Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators this morning, the Senate will begin the consideration of the conference report accompanying the military construction bill under a 50-minute time limit. This is to advise Senators that the vote will come around 10:30 this morning. And then after that, we will go to the D.C. appropriations bill during today's session, so rollcall votes can be expected throughout the session in order to complete action on these items today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for his comments, because all of these issues were talked about in the Armed Services Committee and have been authorized by that committee. Mr. President, the ranking member, the Senator from Nevada, is exactly right on target. We worked very hard on this because we took a look at the inventory of housing that we had for our armed services. We found that half of that housing was substandard. It would not even be qualified to be inhabited under today's standards. We have taken a giant step toward this with this piece of legislation. So I appreciate his cooperation and enjoyed working with Senator Reid on this. I appreciate the work of Dick D'Amato and his staff, and also Jim Morhard and Julie Lapeyre, who worked hard to make this a very good bill and a balanced bill. gulfport air national guard

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I know of no other debate on this piece of legislation. I urge passage of the conference report.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference report on military construction appropriations for fiscal year 1996. The conference report is within the 602(b) budget allocation for both budget authority and outlays. I would like to mention just briefly some of the provisions in this conference agreement. First, the conferees agreed with the Senate and approved $3.9 billion for the implementation of the base realignment and closure decisions. This amount includes $785 million for the 1995 round. There is also $457 million for environmental cleanup of these facilities. It has been a difficult year for all of us in this area, and I am hopeful that these funds will relieve some of [[Page S 14108]] the burden that has affected the communities and what they are experiencing with these base closings. Mr. President, 38 percent of our bill is for family housing. We have included Secretary Perry's initiative for a new family housing program. We are hopeful that this will start to relieve some of the burden in keeping adequate housing for our service people. With regard to the barracks and dormitories, we provided $675 million. We are hopeful that the Department will soon begin another program to provide alternative methods of housing our service members. We cannot afford to continue to build brandnew barracks when we still have people living in open bays. The conferees did agree to earmark 430 million dollars' worth of funds for the National Guard and Reserve. The Department continues to ignore the needs of our citizen soldiers, and we will not ignore them, because we are keenly aware of the vital role they play in the defense of this country. We did not fund any armories this year. This has been a difficult decision. However, we want the National Guard to take a hard look at where we are going with armories. There are about 3,000 armories in the United States, and we cannot keep adding new ones. In these austere times, the overhead has become too much of a burden. This is the first year for me on this subcommittee, and I look forward to the process next year. We have just begun to change on how we build and maintain our facilities for the military. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, with whom I have worked closely on this bill, and the conferees in the House, because I think we have come through with a bill that is fair and balanced. We have kept everybody informed exactly on what we have been doing, and we have also taken a look at what the administration wants to do and some of the needs that might have been overlooked by the administration. So I yield the floor to my friend, the ranking minority member, the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have been a supporter of the possibilities offered to this Nation's public and private sector by the burgeoning growth of the telecommunications industry. Coming from a rural Western State [[Page S 14006]] with vast distances between our communities, I realized that advanced telecommunications was likely the only avenue to Montana that could overcome the burdens of distance and geography to allow rural Americans to compete in a rapidly changing economy. This spring, three United States universities--Montana State University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Portland State University--combined with two universities from Northern Ireland-- Queens University of Belfast and Armagh and the University of Ulster-- to form the Distance Learning Consortium for International Management in the United States and European Union. This consortium has been formed for the purpose of providing interactive video and voice technologies. The consortium will offer programs in the area of international business, focusing on such topics as joint market opportunities, issue topical and germane to the U.S. and E.C. markets. The project would make it possible for a businessman in Billings, MT, and anywhere else in America to walk into one of the participating universities and receive a real-time, interactive block of instruction on the latest in European Community regulations, or distribution channels, or constraints regarding their exports. These programs would be taught by some of the leading European experts. Conversely, a businessman in the European Community would be able to access the latest information on U.S. trade, commerce, regulations, and opportunities in a similar fashion. While the consortium will utilize their own match, the consortium needs initial support of $500,000 to develop their interrelated curricula and harmonize their separate distance learning technologies. I hope the manager of this bill will consider this project during its conference with the House.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is not a question of changing the law or not changing the law. As the Senator from Washington pointed out, we passed a law in the rescissions bill to facilitate the Forest Service to carry out salvaging timber operations. The law was changed, and immediately after that in dealing with Mr. Lyons, he did not agree with the law, and said as much, and said, ``I am not real happy about that. I do not think I will carry it out.'' And he said it before a committee, the Energy Committee. So we changed the law. If he has been less than candid and straightforward with the committees and with the Congress of the United States of America, can we also say that maybe he is less than candid when he starts advising his President and the President has to start making decisions based on the information given to him by the Under Secretary of Agriculture? I am saying the credibility has disappeared. And he is not serving his President or this country very well. In that rescissions law there was nothing in there that told the Under Secretary of Agriculture to sign a memorandum of agreement with four other agencies or three other agencies in order to carry out the salvaging of timber, both that timber that was damaged by fire, the fires of 1988 and the fires of 1994, or the dead and dying trees that we have in our National Forest. For, you see, when a tree dies, the longer it stands it loses value, and pretty soon the value is such that they will not be bid on at all. So if you do not like the policy that has been put forth even by the President or by the Congress, you go into a delaying action. Basically, that is what has happened here. So it is not a question of partisan politics. It is a question of arrogance, a question of being less than candid and less than straightforward with the Congress of the United States, and I would also say probably with the President and his people who have to make decisions on policy with regard to management of natural resources on our public lands. That is what this debate is all about. My heavens, if it was one person who disagreed with Mr. Lyons, I do not think you would hear anybody standing on this floor supporting this amendment. So the frequency and the variety of it also lends to that of being pretty much on target whenever we start trying to make some policy decisions. Here is somebody who is getting in the way of public land managers, professional land managers who know how to manage national forests, who know how to grow and harvest a product for the United States of America and for all the people who live here and yet has his own personal little agenda, and he disregards the law of the land in his dealings with the Congress of the United States. So I rise in support of the Stevens amendment. It is not an action that we enjoy. It is not an action that is without precedents. In fact, it is an action that we would try not to be a part of but is serious. So I support the Stevens amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Historically, the National Defense Stockpile was created to provide a supply of strategic materials not available from domestic production or not available in sufficient quantities from domestic production to meet critical military needs. Since the palladium and platinum that is in the stockpile was acquired, the Stillwater Mine in Montana has begun production and, in fact, is the only mine in the world which is a primary palladium producer, platinum representing a secondary metal from that mine. Virtually all other palladium and platinum comes from South Africa and Russia.

Mr. BURNS. And I understand that if the disposal of those materials is authorized by the Congress, the actual sales of the materials would be preceded by a recommendation by the Federal Market Impact Committee regarding the adverse domestic and foreign economic impacts on the private sector as a result of the proposed stockpile sales. Is that correct.

Mr. BURNS. We are deeply concerned that there not be some activity with respect to the disposition of palladium and platinum in the stockpile which would undermine the basic economics of the Stillwater Mine and its proposed expansion. The question to the manager of the bill is whether the conferees, on behalf of the Senate, will support an amendment from the Montana delegation which will assure that disruption in the price of palladium and platinum not occur.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this bill transfers the authority to operate and maintain the Flathead Irrigation and Power Project to the irrigation districts which it serves. Initially constructed and operated by the predecessor of the Bureau of Reclamation, this project unlike almost all others in the West has remained the responsibility of the Federal Government for almost 70 years. It is located on the Flathead Indian Reservation in northwest Montana. In 1904, pursuant to General Allotment Act policies, Congress opened the reservation to nonmember entry and settlement under the general homestead, mining, and townsite laws of the United States. Congress authorized the construction of the project to provide water to these settlers and tribal member irrigators in 1908 and included a provision for the transfer of project operation and maintenance to the landowners served by the project. In 1926, Congress required and authorized the formation of irrigation districts under the laws of Montana to represent these landowners, both tribal members and nonmembers, in dealing with the Federal Government. As a result of Congress' actions opening the reservation to nonmember, according to the 1993 census about 21,259 people live within the reservation exterior boundaries and only 3,000 are tribal members. Similarly, of the 127,000 acres delivered water by the project, 113,000 are within the irrigation districts, which, under State law, have taxing, lien and foreclosure authority, power to operate irrigation systems, and to hire employees and agents. The land subject to District authority and responsibility is owned by tribal members, about 10 percent, and nonmembers. These farmers' democratically elected governments, the districts, can run the project more efficiently than the BIA. Early on, the Federal Government wanted to transfer responsibility for the project to the districts but they were not ready for the responsibility. In the 1960's, the districts and the Government negotiated a contract to transfer the operation and management responsibility to the districts for the project, both the irrigation division, including its reservoirs, dams and hundreds of miles of canals, and the power division, which is a power distribution network supplying power to reservation residents. At the conclusion of negotiations, however, when they thought the deal was done, the Federal Government backed out. For almost 30 years since that time the districts, which represents about 2,000 family farms, have been attempting to get solid answers from the Department of the Interior about when it will transfer the operation and management of the project to them. After decades of stonewalling, they deserve action by Congress to resolve this matter. This bill does that. There will be opposition. The Department, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs, will oppose the diminishment of its authority. The local tribes will call it an outrage. Let's look at the facts. Ownership of all land and property remains in the United States. Transfer of operational authority will not affect water rights or the environment, because the districts will operate the project under the same legal constraints under which it now operates. Transfer of the O&M would remove Federal inefficiencies and enhance the profitability or irrigation without affecting fish and wildlife adversely. Simply because of economies from different personnel policies, the districts can operate the project at a significant savings without changing operating policies and practices at all. Almost all other similar Federal projects in the West which can, if operated efficiently, sustain irrigation, have been transferred to irrigation districts or similar water user associations. Local irrigators are among the most efficient in the West at making the paltry amount of water they receive, about 0.5 to 0.7 per acre-foot for $18.65 per acre, perform well for them. The irrigation districts have a proven record of trying to positively address environmental issues and water efficiency issues. The time has come to put the people directly served by and dependent on this project in charge of it. Federal inefficiencies are more than local farmers can continue to shoulder. A Federal study of the project 10 years ago found that of the more than $2 million paid [[Page S 12379]] each year by irrigators to the BIA to operate the project, 74 percent of that goes to personnel costs. In comparison, that study found other irrigation projects in the region typically have personnel cost of 60 percent. This means irrigators pay about $280,000 more each year on personnel costs than they should have to. This is reflected in operation and maintenance rates, which skyrocketed from $7.38 per acre in 1981 to their current level of $18.45. At the same time water deliveries dropped, the Project has further deteriorated, and farm product prices have not increased to keep up with O&M rates. In its own study 10 years ago the Department of the Interior recognized that economically the only way for farmers to survive is for the operation and management to be transferred to the districts. It found that even at 1985 O&M rates, $10 per acre, irrigators ``cannot afford to pay the assessment rate.'' It concluded, ``the transfer of the operation and maintenance of the irrigation system to water users may, in the end, be the only long term, viable solution from an economic standpoint.'' But the Department has steadfastly refused. That is why this bill is necessary and just.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2345

Mr. BURNS. I think that would be the proper way, and that gives the Commerce Committee time enough. I know there is some concern by the ranking member and the chairman of the Commerce Committee. That would be the proper way to do it. I would rather do it through the authorizing committee than this way. But what I was afraid of is that I did not want to leave my farmers and people who ship agricultural commodities exposed during that transition because we are in that kind of a situation of being a captive shipper.

Mr. BURNS. The amendment was nothing but language that would protect those States who are captive shippers if we phase out the ICC. I understand that was the intent of the budget resolution, and that is the route that we are taking. This language does nothing but protect those States who are captive shippers because in my State of Montana, I think there is only one, or maybe two, that would fall under that definition, because right now we have a circumstance where the freight rates on wheat shipping and on agricultural commodities shipped from Montana to Portland cost more than it does to ship from Omaha to Portland--to the same point--at a longer distance. I understand there is some confusion. I visited with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and have been assured that there will be money enough for a transition from the ICC to the Department of Transportation. If that be the case, then I would consider withdrawing this amendment altogether.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the next amendment is my amendment that we talked about last night.

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 to introduce the Common Sense Amendments for All Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the bill is to change specific features of the statute so that the ESA cannot be used to attack and diminish wildlife conservation programs, sport hunting opportunities, and traditional wildlife management. A better ESA and enhanced support for endangered species protection from America's traditional conservationists--hunters and anglers--will be the result of these amendments. Current law does not require that the consequences of listing and other actions on hunting and wildlife management be specifically examined. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates review of general environmental effects via environmental impact statements, but no specific review of effects on hunting is directed. This bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or Marine Fisheries Service to review the impacts on hunting, fishing, and fish and wildlife management. Simply put, ESA actions must consider effects on hunters. In addition, the current law prohibits the taking of protected species. Taking means harass, harm, et cetera. Harm is defined by FWS to prohibit any unintentional acts, including habitat modification, which annoys protected species. FWS determined that under this definition, alterations of habitat can be prohibited even if no listed animal suffers harm. This definition can result in the criminalization of innocent activities. My commonsense bill amends the Endangered Species Act to ensure wildlife management programs and operators are protected from unwarranted prosecution. Another aspect to the ESA which needs to be addressed is CITES [Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species]. The role that sport hunting plays in conservation is not recognized in CITES. FWS has failed to accept the determinations of countries of origin of which the animals are properly available for hunting and exporting or importing. The bill I am introducing today provides direction to FWS for the administration of the ESA and CITES. The bill reflects the positive role of hunting. The bill also requires that the United States will accept the determination of other countries. Section 5 of the bill addresses how other countries' laws interact with U.S. law. It is unclear whether an individual must comply with a country's Federal and provincial requirements to be in compliance with U.S. law. Under present law, all foreign violations can be treated as criminal acts in the United States--even if the American doesn't have knowledge of the violation. The commonsense bill provides only those laws which are related to wildlife [[Page S 12243]] conservation, and can be clearly understood, should carry criminal consequences within the United States. One issue which must be addressed in the authorization is subspecies and population criteria. The ESA directs that species which are threatened or endangered be listed as protected under the terms of this act. The term ``species '' includes any subspecies and, in the case of vertebrate species, any distinct population segment which interbreeds when mature. This license to list subspecies and population segments is problematic, because it can result in protection of subspecies and populations that are still abundant generally. This splitting of the term ``species'' into a virtually infinite number of subclassifications often results in the application of the ESA to situations in which it originally was not intended to apply. This coupled with the look alike rules could severely diminish domestic hunting opportunities. This bill amends the ESA to direct the Department of the Interior to establish specific criteria to determine when a group of animals is sufficiently distinct to qualify as a subspecies or population. If we really want decisions related to the ESA to be made on sound science, peer review must be included. Under the current listing process, the Secretary of the Interior may decide to list a species as threatened or endangered, or any interested person can petition the Secretary to do so. In either case, the Secretary makes the decision on whether or not to list a species based upon determinations generated internally by the FWS. There are often no public hearings in this decisionmaking process wherein the FWS data is open to scrutiny and challenge. There is also no provision for peer review of the FWS data by qualified outside experts. Because the guts of the listing process is effectively closed to the public and to scientific peer review, its credibility can be suspect. The lack of genuine public scrutiny and scientific evaluation can undermine public support for listing decisions. The Department is also limited by this process. In very difficult issues, the lack of any adjudicative procedures or peer review process makes it hard to get the best scientific data available. The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary to employ, at his discretion, an adjudicative process wherein the public has an opportunity to scrutinize, evaluate, and challenge the decision to list a species. Public participation can ensure that all relevant factors are considered, proper weight is given to each factor, and the impact of listing or not listing is given due consideration and effect. Finally, this bill begins to address the funding problem we face. With more environmental awareness, there has been an increasing cry for more funding of the Federal endangered species program. The hunting and fishing sector has traditionally developed its own mechanisms, such as excise taxes to fund such programs. The lion's share of the funding is derived from license sales, hunting and fishing stamps, and other sportsmen financed measures. Efforts should be made to develop similar programs which ensure that other wildlife supporters, including nonhunters, can financially support an enhanced ESA. The commonsense bill directs a study toward developing a funding program patterned after those supported by sportsmen. The policy would provide that augmented ESA funding would not draw on moneys generated by hunting and fishing activities. This bill is designed for sportsmen. These are the true conservationists. I believe we need to consider hunting and fishing activities when we discuss the reauthorization of the ESA. Also, I am a cosponsor of S. 768 which was introduced by Senator Gorton and others earlier this month. I believe S. 768 is a good bill. I think the commonsense bill I am introducing today, in conjunction with S. 768, should be considered as the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act moves forward.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Craig of Idaho, I rise to introduce legislation to help solve a problem that has increasingly plagued public lands States such as my own State of Montana and Senator Craig's State of Idaho. For over the past 100 years the Congress has passed many laws regarding the use and management of our public lands. These lands were critical to the development of our country, and especially to the development of the West. Therefore, early legislation focused on the production of commodities from these lands. And they did produce; they produced much of the minerals, timber, food products, and energy that enabled our ancestors to build this great Nation. They provided the lands and materials to develop our transportation and communications systems. And they provided lands for homesteading and for building our communities. Very special areas were also set aside in perpetuity as national parks, national monuments, and wildlife refuges. For the last 30 years the emphasis has been on environmental protection, conservation, and nonconsumptive uses. We have greatly expanded our national park and refuge systems from these lands. We have preserved millions of acres under special designations such as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and conservation areas. We have protected additional millions of acres for conservation purposes under special designations such as withdrawals, exclosures, and areas of critical environmental concern. We have enacted numerous pieces of legislation that require these lands be managed to protect environmental values in general, such as the National Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Forest Management Practices Act. We have enacted legislation which protects individual environmental values such as air and water quality, soil stability, fish and wildlife, and endangered species. We have passed legislation which requires public land managers to control hazardous and toxic materials and protect the public health and safety. And we have passed legislation which subjects these lands to State law and oversight. In many instances these laws are not well-crafted, and conflict with one another. We have been one busy group of legislators. These laws were developed and passed with very good intentions--to serve the public interest. After we completed our efforts, the Federal agencies went to work. And they have been busy too. The regulatory agencies have created a morasse of regulations, some of which attempt to establish their authorities as the ultimate priority for management of the public lands. Some of which abuse their authority by extending the interpretation of the laws beyond anything that Congress intended. During our debates on Federal agency abuse of regulation under regulatory reform, and other proposals, we have heard seemingly unending examples of such regulatory abuse. I need mention only a few of these laws to bring images of such abuse to mind--the Endangered Species Act, Superfund, and the Clean Water Act. These laws, and the regulations developed to implement them, have been used by the regulatory agencies and others to styme or prevent the legitimate use of our public lands for purposes that are supported by the public and approved by the Congress. Even where the intention of the laws were fulfilled in regulation, agencies often found conflicting requirements when attempting to implement them. Let me give you just one example. The Federal land management agencies find themselves gridlocked by the Clean Water Act and hazardous materials requirements in trying to mitigate environmental problems on old, abandoned mine sites. They would like to correct the water quality problems on these sites, which is their responsibility under the Clean Water Act. Up until now they have resisted, and rightly so. To do this would expose them, and thus the taxpayer, to liability for hazardous waste cleanup. Under the hazardous materials laws, that is the responsibility of the mine operator. Land management agencies complain of confused priorities and colliding mandates under their own authorities. This situation is the same as with the regulatory agencies--there is some justification for this claim, but in part it is a monster of their own creation. For example, land management agencies have had considerable trouble managing tracts of land for uses such as grazing and timber production while at the same time providing recreational opportunities. The reasons for this are many. To some extent it results from external factors such as conflicts, or perceived conflicts, between competing uses. To some extent it is the result of agency procedures, such as a complex, expensive, time-consuming planning process. These agencies go through the planning effort, which frequently results in an atmosphere of confrontation and deviseness among the user and interest communities, and usually find their efforts subject to further successful challenge. In many cases the plans are never implemented as written. Even though the agencies have similar mandates, unless otherwise directed these agencies have usually created their regulations independently. Their interpretations of the same piece of legislation may be different, and their requirements under a given act well may be entirely different if not in conflict. Such problems have become so widely recognized that multiple use of public lands is under legitimate challenge as a viable management concept. Because of all of this we see a public that is understandably disenchanted over complex and conflicting laws and regulations. And they are increasingly vocal in their frustration over their inability to make reasonable use of their [[Page S 12242]] own lands and natural resources. Instead of fulfilling a widely supported and legally established goal of providing products and services from our public lands under the reasonable requirements of sustained yield and multiple use, we have natural resource management gridlock. And in this era of restructuring of government to improve our performance, there is a wide recognition of duplication of effort, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness of the multiple-use agencies in managing our natural resources. With this in mind, I am offering today, legislation which proposes to revamp the way the public's multiple-use lands are managed. This bill, if approved, will create a commission to evaluate and report to the Congress and the President changes to be made to improve the management of these lands to better meet the public's needs, desires, and expectations. The commission is directed to evaluate and make recommendations in three general areas of land management. They will look into improving the efficiency and effectiveness of current management practices. They are to evaluate the land ownership patterns and make recommendations to consolidate Federal holdings into a more rational pattern. And they are to propose how multiple-use agencies might be combined into one agency for the management of Federal multiple-use lands. In looking at ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of management practices the commission will evaluate several areas in particular. They will address ways to reduce costs of administrative overhead by 50 percent, and to reduce the cost of managing the lands overall by at least 30 percent. They are to evaluate ways to dedicate more agency resources to providing service to the public, and to improve the services which they offer to the public. They will propose ways to simplify the planning and appeals processes. They will review and recommend changes to improve the withdrawal process. And they will recommend ways to consolidate the laws under which the agencies operate. These are all areas that we have attempted to deal with in the past. We address the budget and service items in almost every appropriations bill. This bill provides us an opportunity to take a consolidated approach to dealing with these issues. And the time to do it has arrived. The commission will review and recommend rational changes to land ownership and jurisdiction patterns. They will make recommendations as to lands which more properly belong in private ownership or under State jurisdiction. Land ownership patterns alone have been the source of many of the problems and controversies, and much of the unnecessary expense, associated with the management of public lands. With the exception of administrative sites, these agencies have little reason to hold lands within city limits, but it is the situation in many western communities. Federal requirements for such lands are frequently in conflict with community development plans and desires. This causes needless problems for the management agencies and the communities involved. Similarly, there are many areas in the West where Federal holdings are intermingled with other ownerships. One good example of this is the checkerboard ownership patterns along the old railroad grant corridors. The ownership changes hands every other square mile. For a Federal agency or private landowner trying to manage their holdings this is an impossible situation, and we can and must do something to correct it. The commission will evaluate and recommend the actions needed to combine multiple-use management of public lands under one agency. The Congress has recognized the need, and has made unsuccessful attempts, to do this in the past. The reasons for previous failure are many. But the timing for this has never been more appropriate. We are seeing the public adamantly demand the elimination of waste, and improved efficiency, from their Federal Government. We in the Congress are making a wide-reaching attempt to find rational, reasonable ways to balance the budget and reduce regulatory burden. And the administration is restructuring the bureaucracy to reduce it's size and improve it's services to the public. This proposal will serve all of these goals. Finally, the commission is charged to prepare the report and legislation to implement their recommendations, for the consideration of the President and the Congress. The bill contains a fast-track provision. If the Congress can agree to the need to create this commission, and to the substance of the report and legislation that the commission is to prepare, then there should be little reason to delay consideration of the legislation needed to get this job done. To delay would only result in continuing the present inefficiencies, costs, conflicts, and duplication that we now see in the management of these public lands and resources. A plan is needed to bring these agencies within budget constraints. We have the opportunity to provide the public with efficiently managed lands while doing so. The recent election was a clear message that the public is ready for these changes. I hope that you will join me in approving this legislation to fulfill that public demand.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to meet a critical need in a very rural area of my State of Montana. The bill I am introducing would authorize a rural water system for the area around Fort Peck, MT. Despite the fact that Fort Peck lies near one of the largest water reservoirs on the Missouri River, residents in this part of my State either rely on deep wells or they carry the water they need. In addition, the Fort Peck Indian Reservation lacks potable water. This bill would allow for the construction of a water system that will meet many of the water needs of that part of my State.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Are we in a period of morning business?

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning business for such time as to introduce several bills.

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

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.