elevator. As we move into this new program, our producers are going to need the knowledge and the access to information and opportunities to improve their ability to make a return on their investment. In my discussions around the State of Montana, many farmers, young and old, have stated that they are glad to have the Government out of their business. What they would like to see from Government now is a little assistance in learning what it takes to market their product. They do not want Government directly involved. They would like assistance in marketing their efforts, both here in the United States and on the world market. This was one of the major reasons that I worked hard to have this legislation include wording on the foreign market development cooperators program. Finally, but not least of all, we need to address a major concern in the agriculture community: tax reform. This Congress has been called upon by the people to institute tax reform to address the concerns of all Americans. Any progress that we make on this front will greatly benefit the American small family farmer. Provisions must include changes in the inheritance tax code, to allow more families to keep their operations in the family. For generation after generation, our farm families have worked to keep their operations within the family, yet current tax structure seeks to penalize those people who want to keep the operation in the family. Another of the Tax Codes that we need to address is the capital gains tax. There are a great number of Montanans who would like to sell their operation. However, with current structure and the price of land, they are not in a position to put their property on the market. Action in this tax will allow many new and younger farmers to move onto land that may now be out of production. This must be addressed, and we must do so soon. We have taken the first step to address the future of American agriculture. It is only the first step. The future is upon us and we must make the most of it for the family farmer in America. I support this first step and I hope the Senate will endorse it fully for the producers in the field. I want to make a further comment. I think there are some areas where we have to continue to work. I think the market development amendments we got put in there to develop markets abroad, our foreign trade--we know agricultural exports are one of the great, bright, and shining spots of our trade. But I think tax reform for agriculture still remains a very, very important part of our work to be done here on the floor of the Senate. We had a hearing this morning on agricultural appropriations and the work of the ARS. Of course, with the inspection service, we know we still have problems. Sometimes we look at the funding. Maybe it is not quite enough in our Agricultural Research Service. We have to continue to do research on how do we produce food and fiber for America, this great Nation, and also, over in the area of inspection, on how do we isolate these very disastrous things that can happen to us in agriculture. I will give you an example, karnal bunt now in wheat. They got it isolated. They knew what to do. But it is a situation that could have devastated the durum wheat industry in our part of the country. In Montana, it is karnal bunt. All we have to do is look across the ocean and take a look and see how important APHIS is to us, the inspection service on plants and animals, when we take a look at England and the situation they are in with their ``mad cow'' situation. So I congratulate the leadership on this bill. We will be supporting this bill. It is a departure from even the carryover from the 1930's. I thank the leadership, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment regarding the Lost Creek Land Exchange Act of 1996. This amendment is important for the acquisition of the Lost Creek area of Montana for the public. I want to emphasize that this amendment is a starting point. I fully anticipate major changes will need to be made when this bill goes to conference with the House. Yet, the process needs to move forward. Under this amendment, 14,500 acres of blueribbon bighorn sheep habitat known as Lost Creek would became a part of the Deerlodge National Forest. For the past few years, local sportsmen and conservation groups, the Forest Service, and many others have been interested in the public acquiring this prime habitat. I, too, believe this is a worthwhile endeavor. The amendment would transfer the Lost Creek area, and 3,000 additional acres currently owned by R-Y Timber, to the Forest Service. In return R-Y Timber will acquire the deed to land and timber. The Lost Creek area has been valued at about $8 million. And the days of the Federal Government simply paying the price tag are over. With assistance from the Forest Service, I am hopeful that alternative lands can be found to exchange for the Lost Creek area. The Forest Service has started this process. Mr. President, as I stated earlier the amendment I am offering is a starting point. I fully anticipate having to make substantial changes when we move to conference. I hope that the parties involved will continue to work together so this win-win bill can made it to the President's desk. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. Let us just talk about it from an environmental standpoint. Basically, what the amendment of my friends from Arkansas and Vermont does, or the amendments do, is throws us right back into this old class warfare again, the ``haves'' and the ``have-nots.'' Nobody is asking for that kind of situation. There is no doubt in my mind, my friend from Arkansas is a dedicated and a wild environmentalist. Every figure that we can give you is backed up by facts, that there is more wildlife on public lands now than ever in the history of this country. When you take off grazing management--we cannot tell the antelope not to graze the same time the cattle do, or the deer, or the elk. They all have the same forage. They all get along on the same range. That is why we have more of them now. But when the management of that resource goes away, do you know what goes away? Water. And, folks, nothing living goes out there in that country without water. Strictly from an environmental standpoint, pull all the cattle off, get all the people out of there, and watch that range turn into the way it was at the turn of the century, with nothing on it--no life, no water. Wind erosion is rampant. That is what we get into. If these amendments prevail, the impact it has on cooperative--as my friend from Wyoming said. These things sound big, but they are a bunch of little folks who throw together enough to run their cattle and their sheep. Rock Springs, WY is a perfect example. Another thing, we have two cooperative agreements, in Fleece Creek and Wall Creek. This is where environmental groups, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Montana Fish and Wildlife, the Stock Growers, BLM, and the Forest Service, all got together and made out a grazing pattern and developed a plan, to where they can graze and where they cannot graze on what part of the year. Do you know what? It is working. It is working on the ground. It is working because local groups got together and solved a problem, instead of going down this road of throwing everything back into the courts again, into an adversarial environment in which we have to do business, because it cracks up communities both within and from without. I know there are folks around here, in the sound of my voice, who say as soon as some outsider comes into our town and tries to make a decision for us, what happens? Polarization. Montana has three fees. There are different fees for different Federal lands, State lands--but, you know, there is a lot of difference in the lands, the carrying capacity, what they will produce, where they are, access. There is a multitude of factors that go into it before you set a rental. Private lands are pretty accessible. You have somebody going up those gravel roads every day. Some of these Federal lands you cannot even get to unless you are on horseback, and that is another cost that has to go into the grazing fees. So there is the difference. If I take an acre out of Arkansas, maybe I want to give the same price for an acre in southeast Arkansas as I do for an acre in northwest Arkansas. Are they the same? Will they produce the same, just because it is designated a State land? I do not think so. The same is true out where we live, too.

Mr. BURNS. So, from an environmental standpoint, this is an antienvironmental vote if you take everything into consideration, and I ask for its defeat. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. My statement will not be very long, but I just wanted to make a couple of comments. We just completed debate on the salvage timber, and the package offered by Senator Bingaman is, at best, described as yet another example of a mindset that prevails here in Washington, DC. Yesterday, I stated in this body that in order to answer that question, we, this generation--this generation--if we are to hand over to the next generation, our children and our grandchildren, a better Earth than we were handed, a world that will sustain them and their daily needs for food and fiber, we have to approach the way the Federal Government writes rules and regulates them. In the salvage logging debate, there were examples of actions taken by local authorities to protect the integrity of the law and the intent of the law. It has, in my State, brought some peace to the woods. There are examples of how land managers went the extra mile involving the local groups in the decisionmaking process of salvage. The involvement was loggers, environmental groups, local government, and land managers themselves. We should really congratulate the region I director of the U.S. Forest Service, because he used that process to determine a timber sale and used the same guidelines that we have always used, adhering to current environmental law. As dedicated as he is to the forest, he used all of those, and the result was that local folks signed off on the salvage sale. Forest health is the goal, and it was then. Salvage is part of that goal. It is a dual goal. Loggers have gone back to work, mills are turning out wood products again for Americans--all Americans--and we are having and using forest resources that have been tied up in the courts for a long time. Decisions that are made on the ground work best. Yet, this substitute calls for decisions to be made thousands of miles away from the resource that is now being used by all Americans, we all benefit. At this point, I want to associate myself with the words of my friend from Iowa last night, Senator Grassley, in his brief statement made on this floor. There are times in this country when we who are involved in agriculture get a little bit timid about what we do, telling the people what we do. Well, I am here to tell you it is about time, and this country better wake up and realize what the production of food and fiber does for this Nation. Yes, we like to call ourselves agriculturalists, proclaiming the importance of it. I think we get timid because we go under the false assumption that everybody understands and knows the importance of agriculture and knows that we produce the largest segment of the GDP in this country, over 20 percent. Yet, that GDP has produced a raw product by less than 2 percent of the population. It is also the largest export this country has. In other words, we feed the world. Now, why do we so distrust the direction in which the present Secretary of the Interior is taking us? Can I cite one example? Wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone Park. Hearings all over the West. We did not hear a lot of support for that. Yet, it has caused some polarization of groups that actually share the same goal in my State-- share the same goal of a better world and, yes, the environment. But the actions of the Federal Government and the arrogance of this particular occurrence have damaged the relationship within and without the communities in Montana. Not only is it expensive, spending your tax dollars, but if you contrast that, exactly the same thing is happening in Glacier National Park. But that is a natural migration of wolves from Canada. That does not seem to get any headlines in the newspaper. In that area of Montana, there is hardly any contact between man and wolf because, basically, both have learned the hard reality of the rules of survival. One never hears of that occurrence. Yet, we have wolves up there in Glacier Park and in the Bob Marshall. But one hears of the artificial introduction of that animal into that Yellowstone Park, which, in my opinion, is doomed to fail. There are different fee rates. In my opinion, there is one main problem of this debate. We are trying to find the answer to a very, very difficult question. I say this: We are trying to recommend a policy of ``one size fits all,'' when there are differences in the lands, the topography, thus, the production capability of the lands. Those differences are huge. I guess that is why I so strongly recommend that we allow all the major decisions to be made on the ground locally, to involve local people. There is no way that we, in Montana, run and manage our range the same way as they do in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, or anywhere else. There are different soils, different growing seasons, different weather conditions, different patterns, all dictating managing our range differently. It is just like privately owned land. All Federal lands and locales are not alike. The management scheme has to be different to attain the same result. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with land understands that. I understand that. I was raised on a small farm of 160 acres, with two rocks and one section of dirt in northwest Missouri. Every acre was not the same on that little 160 acres either. But you knew how to handle them. You farmed each one sort of differently in order to get the desired results. That is hard to explain to folks who have not had a personal relationship with the land or a real understanding of it. Most times, they do not care about the knowledge, or the common sense, or even less caring and respect for the thousands of families who have the sense, knowledge, history, and responsibility to manage this land that sustains them, and the rest of America, as well. Let us not go backwards. Let us make those decisions on the ground. The Bingaman substitute takes us backward. Let us force people to sit down and talk, but let us base our decisions on the right decisions and on what has to happen on rangeland. Take the management. If hunters are worried about access, in the Domenici bill there is express language dealing with access. If you are worried about wildlife, we have already given you the figures that we have more wildlife today than ever in the history of this country. Water quality, that, too. Once you take the management of the land away--and this could well do it because there are folks who do not have a real good understanding--then we are in real trouble in the communities that derive a living from this resource. It is resource management. So what I suggest and what I tell my colleagues is to defeat the Bingaman substitute and let us pass the Domenici bill, because there have been so many hours and so much work that has gone into this bill, working with the administration and with everybody concerned. No, everybody will not get everything they want. But everybody is going to want what they get. Let us put people into the equation whenever we start talking about resource management on public lands because real people are involved and will be impacted. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friends from New Mexico for the leadership they have shown on this issue. It is a wonderful day to start the debate on this particular issue, the first day of spring. Even though the weatherman has not chosen to cooperate properly in greeting this day for the most part across the country, a little bit colder than usual, the Earth is starting to shed its winter chill and the frost is giving way to the warmth that lives within this great Earth. It is also the time of renewal, when those seeds that have laid in the Earth and those grasses that were dormant, are starting to show some signs of growth. It starts to give the Earth a different hue. It is also a pretty exciting time in livestock agriculture, too, a time for newborn calves and lambs, a special time of the year for those who are attached to the land in a very, very special way. It is a season that also gives us renewal. This transformation that we have, this promise of renewal every spring, every year, this renewable resource that renews itself, happens right before our eyes and it assures us that the future is now and will ever be. I realize it is hard to see the significance of the season by those who have never really experienced that special attachment to the land. In saying that, it is time for the Senate and this Congress to bring some common sense, some predictability, and stability to the folks who really deserve it, the people who are charged with the business of caretaker of our lands and our resources that come from those lands. They are good caretakers because it behooves them to be good caretakers. I just do not know of any good or successful rancher who loves and cares for his livestock and his land, who lives for the day that he will finally turn over the reins and the ownership of that ranch to the next generation, whether it be a son or son-in-law or daughter or daughter-in-law, who does not live for that. They teach their next generations how important this caretaking is. If we in this country are to hand to our children and to our grandchildren a better ranch and therefore a better world, where they can work, where they can sustain life, where they can recreate in an environment of clean air and clean water, then we must dedicate ourselves to the idea that Washington must, in a different way, make regulations and work with the local people to make sure it happens. After hour after hour of discussion both here in Washington and on the ground on this particular subject, it is time now to move forward with a rangeland bill that we can be proud of and that we know will work and has the support of everybody involved. If one could have written a rangeland bill that has all the principles of multiple use, maybe this is not quite perfection. If we were to write one that reflects the dedication to pursue sensible environmental policy, that preserved the gains that we have made in the last 50 years on our rangeland, then I would say this one probably is not perfection either, for, you see, those folks who are charged with the caring of this land, they became concerned about our range conditions a long time ago. They just did not start in 1980 or 1986 or 1984 or 1990, and for sure not 1996. Range management was put together after World War II and after the Great Depression and great droughts of the dirty thirties. In this bill, as presented by Senator Domenici of New Mexico, we have taken a giant step to the resolution of a very, very contentious and emotionally charged issue, and at times it has defied common sense and good judgment because there are groups that probably have had to raise some money and this is probably a pretty good issue on which to do it. As we look at the future of these lands, we must be careful as to what the people who are actually the caretakers of these lands provide for the rest of America to enjoy, for it is in the best interests of these people to care for these lands. Without the continual regeneration of the grass and the land they care for, they have nothing to graze. They are out in the cold. They are out of business. We have heard that there are those who are concerned about wildlife. Please read all the journals of Lewis and Clark. Please read of the people who entered these lands long before there was a rancher there. Read in the journals how there was no wildlife at all, that they ate their horses in the dead of winter, and the only wildlife--and it was sparse--was along the rivers, the Missouri and the Yellowstone and the rest of them. That was in the north country. Those lands were not claimed during the homestead days. It was for one reason: There was no water. Very harsh land. But with people who cared and people with new and innovative ways to bring water into grasslands, there came the wildlife. I can give you all kinds of figures on the increase in antelope, deer, whitetail deer, muleys, elk, whatever you want to count. There are more of them now than at any time since the Great Depression. I am not going to do anything that is going to harm the habitat of wildlife or harm my way of life. I like to hunt. I am chairman of the Sportsmen's Caucus in this body. I am not going to do anything to harm that. I would ask these people, where are some of our supporters whenever hunters' rights come up? Where are they then? Are we playing with a double-bitted ax here? Section 102, paragraph (c) says: Nothing in this title shall limit or preclude the use of and access to Federal land for hunting, fishing, recreational, watershed management or other appropriate multiple-use activities in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and the principles of multiple use. How much clearer must it be? It is even written in plain, everyday English. So, as we talk about this issue, we will all have a lot more to say about it. I agree with my friend from North Dakota, we have run into some problems. We have not been able to move a water tank when we wanted to. The decisions from BLM did not come fast enough, or decisions from the U.S. Forest Service did not come fast enough. But do we create two or three layers more of bureaucracy to make that decision? The best decisions are made at the local level. Do we have to call Washington to change a gate? I would say no, not and be good caretakers of the land, because if they delay the decision of moving the water tank, maybe they will delay the decision about moving some stock that should be moved. Maybe there is some real environmental damage that could be done because of the inability to make a decision 2,100 miles away from where the grazing activity is taking place. The challenge that awaits this and every Congress from here on out will be the effect of how we manage public lands or the policy we set for those resources found on public lands. This bill seeks to provide an effective, reasonable management of our natural resources. Effective management means it will allow those close to the land, who have not only economic but also social involvement with a community, allow them to manage those resources, not as they see fit but as nature sees fit. The terms of this bill, to make grazing an acceptable practice in the management of our Federal public lands, is that asking too much? Do we just let the grass grow up every year? Some years you are going to have drought, and it is not going to grow up. But let us say we got a lot of growth last year, this year there is a lot of dead grass around, and it burns. It will burn. In its path you put at jeopardy life, property, even residences. I do not know how many people on this floor have ever faced one of those fires. They are not a fun thing. They are pretty scary. But the people who are caretakers of this land face that every day. Do you want to talk about prices of cattle? I can talk about that. I have a hard time relating $58 and $62 steers and heifers ready to be brought to market, and little T-bone steaks at Giant at $4.50 to $6 a pound. There is not too much relationship here. Packers say they are not making any money. You know how packers are. Cattlemen will be hurt, but we will not feel it here in this town because, in this town, April 15, the shrimp boat comes home and we will get our check. They will get theirs this fall. But it will be 35 percent less than it was last year, and we think we are doing them a favor. Those who pay the bills in that community, who provide the services to local government--schools, roads, public safety--all of this comes out of that check when he sells the product this fall. So, as we talk about this, and we will bring up more points as we go along, I just want to remind folks what we are dealing with here and how delicate the balance is between good management on range and bad management. In 1979, I started a little activity in Montana called Montana Range Days. It started off with about 200, 250 people who would attend every year. We had super starters, 8-year-old, 9-year-old kids, identify plants, weeds, grasses; identify carrying capacity on range, capacity conservation, watershed--3 days sleeping on the ground out on the range. I kind of helped that get started. It is bigger now than it was in 1979, under the leadership of Taylor Brown, who took over the Northern Ag Network when I left that organization. So we are pretty familiar with rangeland and what they teach in the colleges, and how they teach management and things that can happen on a range. By the way, a range is not used for just about any other purpose. The only way we got to harvest that resource out there is through animal agriculture. So, we will talk about the merits of amendments and the merits of this bill. But I ask my colleagues to think and look, and really look at it objectively, without any outside influence, to see exactly who contributes what to a neighborhood, to a community, to a county, and to a State, and look at the practices and look how far we have come in the development of better range for everybody. There is a lot more to be hunted, there are a lot more fish in the rivers, because there has been good stewardship on our range, because it is profitable for a rancher to do so. The future of our public lands rests in our hands. We had an opportunity to make the future meaningful for all people, and I hope my fellow Members will work with us and vote with us to provide a sustainable and stable future for the land, for the livestock producer, and the people who enjoy those public lands. Let us look at the real merits of what we are doing here and the effect it has on people. I am just talking about people. I have heard it from the other side, ``We are the compassionate folks. We care.'' We will find out how much they care and the compassion they have for people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 956, The Commonsense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1995. This is an important piece of legislation that is the result of more than a decade's worth of effort. I would like to congratulate the members of the Conference Committee, led by Senators Gorton and Rockefeller, on their diligence in coming up with a final conference report. This bill will help to reign in unnecessary, costly, and time- consuming product liability cases. There is a lot of talk in this town about cutting regulations and making American companies more competitive. But when the talk is over nothing much has changed. The product liability bill originally passed the Senate more than 10 months ago after prolonged debate. The final conference report is similar to the Senate-passed bill in scope and focus rather than the wide-sweeping reform found in the House bill. This bill is conspicuous not for what is in it, but for what is missing. The House approved sweeping legal reform last year that would have addressed other civil cases, besides products, including lawsuits against doctors, charities, and volunteer organizations. However, it does have important provisions on punitive damages, joint and several liability, statute of limitations, statute of repose, workers' compensation subrogation standards. It also covers product sellers and States rights. This bill does not work against consumers; nor is it for manufacturers. In fact many proponents of products liability reform who had hoped and worked for broader reform are disappointed in its narrow scope. H.R. 956 merely attempts to block the free-for-all that has taken hold of our court system. Everybody wins under this bill. Consumers will see products ranging from football helmets to life-saving new drugs become more widely available and less costly. And it will not limit the legitimate rights of victims to sue or to receive full compensation for their injuries. This legislation is a good step in the right direction. It will not stop lawsuits, but it will put some restraints on the out-of-control legal battles we have seen in recent years. That is why it is so frustrating to hear President Clinton say that the reforms included in the bill go too far. This was a bipartisan effort to get a bill that would be enacted into law. Negotiations between the House and the Senate were tempered with caution to ensure that it would get the support needed to be passed by the Senate. Once again efforts by reform-minded folks in Congress is threatened by a President that has put plaintiff lawyers interests above those of regular Americans. Politics once again rears its ugly head. The losers are consumers, manufacturers, and true victims who find themselves locked in a case-clogged court system. Mr. President, once again I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this legislation and vote in support of cloture. contingency-fee lawyers' nonsense about the commonsense product liability and legal reform act of 1996

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. A third.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. My friend has described the amendment correctly. cdbg funds