Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to talk about yet another example of Federal bureaucratic actions made without regard for the will of the people, the will of the Congress, the good of the country and basic common sense. We need to restore a degree of sensibility and sanity to the manner in which this country gradually converts to the metric system. The 1988 trade bill contained language which established the metric system as the preferred system of measurement for the United States. Why was the language on the trade bill? The rationale was that it would improve the ability of American companies to export goods to metric- based countries if American firms could be moved to produce those goods in metric versions. The principal tool for urging American companies to switch to the metric system has been to use government procurement policy. The trade bill included language ``to require that each Federal agency, by a date certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its procurement, grants, and other business-related acdtivities * * *.'' The problem I am addressing today arises from the unfortunate fact that the Federal agencies responsible for implementing the metric policy either forgot to read or are completely ignoring the remainder of the above sentence: ``* * * except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to U.S. firms, such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in nonmetric units;'' Congress never intended for the switch to metrication to be forced at any cost or without regard to its impact on people and industry. Issues such as impracticality and the loss of markets to U.S. firms were paramount in the minds of everyone aware of this language. Without these important considerations, the metric language would not have remained in the bill to become law. Yet, we see today that Federal construction procurement policy for the various departments and agencies is completely ignoring this language and pushing ahead with metrication policies without any formalized plans for avoiding the pitfalls. In fact, they are going far beyond the level of metrication called for in the trade bills, and that is causing staggering problems for some industries. These problems are compounded by Federal procurement policies that hinder industry rather than promote trade. Simply converting an industry to metric units of measurement is usually not a major problem. Converting the numbers from inches and pounds to millimeters and kilograms is a difference on paper which can be made by editing the marketing literature and computer design programs. The physical size of the product remains the same. This is known as a soft-metric conversion, and does little to interfere with efficient and well-established production practices or costs. The Government is allowing a soft conversion for most construction industries. The problem is that some industries have been targeted to do more than use metric units of measurement; they are being required to change the size of their products as well. This is called a hard-metric conversion, and it can throw existing production practices into an uproar. At this point, industry is forced to change production practices. Even a minute change in size required by the Federal Government can force a business to completely retool and deal with all the problems with managing a second, hard-metric inventory of goods. This is Federal bureaucracy run amok. And who picks up the tab for this intrusive Government policy? The taxpayer, that is who. Converting to hard-metric will add to the cost of Federal contracting jobs. And the industry will be forced to pass along the conversion costs to the Government and on down to the taxpayer. Under hard-metrication, the taxpayers are forced to pay a hefty ``metric premium,'' whether they want to or not. Mr. President, it is time to pass legislation that will take away the ability of the Government in Washington DC, to send whole established industries into a tailspin, to put small businesses out of the running for Federal contracts, and force the taxpayers to foot the bill for a warped view of metric purity. There does not need to be a wholesale attack on the metric system. It is true that many industries can convert to the metric system with little or no trouble or expense, and that is fine. However, there are those cases where there are substantial, compelling industry-specific economic, trade or production factors that call for a soft-metric conversion. Industries that would bear unreasonable burdens in switching to hard-metric should instead be allowed to convert to soft- metric. The Federal Government should refrain from developing or using designs, or requiring bids for hard-metric products when a soft-metric conversion is technologically feasible and certain other criteria relating to specific small business, trade and economic criteria are present: The product is not available from at least 50 percent of the production sites, or hard-metric product does not constitute at least 50 percent of the total domestic production, and; A hard-metric conversion would require small manufacturers of a product to spend more than $25,000 to purchase new equipment, and; The economics and customs of the industry are such that any offsetting trade benefits would be negligible, or that hard-metric conversion would either substantially reduce competition for federally assisted contracts or would increase the per-unit cost to the taxpayers, or that hard-metric conversion would place small domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors. Mr. President, metrication may well have merit on paper and may have some positive impact on American business generally. Gut it is difficult to say how much, if any, impact it is having on business. Business is usually good at making decisions based on sound-business sense. Which is more than I can say for the Federal Government in this case. We need to move legislation quickly, since I am aware that several Federal agencies are actively pursuing the development of hard-metric designs to be used on federally assisted construction. Federal agencies should strongly consider putting their design and bidding efforts on hold if they involve hard-metric product. I ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the reconciliation provision to open a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to competitive leasing for oil and gas exploration and development. Like many of the other issues we have addressed on this floor in the past ferw weeks, this issue has generated a lot of emotion. We hear about destroying the pristinity of the refuge, the threat to the wildlife of the area, the irreversible changes that such development will cause, the mortal wounding of a national treasure. This is one of the most controversial provisions of the reconciliation package, and the President has threatened a veto over it. The irony is that there is no reason for this. In the final measure, all of the arguments and objections that have been raised over the leasing in ANWR come to nothing. These objections just don't hold water, and I'll tell you why. The environmental concerns have been raised before, and found wanting. All of the research done on oil development on the North Slope proves that such development can occur without having an adverse effect on wildlife. As a matter of fact, the caribou herds have not only survived during the nearly 30 years of oil development in the Prudhoe Bay area, they have shown strong grown. Some people predicted that the caribou would be disturbed by the development, particularly the pipeline. They argued that the caribou would not cross it and therefore the range of the herd would be cut in half, they would not be able to get to their calving areas and the herd would suffer. Because of the concern over this possibility, the oil companies buried portions of the pipeline at great expense and effort. This has proven to have been a waste of time and money. The caribou were not scared by the pipeline, they did not even ignore it. The fact it they use it. Biologists have found that caribou enjoy the heat that the pipeline provides during the cold winter months, and they can even be found taking advantage of the shade that it provides during the summer on this treeless plain. Some predicted that caribou would be trapped by the pipeline, and that predators would change their behavior to take advantage of the pipeline. But this has not happened either. There has been very little effect on the wolves or bears in the area. Some said that waterfowl and other birds such as hawks and falcons would avoid the area because of the development. Again, this has not happened. Each year thousands of waterfowl and other birds nest in the Prudhoe area. In fact, there has never been a incident of what could even approach being called serious environmental damage in the North Slope oil fields. This environmental record has been established using old technologies. The methods for oil development on the North Slope have improved to the point that the direct impact area, or footprint of development, will only be a small part of what it has been at Prudhoe Bay. New slant drilling techniques allow wells to reach farther than they could before. Drilling methods now allow 12 wells to be drilled where only one could be drilled before. And the size of the drill pads have been reduced to one eighth of what was needed at Prudhoe. Not only are the drill pads smaller, but there will be fewer of them and they will be spaced farther apart than at Prudhoe. The actual footprint at ANWR will only be about 3,000 acres. That is not much land to commit for all of the benefits that development will provide. We have learned how to improve other aspects of oil development technology through our experiences at Prudhoe and other Arctic oil fields as well. And this technology is getting better every day. The result is that there is even less potential of environmental damage at ANWR than there was at Prudhoe. And there has not been any environmental damage at Prudhoe. Objections have been raised because of the presumed effect on the native peoples of the region. But the truth is that there is no conflict with the subsistence lifestyle of native Americans. The North Slope residents have grown up with oil development, and they have not suffered a reduction on their reliance on the caribou herds. The people of Barrow have stated in hearings before the Senate that development has improved their lives. It has provided them with the capability of developing community services that other Americans take for granted. North Slope residents will be the most directly affected by oil development, and they support development of ANWR. And this is not because they have been bought off, bullied or coerced by the oil moguls. They are not ignorant on this issue. The fact is that they have seen what oil development will do to their land. They have watched it for almost three decades. And they know what it will not do. It will not destroy the land that they love, like some people keep who have never even seen the area keep trying to tell them. They know that. The alternative energy argument is bogus as well. Sure, we need to develop alternative sources of energy. Sure, we need to continue to progress and improve our use of resources. Sure, we want to become more energy efficient. But there are no magic solutions. We are not going to replace oil products in our economy overnight. Petroleum will continue to be a primary source of energy and other products for us in the foreseeable future. Millions of people are dependent on petroleum products, and anyone who thinks that this is going to change soon is badly deceiving themselves. To supply this demand we are now importing more oil than we are producing. Production of our older fields like Prudhoe Bay is declining. Without bringing new domestic supplies on line, this will only get worse. Petroleum is crucial to our way of life, and we are becoming more dependent on the production of foreign nations, some much less stable than ours. If you want to know what this means to us, just think about what happened back in the seventies with the oil cartel, or what might have happened if we had not stopped Saddam Hussein. This raises the issue of the effect of development of ANWR on the economy. Under our present situation with the trade and budget deficits the economic argument is obvious. We need to open ANWR. There is no other conclusion. Leasing ANWR will benefit the economy in almost every aspect. It will reduce the budget deficit by bringing over $1 billion to the Treasury over the next 5 years. It will reduce the trade deficit by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That money will remain at home to strengthen our own economy and provide good jobs to our own citizens, jobs that are now going overseas. These are jobs that we need. It will create over 75,000 directly related, high paying jobs in the oil industry. It will create as many as three quarters of a million new jobs, directly and indirectly, throughout the Nation. As a result of all of this, opening ANWR will stimulate other sectors of the economy as well. Without opening ANWR all of this will be lost. And our trade deficit will just get worse. We will be less able to pay our debts. The arguments of the outspoken interest groups on this issue anger me, not just because, like with Prudhoe Bay, they are untrue, and these groups know it. What really angers me is the hypocracy of their arguments. These people rely on oil products, just like everyone else. They heat their homes and drive cars just like the rest of us. They use plastic products just like you and me. They take vacations and recreate using planes and trains and boats just like everyone else. And yet they somehow feel justified, in fact sanctimonious, about opposing our development of oil resources. This in spite of the fact that we have the most environmentally sensitive laws in the world. We have the best record of being able to produce oil with the least environmental risk. The reality is that we will continue to use oil products. Keeping ANWR is not going to reduce the demand for oil in this country, we will just import what we need from other countries. For some irrational reason opponents would rather see us do that, would rather see the environmental degradation that happens in other countries, than see us develop our own resources under our tight environmental controls. They would rather see the benefits of development go to other countries, than allow those benefits to remain here at home. That is the hypocracy that I find so distasteful. It has damaged us. It has damaged the citizens of my State of Montana. And I look forward to this Congress doing something about it, doing the right thing for the country, and opening ANWR to leasing. [[Page S 15994]]

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Endangered Species Conservation Act [ESCA] introduced by Senator Kempthorne. The Endangered Species Act [ESA] has been misused and twisted from its original intent, and I believe the bill we are introducing today puts us back on track. Montana's largest industry is agriculture. If you asked Montana's farmers and ranchers what law they want Congress to fix, most will say the Endangered Species Act. The wood products industry represents almost half of western Montana's economy. If you ask the folks who make a living in the woods what law is currently infringing on their ability to make a living for their families, they'll tell you about grizzly bears and road closures--once again coming back to the Endangered Species Act. There is no doubt that we must reform the ESA. It is the single most restrictive law that Montanans and other American who rely on the land to make a living, must deal with. The communities in Montana lack the economic stability and predictability they deserve. The current law has many communities in Montana and throughout our Nation living on pins and needles. The bottom line is communities are hurting. We need to change the ESA so that it truly protects and recovers species, won't cost millions of dollars per species, and will protect private propertyowners' rights. The bill we're introducing today accomplishes these goals. Emphasis must to placed on recovery. The current law emphasizes the listing of species instead of protecting and recovering species. In order to do this, the Endangered Species Conservation Act contains the following principles: First, as I stated earlier, above all we must concentrate our efforts on recovery plans. If we do so, we would focus on the least costly alternative and we would assess the impacts of decisions made under the act for State and local economics. In addition, this would force priorities to be set and would generate recovery plans which are reasonable and obtainable. Second, the ESCA bill we've introduced today recognizes that a one- size-fits-all recovery standard is flawed. The ESCA establishes standards for prioritizing where Federal dollars should be spent and what level of conservation will be sought. Finally, it also ensures decisions are based on better science. Peer review procedures need to be added to improve the overall data collected so that the right decisions are made. We must have three decisions made outside of politics and instead done by objective individuals who have a background in science. The bill establishes an Endangered Species Commission which will ensure sound science, not politics, drives our decisions. The best decisions are those made at the local level, and I believe we need increased private participation in our conservation efforts. The fact is, local individuals are the best people to support any conservation plan. They work and live in the areas affected, and they have a stake in what happens in their own backyards. Washington should not forget, these people want to maintain the quality of life they have for their families. The ESCA encourages cooperative management agreements for non-Federal efforts and other incentives for private land owners. These include deferment of estate taxes where conservation easements are in place, technical assistance, and cost sharing. Without a doubt, compensation must be given to individuals who lose the use of their private property under a Federal Government conservation plan. Our Constitution and property rights need protection on every front. Anything short of that is selling our constitutional rights down the river. I am pleased that the ESCA contains a provision to protect our private property rights. The Endangered Species Act has a good goal. However, since it became law, it has been twisted and misused for other purposes. We need some common sense put back into recovering species. Starting from a new view point, and crafting an act which truly reflects what we want to do-- conserve and recover species--has to be the focus. We can't let the existing law and regulations run multiple use off our lands. Reforming the Endangered Species Act is essential to Montana's economy. Our four largest industries--agriculture, timber, mining, and oil and gas rely on the use of land. And it's these industries which supply the jobs and the tax base for Montana. Changing the laws on conserving and recovering endangered species is important for jobs for Montanans, and it is important for sound land management activities. The Endangered Species Conservation Act is a good bill and I hope the Senate will act quickly in considering this important issue.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is the first time I have come to the floor to comment on this reconciliation package. I guess the first thing we tried to look at with regard to this is the tax cuts and also the cuts in spending. One has to look at it from the standpoint of how it affects home. What does it do for my home State of Montana? There are some things not in this package that I think, if you want to do something about a farm bill, give farmers accelerated depreciation and income averaging, we would not need a farm bill, if you want to be fair with agriculture because of the conditions under which they work. But in this package, I congratulate Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee and, of course, the Finance Committee, for their exceptionally hard work to try to balance and make it fair. Tax relief for families is the biggest part of this tax relief provision. It goes to families. Now, we hear talk on the other side of the aisle this morning about a cutback in programs. Why do you think there are tax cuts in here? Because it allows families to make the decision on how they want to spend their money, not how it is spent here in Washington, DC; it is for them who live in the hinterlands. There is tax relief for senior citizens and small businesses. When you look at my State of Montana, that is going right down the line where we need a little relief. And we close some loopholes for corporations. So they did exceptional work on this. We have heard about the tax break for the rich, corporate welfare, and all of this, those loopholes for the corporations. They have been closed. Frankly, I have not seen a lot of that. This tax package, as a total revenue cost over a 7-year budget, is around $245 billion. However the cost is reduced by elimination of those corporate loopholes, which saves the Government a little over $21 billion over 7 years. That net cost makes us back to $224 billion. We can get bogged down in figures. I know how easy that is. We have to keep reminding America through this whole debate that the single largest revenue item in this tax package is a $500 per child tax credit, which has a cost of about $142 billion. What is wrong with letting families hang on to their money? They earned it. Sure, there are some Government services they want to pay for and it takes some amount of dollars to provide services that only Government can offer. We know that. But when they start making the decisions for all parts of your life, then that is where the real debate starts. Nobody is debating public safety here or doing some of the things for the society that has to be done. This package provides for an adoption credit; a marriage penalty credit; deductions for student loan interest, for the first time; deductions for contributions to individual retirement accounts. These tax breaks--about $28 billion, or so--are 13 percent of the total cost of the package, and are targeted for folks who are middle-income folks. There is $40 billion in capital gains tax reform. There, again, we hear ``cut taxes for the rich.'' Capital gains tax is a voluntary tax. You do not have to pay capital gains tax. You do not have to pay it because you do not have to sell. The real wealthy folks can get around it because they know how to move those things around with tax laws and different laws. On capital gains, this helps even the homeowner whenever he sells his home and wants to retire. Everybody whose assets appreciate, pays capital gains taxes--that is, if they sell. So it is not for the rich. It is for all Americans that are smart enough to get a hold of some assets that appreciate, and they pay taxes on them. We visited with a very knowledgeable man from Kansas and he said over $7 trillion of assets would flow onto the market if the capital gains was cut in half. Imagine what that would do to the American economy. Imagine what that would do to the tax coffers of the Treasury of the U.S. Government, so that maybe we can do some things that we want to do. We have to think a little bit--just think a little bit. Capital gains is basically a voluntary tax. Just a voluntary tax. Another provision in this package, the estate and inheritance tax provision on that reform. Folks who leave estates--those estates have been taxed and taxed and taxed and the interest they make on that has been taxed and taxed and taxed and then when they die they are taxed again. I think of all of the ranches and farms in the State of Montana where money had to be spent for insurance policies to protect themselves so they could pay the inheritance taxes so the farm or the ranch can stay in the family. Needless, needless expense. They paid taxes on that land, and property tax, income taxes, investment taxes, and then when the key family member passes on there is another estate tax that has to be paid again. Hard-working families--the only thing they have on these farms and ranches is just the land. They have not made a lot of money. They do not have a lot of cash. They just do not have a lot of cash. In effect, these death taxes are robbing American communities of a tradition of values that local family-run businesses provide. I wholeheartedly support that provision. If you feel for a young man that is trying to start off in the agriculture business, my goodness, do not strap him with a debt that he cannot work his way out of. If you think there is not some disparity there, I will give you just a little idea on what it is like to farm. I was walking down the grocery store aisle the other day and found out that Wheaties cost $3.46 a pound. Do you realize that we are only getting $2.50 a bushel for a bushel of wheat that has 60 pounds of wheat in it? They wonder--it is a little bit of disparity here. You want that man to keep on producing food and fiber so the American people can eat cheaper than any other society on the face of this Earth. A while ago I listened to my distinguished colleague from the other side of the aisle challenge the estate tax credit. Their argument is focused on the unfairness of giving a tax break to any estate that exceeds $5 million. I have asserted the top one half of the top 1 percent of the American people fall into that category. They should not be getting a tax break in the first place. I agree. I must depart from my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle for two reasons. I believe any death tax is on its face unfair. If we are going to keep these small businesses, these farms and ranches in the families of traditional values, we have to take a look at what we do in the taxing situation. Taxes that cost jobs--the alternative minimum tax, we did not get all that we needed in this, but if there is one place that creates jobs and opportunities, it is here. When you tax small corporations, small family businesses, make sure that they keep two sets of books to see which one is a higher set of taxes than the others, that takes away from this business of the ability to expand, to expand their business. Under the committee's package, the method of depreciation is conformed but the useful life is not. One major problem with this is that business will start to have to suffer the unnecessary costs of maintaining two sets of books on each depreciable assets of the performing two tax computations to determine that they do not fall into the alternative minimum tax bucket. Two sets of books--needless, costly. We could be investing that in a bigger payroll. That is what creates jobs. In conclusion, we should talk about some good things that are in this package. Talk about the good things that people are going to say we will keep more money in your neighborhood, for your quality of life, that you can make the decisions on how you want to spend the money and not be looking toward this 13 square miles of logic-free environment or answers that sometimes just do not work in our local communities. That is what this debate is all about--where the power is, the power of the purse string. With the tax credits and some reform we will do the responsible thing and not the irresponsible thing of saying, ``Let's wait until next year,'' or ``Let's accept the status quo,'' and we know what the results of that are. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Endangered Species Conservation Act [ESCA] introduced by Senator Kempthorne. The Endangered Species Act [ESA] has been misused and twisted from its original intent, and I believe the bill we are introducing today puts us back on track. Montana's largest industry is agriculture. If you asked Montana's farmers and ranchers what law they want Congress to fix, most will say the Endangered Species Act. The wood products industry represents almost half of western Montana's economy. If you ask the folks who make a living in the woods what law is currently infringing on their ability to make a living for their families, they'll tell you about grizzly bears and road closures--once again coming back to the Endangered Species Act. There is no doubt that we must reform the ESA. It is the single most restrictive law that Montanans and other American who rely on the land to make a living, must deal with. The communities in Montana lack the economic stability and predictability they deserve. The current law has many communities in Montana and throughout our Nation living on pins and needles. The bottom line is communities are hurting. We need to change the ESA so that it truly protects and recovers species, won't cost millions of dollars per species, and will protect private propertyowners' rights. The bill we're introducing today accomplishes these goals. Emphasis must to placed on recovery. The current law emphasizes the listing of species instead of protecting and recovering species. In order to do this, the Endangered Species Conservation Act contains the following principles: First, as I stated earlier, above all we must concentrate our efforts on recovery plans. If we do so, we would focus on the least costly alternative and we would assess the impacts of decisions made under the act for State and local economics. In addition, this would force priorities to be set and would generate recovery plans which are reasonable and obtainable. Second, the ESCA bill we've introduced today recognizes that a one- size-fits-all recovery standard is flawed. The ESCA establishes standards for prioritizing where Federal dollars should be spent and what level of conservation will be sought. Finally, it also ensures decisions are based on better science. Peer review procedures need to be added to improve the overall data collected so that the right decisions are made. We must have three decisions made outside of politics and instead done by objective individuals who have a background in science. The bill establishes an Endangered Species Commission which will ensure sound science, not politics, drives our decisions. The best decisions are those made at the local level, and I believe we need increased private participation in our conservation efforts. The fact is, local individuals are the best people to support any conservation plan. They work and live in the areas affected, and they have a stake in what happens in their own backyards. Washington should not forget, these people want to maintain the quality of life they have for their families. The ESCA encourages cooperative management agreements for non-Federal efforts and other incentives for private land owners. These include deferment of estate taxes where conservation easements are in place, technical assistance, and cost sharing. Without a doubt, compensation must be given to individuals who lose the use of their private property under a Federal Government conservation plan. Our Constitution and property rights need protection on every front. Anything short of that is selling our constitutional rights down the river. I am pleased that the ESCA contains a provision to protect our private property rights. The Endangered Species Act has a good goal. However, since it became law, it has been twisted and misused for other purposes. We need some common sense put back into recovering species. Starting from a new view point, and crafting an act which truly reflects what we want to do-- conserve and recover species--has to be the focus. We can't let the existing law and regulations run multiple use off our lands. Reforming the Endangered Species Act is essential to Montana's economy. Our four largest industries--agriculture, timber, mining, and oil and gas rely on the use of land. And it's these industries which supply the jobs and the tax base for Montana. Changing the laws on conserving and recovering endangered species is important for jobs for Montanans, and it is important for sound land management activities. The Endangered Species Conservation Act is a good bill and I hope the Senate will act quickly in considering this important issue.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that I firmly believe in, more localized control of our public lands. I am here today to set the facts straight so that the people of Montana get the real story and can make their decision on two pieces of legislation before this body. Several months ago I cosponsored a bill, S. 1031, that will allow the Governors of States with Bureau of Land Management lands to request these lands be transferred to the States in which they are located. This bill brings control of public lands to the local government and out of the stone cold buildings in this town. I signed on to this bill as a way of addressing an issue that I have fought long and hard for local control and oversight of public lands by the people that live in and around those lands. This bill will provide for the Secretary of the Interior to offer to transfer BLM lands to the States in which they are located. The Governor of the State will then have 2 years in which to make the decision on the future of this land. A Governor can either accept the title transfer of these lands or they may reject this offer. If accepted, then within the following 10 years the Secretary will transfer these lands to the States. What this effectively does, Mr. President, is place control and oversight of these lands into the hands of those closest to the land. This puts the decisions on the use of this land into the local hands, and out of the hands of people that live thousands of miles away. It will provide a better opportunity for all Montanans to have a voice in the future of the public lands in the State. There have been many incidents in Montana where people, outside the State, have affected the Federal land policy of land within Montana. People living in downtown New York City have placed a stamp on an envelope and appealed decisions that effect the people in Montana. This goes against every promise the West ever offered to those who live there. Throughout my tenure in the Senate I have stood strong on one basic philosophy; the people of Montana know what is best for Montana. The best decisions are made at the local level. We do not need a Federal land manager in Washington to tell us how to manage our lands. The land managers in the State have a better understanding of the needs and the future of the lands in Montana. One of the basic misconceptions that have been expounded on by the opponents of this bill is that the sportsmen and other Montanans will lose access to the lands. This is far from the truth. Our State lands are open to the public, more open than the Federal Government makes their land. I must assure my fellow Montanans that I would never do anything to deprive them of their rights to hunt or fish or have access to our lands. As a founding member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus I have fought hard for the sportsmen across the country. The goal of the caucus is to provide more opportunities for all the sportsmen throughout the state and the nation, and I am proud to serve as the Senate cochair. As I look at this legislation I would like to ask a couple of questions about the future of public lands. In Montana I wonder who among us would like to have the future of our public lands, our access to those lands and use of them, determined by Federal land managers in Washington? How many of us would prefer to have our neighbors and friends, those people who live in our state determine when and where we can use and have access to the lands? I would like to return debate of this bill to the topic from which it has been built. Local control over local lands and access to lands by the people in the State where the lands are located. Multiple use of the lands by people who understand the concept of multiple use. This is not a bill that sells land to private interests or closes land off to the residents of a State. It is a bill which allows each and every State that has lands the opportunity to determine the future of their lands. I end by restating one belief that I have always held near and dear when talking about Montana. I stand firm in the fact that Montanans make the best decisions about the future of Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor to S. 581, the National Right to Work Act. As a strong supporter of the right to work, I feel this legislation is vital. We have spent the first part of this Congress fighting for freedom-- the freedom from Government intervention, the freedom of speech, the freedom to choose your health care and even the freedom to succeed. This bill, though it does not add a single letter to Federal law, guarantees the freedom to work free of union imposition. Why is this important? Americans have always been independent. No matter where they came from, they came to America to see their hard work pay off. And they are not afraid of hard work. This is especially true of Montanans. But when a worker is forced to pay union dues in order to get a job or keep a job, they have lost part of their freedom. They may get some benefits from joining a union--I am not saying there is no role for unions here--but they lose the freedom to choose. Mr. President, Congress created the law which allows union officials to force dues in any State back in 1935. Now we need to correct that. All we need to do is to repeal that portion of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] which authorizes the imposition of forced union dues contracts on employees. Nearly every poll taken on this issue over the last few decades has shown that about 8 out of 10 Americans are opposed to forcing workers to pay union dues. It is tough to get 8 out of 10 Americans to agree on anything. I think this is a call for action. And if you look at job creation in States that have implemented right to work laws, it is hard to ignore the results. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been created in right-to-work States. And in forced-unionism States, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. I have supported this bill in the past and I truly believe that this is the year to finally make this change. Working men and women in Montana want the freedom to work and they are not alone. I urge my colleagues to listen to what their constituents are saying as well. If you do, you will feel compelled to join me and the other cosponsors in supporting the National Right to Work Act.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I stand in support of bill, S. 1048, the NASA authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 which I have enthusiastically cosponsored. The bill authorizes a total of $13.8 billion for the agency, a 3-percent decrease from the requested level of $14.26 billion. That funding should allow NASA to continue the important missions already underway such as space station, mission to planet Earth, and the aeronautics and space science programs. It should also prepare NASA for the future by authorizing several new missions, such as an effort to develop a shuttle replacement and a new radar satellite program. Mr. President, as you know, we are in a budget crisis and NASA deserves a great deal of credit as one of few Federal agencies to respond to it early and responsibly. In 3 years, NASA cut the space shuttle budget from $4 billion to $3.1 billion. It developed a redesign of space station that was $5 billion less expensive than the earlier space station Freedom concept. Mission to planet Earth has been reduced from a $17 billion armada of satellites to a $7 billion focused satellite system. Earlier this year, faced with the prospect of deep congressional budget cuts across Government, NASA took the initiative and developed a plan to cut $5 billion in 5 years, without reducing program content. But NASA did not stop there. This year, it conducted a comprehensive zero-based review of all of its activities and programs to achieve even greater savings. That review looked at a broad [[Page S 15305]] range of money-saving measures such as workforce reductions, elimination of redundant activities, consolidation of functions, and operating more efficiently. I understand that, within the administration, NASA's efforts are often cited as the model for reinventing Government. After 3 consecutive years of substantial budget cuts, NASA is now down to the bone. To require additional reductions would force NASA to cancel important space programs, close vital facilities, or layoff essential skilled personnel. That would decimate the Nation's science and technology base. Equally important, it would decimate the morale of the good men and women who have made our space program the subject of movies like ``Apollo 13'' and inspired thousands of scientists, engineers, and schoolchildren across our country. It is time to give NASA the support it needs to face the challenges of the future. This NASA authorization bill is designed to do just that. The bill provides the full $2.1 billion requested level for space station. This program is NASA's most costly, complex, and controversial activity and we are all aware of the many criticisms leveled against it. However, space station is precisely the kind of bold vision that NASA was created to pursue. Space station will enable the United States and the international science community to conduct unique microgravity research and expand our knowledge about humans' ability to live and work in space. If past missions are any indication, the space station will undoubtedly yield breakthroughs in biomedicine and advanced materials. We can probably also expect exciting spinoffs just as past space missions have spawned microelectronics, pacemakers, advance water filtration systems, communications, and many other products and services we now take for granted. I am a strong station supporter and the funding provided in the bill will keep the program on track for a first element launch in 1997. The bill also provides full funding for Mission to Planet Earth. Mission to Planet Earth is NASA's $7 billion satellite program aimed at studying how the oceans, land, and atmosphere work as a system in order to understand and predict global climate change. For those of us representing farm States, weather and water are our lifeblood. Mission to Planet Earth promises dramatic improvements in our ability to predict climate change and manage our scarce water resources. If those expectations are met, the program will easily pay for itself in lives and property saved and improved water management. Mr. President, in my view, one of the most important areas within NASA is aeronautics--the first ``A'' in NASA. For many years, aeronautics seemed to be reduced to a small ``a'' status. It always seemed to take a back seat to the higher profile space missions. However, under Dan Goldin's leadership, that is beginning to change and NASA is giving aeronautics the backing it deserves. To me, the aeronautics research is critical to maintaining U.S. technological leadership and aerospace competitiveness. For instance, the High-Speed Research Program is developing precompetitive technologies in support of supersonic aircraft. It is estimated that the first country to market such an aircraft stands to gain $200 billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs. Similarly, the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program funds research in support of subsonic airplanes--a market that generates 1 million jobs and contributes over $25 billion annually to the U.S. trade balance. These programs are moneymakers and it is in the national interest to give them the support they need. Accordingly, our NASA bill authorizes aeronautics research at the requested level of $891 million for fiscal year 1996. As a final point, Mr. President, I note that the bill also authorizes a collection of activities and initiatives designed to extend NASA's vision to include our rural States. Our rural States can make an enormous contribution to the civilian space program if only given the chance. For example, in May, Prof. Steve Running of the University of Montana testified before the Science Subcommittee about his efforts to use remote sensing satellite data in forest and crop management. To embrace our rural States in our space program, the bill contains a $2 million increase for the EPSCoR Program, which funds important research in our rural States. It also funds another rural teacher resource center to the existing nine centers, as well as an additional rural technology transfer and commercialization center, to fill in coverage gaps in those two programs. Mr. President, I believe that this bill provides NASA with the support it requires to continue and build on its important work in space and aeronautics and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, with the press and all the reports and the dialog continuing on Medicare, I guess for most of us who are trying to do some things to reform Medicare, to strengthen it and save the program, which has broad-based public support, we have become frustrated about what is really at issue here. We know that there have been ways devised in order to save and strengthen the program and to increase the spending on each beneficiary between now and the year 2002. With those that would be critical of the plan that has been put forward and with continuing to call what some would say are cuts in Medicare, then maybe we should approach it from a situation that maybe if you think it is a big cut, let us just freeze it, let us just freeze it at current levels. And I wonder if they would start counting the apples that are in their basket. You know, it seems to me that math is a funny subject to study. But, nonetheless, if you have 48 apples in your basket, and by the year 2002 we are going to add some apples to that basket to where you have 67, in other words, 2\1/2\ apples--that is pretty tough to do, add a half apple a year to your basket--that does not sound like a cut to me. It sounds like an increase to me. But the cost per beneficiary will go from $4,800 presently being spent per beneficiary to $6,700 in the year 2002. That is under the plan that is presently called for in the budget resolution that passed this body and this Congress. What started this whole debate is right here, this little report. Now we cannot get very many of them because they did not print very many of them. But it is the status of Social Security and Medicare programs done by the trustees, of which four of the seven are President Clinton's own appointees. They said it pretty plainly, ``The Medicare Program is clearly unsustainable in its present form''--in this little report. There have been other reports that have come out in the past that said Social Security will run out of money. Other reports say, in 2 years, Medicare will run out of money. Those reports are OK, but this one is a little bit different because next year is the first time in the history of the Medicare Program, which is 30 years old this year, the first time when we will be spending more money in outlays to the beneficiaries than we have money coming in--for the first time. That changes the debate a little bit, and it also should change the way we look at this problem and the way we want to deal with it. So the trustees say we have to do something about Medicare. Secretary of Health and Human Services Shalala, Secretary Reich of Labor, Secretary Rubin of Treasury, Commissioner of Social Security, Shirley Chater, all appointees of President Clinton, said: We feel strongly that comprehensive Medicare reforms should be undertaken to make this program financially sound now and over the long term. We went through a situation in Montana, when I was a county commissioner, of falling property values. We had an initiative passed in Montana that froze all property taxes, the mills that we could levy, and we were in pretty tough straits trying to finance county government. That may not sound very important to us who work in this town but, nonetheless, the people who live in our counties and our cities across the Nation would say that is pretty important because that operates our schools, takes care of our sheriff departments, public safety, our roads, bridges. You had to act then to make some adjustments to our outlays, or we would find ourselves in financial difficulty that we could not get ourselves out of. If you do not take into consideration that next year we will be paying out more than taking in, and as that escalates, pretty soon if we go 2 or 3 years, then you will find even this Government will be incapable of dealing with the debt that has been created by overextension of payments out of the Medicare Program. So, basically, what they said was that we had to take some actions now. Let me show another chart. They also said: We strongly recommend that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the Medicare trust funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis, including a review of the program's financing methods, benefit provisions, and delivery mechanisms. In other words, let us take a look at the whole program, and we tried to do that. Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that is not what is going on. We are going to have increases in Medicare and Medicaid, and a reduction in the rate of growth. Guess who said that? President Clinton, October 5, 1993. Who is fooling whom? We have to take a look at all of it. This is what the President wants. He is saying, let us limit the growth to 7 percent; the budget resolution says 6.4. We have an area where we can really, really compromise and come up with a program. [[Page S 15184]] So we have established that there are not going to be any cuts in Medicare. So how do we deal with it? We say, ``Mr. President, that is exactly what we have proposed in this Congress.'' So how is it that President Clinton proposes a reduced growth rate and it seems acceptable and yet, when the Republicans propose the exact same thing, it is splashed all over papers and televisions and all across our States by the folks on the other side of the aisle as ``devastating cuts.'' I think it is time for a little fairness here, and I also advise all of us, you cannot have it both ways. So if you do not like the cuts, let us just freeze them. Think about that for a little bit. We will freeze it at levels right now. I am wondering if that will be acceptable to the other side. The senior Senator from Montana recently wrote a guest column in the Missoula paper. He said, ``There is no crisis here.'' Their report clearly states the crisis needs to be urgently addressed. It does not say we should start to think about maybe making some changes. It says now is the time to do it. That is, deal with it when we have the ability to deal with it. We cannot stick our heads in the sand, not for very long anyway, because you know what is exposed the most. We have to worry about the financing. Any savings in this plan--any savings--even in part B, goes back into the plan. It can go nowhere else. It must stay in the system of Medicare, either part A, which is the hospital trust fund, or part B, which is the dollars. It has to stay there. Any savings goes back into the plan. It can go nowhere else. It can finance no other part of government. So the trustees' report requires us to act. Anyone who says otherwise is not being very candid with the American people. It is not being very honest if we are to preserve the system while expanding the choices the beneficiaries will have if we do nothing at all. With the proposal now on the table, spending continues to increase around 6.4 percent a year. That is twice the rate of inflation. That means spending per beneficiary will go from $4,800 a year to $6,700 in just 7 short years. And I ask you, can that be a cut? So when the other side and the media say we are cutting Medicare to give tax cuts to the rich--we have heard all about that--it sells good but it ``ain't'' necessarily so. In fact, it is not so. A colleague of mine recently remarked the new Democratic mascot should be the ostrich. We do not want to get into a situation like that. I also heard the expression other day that maybe it is not Medicare, maybe it is ``Mediscare.'' Every day is Halloween for the other side, because they just like to scare folks. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, we are trying to be honest with America, just honest with America. Get the figures down and make sure that we do what this report says we should do and also maybe accept some leadership from our President who said, yes, we have to do some things, and he said it on October 5, 1993. I do not think he is too far off the mark, and I do not think America thinks that either. I know we do not, and we have undertaken this very, very seriously. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. If it were not for the Homestead Act you could say it is people's land.

Mr. BURNS. I imagine if you did that on private land you will have a neighbor holler at you.

Mr. BURNS. The point is that the land was granted and then there was a property right. The point is there was a property right--they could buy and sell that land from that point on without Government intrusion. I just want to make that comparison, and I also ask is there anything in this act----

Mr. BURNS. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. BURNS. Would you also relate what you are talking about to the Homestead Act? Were the farms and lands granted to individual ownership by an act of the Homestead Act?

Mr. BURNS. Would you make the same comparison that spectrum--even though granted by this Government--has no value unless investment is made in equipment to make it valuable in the Government, I suggest to my friend in Nebraska, the Government did not go out there and buy--did not put up the tower, did not pay for the technology.

Mr. BURNS. Did we not make the same requirements when we gave the land, probably what your house sets on, and our house and my house, probably the folks up there, did we not make the same demand that we had to make----

Mr. BURNS. This Senator is not going to get into the business of forecasting what might happen. I am saying this is probably the biggest jobs bill we will pass. I just wanted to throw that in there. Do we repeal any of those antitrust acts that are now the law of the land? No. And, on spectrum, has it any value at all until someone makes the investment to make it valuable? And then does it become a property right? That is what we have to see. Those of us who live in the West--I think the Senator from North Dakota is very sound in his thinking, and understands the same values that I understand, because western North Dakota and eastern Montana are awfully a lot alike, on the way they think. But, if we took that case, basically, then maybe we should not have granted all that land to private ownership. Maybe we should have Government control all the way. In other words, I do not know how it is halfway/halfway/halfway. But I ask those questions. I would be concerned about concentration because I think we will finally get to a point where Justice will have to step in on the meatpacking industry. But we have the laws in place for them to do so. The same laws would apply to concentration here.

Mr. BURNS. I would. I would be very concerned about this. But there is nothing in this piece of legislation as passed by this Senate that repealed the Sherman Antitrust Act. We did not repeal the Clayton Act, or the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. In other words, the Justice Department is not cut out of this. Somebody has to bring an action, and I imagine before now--and, remember, this is happening under the present law. This is happening under the present law. Not under one we are going to go to conference on.

Mr. BURNS. I would get very upset. We have already filed an action, as far as IBP is concerned, on meat packing.

Mr. BURNS. I say there are certain rules but there are rules and regulations placed on land ownership. I want to say that the land originally that was purchased by this Government through the Louisiana Purchase was paid for by the taxpayers of this country, taken from the Treasury. And then it was given, 160 acres to anybody that wanted it, who could stake it out and build a house and make it produce. After that it becomes-- I say what is the difference when you take a grant from a Government on a resource----

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I share the concern of my colleague from Montana. This is a serious problem for our Montana law enforcement. I believe it is essential that a portion of the Byrne funds be allocated for this purpose. And I join Senator Baucus in making this request of the distinguished managers of the bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I do not think there is anybody on the Commerce Committee who is any more dedicated to the health of the industry we call tourism. If the American people would look around, this happens to be one part of the Commerce Department that produces an export that is $20 billion to this country in the black--not in the red. In fact, if it was not for agriculture and tourism, our balance of payments would look really bad. But when any industry produces around $77 billion in foreign exchange earnings every year, we have to take note, especially since this country probably makes less investment in this part of our national economy than any other part. Mr. President, 7.7 million people visited our State of Montana. Sometimes [[Page S 14631]] we think we are pretty authentic, but I also understand where the Senator from Nevada is coming from, too, because they have a very active tourism part of their State government and he has been supportive of that. If this amendment is accepted, it is only an increase of around $5 million, because there is already $7 million of transition funds in there. Also, the plans and preparations are being made to privatize this department because the tourism industry wants to put together the funds. They think they can do a better job in establishing this commission than the Government can, and we agree with them. But let us give them the time, some funds, and a transition period and let them do it.