Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this amendment should be inserted after line 22 on page 7. This is no transfer of money. This is not asking for any money. This is really a pretty simple and straightforward kind of an amendment. We are slowing phasing out the ICC. When we phase out the ICC, we also phase out quite a lot of rules and regulations with regard to rail shipping. I think there is only a couple of States that fall in the same category as the State of Montana. We are captive shippers. If should something happen in the conference committee where we may have quite a debate about the phaseout of the ICC, this language can be struck. But basically it sets up the safeguards of those agricultural shippers located in captive shipper States. Montana happens to be one of those. If you do not think it does not have an impact on you, the rate of shipping a carload of wheat from Omaha, NE, to Portland, OR, is cheaper than you can ship it from Montana to Portland. So we have a problem as far as moving our grain to the ports. So I ask that this language be considered. It is just a safeguard; that should the ICC completely go out of business, this sets a parameter of which we deal with States that are regarded as captive shippers. I want to add a little footnote to the last discussion and associate myself with the chairman of the committee. When he said the Boeing 777 had more computing power than all the computers put together in the world just as near as 10 years ago, one has to realize that our technology is so advanced now that there is an airplane that was completely designed on a computer and every part in it designed on the computer. There was never a mockup. There was never a prototype. It was built strictly by computer, one of the great airplanes, of course, on the cutting edge of civil aviation. I ask that this language be accepted and considered. Both sides of the aisle may have to look at this and then render a judgment tomorrow whether we have a receipt or not or work on the language, whichever would be proper. But I hope it would be accepted because we do need some safeguards or a safety net for captive shippers, and the State of Montana falls in that category. I thank the Chair and the managers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is with great importance that we not underestimate the debate that is about to come on welfare reform. I do not think there is one person who thinks the present system is working at its best. Maybe it is the best we could expect from it. But I can list in Montana friend after friend who will tell you how it can be improved, because if there is one subject that everybody has an opinion on, it is welfare. Right now, we have a system that only makes it easy to get on welfare. But it makes it awfully tough to get off of it. There is something backward about that. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary assistance, not a way of life, and for too many it has become just that. I would like to talk about a young woman in Helena, MT, who is a success story, not because of welfare assistance, but in spite of the existing welfare system. At the age of 26, she found herself in the position of being a single mother of four children under the age of 6. She did not even know about welfare programs prior to that, but she soon found out that in order for her to survive and to take care of her four youngsters, she had no choice. Though, she wanted to keep on working, the price of child care was more than she could afford. She was getting AFDC but would not qualify for the transitional child care unless her AFDC case was closed. She tried to get off the system a number of times, but each time was unsuccessful. She got involved in a process, though, when she was appointed to the Governor's child care development block grant task force, and she soon found that she had to choose between continuing employment or returning to the welfare rolls. Happily, she chose work and went through 8 months of increasing her debt before child care funds could come through. Now, her bottom line is that of so many people who want to get out of the system, but they just get tired of fighting the system. Welfare did nothing to aid her independence. In fact, it was just the opposite. All she needed was a little help with child care and she could have remained a self- supporting member of our society. We have had a lot of visits in the meantime, and she is doing very well now. But she says, ``If you help us a little bit with housing and with child care, the majority of us can make it.'' This may have been avoided had it not taken 5\1/2\ years for her to receive her first child support statement. This, too, she tried to fight on her own. The father had moved to California, and the California investigator informed her that she was just one of 21,000 cases in that State being handled and, basically, she had to wait her turn. Well, she is off of welfare now. She has remarried. Her current husband does provide support. She recently said, ``It seems that if you choose to try and regain your self-worth, your self-esteem, dignity, and self-respect, and you go out and become a taxpaying citizen, you then also choose to take food out of your children's mouths, provide less clothing, create more stresses in the home which sometimes leads to abuse and possibly loss of medical benefits.'' That should never be a choice any American has to make. So, Mr. President, our welfare system clearly needs reforming, but it needs it in the right way. Right now, each dollar we spend on welfare-- let us say that of each dollar that we appropriate for welfare, 30 cents goes to direct assistance, while 70 cents--or 70 percent--goes to pay for the services or the bureaucracy to deliver those funds. Seventy percent of that dollar supports the system and not the recipient. That sounds a little odd to me. It seems that the very first thing we need to do is reverse that, cut the bureaucracy, cut the miles of redtape, and get the dollars to those who need it. Also, according to the Cato Institute, in 1990, it would have cost us $75 billion [[Page S 11814]] to bring every family in America with an income below the poverty level above that threshold. Yet, in 1990, the Government antipoverty spending was $184 billion, nearly 2\1/2\ times the amount needed to end poverty in America. So why do we not just send them a check? It does not take a bureaucracy as big as an army to do that. So I do not think it is a matter of whether we make changes, it is a matter of when we make those changes. If we want to do something for the American society as we know it, we must act now, put people back in the work force --and I mean real work, not job training after job training after job training, but job training followed by a job. We have to end welfare as a way of life. People should not automatically qualify for welfare and assistance. They should be on it for just a limited time. We have to get away from this language called entitlement language. My State of Montana has gone ahead with their welfare reform. They require their folks to work when they are ready. That may be right away, and that may be after completing job training. And if for some reason after that training you are still not ready to work, you must do community service. Now, it is too early to tell whether it is successful or not, but I am willing to bet they will be getting some folks off of welfare quicker than when no work is required. Any bill we consider must include pay for performance. If someone shows up for work only half the time, then they only get half the benefits. That makes sense to me and it makes sense to a lot of other folks here in this country. It is pure and simple a reality. Anyone in the work force knows how that works. You show up for work you get paid; if you do not, you do not get paid. Why should it work any different for someone trying to get off welfare? I believe it is a matter of personal responsibility. We need to address our illegitimate rate. This is something that has been on the rise at almost dangerous levels and one thing that probably contributes most to the decline in our society's strengths. More and more children are growing up without a father. Crime statistics show more crimes are committed by kids who were raised without a father. It may be tough to legislate, but if we can encourage families to stay together, toughen child support laws, get the States to work toward reducing illegitimacy and thereby reduce the number of households headed by a single teenage mom, we can make a start toward rebuilding what I believe is the greatest society this world has ever known. I think one of the most important things to do to help control welfare is to give it over to the States. Montanans know what is best for Montanans. I have said that before on a number of issues, but it applies here as well. Block granting various programs to the State will allow them to use the dollars to best serve their residents, but more importantly, by getting the Federal Government out of the administration, it reduces redtape and regulations and the hoops they have to jump through. They can concentrate strictly on helping those who need assistance and get the dollars out to them. I have a feeling that the 70 cents out of every $1 that goes to services--not to the recipient but goes to pay the bureaucrats who live and thrive within the system--if we give the money directly to the States, we are bypassing that morass and focusing on our target: Assisting folks who have fallen below the poverty level and helping them to get back on their feet. I have talked to my people in the State. In fact, we are in contact with our people in Montana as this debate goes on. We will be in contact with them daily. They welcome the opportunity to decide whether, where, and how to spend those dollars. They want the flexibility, and we honestly believe they can control it better than we can. I happen to believe that. I am a product of local government. We understand what it is to run a welfare office. In Montana, when we had declining incomes, declining property values, and therefore, declining tax base, Yellowstone County, which I was a commissioner of, was the only county that did not become what we call ``State assumed.'' We could control it; we administered it from the county level. We are very proud of that, very proud of that. I look forward to this debate. I do not know of anybody that understands this situation more than the two managers of this piece of legislation, who have spent more time studying it, both from the standpoint of a system that delivers the welfare system and also the dollars it takes to provide welfare. It cannot be business as usual, as both of them have a history of forecasting many years ago on exactly what would happen if we did not take actions then. No action was taken then, so we find ourselves in a predicament now. I was interested in what the Senator from Iowa said about the system in Iowa, my friend, Senator Harkin. They can do that in Iowa, but they had to stand in line for 2 or 3 years before they obtained a waiver to put a system in that would work for Iowa. The real key word here is ``flexibility'' and is not standing in line for 2 or 3 years. The Senator from Oregon understands what they had to go through in order to get their plan approved. It was disapproved and disapproved, and it did not make any difference what administration it was. States should not have to do that. I have a hunch as the debate goes on we will hear from the Federal bureaucracy. In fact, they make a powerful lobby because they understand who controls the multitude of programs to keep the control right here in Washington, DC. As those State plans come up, maybe I would not like the Oregon plans, maybe I would not like the Iowa plan. Maybe the Iowa plan would not work for my home State of Montana. But it does for them. That is important. That is important to the folks that live there--block grants and flexibility. Those plans are a success. They have been devised by people who are in on the ground, and they are devised by people who care about those who have suffered maybe some injustice of the system but have not had a very good break. They need a hand up and not a hand down. It makes a lot of difference when you are operating here than when you are on the ground in the trenches trying to do something for your fellow man. It makes all the difference in the world. I cannot help but think if these States and State offices, those people who labor in that vineyard are some of the most dedicated people in this society. I do not want to demean them at all because they are wonderful, wonderful deliverers of help. I think the key here is to cut the bureaucracy here, to cut the cost of delivering the system, and get more dollars to the people who really, really need it. How we get there will probably be the focus of the debate. Keep our eye on the ball and work together. As this debate goes on, I think that we are men and women enough to fashion a plan to get us to where we want to be. I thank the managers of the bill. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I know you have been alternating between both sides of the aisle on our opening statements as far as welfare is concerned. I notice my friend from Hawaii is on the floor. I would gladly yield to him, or I can go ahead and make my statement. He has indicated for me to proceed. I appreciate my friend from Hawaii. I want to associate myself with the words of my good friend from Colorado in introducing the bill to standardize the accounting system in this Government. When you are on the Appropriations Committee you really understand that we cannot get any kind of accounting to make some decisions. So I appreciate that.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding. I very seldom come to the floor and talk about this subject. But I see us going adrift here from the real purpose of this amendment. I would like to associate my comments with those of the junior Senator from Ohio. I want to ask two or three questions here of my colleagues. I want them to answer them very simply and very honestly, yes or no. Does this amendment prevent anybody, and in particular, a Government employee, or any woman, the right to an abortion? I say, what right do we have as legislators to collect money from the citizens of this country who may have different views on this particular subject than to spend it on that? What right do we have? Show me. Show the American people where we deny a woman a right of abortion. Show me in this amendment where it changes the Constitution. I do not think there is a constitutional amendment in this piece of legislation. Do we get our way or no way based on emotion rather than fact when we start looking at a piece of legislation? Let us stay with the issue as it is presented in this amendment. I see no constitutional change here. But what I have heard is inflammatory language that spurs or incites emotions to a very, very high level, and we lose where we are going. I heard a while ago this thing about ``second-class citizens.'' I do not think there is a second-class citizen in America today. I take offense to that. I think there are citizens; I think there are very hard-working, frugal people who contribute to their communities, to their schools, pay their taxes, pull the wagon, who have a very, very strong view on the subject of abortion. Have we denied their right? I have heard in private plans that abortion is part of the plan. That is true, but they spend their money on their plan. They do not use taxpayers' dollars. They do not even in most cases use pretax dollars. Let us not lose the real meat of this amendment. We do not need the language it takes to look at it objectively and really take a look that we as legislators and as a Government have or do not have a right to do. We are not going to starve the children. We are not going to freeze the old people. What we are saying here is that we are using taxpayers' dollars, from people who have a very strong view on that, and they deserve a voice in this debate, also. Let us look at what we are supposed to be talking about. Let us not get off on another subject of where we should or should not be. I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, for those folks who may not have a voice in this body today on how we spend their tax dollars, in fact, their hard-earned tax dollars. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment to the defense authorization bill which would transfer land at the Air Force Complex at Forsyth, MT, to the community. This amendment makes sense. The Air Force will be releasing this facility in the near future and the community will benefit greatly by acquiring this property. It is a win-win situation for the Air Force and the community. The city of Forsyth has met all necessary requirements and the conveyance is noncontroversial. They will use the property for affordable housing for retirees, assist the hospital and nursing home in their expansion plans, and assure that the facility is cared for and improved rather than allowed to deteriorate. This is clearly a positive solution and provides the highest and best use for the property. The community of Forsyth should be commended for their tireless work on this project. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to thank my ranking minority member on the subcommittee because we worked together on this. I want to assure the Senators, not only did we follow the criteria, but the suggestions of the different services that appeared before our committee. This is where they wanted housing built. This is where they wanted the construction. We increased family housing $111 million, in family housing alone, and this touches every service. There is no one service, but these were the high priority units requested by each of the services. We have a total deficit of 273,000 units which are inadequate or entirely unavailable. When we went to the all-volunteer Army, in all the services, we changed our relationship with our military personnel. As my friend from Arizona pointed out, he is hearing from captains and lieutenants about the construction, ``Why are we getting this money?'' I will tell you that there is not a lot of it that is going into officer's quarters. If you will look at where this money is going, it is going to the enlisted personnel. We have a deficit of barrack spaces. We are 161,000 units short of that. Then Dr. Perry, when we talked to him, the Secretary of Defense, said, ``I have a new housing initiative, but give me a little money and I can lever in the private sector.'' He wants a pilot program on that to see if it will work on off-base housing for some of our married personnel. We gave that to Dr. Perry because it is very high on his priority list. He said maybe we can double the availability of housing that we have. So when I say that my friend from Nevada and I, when we had the hearings and our staffs got together--and there has been nobody better to work with on this committee in trying to prioritize what we do with this money than Senator Reid--we know that the BRAC has taken a lot more money out of MilCon than we first thought it ever would, because of the environmental cleanup. We are not through that yet. In fact, we do not really know what the bottom line is going to be on that or what the cost is going to be before these bases that are being closed and bases are being realigned, before those bases become available and can be moved into the private sector, because right now they have no value to us at all until we complete the mission of environmental cleanup. So when we look at the totality of what we have, the dollars are very well invested and all meet the criteria that was set forth by the Armed Services Committee. I want to thank the Armed Services Committee, because they have done an excellent job in setting priorities on this particular piece of legislation. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. We do have some problems on this side with it. We will work with the Senator and the Illinois delegation on this as we move through conference. I am reluctant to accept the amendment at this present time. Amendment No. 1835 Withdrawn

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. BURNS. That concludes action on this bill, Mr. President. I wish to thank my colleague and ranking member on this committee. I thank our staffs, those who have worked so hard on this bill. I appreciate their help at every turn. I yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments to the bill, H.R. 1817, and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to this piece of legislation. I believe that we are ready to move to third reading.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am aware of the situation at Red River Army Depot, and I want to assure my colleague that our subcommittee has no intent to impede the progress of this project. We will be happy to work with the distinguished Senator from Texas to ensure this project is fully funded so that it may be completed without further interruption or delay.

Mr. BURNS. I believe if current budget projections hold forth, such a project would be strongly supported. Considering this project is already in the 1997 future year defense plan, I invite the Air Force Reserve to submit this project for congressional review.

Mr. BURNS. Yes I do. The committee allowance for the Phelps-Collins Airfield pavements additions project was done in order to reduce the potential for an aircraft mishap, increase sortie generation, improve the utilization of the base and the training center, and allow for the future expansion of this facility for full operational training, including an air combat maneuvering instrumentation range expansion.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I think we have 4 minutes equally divided. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Idaho, [Mr. Kempthorne].

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as soon as we can get order, I will ask unanimous consent that the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee be recognized. Amendment No. 1834

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield to the Senator from Oregon for the purpose of an announcement.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I have no problem with that.

Mr. BURNS. I say to my friend from West Virginia, that has not been established. But I have no problem with that. Do we need a minute on each side?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, one-third of this BRAC is living conditions, and the rest of it is for readiness. We must never forget about that. By a previous order, this vote will come in the stack with the rescissions votes. I move that this amendment be tabled, and I ask for the yeas and nays.