Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 9, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m., in room G-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on challenges facing Indian youth.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Thursday, February 9, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on individual retirement accounts, 401K plans, and other savings proposals.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 9, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the President's fiscal year 1996 budget for the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 9, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1996 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as I have heard my friend from Florida and the Senator from California make their arguments on this balanced budget amendment, if there is ever an argument that they have made that has been powerful it is this one, but it is an argument why we should have a balanced budget amendment so these trust funds can stay viable, so we can live up to our obligations. It was a wonderful argument for them. And I do not think we should lose the spirit of just exactly why we have to have it. If we go far back in our history to the ratifying of our Constitution and read the argument that was made then, when we formed this country, there was a very deep concern from the Framers of this Constitution about our ability to create national debt. I think it was Thomas Jefferson himself who made the statement that still was one of his concerns when the Constitution was ratified. I know it was a concern of the first President of this United States, George Washington. If we read our history, those concerns have lasted as long as our Constitution has lasted. So the argument they make is a very persuasive one for, and a good reason why we need, a balanced budget amendment at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Forest Health Protection and Restoration Act, to be introduced by Senator Craig, myself, and others. This is a bill that is very important to my State of Montana and whose time has come. Forest health and management is paramount to the economic stability and future of Montana and, of course, our neighbors who depend on these renewable resources which support our smaller communities in Idaho and Montana. For too long, the various land managing agencies in the Federal Government have been telling us that there is not a problem with the health and vitality of our national forests and Federal lands. On January 20, I had a report placed in the Congressional Record regarding this very topic. It appears that the Forest Service had requested a report on the state of the health of western forests, and after review decided that the report did not meet the standards that they had desired, changing the report before its publication could reach Congress and the public. It is the intent of this legislation to make the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and all organizations more responsive to the oversight of Congress. I do not think that was the intent of the legislation. I am sure it was not. This act, the Forest Health Protection and Restoration Act, recognizes the removal of the problems that crept into our forests as essential to the future of our Federal lands. This act acknowledges the plain and simple truth that overgrowth in our forests is a problem that must be faced in our lifetime. The removal of old and heavy undergrowth is essential to sustaining and developing a healthy forest for the future. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the future through proper management and the authority to adapt a flexible decisionmaking process to our Federal lands for forest health. We looked at our forests in the northern part of Idaho and the northwestern corner of Montana and advised the Forest Service and land managers years ago that if we did not do something with the biomass that was created by some dead and dying trees--we had a moth up there that killed a lot of trees--if those diseased trees could not be removed from our Federal lands, all we need is a dry year and a high lighting year, and we are going to experience the biggest fire season that we have ever had. I am here to tell the American people, last summer we had that fire season. There were millions and millions of dollars in fire suppression spent, lives were lost and there was an estimate that there was enough timber lost to build thousands and thousands of homes in this great country, of which we still have a housing shortage. I joined in sponsorship of this measure so that the citizens of Montana can have an opportunity to address their future. This bill when enacted will provide this chance. No longer will Montanans be at the mercy of the actions and whims of people many miles away, with no vested interest in the forests, lands that they tie up with numerous nuisance lawsuits. Under the powers granted within this measure, we will provide safety to those people under emergency designations that will allow forest management the ability to open, for health reasons, forests to treatments. This legislation will expedite the manner in which resource managers will be allowed to assist in therapy for the forests, which for years, have been left to their own devices, namely fire and disease, for treatment. Last summer I saw in Montana the results laying in waste and ash, of the disregard that many have for proper forest health. Earlier in the year, during an Appropriations Committee hearing, I warned the leadership of the National Forest Service of the pending disaster waiting to occur in the forests of northwestern Montana. A disaster, which highlighted the occurrences if proper forest health issues were not addressed immediately. During one of the most costly fire seasons in history millions of dollars of taxpayer money was expended, and millions of feet of timber, to were lost to the fires that ravaged our national forests last summer. Lives were lost, private property destroyed or damaged; all because we did not address the need to maintain the health of our national forests. We cannot return the forests to what they once were, hundreds of years ago before man set foot among the trees. The time has come when we can no longer allow fires to cure the needs of the forests of this country. There are many ills that can attack and destroy the trees and the beauty and health of our publicly owned lands. Nature can and will work to care and clean up the messes that we create, either through our own ignorance or neglect. The implementation of this legislation will provide us the working tools to begin to look after the future health and welfare of our public lands. The work we are seeking to develop here is not to promote the wholesale depletion of the land, but to allow the country to use and develop a healthy forest using the renewable resources that are at hand. This piece of legislation is very important to Montana, to the West and the Nation. For under this act we can, and will provide for the future of our national forests and Federal lands. By opening our eyes to the problems that lay among our forests we will see a cleaner, more vibrant and stable forest than we have for years. I ask my fellow Senators to act quickly on this measure and let us repair and rehabilitate the great forests of our country. I congratulate my friend from Idaho for his work in drafting this piece of legislation because the time has come when we have to look at the way Mother Nature takes care of our forest and the way the forest has to be managed so that those resources can be enjoyed by all of America. We cannot afford another 1988, nor can we afford another 1994 when it comes to saving that great renewable resource that it takes to supply the vast majority of shelter in this country. So I congratulate my friend from Idaho who has introduced this legislation. I hope that it will be considered in the committee very quickly and brought to this floor and passed out of the Senate for House consideration. I would like to see this legislation become law this year because we still have diseased forests that are in danger to, yes, yet another year of drought and maybe disease that should be worked on right now. This is a renewable resource. It is a resource that is America's, and we cannot let it just to be wasted away.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah for yielding. Mr. President, I have been listening to the speeches and debate on this amendment and especially on this issue. I just want to go to the bottom line real quick. We have to get away from these scare tactics that everything is going to be cut. I have had people come into my office and say, ``We are going to lose our programs. Everything is going to be out because you will not tell us how you are going to do it.'' Let me tell you, this is going to make us all set up a criteria to select those things to be funded that should be funded. How many programs have we got right now that are being funded that have not been authorized by this body or the other body or ever signed into law by the President of the United States? If that is one of those criteria, then we are going to see those folks who want to fund programs that have not been authorized or cannot pass the scrutiny of the Senate or the House and we get them out. We just go ahead and fund them. A case in point is the National Biological Survey. We appropriate all kinds of money for a program that has never passed this Congress. And if we do not have the criteria on which we fund and what we do not fund, we will never do it, we will never get it under control. So the scare tactics are all baloney. I thank my friend from Utah for yielding me the minute. You usually hear a lot of flowery speeches, but that is the bottom line when you go to taking up this issue.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my friend from North Dakota. As he held up the Constitution, I want to go back to an article that was printed in, I think, the Richmond Times, some time ago, and this last Sunday in the Washington Times. It was taken from the life and times of Davy Crockett, whenever he represented Tennessee and the House of Representatives, and he had to cast a vote to help people when their houses had burned down in Georgetown. We hold up that Constitution, remember, is a double-bit ax. There is nothing in that Constitution that says we have the right to take my money and give it to somebody else, free, gratis. So, when we talk about a balanced budget amendment, be very clear that this is not the first time this was a concern of people and leaders in this country. The first constitutional amendment to balance the budget was in 1936. And there was a time, I think, this country pretty well held its discipline on spending, until we really learned as a Government to borrow money, that we could borrow money against future collections, and those are taxes. I have heard the same old argument, saying, ``How are you going to do it?'' Well, I would say I am going to have to approach this just as I approached running a farm or a ranch. You do not do the same thing every year or nail yourself into a situation that if time and circumstance changes, a person cannot. They do that. I worked in county government where we balanced the budget. The debate started among the commissioners on what is going to get funded or how much it is going to get funded; and what, maybe, if we do not have the funds, should be cut out. It serves a purpose, but maybe is not as high on the priority list as we would like to see it. That is what a balanced budget amendment does. It creates the arena for debate. It forces us, as debaters or policy setters, to make those hard choices between doing this or that, and reexamining the mission of government. The Senator from North Dakota is exactly right. What is the purpose of government? Why do free people establish a government, especially in a free society? No. 1, public safety; he is right. That is an obligation of the total society, public safety. Now, public safety could be food safety, it could be in hygiene; but mostly it is in our fire departments, our police departments, our immediate-response people. The next obligation, we could say, probably is transportation, because we have to keep the roads and the bridges so that the area of commerce can be carried out. In this great land of ours, we have changed everything around to where it is a global economy and global communication as to where our roads and bridges are satellites, fiber optics, new communications. Those are areas that will be debated here on this floor, as new policy is going to be formed that can keep up with the new technologies that are out there. What some folks would call investment, other folks would call spending. If we want to define them, I guess they are about the same. Then I guess when we get down to the definition, we come down again to the bottom line, and that is priorities. Now, with a debt of $4.7 trillion, for too long now after we learned to borrow against future collections, we started to move that national debt up. As I said, the first balance-the-budget amendment was in 1936. In 1934, and that is under the Roosevelt administration, someone had the idea that this thing could get out of hand and was concerned about it. We were in the depth of the Depression. We were trying to help so many people who had been hit by this devastating time; not only the Depression, but drought. And I could write a book on that. I do not remember those days in 1936, because I was born in 1935. I guess I was a result of the drought; I surely was not a result of the Depression. The last thing you wanted in 1935 was kids, living on 160 acres of two rocks and one dirt. But the debt that started out, we lost our way a little bit and our discipline. So that debt continues, because we continue to deficit spend. We should get two things straight right here. There is a difference between deficit spending and debt. Deficits cause debt. We deficit spend; we create debt. So no matter that that line goes down, we are still deficit spending. It is still of concern to people who have some kind of sense of responsibility, of fiscal responsibility. Ever since I came here 6 years ago, that has been a concern, because our concern should be for our children and grandchildren, and the bill they will have to pay later on because we are mortgaging their future. I was not a Member of Congress when the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was passed, but it was one of the many efforts to control Government spending. While well intentioned, this law fell short of eliminating the deficit. In other words, we as a body of policymakers never really committed ourselves to that law to make sure it worked. Even with a balanced budget amendment, I am not really sure that we have that discipline today, but I think it will make Members get in the debate and talk about priorities. It is true that we do have laws in place to balance a budget. We did not have the will to really take it serious, to really look at programs, and to take some of the fraud out of it. My good friend from North Dakota was talking about the man who flew the missions that could not get a set of teeth. And we have people that take advantage of the veterans programs that never got anything, to really have the privilege of using those programs. The balanced budget amendment would change all of this rhetoric by instilling the necessary fear needed to make the tough decisions and take the hard steps. What are we talking about, even in food stamps; $1 billion a year, $3 billion a year in savings, if we could take the fraud out of it? Now, that has nothing to do with a balanced budget amendment, but I can remember when talking to the former Secretary of Agriculture in the Bush administration, Ed Madigan and, of course, Ed is no longer with us. We started with a smart card and we saw where we could take some of the fraud out of it. Do you know what stopped the expansion of that idea? The bureaucracy did, because it cost some jobs in Government. Does that not seem strange? We had an opportunity to do that. This will force us to do something about that, whether we want to or not. It will force Members to do it. So as we go down this trail, trying to come up with a mechanism to instill fiscal responsibility in ourselves, this is, I think, a commonsense approach. And yet there are people that want to make it very complicated. I came up in 1990 with an idea called the 4-percent solution. We wanted to deal with the deficit. At that time, if you wanted to reform something to really make it work, the 4-percent solution merely said this: Do away with baseline budgeting, but budget and spend based on previous years' expenditures and only let Government grow 4 percent a year. Based on previous years' expenditures, not previous years' budgets, and not an automatic built-in 6 percent as happens in baseline budgeting. And you know what, next year we would have been looking at a whole lot on that. It is a very simple thing. Maybe it was too simple. Nobody wanted to really get into it. But basically it just said, ``Government, only grow 4 percent. If you don't want to spend the 4 percent over here, you can spend it over here. You can move it around. But the total growth, bottom line, 4 percent.'' It would have given Congress the flexibility to increase funding at realistic levels for many programs while reducing others and phasing out some that have not worked since World War II and they are still around here. It did not pass, and now the problem is even worse where even the 4- percent idea will not work. It will not get us to where we want to go. I think also we have to look at a way to see how this budget or balanced budget will be scored by the CBO and whoever is doing the bottom-line figuring. There was a joint budget hearing a couple of weeks ago that would do exactly that. I am pleased that that hearing looked at the dynamic modeling and am encouraged that it gave it the attention it deserves. The current revenue method calculates outlays from the Treasury, no matter what the cost-benefit ratio. I believe dynamic review estimating would be a good way to put Government spending priorities in order. What we are saying is, the policies we set here, tax policies, whatever, change people and the way they do business. It just changes human behavior. The dynamic modeling of a program would be scored on its merits. Instead of only looking at the amount of money the program costs in outlays to the Treasury, it also would take into account how much money is raised for the Treasury. I have heard this argument on capital gains. Capital gains is a voluntary tax. How many ranches and how many businesses are we looking at today that are not being sold or even offered to be put on the market because of capital gains? They find other ways of transferring that property, some way to do it. It is a voluntary tax. You do not have to pay the tax because you do not have to sell. So what happens? It does not go up for sale and their commercial activity is lost. So we have to look for a way, a program which creates jobs, opens up employment opportunities, boosts the economy and raises money for the Treasury. It is commercial activity that does that. Of course, I was not trained in economics. I pretty much have street economics. It is pretty simple: This is accounts receivable over here; this is accounts payable over here. Nothing happens in accounts payable until something happens in accounts receivable. That is the way it is. That is a pretty simple way to go through life. Nonetheless, that is the way we have to score and take a look. Montanans, like all other people around America, sent a loud and clear message last November 8. There are still some people who are trying to interpret that message, and there will be different interpretations of it as long as there are writers of editorials, as long as there are coffee klatches, as long as there are service clubs. Wherever you hear public discourse, there will be an array of messages that was heard November 8. But I think I heard the message. I heard the message that says we have to change some things before we really get the job done. Three reforms have to happen: Spending reform, budget reform and regulatory reform; and also something that puts some steel or backbone, as far as picking those winners and losers in spending and the way this Government spends money--priorities. It makes you get on the field and debate the priorities of which direction we are to be going. An ABC-Washington Post poll taken early in January showed that 80 percent of those polled said they support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. When looking at budget priorities the Federal Government seems like a good place to start. The Federal Government consumes 23 percent of GDP. The current growth rate of Government spending is 2 percent per year faster than the economy. It's time to get a tight rein on the power and size of the Federal Government. The economist, Milton Friedman, put it best when he said, ``There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.'' The Federal Government has encroached on State's rights and spending has gone up to keep pace. Its over-ambitious agenda steals individual rights even as it indebted the people. Congress and the Federal Government have to get their hands out of their pockets. It's time to redistribute the power to the States. Shrink the Federal Government and given the money straight to the States. Cut out the middle man--the paper pusher in Washington, DC. By giving the States block grants they can use the money as they see fit, tailoring it to their specific needs. Every State is different and has different needs. One size does not fit all and the Federal Government should not be trying to force one program to fit every State. What works in California, doesn't always make sense for Montana and West Virginia. Once again, opponents of the amendment are using scare tactics to defeat this measure. They threaten that important programs will be cut or even eliminated, that it will endanger our economic recovery. There has to be plenty of places to make responsible cuts in a $1.6 trillion budget. And by balancing the budget, Congress can ensure our continued economic strength and future power. House Joint Resolution 1 allows Congress plenty of time to get the fiscal house in order. Under this amendment, Congress would have until the year 2002 to balance the budget. That's 7 years. Over the course of 7 years, spending can be reduced gradually. The budget does not have to be balanced overnight. Seven years is a long enough lead time to do the job, and do it fairly. The President will be required to offer his budget that is balanced based on good faith, but Congress will be forced to stick within its budget. Balancing the budget is going to take some hard decisions, some politically distasteful choices. But the reward will be a balanced budget and a more prosperous America. It's time to stop impoverishing the next generation of Americans. Pass the balanced budget amendment and put some discipline in the budget process. I feel very strongly--very strongly--if we do nothing else in this 104th Congress and we pass this balanced budget amendment, I think we have sent a strong message to the American people: We hear you. We care. But they also hear another message; that they, too, in their neighborhoods also have some responsibility of participation to make sure it works and to help us. That is the message back to the voters: Help us. Help us set those priorities on maintaining this Government and also this great, great free society in which we live. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, under his previous order, morning business shall be until the hour of 2 p.m. and with leaders' time being reserved. Senator Conrad is to be recognized for 15 minutes, Senator Simon for 15 minutes, Senator Thomas for 5, Senator Murkowski for 10, and Senator Cohen for 15. At 2 o'clock begins the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget constitutional amendment. There will be debate only today. And by order of the majority leader, there will be no rollcall votes for today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to bring up a situation that caught my eye. Day before yesterday I received a copy of an Associated Press article that exposed a previously unreleased ``Phase I of The Western Forest Health Initiative.'' This report was internally submitted September 30, 1994, about the time the agency said it would release its final report to the public. The final report, however, was not released until December, and it was watered down considerably. It is called phase 2. The difference between the two documents is remarkable and it appears to demonstrate the difference between how Forest Service scientists--in other words, the professional land managers, especially in the Forest Service--view forest health and how this administration sees it. The phase I report in every way was more aggressive and emphasizes a much greater sense of urgency than the report that was finally released to the public. Phase I contains about 70 different recommendations on overcoming impediments and barriers to achieving good forest health goals and lists scores of specific actions needed to address those concerns. It identified work to be done on almost 5 million acres of U.S. Forest Service lands. The new document, phase II, is more of a discussion document than a policy document. It recommended projects covering only half a million acres of land--projects that were already planned for and would have been done regardless of this initiative. So phase II proposes to remove barriers without clearly stating what they are and it disregards some very significant problems that the forests have completely. So, Mr. President, I think this action is flagrant. It undermines the honest and serious attempts of the land managers to deal with forest health problems by the Forest Service. It is of extreme concern to the people of my State and others in the West, who fought the 67,000 wildfires last summer--that burned 4 million acres, and it cost 26 lives. If we trail those back as to what caused the fires and how we could have controlled them, it goes back almost entirely to dealing with forest health issues. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the original Western Forest Health Initiative, dated September 30, 1994, along with an Associated Press article, dated January 25, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, for the benefit of any interested Senators, I have a copy of the entire Phase I initiative in my office. I would be happy to let them read it. I also thank the Senators and the managers of the unfunded mandates bill. It is a terrific day. I think it is a victory for not only the States but the people of America. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and I thank the Chair. My friend from Michigan makes a very persuasive argument on why we need the sunset. If there has been one thing that has changed the landscape of this body and the other body over the last year, it has been the added ingredient of more men and women being elected to this Congress who have freshly been serving in local government. I think that is why you see quite a lot of interest in this piece of legislation, and why the leader chose this bill to be S. 1. I submit to my friend from Michigan that we have laws now that have created a lot of problems and still have sunsets, but yet the law and the programs created under the law still continue. A case in point is we have not reauthorized the Endangered Species Act, yet it has been funded and it comes on today. Many of those kinds of rules and regulations that we are going to have to deal with that really have an impact on communities--wetlands, endangered species, clean water, all of these acts--are now being funded and are in place, but have not been reauthorized by this Congress. I suggest, if we have created a problem through this piece of legislation, we can fix it or unfix it here. But when we rely on a sunset to fix the problem, it does not get fixed. In fact, it rolls on and it is a lot easier to say, ``Well, we will not reauthorize that this year. We will continue it and we will continue to fund it.'' If there is one thing that really has the American people mad or made them mad last November, it is this kind of a situation. So the sunset law really does not have much effect. But if there is no sunset law, it forces us to either fix or unfix the problem. We have bills being funded now that should be brought up for reauthorization and debated on this floor of the Senate and in the House of Representatives. So if we are trying to get away from this Federal Government, this Washington city, imposing unfunded mandates on local governments, then there should be something that forces us to either fix or unfix a problem created by this legislation. I am not saying that there will not be some problems created by this legislation, because I have never seen a perfect piece of legislation come through this body or ever signed by the President. So let us make ourselves either fix it or unfix it as time goes on. I come out of county government. I want to congratulate my friend from Idaho, who has been recognized here for his leadership not only on this piece of legislation, but I think we ought to recognize him for his stamina. He says it has been very good for his diet that he went off of over the holidays; it has been good for him and now he is getting back in shape. Nonetheless, let Senators not take this piece of legislation and make it a meaningless piece of legislation because the Senator from Ohio said, ``This is a landmark piece of legislation.'' This is a new direction. This makes the Senate take a look at what we do and the impact it has on our State, county, and city governments. I appreciate that. I would submit that the sunset makes no difference at all. In fact, it alleviates us from taking the responsibility from what we really do in this body. I would not support my friend from Michigan although he makes an argument that is very persuasive. I would not support this amendment. I yield the floor. I thank my friend from Idaho.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to associate myself with the words of my colleague from Ohio on this legislation, that we understand that this is landmark legislation. We may have seen the turning of the corner of a new attitude, maybe a new cooperation between the States and the Federal Government. Senator Glenn was commenting on times gone by back in the Great Depression, of course, in that great era of drought and what drove the ``Okies'' to California. I would have to say I do not know what it is doing now but the Californians are coming to Montana now. I do not know what is driving them. But also as a fellow marine, we did not even know it at the time, but that goes back further than either one of us want to visit about, I congratulate him on his tenacity, and Senator Kempthorne from Idaho, because unfunded mandates just did not start 1 year ago or 2 years ago. It has been going on here quite awhile as the debate got going, and finally we see today it has come to fruition in the passage of this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my friend and neighbor from Idaho, not only for this time but also for his leadership on this particular issue. It is not just this year that he has been involved in this. I think he has been involved in the balanced budget debate ever since he served in the House of Representatives, and he still works very closely with our friends in that body. I just need a couple of minutes to remind the American people about, basically, representative government and the debate on priorities. If we ever worked in local government where the law says you will balance a budget and you will retain reserves on each line, no matter what the county government or what part of county government you look at, there was always a reserve. You were by law given a cap on how much reserves you could keep, but you also maintained those reserves. So, basically, that is what we are talking about when we talk about a balanced budget amendment. It is the old self-governed philosophy as we pick our priorities and what is important to the survival of a free society. We worked in Montana under an initiative called 105. We could not levy any more mills to raise taxes. In a time of declining property values when your entire budget almost was set on property values, the mills that you collected and put in your coffers and delivered the services that people then wanted, it was a wrenching experience to go through and say, ``We just cannot find enough money for our museums, for our libraries, for our schools, for roads and bridges.'' Then we had to go back and sort of survey exactly the mission of government. What is government for? We had to reidentify. What is our mission here? What is our primary consideration? What are our second considerations if we have the money? I would suggest that those primary considerations would be, first, public safety. That is our fire, our police, our emergency. I say that is the first consideration of government, public safety. Then I would go to probably transportation because we have to get farm-to-market roads; to provide, in other words, transportation, that highway of commerce that leads to all other elements of government. Then I would have to say it has to be education. They do not have to be in that order. But that is the primary purpose of government. Then, when you move off of that--you are talking about dollars--if we have some, it is nice to add some amenities. Then we have to start looking at utilities, water, public health. But I think we have to reevaluate why we have government. That is what this debate will be about; where we set our priorities. After all, is not that the debate of a free people? We will have to redefine the mission of government as we go into this debate called a balanced budget amendment. It forces us to take a look at those priorities, to set them and fund the ones we can. Yes. If the public wants more, then we should say it will cost such and such dollars. Are you willing to pay those dollars for that particular program? I have said all along we can get to where we want to go in this debate if we have some reform. We need regulatory reform and spending and budget reform. The balanced budget amendment makes us go to those reforms and makes us take a look at them. In fact, as our good friend from Pennsylvania said yesterday in a small debate on a balanced budget, it starts the clock. It puts us on the field. It makes us look at our priorities. So I thank my friend from Idaho. I just wanted to make those comments this morning. But we must not take our eye off of the ball. It forces us to set priorities. I think that is what the American people say. I think that is why they sent us here, to say, look at your priorities. We heard the discussion about public radio and the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. I am saying, if my particular area of great interest is the ability to feed and clothe this great Nation, where are our priorities? Where are our priorities to maintain a free society and to bring together those elements that create a standard of living that is unmatched by any other society to this date in our history, and to take care of this little piece of mud that happens to be whirling through the universe? What this does is set priorities. I support it wholeheartedly. I thank my friend from Idaho. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would just like to comment on the amendments that have been sent to the desk by the Senator from California and the schematic she offered to the rest of the body to illustrate what would happen if this piece of legislation were to pass without her amendments. I have often said, before we can attain success in what we are trying to do in bringing down the size of Government, in trying to make it more efficient, there are probably three areas of reform: Regulatory reform, budget reform, and spending reform. There is a very simple bottom line to that. Regulatory reform-- regulations have to be reviewed, as S. 1 does review those, for impact on not only the economy but upon the way we do our business with our State and local governments. Budget reform--inasmuch as we have to get away from, I think, baseline budgeting. We have to go back to the old situation of starting at ground zero and building a budget, or at least based on previous years' expenditures, to bring some kind of honesty and integrity and accountability to the American people. And in spending reform--I have a feeling inside me that maybe we should only spend money on those programs that have been authorized and not delve into some things that have not been authorized. But let me talk about specifically S. 1. If you look real closely at that schematic, it is kind of scary because it has legislation going in many directions. To some it would seem very confusing. But basically we do all of those things that are on that schematic now--a vast amount of it. The problem is in our hearings we take testimony from Governors and from mayors and from county commissioners and people who have to administer local government, and we only choose that information that we agree with. So we vote sometimes not exactly taking into account some of the testimony. We only accept that which we agree with and what we do not agree with we cast aside when making a decision on unfunded mandates. I am a former county commissioner. There were three of us. It is wonderful to be a county commissioner because there were three of us. You are the budgeteers, you are also the appropriators, and you are also the spenders. And you also have to make some pretty tough decisions because we have to operate in a balanced budget. In fact, we have to maintain reserves. Whether it is the bridge fund or the road fund or the county welfare or whatever--but we have to make some decisions every day when we appropriate and spend and develop programs, whether we can afford them and where the money is going to come from. And, yes, maintain the reserves for the carryover months that are in front of us. Montana had an initiative called 105 that froze everything because taxpayers got a little cranky up there in 1986 and we could not raise the mill levy. We could not deal with it. So basically we go through everything that is on that schematic. The problem is we only accept that testimony from those Governors, those mayors, those county commissioners that we choose to accept. Unfunded mandates: Of course, right now the news is the motor voter law that has been levied against some States. In Montana we have had a motor voter law for a long time. It is not as extensive as the one passed by this body. But nonetheless, that is a perfect example of an unfunded mandate. So do not be scared of this schematic that shows where the whole works gets all balled up and nothing happens in Government. If I had my way, I would say that after we passed legislation, if you want to look at regulatory reform, getting way over here on this side of the world, maybe, before a final rule is issued on any law that is passed by Congress and signed by the President, that rule should come back to the committee of jurisdiction to make sure that rule does what the intent of the legislation was. We see a lot of legislation that is passed and then once it hits the street it looks nothing like the intent of the legislation. So, yes. It is slower. There is nothing wrong with that. I would agree with let us do it right. I agree with that. If it takes a little longer, then so be it because I think this is a piece of landmark legislation that is going to maybe bond the relationship between the Federal Government and its duties, its requirements, and the actions that we take with those of local governments which have to administer most times that legislation that is passed by this Federal Government. If it takes a little longer, do not let the schematic scare you. We understand that. If it slows the process down, then so be it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby in introducing a bill which would protect individual's private property rights. This bill, the Private Property Owners Bill of Rights, would provide a consistent Federal policy to encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property and to ensure the constitutional and legal rights of private property owners. Private property rights are protected by the fifth amendment of the Constitution. Yet, many laws have been encroaching further and further on this right. The bill we are introducing today is very important to Montana because it makes the Federal Government respect and protect private property rights when enforcing the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Montana's private property owners have been greatly impacted by these two laws. In Montana a couple years ago, I saw a headline which read ``Judge Says Grizzlies Have `People Rights'.'' This article ran in an agriculture trade publication. The story was about John Shuler of Choteau who shot a grizzly bear in 1989 after he found three of these bears in his sheep pen. He originally fired the shot to scare the bears away, but when one bear charged him, he was forced to shoot that bear. For those who may not be aware, the grizzly is protected under the Endangered Species Act. The judge ruled that the Endangered Species Act's self-defense exception must meet the same requirements used in criminal law for humans. The judge then ruled that since this rancher had stepped off his porch, to protect his investment, he ``Purposefully placed himself in the zone of imminent danger of a bear attack''. According to this judge, the rancher didn't have the right to protect his property. Folks, that's wrong. The Private Property Owners Bill of Rights would create an administrative appeals process for affected property owners. And the bill establishes a framework so private property holders can seek and obtain compensation. In addition, before a Government official can enter private land, they must have consent from the land owner. If information is collected on private property, this information cannot be used unless the private individual has full access to the information and has the right to dispute the accuracy of the information. The bill also establishes the right to administratively appeal decisions regarding wetlands and critical habitat of a listed species. Montanans believe that protecting private property is of utmost importance. And this bill reinforces the Government's responsibility to protect property rights and will help get the Federal Government off the backs of Montana's working men and women. I believe strongly in every American's private property rights and this bill should be signed into law.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This just did not start with this Senator in 1995 or even 1994. I can remember back in 1992 when the manager of this bill was running for this office, and it was one of his priorities then. He was mayor of Boise. I went to Idaho on his behalf. Coming out of county government, I understand the impact of some actions that are taken by this Congress, signed into law by the President, and then meant to be carried out by State and local government. I think probably the best job I had in politics was my first elected job which was commissioner in Yellowstone County, MT. Believe me, we learned the impact of unfunded mandates because when I went in there was an initiative passed in the State of Montana called I-105. Our taxpayer revolt started way back in the middle eighties. I do not know whether yours started then, but that is when ours started. It said that you cannot raise taxes unless you do certain things in your tax code both locally and at the State level. That put a lot of pressure on county budgets. But where it differs at this level from that in Yellowstone County, one has to remember we had to maintain reserves. In every line, every department you maintained reserves because you only collected taxes twice a year, and through some of those areas you had to operate your Government but you also always maintained a reserve for unexpected things happening in your county in every line. I wish we could do that at the Federal level, that there would be something that tells us we have to maintain a reserve for emergencies and it takes an emergency to go into the reserve funds that you have. So we understand the impact especially of unfunded mandates on budgets of county government. I can go home and talk to people now--our legislatures are in session now--and the budget people tell you that right now Medicaid is driving State budgets, an entitlement is driving State budgets, and that is why there are so many legislatures that are really wrestling with this situation called tax time and then the voter resentment or the ire of the voter during this taxing time. We hear a lot about accountability, and we passed a bill yesterday that I favor. But accountability as far as we as legislators starts at this level right here. This is where accountability starts. We can talk about all those other things--campaign finance, all these other areas, and, no, that is not accountability. Accountability is what we do to and for this Nation and the constituents we represent because not every State does it the same, not every county does it the same. So we have to be aware of this. With the stroke of a pen, we mandate that local governmental entities do certain things without sending them a check with which to carry out the edict. In my State, where folks are still rebelling against taxes, the only practical way to achieve these mandates is to cut something somewhere else or comply or work to where you can get around I-105. Budgets are already lean, so basically we are asking those folks who represent us at the local level to balance their budgets. By the way, they have a mandate, too. In fact, they have a law. Your budget has to be balanced. You have to account for the dollars. It is estimated that counties are spending about $4.8 billion each year to comply with 12--only 12--of the many existence. That cost is expected to rise--in fact, some estimates have the pricetag rising to as much as $33.7 billion in a 5-year period between 1994 and 1998. The Senator from Oklahoma raises a very good point. Yes, we can maybe pass this bill, but what happens to those entities that would do business by administrative edict or fiat? What implications might that have also on county and State governments? We can look around, and we can see a lot of areas where, yes, we probably need some help--underground storage tanks, safe drinking water, Endangered Species Act, immigration. We can name all kinds of laws passed by this body that have to be carried out by local governments. In fact, in Yellowstone County those cost almost $400,000 in fiscal year 1993. In Gallatin County--that is Bozeman over in the south central part of the State--a county with less than half the population of Yellowstone County, the cost of those same things is around $900,000. That does not sound like a lot of money to Washington, DC, or this Hill, but in my State where I only have about 850,000 folks, it is a lot of money. And so no wonder folks turn around and say you guys back there are out of touch. Now, I am not saying that we should stop legislating, although some in my State think maybe a breather would not hurt right now. But we are not going to do that. I am saying we here, who are thousands of miles away, should stop, look, and listen before we pass that legislation and see the impact it has on our neighborhoods. Stop mandating those expensive, sometimes unnecessary programs without providing some means to pay for them. I think I would take a look at the rules and regulations handed down in a discussion we had about 4 years ago on the situation that was passed on to small business, principally those folks in the filling station, service station business, this business of underground storage tanks. One rule written by the EPA here, sort of one-size-fits-all, did not fit some of the areas in the rest of the country. What works in Virginia in the soil type and everything else did not work as far as the more drier area we have in Montana or the West or whatever. If so, our inability to write rules and regulations that consider the problems on a case-by-case basis almost seems impossible as far as those folks who write administrative rules. So what we should do is take a look at this. If Congress really thinks it is essential, if we have a situation where public health is at stake, or national security, then I think it provides in this bill that we can go ahead and get that job done. Yet we are still drawn to the fact that for all others we have to find some means of financing the rule or regulation or the impact of the legislation. I am sure many of my colleagues have seen the publication that the National Conference of State Legislatures puts out. It is called Federal Mandate Watch List. I looked at the April-June 1994 issue that covers mandates on State and local governments just introduced in the 103d Congress. They list 190 bills that are unfunded mandates, 49 bills that are listed as mandate relief bills; 190 bills just in one Congress. I would say probably some folks would classify that as irresponsible, not taking a look and seeing what we are doing. And that is what we are talking about here in this piece of legislation. What a difference one election makes, when we start talking about what is important and what is not important in the agenda, and the priorities as far as this body is concerned, of trying to fix a situation that has been broken a long time. So, if we really think a mandate is necessary then let us find out a way to pay for it; provide a way so that they can afford the mandate that is being thrust on them. But let us start listening to our Governors and our county commissioners and our mayors, and working with those folks to make this thing called Government work for the people. After all we serve the people. Otherwise, we just cannot stay on the path that we are on. It is just the Government, like the camel, continuing to get its nose under the tent. I know Montanans do not want that. I cannot imagine they are any different than the folks in Kansas, or Florida, or Massachusetts, or even, yes, our great neighbor to the south, Utah. Our county governments and State legislators know the priorities for their residents a whole lot better than we do here. We must remember, in most city government and county government the names of those commissioners or councilmen are in the phone book. Folks can call them at supper time and register their complaints. That is the way it is in our part of the country, anyway. And that is good. So they are pretty much in touch with the people they serve because they see them on the street, they see them at the local basketball game and the local football game, at their churches and their schools. They understand the problems that their communities face. And they also work pretty closely with the citizens to solve some of those problems. So I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. Yes, there will be some amendments. Some I will support and some I will not support. But I think if there was a reason, one reason, why most of us are here, it is to represent truthfully and be accountable to the people we represent. And it starts with this right here: Knowledge of the impact this legislation will have on our neighborhoods. A great Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, said, ``All politics is local.'' He was right. We are not exempt from that here. We are not exempt from that here. Most of us still represent that neighborhood in which we were raised. So I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation, study it, support it. If you want to see true accountability, and especially with the bill that was introduced by our friend from Oklahoma on the moratorium, as far as the issuance of rules and regulations, it makes sense to me that the body that passed the legislation, or the committee of jurisdiction, maybe should take a look at the final rule before it goes into the Federal Register to make sure that it does do what the legislation was intended to do. All of us have, from time to time, taken a look at rules and regulations written as a result of past legislation and it looks nothing like the law. We have people who say: We have this law, let us just do anything we want to, we will write the rules and then we will worry about it later. That I think is one of the situations I can see where we fall down in this body. Maybe we serve on too many committees. Maybe we get too busy. We do not spend enough time, us personally, getting involved in the business of oversight, especially in the writing of the administrative rules of the legislation that is passed and signed by the President. I think this is a step in that direction. I think it makes us look, makes us study. Maybe we can answer those hard questions when we go home about some of the legislation that we should be accountable for because of how we vote down in that well. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. It is important. The leader has made it number one, and that is where it should be. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.