Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Just about 1 minute.

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate that. I have nothing to submit for the Record, but I would say this is going to be a commingled fund. I appreciate the time. I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to first thank the ranking member and the manager of this bill for this time, and I especially wish to thank my friend from Arkansas for allowing me just a couple extra minutes. I appreciate that very much. He feels very strongly about this, as a lot of us on the other side of the issue feel very strongly about it. But one has to look at what it is all about, because in 1994 we appropriated $74 million for this program, and then in 1995 we appropriated another $400 million for the testing and related costs to move this program forward. Now, that move forward had a certain number of conditions to it. Now, if those conditions are not met, then by July 1 this $400 million will be automatically rescinded. That was the condition of the appropriation. But if they are met, then this money carries over into the 1996 appropriations and to further on develop the wind tunnels. We have to remember that as far as industrial wind tunnels in this country, we are not in very good shape. And once we go into the supersonic aircraft--and that is going to be the next generation of commercial aircraft for civil aeronautics--we are going to need the facility. Right now, 25 percent of the cost of your airplanes in this country goes to Europe for the use of their wind tunnels. I do not know how long it takes before we finally work out this whole problem, but basically let us be very up front about this because if the conditions are not met by July 1, this $400 million is automatically rescinded. There were conditions put on this appropriation. I am chairman of the authorizing committee. So what we are doing, we are allowing the administration and NASA to work out the details of how much private money is going to go into this program. It is going to be a mix.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison of Texas. It is about time this Congress begin to put a little bit of common sense back into the Endangered Species Act. Currently, there are about 60 listed or candidate species in Montana. And, there always seems to be a new species that some group wants listed or placed on the candidate list. The recent efforts by a group based out of Colorado who want the black-tailed prairie dog placed on the candidates list is an example of this. This amendment would rescind $1.5 million for the Endangered Species Act for the new listings and habitat. That's a good place to start this debate. Let's put this moratorium in place, and then let us reauthorize the Endangered Species Act to include common sense and protect species and habitat. The State of Montana needs this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That is the information I have.

Mr. BURNS. I think the Senator makes a good point and maybe we should contact those Senators to get them involved. I think they want to be a part of this debate, and we would do that right away. And then maybe the Senator could offer his wind tunnel amendment. Is there any other amendment that is pending?

Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas want to go to his wind tunnel amendment at this time?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 16, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony regarding the Department of Defense Manpower, Personnel, and Compensation Programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 1996 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Committee of the Judiciary, be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 16, 1995, at 10 a.m., to consider S. 343, regulatory reform.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, March 16, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., to hold an oversight hearing on the Architect of the Capitol.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet for a classified briefing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 16, 1995, at 2 p.m.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 16, 1995, to conduct a hearing on the Iran Sanctions Act, S. 277.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 16, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-332, to discuss taxpayers' stake in Federal farm policy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow for the orderly transfer of a license for the operation of a small hydroelectric facility in my State of Montana. This operation is no longer generating electricity. The utility that owns it, Montana Power, no longer finds it economical to continue to do so. Montana Power would like to turn the operation and ownership of the dam over to someone else. And there is a potential buyer, the county of Granite. The county would like to buy the facility, refurbish it, and continue to generate low-cost electricity for itself and its neighbors. However, FERC, the agency that must approve the license request is demanding that the buyer pay for the rent of Forest Service land that lies under the lake that was created by the dam. The Forest Service gets no benefit from the land. It's under several feet of water. And the Federal Government already owns one-third of my State of Montana. I believe that this bill, which will defer the rental costs for 5 years which will allow the county to get its repair work done and get the generation on-line, is an equitable solution to the problem posed by FERC. I hope that they will support the bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it is a long way from Pingree, ND, to the Halls of the U.S. Senate. And I would like to just be a part of a book that could be written about this young man's life. We sort of entered his life when we came here in 1989, and they say in every man's life or every person's life there has to be what we call in the West, in the corral, a snubbing post--something to latch onto, something that is permanent, that has value, and those values were drawn from the soils of the High Plains and Northern High Plains of this great country. I guess those sorts of personalities blend, and they grow together. That is what happened when I met Dr. Halverson. Not only does he write the prayer and give the prayer for this body on a daily basis, but he is counselor to us all in the long hours, and to our staffs. All of us have experienced tragedies in our staffs' lives and in our personal lives, and he was there to be a minister. That will not be forgotten by this family and by this man who stands among the peers in this body. So we say ``farewell,'' not ``goodbye''--just farewell. We hope that he does not cut us out of his life. We hope he will come by and share some North Dakota stories with us. And we wish him Godspeed.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I do not think I have seen a time in my life when we have approached a crossroads where the decision could be clearer, especially when we have people all over this country at all levels of government--from the county level, the city level, the State level--reassessing the primary role of government. What is the mission of government? What is the mission of a city government, of a county government, or of the government that most of-- and, of course, the legislatures that are in session across our Nation today reassessing the role and what their missions really are? And, yes, we are going through that here in this town, the role of the Federal Government. There will be some who will simplify things and say that the role of the Federal Government is simply to deliver my mail and protect my shores. Other than that, that is about as much as I need out of Washington, DC. But we know it goes a little further than that. Anybody that has any degree of responsibility understands there is more to it than that. Nonetheless, the elections of November 8, as bad as someone would like to admit, did tell us to sit down and rethink just exactly what the role and mission of the Federal Government really are. I can honestly say that this issue has really been talked about and studied for the last 4 weeks, completely aired on all ramifications of it, and that is the way the Senate is supposed to work. I could not agree more with my friend from West Virginia, who probably has the strongest sense of the duty and the responsibility of this body. I think we on this side of the aisle have approached it the same way. There has been no real serious move to cut off debate, as we want to hear all sides of this story, because we are talking about a subject that has very serious ramifications from this town, to the White House, to the courthouse. But we must take stock, and it is what I believe would put America back onto the road of steady economic growth and stability. After years of talking about balancing the budget, instead of just tinkering around the edges of the deficit, it is time now to take action. It will impose a discipline on the budget process, and it will impose a discipline on this Congress. Past efforts to balance the budget have just been able just maybe, at times, to put dents in the deficit, but no dent at all in the national debt that keeps climbing. We hear two words being interchanged a lot in our news accounts--debt and deficit. They say, if you cut the deficit, you are cutting the debt. Well, basically you are only cutting the degree to which debt is accumulated. We deficit spend and we create or accumulate debt. So this will put more than a dent in it, we hope. This measure would actually put some teeth into the efforts to balance the budget. In other words, we might turn the old saying around and say the bite will be worse than the bark. So on this issue the bottom line is one of responsibility--responsibility to every citizen in our country and future generations and to economic prosperity. It is time that Congress lives up to its future obligations and, of course, take responsibility for our actions. We have to ask the American people to help us. This is a crisis. It is as much a crisis to our economic freedom as it is if we were in war and our political freedoms were at stake. I am being told by the citizens of Montana, yes, we are willing to fight this with you. We cannot do it alone here in this body or in the other body, the House of Representatives, or in this Government, unless we get support and cooperation from every citizen across this great land. They understand what is at stake. They understand that it takes sacrifice. They understand in their daily dealings with everybody else in the business world, or the paternal world, that they have some obligation to their communities, their churches, their schools, and their shoulder to shoulder and help us get this done. It is obligations, and not only ours here, but also for every man, woman, and child that lives in this great country. We have been living on the credit card for quite a while. Now is the time to put away those credit cards, get serious about paying off the overdue account, the incessant spending; and borrowing, of course, must cease. The debt of more than $4.7 trillion is going to continue to climb, unless we get America's help--help to keep this Government from this business of spend and borrow, spend and borrow. There have been a couple of packages that have come up that had tax hikes in them in the last 5 years that I can remember. I voted against each one of those because not only inside that was taxes, new taxes imposed on this country in one way or the other; some called it user fees, and some were called something else. Nonetheless, it was an increase in taxes because there was no cutting on the other side. I have heard a lot of folks stand on this floor and be critical of the Reagan years when we, yes, cut taxes, but we did not stop our spending. There is enough blame in that to go around for everybody. I was not here then. So we will break the cycle of continued deficit spending at the risk of our long-term economic security. We cannot and must not ruin our health now for short-term gains. So the reckless spending must come first and be put under control. For as long as I have been here, I have been concerned with spending. It is difficult to challenge the balance of the needs of our country with revenues we do not have without resorting sometimes to more taxes or higher debt. We had an obligation and we had to fulfill that obligation. Now we must find a way to balance obligation with responsibility. We have heard the arguments here against the balanced budget amendment. The arguments show more than anything else how this is not a gimmick. There are those we have heard say this is a political gimmick and that we are posturing with the American people. But I tell the American people that nothing could be further from the truth. Forty- seven other States, including my State of Montana, already maintain a balanced budget. I was a Yellowstone County commissioner, the largest county in Montana. We were forced to live within that budget. We had a special initiative called 105 that we could not raise property taxes in order to provide the needs and services in a county called I-105. We dealt with that. We also had, in the middle of the 1980's, a declining tax base. Agricultural land went in the tank. We maintained that. We were forced to balance the budget, so we made some of those very, very, very tough decisions. And those people who were in charge of the different departments in the county came in and said, ``OK, we can do it with this, if there are promises for later.'' But we could not promise anything later, so we lived within that budget. I tried to keep my own family on a budget and every time we got off of it, we paid for it. We paid for it every time. So it is time the Federal Government becomes an institution which has to take care of its checkbook, too. The challenge lies with all of us. The challenge is the spending priorities for our Nation. It will force us to set priorities to see what this mission is all about, this goal or role of Government. The Federal Government consumes 23 percent of the GDP now. The current projected growth rate of spending at 2 percent a year is a lot faster, 2 percent faster, than our economy. So what do you do? You pull up your belt and the reins at the same time. If seems funny to me that we are reluctant to set priorities. What is really important to us as a community? Would it surprise you that there are actually organizations that are not Government organizations that are willing to assume the responsibility of taking care of those things that add to the quality of life of our own neighborhoods and much our own communities? Would it surprise you that service clubs and many organizations and our churches and how many fraternal organizations are willing to take on a little bit of responsibility for the quality of life of all the citizens that live in that community? They are not asking the Government for anything. They say, ``Just stand back. Let us take care of ourselves.'' You know, we used to do that. We used to build great homes. We used to build facilities to take care of our own, so to speak. What happened to that? Did Big Brother step in and say, ``We can do it better,'' and so they loosened the ties that we had in our communities? They worked pretty good for a long time; built a great and free nation. No other nation is as free economically, politically, or even in private rights as this country is. No other country can feed and clothe itself as well as this country can. No other country has a food production and processing and distribution system like this country has. Government did not build it. Americans built it, because of not only a sense of duty but also a sense of feeding and clothing ourselves in this great society. So there is plenty of room to cut in the $1.6 trillion budget. I am sure that we can cut out a little waste and look at the priorities that we are going to have to set in order to keep this society on an even keel. Balancing the budget is going to take some hard decisions, some political, very distasteful decisions, but the reward will be a balanced budget and a more prosperous America. And the real growth of America will start at the grassroots. It may surprise more of our friends that the new wealth created by any society, the new wealth starts with the soil. It is renewable. It comes every year. And, God willing, it will feed and clothe us forever. As we look at that, then we must get our house in order here. So I beg my colleagues, I implore them, to pass this balanced budget amendment. There will not be a more important vote that you will cast for responsibility--and, yes, an obligation to the American people-- than this vote you will cast this week on the balanced budget amendment. I want to congratulate my friend from Illinois, Paul Simon, who is on the floor, for the work he has done with this. His roots are in southern Illinois, where traditions of communities and families go deep, a great sense and a great tide of the land, middle America, that understands what communities are all about. They know it takes money to provide Government services. They also know it takes responsibility and a little bit of reality to make it work here in America. This is an important vote. It is an important vote for all of us who call ourselves Americans. I know that there are those who would make the argument that we are tinkering around with the Constitution. But I think it was even Jefferson who feared the day when we could learn to borrow money against future collections on taxes. Even George Washington--and the other day, Senator Craig Thomas, of Wyoming, read George Washington's Farewell Address; and I had the great privilege of reading that myself--one of his fears was public debt. But Jefferson went on to say that this Constitution every now and again needs to reflect the needs of the time, to be changed to deal with the needs or the emergencies of the time. So those who would fear change, I do not think this change is not unwarranted. A vote ``yes'' on this amendment would do much to restore the accountability and responsibility of this Congress in the eyes of all citizens in this country. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated servant of the people of the United States. Linda Ward-Thomas, who has an outstanding record of public service, was tragically killed in an auto accident February 7, 1995, near the family home of Fishtail MT. She is survived by her husband, Burt, and her parents, Thomas and Ethel Ward of Hysham, MT. Burt Williams is currently with the Bureau of Land Management. According to the Billings Gazette, Linda was definitely an individual. She was born June 12, 1947, the daughter of Tom and Ethel Ward, and attended schools in Hysham, Billings and Missoula in Montana, culminating in a master's degree in anthropology at the University of Colorado, working toward a Ph.D. Linda started professional life as an Old World archaeologist and worked on projects in Israel and Western Europe. She gave up the allure of the Old World and settled into Western U.S. archaeology when she marred her husband in 1971. Linda as an archaeologist, started her career with the Bureau of Land Management in 1978. She moved to the Bureau of Reclamation in 1979. She began her work as a forest ranger for the U.S. Forest Service in 1987 and was elevated to district ranger at the Beartooth Ranger District, Red Lodge, MT, in 1989. Federal land managers have the most challenging positions of all the public service jobs in the West. They are constantly being challenged by resource managers and users, special interest groups, and folks who know very little about natural resource management but think they do, especially the great renewable resources found on our Nation's national forests. She met those challenges with intelligence and judgment. I did not always agree with her but she gave the full measure of thought before every decision. The State of Montana has lost a friend, the Nation has lost a dedicated public servant. In the great tradition of those who are tied to the land in this country, there will be those who will follow in her footsteps with the same degree of dedication. That is how it should be and how she would have it.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today not only in support of the balanced budget amendment, but also to bring the attention of this body to some activities and some events in this Government that I find very disconcerting. As we look at the budgets of the different organizations and programs this Government sponsors, and is charged to do so, I am concerned about the defense budget. It has been cut far too deeply, far too soon, as we have put too much focus, maybe, on some of the domestic issues and are too hesitant to look at the future security of this country. The defense budget is constantly being raided for unrelated purposes, research and development programs are shortchanged, and even the procurement of weapons has been neglected. The cost is a collapse of near-term readiness and, of course, what I fear probably we are moving toward is a hollow force. So far, the administration and the Congress have not been willing to spend enough to maintain a well-prepared military force. Defense advisers to President Clinton acknowledge that the Pentagon is some $49 billion short of the amount needed to fund their planned force for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. GAO, the General Accounting Office, determined the shortfall was actually $150 billion over that same period. trained, underequipped, and demoralized U.S. military force. It is time to restore America's military strength and readiness. Obviously, Congress needs to look at increased funding for the military. But it also has to take a look at U.S. defense policy and how those dollars are spent. Congress needs to look at priorities, on how it is spent, on what weapons, and where we want this country to be 20 years from now, and we need to force the administration to stick to those policies. The administration needs to examine the number and level of military commitments that U.S. forces undertake. The U.S. Armed Forces right now must have the necessary funds to fulfill the missions that they have been given. The problem is funds that should be used for readiness have been diverted. That GAO study cites that between fiscal 1990 and 1993, $10.4 billion out of the defense budget was used for such activities as World Cup Soccer and the Summer Olympics. In the fiscal years 1990 to 1994, total defense spending fell 25 percent, while nondefense spending rose 361 percent. So it is time to put some of the priorities on how we spend those dollars back into the budget. Just as alarming is the new trend of raiding the Defense Department's budget for ``operations other than war.'' U.S. troops involvement in U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world put an immense strain on the already tight defense budget. President Clinton proposed spending $246 billion for defense for fiscal year 1996. It is now up to the Congress to take a serious look at the U.S. defense policy and come up with a realistic defense budget. After years of cuts in the defense budget and a drawdown of forces, we have to look at where we are, where we should be, and where we want to be. So the Defense Department budget has fallen steadily for 10 years since 1985. The procurement amount has fallen 65 percent over the same period. The reduction of U.S. Armed Forces generally has been too deep and, yes, too fast. Over the last 10 years, infrastructure has only been cut 15 percent. That is compared to draconian cuts in weapons and equipment procurement, research and development, and force structure. If the United States had maintained a realistic defense budget, we would not be looking at another round of base closings and realignments. We would have a fully ready and well-equipped military force ready to handle any eventuality. The defense budget has been stretched too thin and now it is our bases that will pay the price. Bases around the country, bases instrumental to our national defense, will be scrutinized and possibly closed and given new missions. Malmstrom Air Force Base, in my home State of Montana, is one of those bases that will be looked at in this round of BRAC. Malmstrom is an important cog in the base structure and is an integral part of the city of Great Falls, MT, and to the rest of the State. It is too bad that we get mixed up in our priorities regarding this defense budget, and bases such as Malmstrom could be lost in the shuffle. Mr. President, with a great deal of concern that I ask my colleagues to look closely at our defense policy and where our priorities lie for the Defense Department and the U.S. Armed Forces in this coming fiscal year. Yes, we sit here and debate a balanced budget amendment and we have heard all of the-sky-is-falling fears that has come out of this debate. It will still make us set our priorities and reevaluate the mission of government and what the role of government really should be, especially at the Federal level. I happen to believe the protection of our shores and a strong national defense is very important to the security of this country and, yes, those children of the future Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on this date 50 years ago, a formidable American armada moved even closer to another objective in the Pacific. While that was going on, long-range bombers square chunk of volcanic rock and ash known as Iwo Jima. The Japanese high command was acutely aware of the island's strategic and psychological importance and their forces on Iwo Jima constructed elaborate defenses that would be the toughest encountered by forces of the United States, in particular the United States Marine Corps, during the war of the Pacific. Our Army, Navy, and air forces subjected Iwo Jima to the longest and most intensive preparation given any objective in the Pacific during World War II. Beginning June 15, 1944, American air attacks continued steadily through the summer and the fall, culminating in a 74-day round of continuous strikes by Saipan-based bombers. These air attacks, plus heavy naval gunfire 3 days before the assault, destroyed everything, or almost everything, above ground on Iwo Jima. But most of the Japanese underground guns and defenses were relatively untouched. Against Iwo's rocky terrain and caves, naval gunfire could do only so much and victory or defeat would rest with the fighting spirit of 70,000 men of the 5th Air and Amphibious Corps, under the command of Maj. Gen. Harry Schmidt. This force included the 3d, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions, many of whose members were battle-hardened veterans of earlier Pacific assaults. Facing them on Iwo was a force of around 20,000 dedicated Japanese soldiers, every one of whom was under orders to make it his duty to take 10 of the enemy before dying. In a matter of days, the opposing forces would clash in a struggle that would prove decisive in the war in the Pacific. It was here on this island atop Mt. Suribachi, where the most famous of all photos was taken from the Pacific--the raising of the flag. It has been a symbol of American gallantry, the symbol of pride and dedication of the U.S. Marine Corps, and all of those who shared in that pride with that uniform. And I, not being one of those that went on Iwo, have I shared that uniform. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for yielding this time. What is the order of business?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on employee involvement and worker management cooperation, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 9, 1995 at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 9, 1995, to consider Senate Joint Resolution 19 and Senate Joint Resolution 21, as amended.