Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in July; I introduced S. 1154, a bill to authorize construction of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System in Valley County, MT. Since the introduction of this bill, my staff has been meeting with the Senate Energy Committee staff concerning the bill and its provisions. In addition, I have had discussions with the other members of the Montana congressional delegation about this urgent situation under which hundreds of people must haul their water supplies for miles because of the contamination of the ground water. Based on all of these discussions, the legislation has been redrafted for reintroduction today to reflect the comments of the Energy Committee staff. I want to thank Chairman Murkowski and his staff for their help in streamlining this bill. I am pleased to be joined in the sponsorship of this bill by my colleague, Senator Baucus. I appreciated his assistance with this measure. An identical bill will also be introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Pat Williams. The Montana delegation is unified in our efforts to obtain congressional authorization for this rural water system to help this depressed area of our State. We look forward to working with Senator Murkowski to move this bill to hearings and a markup. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1453 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The conference report is a big win for all America's investors, our Nation's businesses, and our overall economy. The conference report offers a balanced bipartisan bill that restores fairness and integrity to our securities litigation system by protecting innocent companies as well as the rights of the legitimately defrauded investors. The filtering out of the abusive, frivolous class action lawsuits that harm investors and only benefit class action attorneys will restore integrity to securities lawsuits. We will protect investors and at the same time emerging companies will be able to grow and create jobs without the financial burden of abusive litigation. The legislation we have before us today will go a long way toward curbing abuses in securities litigation. It will provide a filter at the earliest stage of a lawsuit to screen out those that have no factual basis. A complaint needs to outline the facts supporting the lawsuit and not just the simple conclusion that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud. If the complaint does not outline and present all the facts supporting each of the alleged misstatements or omissions, the lawsuit will be terminated. Many times, securities class action suits are characterized by the ``sue them all and let the judge sort it out'' mentality. In order for a judge to sort it out, the defendants are required to spend numerous hours and expense to defend against a securities class action lawsuit. This bill corrects that problem by requiring plaintiffs to specify the statements alleged to have been misleading. Securities laws are intended to help investors by ensuring a flow of accurate and pertinent information regarding public traded companies. However, the present system reduces the amount of information required and companies limit their public statements to avoid allegations of fraud. In fact, an American Stock Exchange survey found that 75 percent of corporate CEO's limit the information disclosed to investors out of fear that greater disclosure would lead to an abusive lawsuit. To encourage disclosure of information by companies, the conference report will create a safe harbor. It will provide a procedural mechanism for companies who make predictive statements to be protected from frivolous litigation if their prediction does not materialize. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of speculation that this legislation would adversely impact small investors. Nothing could be further from the truth because this comprehensive measure will protect the rights of investors who have been legitimately defrauded, while providing new protections for the millions of Americans investors who have been harmed by the recent explosion of abusive and frivolous litigation. While there are many provisions in the measure to deter meritless suits, the bill also requires that the auditors inform the SEC of any suspicions of fraudulent activity and restores the authority of the SEC to bring aiding and abetting cases for knowing violations of securities laws. The measure includes a system of proportionate liability to reduce the pressure to settle frivolous claims and so that companies pay only their fair share of a settlement, while retaining full joint and several liability for small investors and for all defendants who knowingly participate in securities fraud. In conclusion, Mr. President, this securities legislation reform is fair, balanced and passed with strong bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support the conference report and I once again want to commend Senator Domenici and Senator Dodd for their work on this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the partial-birth abortion ban. I have looked at the testimony presented before the Judiciary Committee, I have gotten letters and phone calls, and I have come to the conclusion that this is not about being pro-life or pro-abortion. It is not even about a woman's choice. Laws have already established that they have that choice. This is about a procedure--a procedure that I do not know how anyone can perform or even condone, once you know what it is. We are talking about the practice of late-term abortion, but a specific procedure in which the fetus is turned around so that it is delivered feet first. And before the head is delivered, while it is still in the birth canal, the physician makes a hole with scissors in the base of the skull and suctions out the brains. And the majority of the time, the baby is alive when this procedure is performed. The heart is beating, the limbs are functioning, they feel, they react, they may even have a good chance of living if they had been allowed to be fully born. To me this just sounds repulsive, absolutely inhumane. And it makes me wonder, if they were doing this to dogs or horses, whether we would have more support to ban this procedure. My daughter, who is a third year medical student, assures me that I would probably find most surgeries pretty hard to stomach. But even she agrees that this procedure is intolerable. And I find it interesting that the American Medical Association's Council on Legislation has unanimously supported this bill. The argument is made that these procedures are done to save the life of the mother. Yet, even some physicians who specialize in this procedure claim otherwise. Dr. Martin Haskell conceded that 80 percent of his late-term abortions were elective. Dr. Pamela Smith, up at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, recently wrote that ``There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of the mother.'' And that is what I would think. If you are going to put the mother through delivery of a 24- or 26-week-old or even a full-term fetus, and the fetus is almost completely delivered, except for the head, why not just finish the birth? I will tell you why. Because once the head is out, it is a child, a human being by legal standards, with all the constitutional rights that come with being alive and then it cannot be killed. But by common sense, not just conservative sense, that fetus is not any less human just because the head is still in the birth canal. And I found it ironic that, if the head does slip out and a live baby is born, the physician calls this a complication. I realize that, for parents who have been told their long-anticipated child will be deformed or has little chance of living, this is a horrendous decision. And some may decide to abort. This bill does not restrict late-term abortions--only this method of doing it. I have read some of the personal experiences of families who have chosen this option, and in the cases where the fetus developed organs outside the body, the recurring sentiment is that that baby would never have survived outside the mother's womb. If that is the case, why then should the fetus be killed while the head is still in the uterus? Some say this is the safest procedure for the mother. But even the doctor who wrote ``Abortion Practices,'' the Nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures, disputes this. Dr. Hern states that he could not imagine a circumstance in which the partial- birth abortion procedure would be the safest. And after all, I think that is what we should be aiming for. I am not doubting for an instant that carrying to term or delivering a baby that has little to no chance of survival would be difficult. And that's an understatement. You would need the mental fortitude of Jeannie French, whose testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was inspiring. She delivered by C-section twins, one of which she knew would not live. Against her doctor's recommendation to abort, she opted to go ahead with delivery and here little Mary's vital organs were used to save the lives of two children. Some may not think that is heroic, but I would bet you those two children are glad that Jeannie chose to deliver Mary. Mr. President, our debate here today is not a debate on choice. It is not even a debate on abortion. Let no one convince you of that. The debate is whether or not this procedure, a procedure that most physicians do not approve of, and that most agree is not safe for the mother--certainly not safe for the fetus--should be legal. I believe it should be banned. For the health of the mothers and the health or our Nation, we should pass the partial-birth abortion ban bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I stand with Senator Pressler as a cosponsor of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995 (S. 1445). The National Science Foundation is an independent Federal agency that provides grants for basic research to colleges, universities, and nonprofit organizations. NSF supports research in the basic science and mathematic areas in addition to supporting precollege, undergraduate, and graduate students, as well as post- doctoral associates. The foundation's support for basic research and science education is one major reason for our world leadership in science and technology. The bill authorizes the National Science Foundation to spend $3.2 billion in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, which is 95 percent of the administration's budget request. The bill authorizes the Foundation's research and related activities at $2.3 billion and its education and human resources activities at $599 million each year. Our authorization includes a total of $56 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] and related activities that have provided needed assistance for universities in rural States such as my State of Montana. The primary purpose of EPSCoR is to serve as a change agent and catalyst to develop a competitive research base in our rural areas. The development of this strong research base will in turn improve the quality of education we provide to our citizens at all levels, and generate spin-off technologies. The Bill also authorizes the National Science Foundation to spend $100 million each year for Academic Research Infrastructure. This activity provides grants to universities to upgrade and improve research and lab equipment and renovate facilities. Good research requires good facilities and good lab equipment. Full funding for this account will help to rebuild the U.S. academic institutions to facilitate the conduct of leading-edge research. Finally, this bill supports the Foundation's science education programs. Strengthening the math and science literacy of our young people is the only way to insure their involvement in our increasingly technological world. I am especially interested in activities aimed at K through 12 education. I also think it is important to take advantage of communications technology to make our educational system more effective, such as the distance learning/teacher enhancement projects at Montana State University developed to improve the skills of teachers in remote areas of the Northwest. In that connection, I sponsored language in the bill which establishes a pilot program at the Foundation to provide, in a competitive basis, financial support for States with two or more tribally-controlled community colleges. This assistance will establish interactive telecommunication systems at these colleges to enhance and improve their educational programs and curricula. These are the kinds of activities that we need to stress if our Nation is to remain competitive. Again, I would like to state my support for the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995 and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation during this Congress.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I stand with Senator Pressler as a cosponsor of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995 (S. 1445). The National Science Foundation is an independent Federal agency that provides grants for basic research to colleges, universities, and nonprofit organizations. NSF supports research in the basic science and mathematic areas in addition to supporting precollege, undergraduate, and graduate students, as well as post- doctoral associates. The foundation's support for basic research and science education is one major reason for our world leadership in science and technology. The bill authorizes the National Science Foundation to spend $3.2 billion in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, which is 95 percent of the administration's budget request. The bill authorizes the Foundation's research and related activities at $2.3 billion and its education and human resources activities at $599 million each year. Our authorization includes a total of $56 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] and related activities that have provided needed assistance for universities in rural States such as my State of Montana. The primary purpose of EPSCoR is to serve as a change agent and catalyst to develop a competitive research base in our rural areas. The development of this strong research base will in turn improve the quality of education we provide to our citizens at all levels, and generate spin-off technologies. The Bill also authorizes the National Science Foundation to spend $100 million each year for Academic Research Infrastructure. This activity provides grants to universities to upgrade and improve research and lab equipment and renovate facilities. Good research requires good facilities and good lab equipment. Full funding for this account will help to rebuild the U.S. academic institutions to facilitate the conduct of leading-edge research. Finally, this bill supports the Foundation's science education programs. Strengthening the math and science literacy of our young people is the only way to insure their involvement in our increasingly technological world. I am especially interested in activities aimed at K through 12 education. I also think it is important to take advantage of communications technology to make our educational system more effective, such as the distance learning/teacher enhancement projects at Montana State University developed to improve the skills of teachers in remote areas of the Northwest. In that connection, I sponsored language in the bill which establishes a pilot program at the Foundation to provide, in a competitive basis, financial support for States with two or more tribally-controlled community colleges. This assistance will establish interactive telecommunication systems at these colleges to enhance and improve their educational programs and curricula. These are the kinds of activities that we need to stress if our Nation is to remain competitive. Again, I would like to state my support for the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995 and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation during this Congress.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support final passage of Senate bill 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important bill. Montana is an extremely rural State. In fact, we don't have a drinking water system that serves more than 100,000 people. Most of our water systems don't serve more than 10,000 people. Meeting the requirements under the [[Page S 17743]] existing water laws has been difficult, at best, for many of these communities. The bill we are considering today is a step in the right direction. It will give relief to communities and improve public health regulations by reducing burdensome and unnecessary regulations. Over the next 8 years, this bill authorizes $1 billion annually in Federal grants. These grants go directly to the States where loans or grants can be made to local water systems. In addition, this bill contains a provision where a percentage of the funds can be allocated for disadvantaged communities. This bill also gives our Governors the flexibility to transfer funds between the clean water and drinking water State revolving loan funds. The bill provides $15 million for technical assistance for small systems. This is a $5 million increase over existing levels. The technical assistance program often is the only contact systems have to meet the requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, S. 1316 allows the technical assistance funding to be used for the rural water wellhead-groundwater protection program. This has been one of the most successful programs in rural communities. And prevention is less expensive than remediation. Included in the current law, is a mandate to promulgate standards for 25 additional contaminants every 3 years. S. 1316 repeals this mandate and sets a new mechanism to identify contaminants for future regulations. The most expensive part of running a water system is the monitoring which must occur. S. 1316 moves the decision to the States regarding monitoring. This will allow local conditions to be considered. Systems serving up to 10,000 people can skip repeat testing for many contaminants that do not pose health risks if the first sample in a quarterly series does not detect the contaminant. This could reduce the monitoring by 75 percent in some communities. Most importantly, this bill contains no new Federal mandates. S. 1316 does not contain any new Federal regulatory program. Montanans want the Federal Government out of their lives, and this bill not only does not add new regulations, it streamlines the requirements contained in the current bill. There is no constituency for dirty water. However, the problem with the existing law is it is based on fines and penalties. The bill we will pass today takes us away from that mentality. It gives the States and communities the tools to provide folks with safe water. It is a bill based on providing communities with assistance, not penalties. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I look forward to it being enacted into law.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as we go into this very busy week, coming on the heels of the Thanksgiving break, I do not know of a time that we have had so many issues at the forefront that are so important to this country--not only the debate on the budget, how do we balance it, how do we stay on track to balance the budget in 2002 and how important that is to our children and grandchildren, the business of reforming welfare to make it work for people rather than lock them into certain circumstances, and now the situation as it is developing and unfolding in Bosnia. There are a lot of folks, including some who are running for public office, by the way, who do not even know where Bosnia is. But the debate, I am sure, this week will boil down to be a three-pronged debate: Is it in our national interest to deploy troops as peacekeepers or peacemakers, and there is a difference; will there be a clear and concise mission with hardly any opening for mission creep, and that is kind of tough to define, and it is kind of tough to stop--we learned that in Somalia; and is there at some time certain a withdrawal plan or some avoidance to deal with maybe an endless mission. One has to read the history of that part of the world to really understand it. I have been there, spent quite a lot of time on the Dalmation coast in Croatia, and I will tell you that the passion and the love for their land runs as deep as their hatred of their trespassers. In Bosnia, is it a holy war? One would like to think not. But I think it is part of the equation. An ethnic war? Of course it is because of the ethnic cleansing that has been carried out. The carnage that has been thrust upon this country is almost unspeakable and unheard of. Is it a civil war? Yes, it is a civil war. Is it a war that goes across borders? It is that, too. But it has been waged for generations. And just since our history or our recollection or our generation, 250,000 people have perished at the hands of those who would be in the business of ethnic cleansing. The atrocities are unspeakable, and they are there. So we have to look at that situation as we try to define our responsibility in that equation. I give high marks to this President, my President--we only have one at a time--in bringing the warring parties together at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, and the amount of resolve that was placed on this to come out of there with some kind of an agreement that would be good for everybody. We have seen cease-fires, and we have seen agreements that were drawn up and concluded within Serbia and Croatia and in Bosnia, but they did not last very long. I am wondering how long this will last. Does everyone who is a party to that accord or that agreement that was signed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio really, really agree on peace? Are their leaders really 100 percent dedicated to it? Is everyone ready to stop the fighting? It would seem to me that after a while you would just get tired of killing one another. That has not been the case in this particular corner of the world. I would also ask, after the accord was signed in Ohio, what has been the part for the rest of the international community? Have they stepped forward? And how much pressure have they put on the parties, the three main parties in that part of the world to work out some sort of a peace? How heavy has the international pressure been? Has it been as intense as it has from this country? Because I happen to believe in the American way. I have always said our greatest trait as a people is most times our undoing because we are a caring people. No catastrophe happens around the world that we do not react in a very positive way to help people. We care. And also when we see the atrocities on our television screens every night during the nightly news, it moves our conscience. And we are a nation with a conscience. No person can stand to one side and not feel for those people who have been victims of unspeakable atrocities. But those folks who have pledged troops into NATO as a peacekeeping force, how many of those people have really stepped up and said this is wrong, and how much pressure have they put on their folks that this must stop? If the Bosnian Moslems and the Serbians and the Croatians do not think this peace agreement is in their best interests, then we would question, [[Page S 17526]] is it in our best interests? Would our troops be placed in harm's way? Would they be placed there as peacemakers or peacekeepers? And I would say as this debate drones on, peacemakers become a lot more dangerous. It is hard to keep the peace where there is no peace. I am also sympathetic with the President on wanting to do the right thing. I am also sympathetic in that he has the right if he thinks it is right to deploy troops in a peacekeeping mission. But it would be a lot easier if he would come to this Congress and consult with this Congress before he did so and have the support of the American people. It is terrible to order young men and women into harm's way without the complete support of their nation. I will not do that. There seems to be another situation here, too--the provision of this accord to lift the arms embargo and to arm and train the Bosnians. That does not seem like a peacekeeping mission to me. And I will have to know more about the wording on that and our goal or the ultimate end. It seems hard to say that if we flood the country with arms and in the next breath we say, ``No more war,'' that seems sort of an oxymoron to me. In conclusion, it is, like I said, like no other part of the world where you will find people that have a love so deep and a passion so deep for their land but also a hate so deep for their trespassers. And that is the situation we have to deal with. So despite my expressed doubts on the merits of this decision to deploy--we will listen to the debate--but I have no intention of withdrawing my support for our young men and women who will be placed in harm's way in this mission of peace. I can remember when President Bush came to this body and asked for permission to deploy in the Middle East. We did have a national interest there. How much do we have in this circumstance? We will weigh that decision. And it will probably be, if the President chooses to do so, and I think he will, that he will come to this Congress asking for our support. It will be a very, very tough decision. It could be one of those votes that one never likes to cast either up or down. But the debate must be held, and we must talk about it openly because there are young men and women's lives at stake, and the interest of the most powerful and free Nation in the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. There is objection.

Mr. BURNS. I object.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business, then.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I might inquire, what is the order of the day or hour?

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me to run over my time. I wish to at this time thank the leadership of Congress. I know the last 2 or 3 days have been the most grueling days in trying to iron out some sort of a blueprint on which we can get this country and this Government back in some kind of fiscal order. The President stepped up. I congratulate him. But I think you have to look around at the faces of those who have worked all through it. Some of us kind of took some time off and did some things we wanted to do on Friday and Saturday, not being involved in leadership, but that was not something that was afforded to leadership because they had to stay and stay. When you read this commitment to a 7-year balanced budget, even when it gets down to saying, yes, we have to assure Medicare solvency, that is the reason most of us come down for it. And Medicaid, or Medigrant they are calling it now, or welfare, all of this is something we [[Page S 17507]] campaigned on in 1994. It is still the parameters of which we will do business. If we did not care for these programs, we would do nothing, we would not fight to make sure that this Government stays solvent; that we can pay our bills; that we can take care of the next generation in Medicare and Medicaid and help those people who we really sincerely believe need help. It is our responsibility to help them. That was the driving force behind this whole plan on the Republican side when I campaigned last year. Had we not cared, we would have turned our back on this and said, ``Do it any way you want to, Mr. President. We will keep on doing business the way we have been doing it for 40 years,'' or at least the last 6 years that I have been here. We could have said no, but we did not do that. We did what was responsible. We came to the forefront to fix it, to save it, to make it stronger and make sure we assure the integrity of the programs designed to serve the people on Medicaid and Medicare, the needy and not the greedy. I think we have done that. Now the hard work begins. We will get onto the main playing field. There will be a lot of dust and a lot of talk, but basically what you looked at yesterday is exactly what we campaigned on in 1994 and which continues to be the noble goal of this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that has been highly controversial in the State of Montana, and throughout the West, for that matter. As we speak, there has been a campaign of disinformation aimed at confusing and scaring residents of Montana into believing that we in Congress are about to sell or give away all of the public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and sell those lands to big corporations and, of course, to the rich. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I want to take this opportunity to clear the air on some misapprehensions about the issue and where we stand on it, or where I stand. First, let me say I do believe we have to make some changes in the management of public lands because of all the conflict and the controversy that surrounds them. The real issue here is letting local citizens have an effective voice in the management of those lands which have such a direct and important bearing on their lives and their livelihood. I have cosponsored S. 1031. It was drafted by my good friend, Senator Thomas, of Wyoming. That bill, if passed, will provide the opportunity to transfer public lands now managed by the Bureau of Land Management, a Federal agency, to those States which wish to have them. This has been proposed by State and local governments, among others, for some time. The States believe that being closer to the land, they are more capable of managing those lands for the public than ones who were, say, from a State that has no large concentration of public lands or even us here in Washington, DC. And that is probably true. I believe it is time to take a serious look at the alternatives and to decide whether it is an option we want to use in some situations. As I said, I think some changes should be made in this bill before final passage. But, nonetheless, I want to give the States and their citizens an opportunity to make a decision about local control themselves. Through the public hearing process and committee and floor debates and amendments, we can decide if, and how, we use this concept to better serve the public's needs. We face many problems in the management of public land resources today and all those natural resources found on those lands. We have a host of laws which have been developed over more than a century. In many cases they conflict. They are often interpreted differently by agencies responsible for implementing them, so they have different requirements for complying with the law. The result for the average citizens trying to use these lands is conflict, confusion and, of course, frustration. Just like the Federal regulatory process in general, the public land regulations are, in a sense, a mess. Of course, we have to start this process of reforming them. We had testimony from the head ranger of the Forest Service. He tells us, just about the time they try to make a decision with regard to natural resources found on those lands--we have a lot of laws, and when they get down to the small end of the funnel to where the decision could be made, all at once they are in conflict and therefore no decision is made. Therefore, the inefficiency of running these lands comes to the forefront. To illustrate what I mean, I have made up these charts. The first shows the BLM permitting process. Those would be those permits required by Federal agencies under law now. The red spots represent all of those other agencies which can deny a permittee the use of BLM land. When we talk about permittee, that is, if you want to do anything on public land, before you can do anything--and I mean that is from grazing to recreation--it has to jump through the hoops. I just want to point out, the red dots are Federal agencies that have control over the decisions made on permitting on BLM land. Also, the yellow diamonds are places of conflict which could derail the process and deny access or deny the permittee the use of those lands. Of course, the X's mean that is where it stops; everything stops, the permit is denied. Whatever it costs, what you want to do is get from here to here and still have money enough to do what you want to do on public lands. Sometimes that gets to be a big race. You start off when the project is proposed. It goes through documents and plan conformance. If they say no, it does not do it, so you start through the process. You amend it, there is public comment, there is a protest. If there is protest by anybody with a 32-cent stamp--a letter from anybody in the country can protest that particular permittee--then it has to go through conflict resolution, through an appeal process again, back to the district manager, and that can be appealed. So, if the appeal is upheld, the project is not OK'd. If the project is not appealed, if everything goes right and they say no, that appeal should not be in here, then we start up here and we start through this process. And then, if they allow a resolution, then we have to go back down through here again. We have to jump on. Remember, I would remind the Chair, remember when we were debating the health care situation of a year ago, a proposal by the administration on all the hoops you would have to jump through and all the new agencies it would create in order to take care of just health care in this country under the plan proposed by the administration? I guess they just love hoops. Anyway, when you get over it all, walk it all the way through, when you get to here--and remember this all costs a little bit of money along the way--this is the area where you try to work out if you have jumped through all of, or some of, your conflicts. If you get all those done--if you do not get them done you can kill the project here. Here is another stop sign, another place for the project to die. If you get through this--and all this takes time and time is money--before it can be finalized, then something else enters into the project and that is other agencies. Other agencies now come into play because you have just about done everything required by the agency that really has the responsibility of managing the land, it has pretty much said, OK, so far, so good. Now we have to go to other agencies. For water quality, you have to go through EPA. If EPA says yes, then the permit is approved. Then it goes from there, you have to have public comment on that. When the EPA says OK, still there is an area where the public has access, they can make comment. If they say no, then we are back doing another EIS or another dead end, a stop sign, and the project can die. But say they approve it and say we get along pretty good. The EPA--and we get down here. So far so good. There is also another section, section 401. That is the Clean Water Act. The State has to sign off on it. The State of Montana does. So does the EPA. There are two different steps in there. It takes time. You have to have a bureaucrat in every one of those stages. Somebody has to push the paper. Somebody has to lick the stamp to get it to go on. Then you get down here. The permit is approved. You have another comment area. If somebody with that 32-cent stamp is handy again, he can protest it, and it goes into conflict. So now you have to go through another process that kicks it back through the process of the EIS. There might be some wetlands on it. If you think the Corps of Engineers only does business around the navigable rivers and around our coastlines of this country, you are wrong. The Corps of Engineers does business where you could not float a stick. So you have to go to the Corps of Engineers. You have to file the application because you have wetlands on [[Page S 17506]] this. Maybe the EIS showed a wetlands. The Corps of Engineers has to check off on it. This process is a little bit longer. They approve the permit. It goes to public comment. Then it can be appealed. If the appeal is successful, that kills the project. If it does not, it still has to go to the EPA through another appeal, and finally it has to go down to the Fish and Wildlife Service. All of these are Federal agencies. I do not know how your history has been in dealing with Federal agencies. But you can see there are a lot of things to take into consideration in this line right here when you start talking about wetlands. Say you are successful at that. You want to count the time. In this line right here it is probably quite a lot. The next is air quality. You have to take that into consideration. It goes to the EPA, or to the State. It can go to either one. But I would guess, if I was a guessing person--which I am--it would probably go to both. They get notice. There is a comment period. And there is also an area down here where, if there is a conflict on the air quality--if you get down here and see there is no conflict, we move on. If there is conflict, then we go back through the process again. And also here is another area, one more area where the permit could be denied. Then you have another law called the Endangered Species Act. Some folks have said the act is really not working, and it will be, I think, amended and reauthorized this year. So then you have to take your permit and go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are in consultation. Here again is another area for public comment, and a place where a 32-cent stamp comes in that says you can file an appeal, and there is a conflict noted. Then you have to go through that decision process. The only thing we are trying to do is get from here to here. But it looks like a regular steeplechase. I am going to have this chart made up smaller and pass it out to my colleagues. I am wondering as we put laws into effect and try to develop some kind of rules and regulations for the protection of the people's property. Sometimes we actually destroy the people's property while we are doing it. Of course, this process is expensive. You hope by the time you start the process up here and by the time you get down here that you have money enough to implement the proposed action. Mining--the editorial for mining the other day in the Washington Post said, Who is minding the mint? It takes 10 to 15 years to permit mining of a metal, or a trace metal, or whatever you want to mine on that property. Right now the property has doubtless value. Before you can give it value there has to be something to make it valuable. I am not sure the Government wants to spend money on its own land or speculate with that money to give that land value before the mine is sited--10 to 15 years. If you are thinking about running out West and starting a mine, you want to be ready because all of this is just for you. In mining it becomes a little more. There are a few more things that you have to talk about. The difference? Here is what we are trying to do. We are trying to simplify and still gather the same information on the activities of BLM. Under the State permitting system, in the State of Montana we have a board of land managers which is made up of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and it manages those school sections under the school trust. They manage for a benefactor which is the schools. That is the way we fund our schools. On every range there are a couple of sections that are set aside and managed, whether it is farmland, or woods, or timber, or whether it is mining for whatever. Any time you have to do business on State land, they do not have as many hoops to jump through. According to a white paper that was done by a woman out of the University of California at Berkeley, it showed that State lands are managed 25 percent more efficiently than Federal lands because of a benefactor, which are the schools. Basically what we are doing is we have a request for an activity. It goes through MEPA, which is the environmental act in the State of Montana, and it also has public and Federal comment only. It goes into a field evaluation. There is a notice of competitive bidding. In other words, if something is going to happen on that land, notice is given to everybody if they want to participate. That goes out to all interested parties. There is a bid acceptance, and the lease is issued. They derive an improvement settlement. That can be appealed. Then arbitration, and maybe another appeal. It goes to the State director. Maybe there is another appeal. And then it goes to the district court. That all happens pretty fast. But, nonetheless, to get from here to here is the time saved, the expense saved, and it also provides as much opportunity for public comment as any other process and with very few conflicting laws as we can have. I will have a chart of this also done for my colleagues so they understand what we are trying to do. Basically, the bill that was crafted by Senator Thomas says this. They are going to offer the BLM's to the State. If the States do not want them, then they will continue to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management. If they do, then there is a 10-year transition period. I would say before it is over that we will not know what the final form of this bill will take because there are some people who would like something to happen, and some people would not. It is big Government. They all want to sit here in Washington, DC, and the decisions made here in Washington. I happen to think that people who live next to the land, basically those people who live in the State of Montana, can make those decisions probably better about the resources and the resource management on those lands. So the laws and regulations of public land ownership have been developed over the years. We have areas in Montana that are checkerboard. This gives them an opportunity for land exchanges, and to block it and make it more efficient. The land management agencies complain that most of their resources are dedicated to paperwork and paperwork exercises, and they are stymied with conflicting requirements. We are trying to take some of that out of that, and also to take out some of those areas where there are conflicts caused by nuisance more than they are by substance. There is a lot of funding and manpower in the United States. I know from just dealing with the State of Montana. When I went to the State of Montana as a young man, I think the BLM probably did not have 50 people that managed all of the BLM land in the last 30 years. They probably did not have 50 people when I first went to Montana managing around 8 million acres. I will stand corrected on that. Now there are over 300 in one sector and 500 in another all paid by the taxpayers of America of which they are getting no return for those people working out there. No return unless it is from resource management, and, of course, some of that resource management is held up because of the first chart. So, Mr. President, that sort of clears the air. There is also another bill that would set up a commission, a commission to take a look at our laws and how they apply to our public lands, how to manage them, and also the resources found on them and to make some recommendations back to Congress. I think both of those pieces of legislation should move.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I am in complete support of this package. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Michigan. This is probably a historical time for this body. The first time in many years that we have had the opportunity to balance the budget, to put us on the trail to do something responsible. I remember the speeches from the last 6 years and people saying, ``We believe in a balanced budget, but look at all the pain; maybe we can do it next year.'' Well, that next year has gone on for about 40 years and we kind of find ourselves in a pickle. I had a wonderful woman that used to work in our office. She has since transferred to Minneapolis with her husband, where he found a job opportunity, and they just had a brand-new baby. That is what this debate is all about. It is about this young one in this picture, 3-days old, born 10/7/95, 7\1/2\ pounds, 21\1/4\ inches long. That is what it is all about, folks. To do anything different jeopardizes the future of this young woman, this young lady right here in the picture. And it is because there are some of us who care to stand for maybe some very unpopular things right now, and take the responsibility, because we do care for this young woman. We want to hand her a nation that is strong economically and also strong politically. This debate has gone on a long time. Everybody says, ``Well, you have to quit wrangling up there on the Hill. We do not like to be furloughed.'' I just got a letter from a young woman in Winston, MT. It says: ``Stop the talking, do something different. I want to have a nice Thanksgiving and a Christmas.'' It is signed, ``Amanda Baum, Winston, Montana.'' Well, Amanda, it is a two-way street. We offered a continuing resolution that would let your father go back to work as soon as possible. But, you know, there is a person on the other end of Pennsylvania avenue that said, no, I do not like that, so I am not going to sign it. So you are on furlough. But it takes two people. I say change the message and call the House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. In this Balanced Budget Act of 1995, there is a $500 per child tax credit. What does that mean to your individual States? I will tell you what it means in Montana. The total number of returns eligible for a tax credit will be around 66,000 people. There are only 800,000 people in my whole State, but 66,000 returns will qualify for this $500 per child tax credit. It will cover the amount of dependents of around 98,000 people, and the value to the State of Montana is around $46 million. That is money in families' pockets. That is money that can be put in a savings account to buy a home. It is money that can be put in a savings account that can pay for education for our young ones coming along, and for those folks who want the responsibility of managing their own money. So in this Balanced Budget Act, let us talk about some real things, like capital gains that help us all. No, we did not get all the AMT tax we wanted. Nonetheless, it does do something about depreciation--depreciation that creates jobs and expands job opportunities. That is what is in this package. That is what we need. We have to expand job opportunities. Economic development--my goodness, just the presence of the Government in your neighborhood is not economic development. We must produce real growth, either manufacturing or the development of natural resources that provides natural wealth. It just does not start here in Washington. I was taken aback a while ago when I saw the former Governor of Arkansas worrying about the nursing home regulations. What is the matter? Is this town the only one that has a conscience? He has no faith in the State governments to regulate their nursing homes to the benefit of our elderly?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if we are going to be quoting, let us start off with the President. Candidate Clinton said he would balance the budget in 5 years. President Clinton says it cannot be done. Yes, he would embrace a 7-year budget agreement. Now that is not any good anymore. He said he wanted a 10-year plan--I am not real sure--but all with a caveat of, ``Yes, I would use and want to use CBO figures,'' real assumptions. He said that in his State of the Union Address. Now that is off the table. Basically, what we are saying here is what is on the table: Balance the budget in 7 years using CBO's assumption and real economics. That is all we are asking. I do not think that is too much. It is because we have a very deep feeling and support for education. It is because this side of the aisle is very supportive of and deeply cares for Medicare that we want to save it. We do not stick our head in the sand. Medicare spending will actually go up some 45 percent in the next 7 years, and you say we do not care? Medicaid continues to go up. Welfare continues to go up, even with reform. And we care for children and grandchildren. Instead of handing them a bill that their country is so far in debt they never will see the bottom--we are spending $1 billion a day in interest on the national debt now, and to those who would not support a balanced budget, are you saying that you want your benefits now at the expense of your children or your grandchildren? That is the funniest parent I have ever seen, or grandparent. By not taking the meaningful steps to confront the problems we have now is irresponsible and, I think, probably one of the great facades that has been cast on the American people. The message over here has been constant since last year. You can talk about Medicare, welfare, the county fair--I do not care what you want to talk about. Basically, we are talking about a balanced budget. We are talking about something we can hand our children that they can deal with. It is because people ran for public office and made a promise to America that we will balance the budget and now the other side says, ``We don't want you to keep your promises.'' It is very, very simple. There is nothing, there is nothing, there is just nothing that is not simple about this whole presentation. So while we are quoting quotes and we see the message, one has been consistent, one has not, because maybe the compass sort of goes awry every now and again. The American people have learned one thing--that they do not want business as usual. In the past couple of months, we have heard a lot about the drastic cuts in Medicare. Well, where did we go to school? In the last 7 years, if we spent $900 billion in Medicare and in the next 7 years we will spend $1.6 trillion in Medicare--a 45 percent increase--is that a cut? Not where I went to school. A 45 percent increase by the year 2002, and we still balance the budget. The same goes for Medicaid. Let us talk about the tax package. Candidate Clinton called for a tax cut for the middle class during the campaign of 1992. And then in 1993 he gave this country a tax package that was the largest tax increase in the history of the country. In Houston, he says: Maybe I raised your taxes a little too much, and I sort of cooled this economy a little too much. Well, in this package, we are trying to help some families. Seventy- five percent or the tax cuts go to families with children. We care about children. There is a $500 per child tax credit. There are IRA reforms, and also reforms in estate planning, estate taxes, that keeps farms and ranches and small businesses and families functioning. There is an alternative minimum tax reform that creates jobs and does something about investment, providing an expanding economy. Let us talk a little bit about those death taxes, those estate taxes. It is a form of double taxation. Capital gains is a form of a--let us call it a voluntary tax. Everybody participates in capital gains. If you own anything that appreciates in value, it is capital gains-- anything, such as your home, or whatever, you participate in capital gains. It is a voluntary tax. You do not have to pay it because you do not have to sell. I think that is a lot of difference. When we look at a farm or ranch and everybody says, ``Do something for the family farm,'' this is what you can do; we can let them hang on to it and let the next generation farm it or ranch it. That is the way it should be. Let us not be led astray and be quoting different quotes because of the message, and do not shoot the messenger. There has been one consistent message: Now is the time to get our fiscal house in order. I come here from county government. We had to balance it there. Sometimes it would become tough because maybe you did not get everything covered, but you found a way to get through it. We even lived through an initiative in Montana called I-105. We could not levy any more mils because people were tired of their tax bill. I will say to those folks who do not want any reforms at all, if you do not think something has to be done over the entitlements, I have a little fellow out here in Springfield, VA, that takes care of my car. If you say to him, ``I want to raise your taxes,'' and he says, ``OK, you do it,'' then I will probably go along with you. Right now, he has all the taxes he can handle, and he is just making $25,000 a year. He has a couple of kids and wants to pay for a home. I think he needs a part of the American dream, too. So we do not care? I think we care a lot. We do not care for Medicare? I think we care a lot. We care enough to sacrifice so that we can save it, so that it will be there for my children and their children. That is what this discussion is all about. That is what it is all about. Let us talk about the package that has been presented. It is a CR, continuing resolution, and it says, Mr. President, agree to a 7-year balanced budget and use CBO figures, real assumptions, and use real economics, and we will put everybody back to work. But this is the time to balance the budget with the least amount of pain. So it is because we do care that we go through this. Somebody has to step up and take responsibility. Sometimes that gets to be a little tough. We hear a lot of rhetoric, a lot of rhetoric that really inflames the landscape so that no negotiations can take place at all. I do not propose to do that. What I propose to do is the responsible thing. I think this is the responsible thing. I always go back to what my dad said. Fathers teach us a lot of things about discipline, discipline in the family, discipline in your company, and discipline in your job. I can remember when our first child was born and dad was just a farmer down in Northwest Missouri. I do not see how most kids make it to be good kids anyway because they are being raised by amateurs. But I asked dad, ``How tough do you have to be on your kids disciplinewise?'' He said, ``It all depends how much you love them.'' I have never forgotten that, and I have never forgotten that in Government either. It all depends on how much we love this country, how much we want to put her on solid footing, to be both the political and economic leader in this world, because these young people deserve a future, and they cannot do it if they are borrowed up to their eyes. So this is responsible. This is because we love this country very much. This is the time to do it with the least amount of pain. Let us just do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday Senators Hatch, Bennett, Craig, and I introduced S. 1371, the Snowbasin Land Exchange Act. This bill would facilitate a land transfer in Utah. The consolidation of ownership of lands in the West has been a goal of many Members of the Senate, including me. I have supported many land exchanges for Montana, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 1371. This bill deals with lands in Utah and would allow the Snowbasin ski area, which will be one of the sites for ski events of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The bill would transfer about 1,320 acres from the Forest Service to the ski area and Forest Service would receive lands of equal value which they desire. About 10 years ago, discussions began between the owners of this land and the Forest Service. Since 1985, there have been studies, hearings, and assessments on the exchange. These include an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, cultural and historical assessment, fish and wildlife studies, soil and water reviews, and geological studies. Despite a decision made by the Forest Service to exchange 700 acres of land at Snowbasin in 1990, the exchange remains uncompleted today. Congress needs to act quickly on S. 1371 so the exchange can be completed in the near future. For the 2002 Olympic Games, planning has already begun. This exchange is important so the work at Snowbasin can be completed for Olympic ski events scheduled there. The 2002 Olympic Games are important to the people of Montana for many reasons. For one, the Olympics will draw people to the Inter- Mountain West, including Montana. This means more travel and tourism dollars to Montana and greater exposure of the attributes Montana possesses. Mr. President, the Public Lands Subcommittee will hold a hearing on S. 1371 next week, and I look forward to this bill moving forward quickly.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today together with Senators Craig, [[Page S 16504]] Gorton, Grassley, McConnell, Daschle, Harkin, and Kerrey of Nebraska to introduce legislation that will preserve and strengthen the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program of the Department of Agriculture. In an effort to balance the budget by the year 2002, Congress has had to make some very difficult decisions. Whatever the final outcome of this process in budget reconciliation the fact remains that the American farmer will be asked to move into a market-oriented farm policy. Therefore it has become crystal clear that we must open up our thinking and provide our farmers access to international markets. Changes that have resulted from the Uruguay round of GATT and the growing privatization of importing regimes in overseas markets demand that export programs be instituted that meet current needs and futures challenges. Such programs should reflect not only the successes we have had in the past, but they must also be dynamic and flexible enough to build on these gains. One program that has stood the test of time is the Foreign Market Development Program, also known as the Cooperator Program. Amendments to the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 authorized market development activities and the use of Federal funds to develop, maintain, and expand foreign markets for U.S. agriculture commodities. It was determined by the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service that this could best be accomplished by private, nonprofit agricultural organizations. These organizations have been required to share in the financial expense of the market development activities. In 1988, Congress stated, It is the sense of Congress that the foreign market development Cooperator Program of the Service, and the activities of the individual foreign market development cooperator organizations, have been among the most successful and cost-effective means to expand United States agricultural exports. Congress affirms its support for the program and the activities of the cooperator organizations. The Administrator and the private sector should work together to ensure that the program, and the activities of cooperator organizations, are expanded in the future. While Congress has provided full funding through the regular appropriations process every year since the Cooperator Program's development in 1954, we have provided little statutory direction to the USDA and the Foreign Agricultural Service. Congress has simply established broad goals for market development programs. As a result, the Foreign Agricultural Service has been given wide discretion in establishing programs and funding. Mr. President, this arrangement has been highly successful for a number of years. Unfortunately, in recent years the Cooperator Program has fallen victim to the intense competition within FAS for fewer discretionary funds. This has led to FAS requesting cuts in the program as a means of funding other FAS activities. Due to the success of this program, Congress has decided that these funds should continue and has stated such to the Foreign Agricultural Service. This year that administration proposed a budget that would have reduced the funding for the Cooperator Program by 20 percent. A reduction of this magnitude would have meant a U.S. retreat from international markets at a time when the Foreign Agricultural Service has testified that the resources and staff of nonprofit commodity were less than adequate. This is to say that our nonprofit agricultural organizations were not able to meet the challenges and changes in the international market place. On the more meaningful level, this would have meant fewer opportunities for the producers in the world market. As a member of the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee I can tell you what we took this seriously and restored full finding for the program this year. But we grow weary of the continued assault on such a successful program. It is a practice that must stop. This bill will stop this, by establishing a separate identity for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program from that of FAS. The Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program is not only one of the oldest export programs, but it is also one of the most essential and effective. In fiscal year 1994, cooperators expended $29.8 million of FAS funds on the market development program. Cooperators reported additional contributions of $30 million. These cooperators conducted more than 1,000 individual market development activities in over 100 countries. The private sector funding assists in reducing the deficit while maintaining our presence in overseas markets. The involvement of the private sector also creates incentives for effective programs as it is their own producer dollars at stake. This has created an incentive- based program that FAS has stated that the combined cooperator and foreign third party contributions have exceeded the FAS contribution every year. The cooperator program has been long regarded as a model of public- private sector cooperation. FAS has recently stated that the market development cooperator program has played an important role in increasing U.S. agricultural exports to the approximately $43.5 billion in fiscal year 1994. According to a senior FAS official, the cooperator program is the mainstay of market development activities. Cooperators are by definition nonprofit, agricultural trade associations which represent farmers and farm-related interests. Cooperators participating include representatives from the feed grains, wheat, soybean, rice, cotton, poultry, meat, and forest products as well as many others. High-volume commodities, like grains, rarely lend themselves to traditional consumer promotion programs, but rely instead on working directly with end-users and processors on a regular basis. Cooperator projects are suited to trade servicing activities such as the collection and dissemination of market facts; training programs; and demonstrations or technical seminars on product uses to producers, processors, manufacturers, and consumers. This focus requires a continual presence in the overseas market which is essential for the United States to remain competitive. Regular contact with the customer is necessary to follow shifts in the rapidly changing world market. In my State of Montana, where we export up to 70 percent of the grain that we grow, programs of this nature are extremely important. In recent times when we have signed agreements with the world to place our family farmers in the world market it has become increasingly important that we provide them with tools to compete in these markets. I have stated many times that the American farmer is more than willing to compete with any and all farmers around the world. But we have placed them at a disadvantage by making them compete with the governments of other countries. This is a program that will provide them with a tool to use in the world market. Throughout my time here in Washington I have fought for programs that will add dollars to the pockets of the small family farmers in Montana and the United States. This program in its design does this, whether it be a corn or soybean farmer in Iowa or a wheat and barley farmer in my state of Montana. Development of this type would also benefit the livestock producer in any area of our Nation. It might be a cotton producer in Mississippi or Texas, or maybe a rice farmer in Arkansas, or maybe even a small timber operator in Washington and Idaho. Whatever or wherever it is that they come from, by using their matching funds these cooperators have an investment and will see that they get a return on their funds. They will in turn see additional dollars for their products and will compete fully in the world market. The future of this program is bright, and this legislation will make it only more of a reality. The unique resources that the nonprofit agriculture organizations bring to this cooperative program enhance the future of the exports we now have in agriculture. Recent developments in communications technologies hold promise for greatly enhancing the ability of cooperator organizations to communicate with their counterparts around the country and, for that matter, the rest of the world. Mr. President, in light of the current trend of placing our family farmers on [[Page S 16505]] the world market, and with the pressure to open the safety net which protects our food supply, I find it imperative that Congress act to give our rural families this tool to work within the world market. This one tool will send a message to the country and the world that we are working to keep our family farms strong and vital operations within our economic structure. This message will allow the Department of Agriculture to focus on the opportunities that these cooperative efforts between the public and private sector can and will produce. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to invite my colleagues to join me in this effort to provide an opportunity to the rural families in this country to meet the rest of the world on the field of grain and agriculture with the tools that will help them be successful.