[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               RON SPEED

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a friend and 
fellow Minnesotan, Ron Speed. Ron died March 15 at his home in 
Minneapolis of complications from AIDS.
  In many ways, Ron Speed represented the very best of public life in 
Minnesota. He had worked for more than 25 years for one of our State's 
largest employers, Honeywell, Inc. At the time of his death, Ron was 
Honeywell's vice president of corporate, government, and community 
affairs.
  Ron had many talents and many, many friends. He combined his own 
vision and leadership with the resources of a large company to help 
build a better community. And, although Minnesota has now lost one of 
its finest corporate citizens, his memory will continue through the 
programs and projects to which he gave life.
  I first came to know Ron Speed almost 30 years ago when we were both 
what we then called Young Republicans--young idealists in a political 
party that succeeded because it offered attractive candidates and 
practical and progressive ideas that worked.
  Ron spent several years here in Washington on the staff of 
Representative John Zwach. And then, 25 years ago last November, he 
began a career at Honeywell that would help redefine and reshape the 
very meaning of corporate public affairs.
  Ron and I were colleagues during 7 of those years when I held a 
similar position at the H.B. Fuller Co. We supported many of the same 
community programs and projects, and began many of the same initiatives 
within our own companies, many of which are being adopted across this 
country.
  During his 25 years at Honeywell, Ron started a new division called 
corporate community affairs.
  And, because of his leadership--and the support of others at 
Honeywell--that division gave new meaning to how a large corporation 
relates to its community, not just through its business practices, but 
through its employees, through its corporate and foundation giving, and 
through the leadership its top executives give to real and needed 
forces for community change.
  Ron was fortunate during his 25 years at Honeywell to have bosses and 
mentors who created an environment that allowed this vision of 
corporate public affairs to grow.
  Ron worked for some of the true national pioneers in redefining the 
role of large corporations in society, including five highly gifted 
CEO--Ed Spencer, Steve Keating, Jim Binger, Jim Renier, and most 
recently, Michael Bonsignore.
  Ron also was blessed with an unusually gifted group of colleagues in 
what has always been a strong and creative public affairs department, 
mentors and friends like Russ Laxson, Don Conley, Glen Skovholt, and 
many, many others.
  And, Ron used his vision and what he learned from others to help 
change the role of employers in society. He was always willing to share 
that vision with others--informally, and through his membership on the 
advisory boards of the Center for Ethics at the College of St. 
Catherine and the Boston College Center for Community Relations.
  Two months ago, Mr. President, I had the privilege of joining more 
than 300 friends, family members and co-workers who attended a 
celebration to honor Ron for his outstanding community service and to 
announce the establishment of what will be known as the Ron Speed Award 
for Public Affairs Leadership.
  The mood that evening was somber, yet filled with upbeat celebration. 
Several mutual friends commented that the event was ``pure Ron 
Speed''--dignified, reflective, yet fun.
  Many warm, personal and caring things were said both about and to Ron 
that night. And, when the time came for his response, Ron did not let 
his friends down.
  He was clearly moved by the genuine outpouring of love and support 
from a community he had loved and supported in return.
  But, Ron's response did not dwell on his illness or pain. Nor did he 
reminisce about past accomplishments or express regrets about what 
might have been.
  Instead, Ron Speed used his last opportunity to speak publicly to lay 
down a challenge to his colleagues at Honeywell and to all those who 
struggle with the role that large, multi-national employers must 
continue to play in the communities from which they do business.
  ``One of the things most of us have held dear,'' Ron told his 
assembled friends, ``is the notion that solutions to problems cannot be 
found without the participation of everybody in the community.''
  ``And, as the community fights more difficult issues all of the time, 
and is working--particularly in urban settings--to make life better, it 
can't be done without the churches, the people, and obviously, the 
political system.''
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the full text of Ron's 
challenge be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, meeting the challenge Ron spoke of 
will require the active participation of large employers like 
Honeywell. But, it will take the active involvement of many others as 
well.
  And, Ron Speed had a unique ability to bring all those forces for 
change together to benefit the larger community.
  Ron worked through the Honeywell Foundation to support programs that 
could empower communities to tackle problems on their own.
  Ron also used programs he started within Honeywell--the Honeywell 
Retired Executive Project, for example--to put back into the community 
the time and talents we so desperately need.
  And, Ron placed a high priority on programs that help shape the 
future, especially educational programs supporting children and young 
adults.
  One program to which Ron gave national leadership is Close-Up, a 
program that has meant a lot to me personally, as well.
  Literally thousands of high school students from Minnesota and many 
other States can thank Ron Speed for his leadership in Close-Up and for 
the inspiration and knowledge that experience has offered to them at a 
critical point in their lives.
  During his quarter century of public service, Ron also served as 
chair of the board for the American Refugee Committee, the Minnesota 
2000 education reform initiative, and the Business Leadership Council 
of the Close-Up Foundation. And, he served on the boards of the 
national Points of Light Foundation, the National Retiree Volunteer 
Center, Augsburg College, the Minneapolis United Way, and the Minnesota 
Government Learning Center.
  Ron also headed the Business Action Resource Council for the Greater 
Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and the program committee for the 
Minnesota Project on Corporate Responsibility. He was a member of the 
Minnesota Special Olympics Advisory Council. And he chaired the 
Management Assistance Project, an agency linking corporate volunteers 
with nonprofit Twin Cities agencies.
  Ron was born February 23, 1943. He is survived by his partner, Jim 
Macknick; his children, Erika, Kate, and Ryan Speed and their mother, 
Paulette; his parents; a brother, a sister, several nieces, and a 
nephew.
  Ron Speed will be missed, Mr. President, by his family and friends. 
And, my heart goes out to them as they try to accept and adjust to his 
loss.
  But, because of what he gave when he was with us, Ron Speed's 
memory--and his contributions to his community--will live on forever.

                               Exhibit 1

                          Remarks by Ron Speed

       Presented at the Announcement of the Ron Speed Award for 
     Public Affairs Leadership--January 7, 1994.
       We are all here for a period of time and then go on--and my 
     time in life is short. My hope is that through the creation 
     of this award, we will continue to find specific ways for us 
     all to work together for real action. One of the things most 
     of us have held clear is the notion that solutions to 
     problems cannot be found without the participation of 
     everybody in the community. As the community fights more 
     difficult issues all of the time and is working--particularly 
     in urban settings--to make life better, it can't be done 
     without the churches, the people, and obviously, the 
     political system. In Minnesota, we've been blessed by the 
     fact that corporations are also a big part of the equation. 
     However, this tradition has been challenged mightly, and I 
     think understandably, over the last several years with 
     takeovers, ``barbarians at the gate,'' and greed from Wall 
     Street.
       We are now back on a better track. For the most part, 
     companies, like my own, have hung in there with very little 
     change. Though we may have had to cut back on certain staff 
     projects, our work through the Foundation never faltered--and 
     that is one of the things that I admire about Honeywell and 
     Honeywell management. We have always understood that 
     attention to the community is critical.
       At Honeywell, we have been increasingly strategic in our 
     efforts to help solve community problems. We did go through 
     an era, probably in the 1970's, when we would adopt a school 
     or take on some small project or do some nice thing for a 
     community agency down the street. And there is a place for 
     that. But, it's also important for us to sit down with county 
     commissioners and to sit down with other companies and 
     community agencies and really try to engage. We've got to get 
     at these problems if they are ever going to be solved and not 
     just talk around the edges. It has be a strategic effort by 
     all of us.
       Some of the projects we've talked about tonight are good 
     examples. The Management Assistance Project was an attempt to 
     gather hundreds of executives to take two, three, or four 
     months to work in community agencies on very targeted 
     projects. I think they've worked with more than 2,000 
     agencies. There's power in that kind of involvement.
       Another project mentioned earlier was the Honeywell Retiree 
     Volunteer Project. More than 1,100 individuals have worked on 
     assignments with over 425 agencies. And, HRVP has triggered 
     similar efforts throughout the United States. I think there 
     are lots of other examples we could cite. These efforts take 
     working together, finding the right partners, and finding the 
     talented people within the company who can bring organization 
     and insight.
       Ray Hoewing (Public Affairs Council), Don Conley (former 
     Vice President of Public Affairs at Honeywell). Peter 
     Hutchinson (former Vice President of Public Affairs at Dayton 
     Hudson and current Superintendent of Schools in Minneapolis), 
     and I have discussed how important it is not to overly 
     compartmentalize our companies' public affairs efforts. For 
     example, in too many companies, we may lobby at the state 
     capitol or in Washington for specific issues with very little 
     awareness of what is going on with other issues such as 
     housing or education policy. Or, we may make contributions to 
     education, but we don't know what's going on with the public 
     policy side of the issue.
       I am very proud of Honeywell, and especially the public 
     affairs department, which over the last several years has 
     worked aggressively with the understanding that we can have 
     more of an impact through shaping public policy than through 
     our dollars alone. For example, our contributions people 
     lobby and work with county commissioners, congressmen, and 
     city government. Our government affairs people work on 
     contribution programs and serve on the Foundation board. I 
     believe it's time for companies to do a better job of 
     integrating and understanding issues so we can be more 
     serious about solving problems. And, at Honeywell, we are 
     convinced we serve our business units more effectively 
     through this strategy.
       Jim Renier (former Honeywell Chairman and Chief Executive 
     Officer) is a master of supporting this strategy. For example 
     we included workers compensation, taxes, education, policy 
     and Success by 6 in our legislative program last year. This 
     is a pretty unusual agenda for most companies. It also goes 
     without saying that, as a staff, we have to rely on one 
     another to do the work that we do. In my case, I have 
     certainly relied on Honeywell as the anchor, the partner, 
     the employer for which I work. Honeywell, I think, has 
     been truly one of the magnificent companies in this 
     country.
       I've worked under five CEO's. Jim Binger brought a 
     thoughtfulness and a sensitivity about philanthropy and 
     contributions and how it might be done in the most rational 
     way. Today, he demonstrates these skills in his work as a 
     member of the McKnight Foundation board and in the field of 
     international philanthropy.
       Steve Keating was an activist chairman who jumped into the 
     middle of a difficult time of race relations, a difficult 
     moment in the 1960's. He co-chaired the Urban Coalition and 
     did lots of other things with the Courage Center and other 
     boards. He made quite an impact in the community, and lots of 
     people followed his example. It should be noted also that 
     Steve started the housing project in the Phillips 
     neighborhood to which we have given almost $2 million in 
     housing assistance over a 20-year period.
       The CEO who had the biggest impact on what we're trying to 
     do strategically was Ed Spencer. Ed agreed that a business 
     must act responsibly wherever it operates--whether it's a 
     sales office in Philadelphia, or a regional office in 
     Georgia, or a manufacturing location in Massachusetts. For 
     three to five years, there flourished a network of Honeywell 
     people from all over the country who supported this strategy. 
     We even became serious about moving on public affairs issues 
     internationally; it was no longer something we dabbled in. 
     Prospects for Peacemaking, a dialogue regarding peace issues, 
     and other pioneer initiatives came out of that sort of 
     environment. Acting responsibly became institutionalized--a 
     part of the infrastructure at Honeywell.
       Jim Renier brought a whole new dimension to our efforts. He 
     was a real flagship leader. Jim came at a time when he was 
     battling all sorts of other things--takeovers, difficult 
     business times, but he kept the company whole and was able to 
     fight off the ``barbar-ians'' at our gate. At the same time, 
     he never wavered in his eagerness to do things for the 
     community. Jim was moved by the difficult reports he had read 
     about small children. And, he understood how up-front work 
     with pregnant mothers, infants, and toddlers could prevent a 
     lot of problems and save money in the long run. Jim 
     eventually jumped in with both feet and became one of the 
     most credible spokespersons in the country on education. We 
     also put together discussions with the Secretaries of Health 
     and Human Services and Education. We got a half-million 
     dollar grant to put into the School Human Services Redesign 
     Project. And, Jim led the United Way's participation in this 
     rather risky new model. I was always a little embarrassed 
     because he seemed to be a little ahead of me on reading or 
     doing more staff work than I was at times.
       Now, with Michael Bonsignore, we have an opportunity to 
     spread our wings even further. Mike is a real 
     internationalist and has already asked that each executive in 
     the world take on a key community assignment. And, he, 
     personally has been very involved in a number of important 
     community projects. However, working with Mike will be a 
     little more difficult at the outset because he is swamped. As 
     the new CEO, he has to be everywhere to become known, and he 
     has to focus on strengthening the market.
       We've been very fortunate at Honeywell. It is pretty 
     unusual. I believe, to find executives like ours who have the 
     kind of insight to run a complicated business, support their 
     public affairs people, and really make the machinery in the 
     corporation work for the maximum public good.
       In today's environment, there are more and more challenges 
     facing public affairs people. However, I hope we keep at this 
     through thick and thin. And, I hope we can continue working 
     as partners, working in a strategic manner to make a 
     difference in all the communities where we operate.

  (The remarks of Mr. Durenberger pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1996 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today as a strong supporter of 
education reform. However, after carefully examining this legislation 
and considering the views of my constituents, I intend to vote against 
the conference report to S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
  As you know, I supported this legislation out of the Senate Committee 
on Labor and Human Resources with a number of concerns. I also voted 
for the Senate version of this measure, again with a number of 
reservations. I believed then, as I do now, that we should strive to 
develop national education goals which describe what our children 
should know and be able to achieve in school. However, while we work on 
education reform legislation, we should guard against excessive Federal 
regulatory requirements, as well as Federal mandates not funded by the 
Federal Government.
  The conference report now mandates specific content and performance 
requirements which must be included in the States' improvement plans 
for meeting the national education goals. The Senate version allowed 
much more flexibility by only requiring the States to establish content 
and performance strategies that the State felt would meet the National 
Education Goals. The conference mandate goes to the very heart of my 
concerns. It takes away the voluntary nature of the States' strategies, 
and I believe this could be the beginning of the development of a 
national curriculum, which I oppose.
  In a letter written by the Governor from my home State of South 
Carolina, Governor Campbell, to President Clinton, I observed a number 
of concerns he has with this legislation, especially in the area of 
opportunity-to-learn standards. As you know, I do not support federally 
imposed opportunity-to-learn standards. I believe this is a 
responsibility that should remain with the States, and I agree with the 
concerns Governor Campbell raised in his letter.
  Unfortunately, the inclusion of content and performance requirements 
and opportunity-to-learn standards creates the potential for widespread 
litigation. We are setting the stage for every student who believes 
they are not getting ``a fair opportunity to learn'' to bring a 
lawsuit. A number of studies demonstrate no correlation between 
spending and educational performance. However, attorneys are lining up 
in anticipation of suing a school system because its standards are not 
adequate.
  In a hearing before the National Council on Education Standards and 
Testing, Mr. Jonathan Wilson argued that all he needed to bring a 
lawsuit is the establishment of standards by which to measure whether 
the State is properly carrying out its responsibility to provide 
adequate education. Under this legislation, he will have the standards 
he needs to sue.
  Our schools will not be spending their scarce resources on the 
necessary tools for education. Instead, our schools will be paying the 
local attorney to defend it from a barrage of lawsuits filed to 
equalize or normalize the amount of resources provided to each child. 
This is not what is intended by education reform.

  Madam President, this legislation will establish a National Skill 
Standards Board for the subsequent development and adoption of national 
industry-recognized skill standards. I am supportive of the development 
of voluntary national industry-recognized skill standards in this 
country, not mandatory ones.
  During the previous consideration of this legislation in the Senate, 
I stated that we should not establish a Board which would undermine or 
restrict businesses in developing their own skill standards. It is 
essential that this continues to be an industry led initiative.
  I supported the compromise concerning the composition of the Board 
reached by Senator Kassebaum and Labor Secretary Robert Reich. 
Unfortunately, this compromise was deleted in conference.
  The ultimate cost of the bill is a matter of great concern.
  Finally, I object to the absence of the Helms' school prayer 
amendment from this legislation. My good friend and colleague, Senator 
Helms, offered an amendment to S. 1150, which was adopted in the Senate 
by a vote of 75 to 22. The House passed a motion to instruct House 
conferees to accept the Helms amendment by a vote of 367 to 55. 
However, the Helms amendment was stripped from this legislation. I 
believe a return to voluntary prayer in public schools would 
considerably add to the well-being and character development of 
America's children.
  Madam President, I believe the education we provide to our children 
and future generations of children is one of the most important gifts 
we can give them. The Federal Government should facilitate State and 
local reform efforts and not become an obstacle. However, I am deeply 
concerned that this bill will wrest the control from the States and 
local communities, and place it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. 
Under the Constitution, Education is primarily the responsibility of 
the States.
  I worked closely with my good friend Secretary Riley on this 
legislation and commend him for his efforts, however, I cannot support 
this legislation in its present form.


  RESPONSE TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON VOLUNTARY SCHOOL PRAYER

  Madam President, earlier this week, by a vote of 345 to 64, the House 
of Representatives agreed to withhold Federal education funds from 
school districts that prohibit students from engaging in voluntary 
prayer in public school. I applaud my colleagues in the House for this 
vote and especially commend Congressman Johnson of Texas who drafted 
the language. This amendment should remain in the bill which will 
provide Federal aid to elementary and secondary school programs.
  Also, my good friend and colleague, Senator Helms, had offered a 
similar amendment to S. 1150, the Goals 2000, Educate America Act, 
which was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 75 to 22. However, the 
House-Senate conference on Goals 2000, in a hasty manner, adopted so-
called compromise language on the Helms amendment which completely 
misses the mark of the original Senate position. Hopefully, this action 
will not stand and the Senate will have the opportunity to reiterate 
its position on voluntary prayer in public schools.
  Madam President, last year on the first legislative day of the 103d 
Congress, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 9 which is a proposed 
constitutional amendment to allow voluntary school prayer. This bill is 
essentially the same as legislation which I introduced at the request 
of President Reagan in March of 1983, during the 98th Congress. I 
reintroduced this amendment in the 99th, 100th, 101st, and 102d 
Congress. This proposal would restore the right to pray voluntarily in 
public schools--a right which was freely exercised under our 
Constitution for 170 years until the Supreme Court ruled to the 
contrary.
  Until the Supreme Court ruled in the Engel and Abington school 
district decisions, the establishment clause of the first amendment was 
generally understood to prohibit the Federal Government from officially 
approving, or holding in special favor, any particular faith or 
denomination. In crafting that clause, our Founding Fathers sought to 
prevent what had originally caused many colonial Americans to emigrate 
to this country--an official, state religion. At the same time, they 
sought, through the free exercise clause, to guarantee to all Americans 
the freedom to worship God without government interference or 
restraint. In their wisdom, they recognized that true religious liberty 
precluded the government from both forcing and preventing worship.
  In the 1960's, in one fell swoop, the Supreme Court overturned the 
long-settled public policies of tens of thousands of communities across 
the Country. A moment of voluntary prayer at the start of the school 
day--a policy that had enriched the education of generations of school 
children since the founding of the Republic--was determined by the 
Supreme Court to be a menace to the first amendment.
  Madam President, every morning we open the Senate and begin our work 
day with the comfort and stimulus of voluntary prayer. As a Nation, we 
continue to recognize God in our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming that 
we are a Nation ``under God.'' Our currency is inscribed with the 
motto, ``In God We Trust.'' It is time we restored the simple freedom 
of our citizens to offer prayer in our public schools and institutions. 
The public expression through prayer and recognition in other ways of 
our faith in God is a fundamental part of our American heritage. It 
should not be excluded from our public schools.

  Madam President, our liberty springs from and depends upon an abiding 
faith in God. This has been clear from the time of George Washington, 
who stated in his farewell address:

       Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political 
     prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports 
     * * *. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that 
     morality can be maintained without religion * * * [R]eason 
     and experience both forbid us to expect that national 
     morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

  Madam President, there is much discussion across this Nation on the 
breakdown of values and morality. There are concerns of violence in 
schools threatening the safety of teachers and students alike and 
undermining a sound learning environment. Of course, school prayer is 
not the panacea to end all problems, but I am confident that it will 
considerably add to the well-being and character development of 
America's children.
  Again, I commend the recent action by the House of Representatives 
and believe that we must rededicate our efforts to amending the 
Constitution to return voluntary prayer to public schools.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to share a 
few thoughts with the Members of this Chamber with regard to the 
measure before us. What we have is an exercise that this Senator 
believes is symbolic of a practice that has grown up over the recent 
years in Congress--that is, of ignoring the wishes of the majority in 
both the House and the Senate.
  Why would I say that with regard to this bill? I think, as all 
Senators are familiar with, the amendment that was labeled the Helms 
amendment, passed this body by a large margin. What may not be clear to 
everyone who listens to us is that that amendment passed the House of 
Representatives by a very large margin, as well. It passed, as I 
understand it, in the form of instructions to conferees. Yet, when this 
matter was considered in conference, even though the Members of both 
the House and Senate had voted on this specific measure and had both 
agreed on this specific measure, the members of the conference took a 
position dramatically different.
  The problem with that is that we then find the will of the majority--
a majority of the House and Senate--thwarted. Our concept of democracy, 
representative democracy, is based on the will of the majority 
prevailing. Yet, we find a very specific instance here where, instead 
of prevailing, we find that the wishes of the majority were thwarted. 
It comes on a very sensitive issue. It comes on an issue in which there 
are strong feelings on both sides. All of us appreciate it. But I think 
it is fair and reasonable to observe that the members of the conference 
committee felt differently about the issue than the Members of the 
body.
  The real question that we have to face today and resolve is whether 
or not people who are appointed to the conference committee can simply 
ignore the expressed and voted-upon wishes of the majority--not just 
the wishes of the majority of the people of this country; incidentally, 
I think the people of this country support the Helms amendment in a 
clear fashion--but the majority of their elected representatives. Most 
State legislatures do not have this problem. When I say that, I deal 
with rules, and I think the rules are important here.
  The rules for most State legislatures provide that a conference 
committee may not go beyond the scope of the differences between the 
two bills. We, of course, have provisions that speak to that phenomenon 
in our rules both in the Senate and the House. Our rules are somewhat 
different than most States.
  What we have talked about--going beyond the scope of the 
differences--in the Senate and the House and the rules our conference 
committee seemed to operate under, is if a measure is raised and there 
is no difference between the position of the House and Senate as 
expressed in their votes, the conference committee still feels free to 
go beyond the scope of the differences of what has been expressed. In 
other words, as long as they address the subject, the feeling is that 
they can do, in some cases, the opposite of the expressed will of the 
majority. That is clearly not in line with the rules of most 
legislative bodies or with the concept of democracy, which requires 
legislative bodies to respond to the will of the majority.
  In effect, what we have are rules that allow conference committees to 
disregard the expressed will of the majority. We allow them to write 
new legislation in conference committee. We allow them to express ideas 
and bring to the floor legislation. This problem is compounded by 
another phenomenon that the rules of this Chamber and that of the 
House; that is, the provisions that preclude members of the conference 
committee from developing a minority report, a report that is favored 
by less than a majority of that conference committee.
  Why is that significant? It is significant because if a minority 
report is put out that is properly before the House and Senate with the 
conference committee reports than the various Chambers have the ability 
then to reassert the will of the majority. This dispute could easily 
have been resolved if simple votes had been allowed or had been in 
order to let the majority reassert its preference.
  In the State legislatures--not all, but most--they allow a minority 
report from the conference committee. It is a safeguard from a runaway 
conference committee that disregards the will of the majority. If a 
conference committee does not reflect the feelings of the majority of 
either house and does so in the reports they prepare, a minority of 
that conference committee can indeed write a minority report, and that 
is available to the various houses to express their preferences. That 
is the way it works in most legislative bodies. They are designed to 
make sure that the will of the majority prevails, and our concept of 
democratic leadership is not thwarted.
  Such is not the case with our rules. In the case of our rules, it 
allows people to go beyond the scope of the real differences in the 
conference committee, even though we use terminology that suggests they 
should stay within it. It allows them to draft legislation that is 
opposite to the wishes of the majority as expressed in votes on the 
floors of the House and the Senate. And then it allows them to preclude 
the will of the majority, to come before the various houses in the form 
of a minority report.
  Our rules not only thwart the majority sentiments expressed in the 
House and Senate, but they thwart the ability to even raise it properly 
as an alternative conference report. It thus allows the leadership of 
the bodies, if they wish, to send people to conference committees who 
do not represent the feelings of this body or of the House of 
Representatives. It further allows that conference committee to vote in 
legislation in the conference report that is not representative of the 
bodies. It further allows them to deny the majority an alternative 
conference report in which to express their wishes.
  Some will say, ``That is the way the rules work. That is the way the 
ball game is played.'' Madam President, let us not pretend that it is 
fair. Let us not pretend that it is the way democracy is meant to work 
in this country. It is an aberration, a way to thwart the will of the 
majority. It is a way to deny fair democratic process. That is why we 
find ourselves in the late afternoon and evening talking about a 
measure that ought to be simply resolved by votes. It is why the Senate 
finds itself held over in this circumstance, and it is why feelings run 
so deep.
  On the one hand, the determined majority feels they ought to have an 
opportunity to express their feelings, and a determined minority that 
controls the process through the appointment in conference committees 
and an aberration of rules that allow unrepresentative conference 
reports to come forward. If this is the only time it happened, perhaps 
you would not have this strong reaction of people suggesting that we 
stay in session until midnight, or a little beyond, and debate the 
issue. I suspect there are not the votes to overturn the conference 
report. I suspect most legislators want to call it a day and head home.
  But the principle is at stake here. It is much more important than 
simply myself, or the distinguished Presiding Officer, or other Members 
of this Chamber. The principle goes to the very thought and core of 
democracy. It goes to the aberration, and I think the problems is 
inherent in the rules. It goes to the ability of the leadership of this 
Chamber and the other Chamber to thwart the will of the majority.
  Madam President, some could say: Senator, when Republicans have held 
this Chamber, or the Chamber of the House, there were times when their 
leadership used every tool at their command to thwart the will of the 
majority. It would be a fair observation and a correct one. Both 
parties in the past have, at times, used the rules to their advantage 
and used the rules to thwart the will of the majority. Perhaps we are 
dealing with human nature, but that does not make it right. They, in 
turn, have had to answer to the American people, just as those who 
would thwart the will of the majority here will have to answer to the 
American people.
  The real issue is not just prayer at school. The real issue is 
whether or not this is a democratic body that honors the obligations it 
has to people in the country.
  It is whether conference reports honor the obligation they have to 
represent the Chamber. No one suggests that we ought to do away with 
the concept of conference committees, but what we do suggest is that 
when there is a clear vote on this subject the conferees from that 
Chamber should respond to it and should honor it and not simply 
disregard it.
  Also, I think it is a crying need for us to follow the examples of 
most of our States in this Nation and allow minority reports from 
conference committees to come forth before the bodies. I see it in 
regard to many, many other issues, not just prayer in school.
  One of the early lessons I found was on appropriation bills where one 
Chamber would come within budget, spending $9 billion, and another 
Chamber would come forth with a bill spending $8 billion and a budget 
and conference committee would come back with a report to spend $12 
billion or $13 billion, far beyond the scope of the differences, the 
scope of the differences between $8 billion and $9 billion. The 
compromise, of course, was just to accept the spending proposals in 
both Houses.
  Who lost? The taxpayers. It was an aberration of the rules, I think 
unfair rules if one were to look at it, to ignore the real scope of the 
difference and say, look, we all talked about these; therefore, they 
are able to be legislated and we will not only take all the programs of 
both Chambers but break the budget in the process.
  That phenomenon is repeated over and over and over and over again, 
and the losers have been the American people. The losers have been the 
American people who end up footing the bill.
  It is part and parcel of that phenomenon of the rules as to how this 
Nation has simply fallen deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. The 
chart on my right tells the chilling story. It has simply a depiction 
of the red ink that the taxpayers of this country are responsible for. 
It is passed on to their children and to their grandchildren and to 
generations beyond.
  It tells several, I think, important things. It tells of an 
abandonment of the principles of watching the budget and being careful 
with the taxpayers' money. But it tells more than that. By an alarming 
explosion in terms of spending we have seen an explosion in terms of 
deficits. The numbers depicted are nothing more than the amount we owe. 
They are straight dollar numbers. They use estimates for fiscal 1995.
  Madam President, let me observe that at least from my experience the 
numbers here for 1995 underestimate the debt that we will have. They do 
not overestimate it. The balance of the chart are actual figures, other 
than the estimates for the last 2 years.
  They tell the story of a burden imposed on the working men and women 
of this country that make it more and more difficult for us to compete 
in world markets, make it more and more difficult to prepare for the 
future of our children and our future generations and leave a lasting 
legacy of debt. And who is responsible?
  In the process we have had people point fingers at everyone else, but 
the reality is this Congress over those years in question that this 
Congress has repeatedly voted to exceed budgets.
  I want to be specific about that because some have implied that the 
President of the United States was the one who was responsible for 
these huge deficits. Let me acknowledge that the President does indeed 
possess the right to veto legislation, but tragically we have not 
acknowledged the ability to use a line-item veto. I for one believe a 
line-item veto is implied in the Constitution.
  Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has done an exhaustive, and I 
think very thoughtful, work on that subject. He has not only sponsored 
a constitutional amendment to deal with that subject but his legal 
research points out that a line-item veto is implicit within the 
Constitution itself. I commend Senator Specter's legal work in that 
regard for anyone who is interested in that subject. I might simply 
observe this. The Constitution of the United States mandates a 
President veto measures with which he or she may not agree. It also 
mandates that the President has a responsibility to keep this country 
running and moving forward.
  What has happened through many of these years where the debt has 
exploded is that we have had a President faced with a continuing 
resolution that includes almost all of the spending oftentimes in the 
discretionary category. The President is virtually put in the position 
of shutting down the entire Government of the country as well as 
defense or in the alternative signing the bill for which he or she may 
not agree.
  That is not within the scope of what the Constitution provided. The 
Constitution mandates--``shall'' is the word, mandatory language, that 
he veto those measures. Yet if they veto those measures they violate 
other mandates from the Constitution.
  The debate over a line-item veto will await another day, but the 
results of conference committees ignoring the issues of the various 
bodies and coming in with reports that are clearly beyond the scope of 
the difference of the various bodies, even though we interpret the 
meaning of beyond the differences differently, the result of that has 
been disastrous. It is not simply meant to thwart voluntary prayer in 
school. It has thwarted the financial obligation of this country and 
the ability to try to deal with it.
  I want to go through some numbers. I hope they will be meaningful to 
the Members of this Chamber as we go through them, because they involve 
a variety of Presidencies and they involve a variety of actions by this 
Congress.
  In 1981, President Carter submitted a budget to Congress of a $34 
billion deficit. Congress when it got through with that budget, gave us 
a deficit of $79 billion, a full $44 billion more than what the 
President had recommended.
  In fiscal 1982, President Carter submitted a budget recommending the 
deficit of $46 billion, but Congress ended up appropriating, taxing to 
a deficit of $128 billion.
  In 1983, President Reagan submitted a budget recommending the deficit 
of $107 billion, but a reluctant Congress gave him a deficit of almost 
twice that much, $208 billion.
  In 1984, President Reagan recommended a deficit of $203 billion, and 
it came in a little bit less in actual terms, a remarkable achievement 
primarily attributed to the remarkable turnaround. What is interesting 
to note, though, in that 1984 budget is that much of it was due not to 
control of spending in Congress, but to changes in economic assumptions 
resulting from the dramatic turnaround of the economy. Some attributed 
that turnaround to the Federal budget deficits resulting from changes 
in the Tax Code.
  But the pattern quickly went back to the same as the years went 
forward.
  In 1985 the President recommended a budget deficit of $195 billion, 
and Congress came in with one of $212 billion.
  In 1986, the President recommended a deficit of $180 billion, and the 
Congress gave the President a deficit of $221 billion.
  In 1987, the President recommended $144 billion, and Congress gave 
him a deficit of $150 billion.
  In 1988, the President recommended a deficit of $108 billion. 
Congress gave him a deficit of $155 billion.
  In 1989, the President recommended a deficit of $130 billion. 
Congress gave him a deficit of $153 billion.
  In 1990, President Bush recommended a deficit of $91 billion. The 
Congress turned around with a deficit of $220 billion.
  In 1991, President Bush recommended a deficit of $63 billion. 
Congress returned a deficit of $269 billion.
  In 1992, President Bush recommended a deficit of $281 billion. 
Congress gave him $333 billion.
  One may hope that this will turn around in the years ahead. My guess 
is in some years it will. But what is strange through all these years--
through President Carter, President Bush, President Reagan--is that 
Congress itself violated its own budgets. Congress itself ended up 
spending more money, or at least having higher deficits, than the 
Congress itself had called for in their own budgets.
  One may quarrel, as I did, with the budget recommendations of 
President Reagan and President Bush, but this Congress violated and 
exceeded, in terms of the deficit, not only the budget deficits 
recommended by the President, but the Congress violated its own 
budgets.
  This flood of red ink did not happen by chance. It happened because 
Congress ignored its own budgets. And it was not just economic 
assumptions. It was a process of declaring emergencies when none 
existed. It was a process of finding loopholes and ignoring the budgets 
that were there. It was a process that saw Congress vote $20 billion a 
year in spending, on the average, more than what it had called for in 
its own budgets.
  One can understand how a Democratic majority in Congress might 
disagree with the President of a different party. But it is hard to 
understand how a Congress would exceed its own budget by an average of 
$20 billion, and yet that is what indeed has happened over the last 15 
years. Congress exceeded the deficits recommended by not only the 
Presidents but by Congress' own action itself.
  Little surprise then that the integrity of the budget process has 
been called into question. Little surprise that we face an ever-dimmer 
economic future as the actions we have taken seem to swallow up the 
potential growth in the economy.
  Americans are well aware of those problems, have seen the growth of 
per capita GDP slow, have seen the growth in productivity slow, and 
have seen the savings in our country drop from a country which, through 
much of its history, led the world in terms of the portion of gross 
domestic product, that was committed to saving and reinvesting in a 
country, to a place where we are now a little bit above 4 percent of 
GDP, to a place where that represents the lowest portion of GDP savings 
and reinvestment of any major industrialized country in the world. 
Well, that is right. We are the lowest; not the highest as we once 
were, but the lowest.
  And if one looks for responsibility, one need look no further than 
this Capitol. The Tax Code that has been designed is one that 
discourages savings, one that penalizes savings, one that discourages 
both the affluent and the poor from preparing for their future. Oh, 
yes, it is done with good phrases. Yes, it is done with what blessings 
we are bestowing on the people by spending their money. Yes, it is done 
in the name of equalizing the Tax Code, and a variety of others.
  But the reality is that the penalties this Congress has put in the 
Tax Code have acted as a giant disincentive for Americans planning and 
preparing for the future. What perhaps was good politics, was bad 
policy. As a reality, we need to give people incentive. The vibrancy, 
the strength of this country, comes from the individual, from the 
bottom up, not from Government down.
  As we preclude the private sector's ability to plan and prepare and 
save, we diminish our own country's future and we slow the rate of 
growth of what could be Federal revenue to deal with the problem. That 
is why we need a change of policy.
  This issue goes far beyond anything that we might wish to talk about 
with regard to school goals. School goals are but one aspect of this. 
It is one that is important and one that we ought to move on, but it is 
not one that we can afford to violate rules and fair play and good 
common sense.
  We ought to be ones that are willing to let the rules work. We ought 
to be ones that will let the majority will prevail.
  As the American people listen in, they will wonder how it is, as we 
attempt to set goals for our school children across the land, that we 
would do it through a mechanism that denies a majority the right to 
make their feelings heard, that denies a majority, clearly expressed 
and voiced in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, from 
becoming the law of this land.
  How can we pretend to set goals for this Nation and at the same time 
deny the school children of this country an example of what fair play 
is all about?
  The day may well be won by those who control the mechanisms, the day 
may well be won by those who have a different view than Senator Helms 
does with regard to school prayer. But perhaps as important or more 
important than that issue, is devising a set of rules that guarantees 
the people and the citizens of this country that they will have a fair 
shot at having their will expressed in Congress; that they will have a 
fair shot of seeing their wishes come into law.
  I pointed out just one example of the process that we are suffering 
from. This flood of red ink is ominous, not simply because we have to 
pay the debt and we have to pay the interest on this debt. It is 
ominous because it represents a pattern of behavior in this Chamber and 
the House of Representatives that indicates we are unwilling to face up 
to our responsibility, that we are unwilling to set priorities.
  The budget resolution that we have acted to approve sets long-term 
projections, as well, not just for next year that we focus on, but for 
the following years. What has not, I believe, been clearly enunciated 
to the American people is that that budget that passed was not only a 
long-term plan for spending and revenue for this country--while it 
provided a small decrease in the coming years in terms of the deficit, 
primarily because of renewed economic activity--but that the long-term 
plan it encompassed over the 5 years, and the forecasts that were 
included by reference for a longer period up to 10 years, shows the 
deficit not just dropping in the near term but going back up 
dramatically.
  What it was, was a long-term plan for the bankruptcy of this Nation. 
We need a better long-term plan. We need a stronger commitment, a 
stronger commitment by this body to reflect the will and the 
determination of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The Chair recognizes Senator Burns 
from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my colleague from Colorado. As we take up this 
health care issue this year, I think most of us who have been involved 
in a task force for the last 3 years, trying to answer some of the 
questions on maybe what Government could do with respect to health 
care, find it is a much more complex problem than once we had thought, 
when we delve into some issues.
  Although I have a daughter in med school, that is about as close to 
the medical profession as I have chosen to be in my lifetime. I spent 
most of my life in agriculture and the business of feeding and clothing 
this Nation. So we all had to go through the pains of coming up to 
speed on an issue that we really were not fluent in.
  After going through the exercise of the budget resolution again, we 
have noticed how many different ideas and versions, or directions, I 
might say, that different people have when it comes to setting the 
direction of a Government and its spending. I wonder if we had a system 
that was Government run, how much more difficult it would be again. We 
are talking about between 7 and 14 percent of the GDP of this country.
  I hope the American people will understand really how difficult an 
issue this is to confront. I congratulate the President for stepping 
forward, stepping up to bat on this issue. Sure there are areas on 
which we disagree, but we also disagree with the status quo. We have to 
look into this situation from a budgetary and monetary standpoint, 
because we find with current dollars we just cannot stretch them far 
enough.
  There is no plan that has surfaced yet that is like a big broom or 
big sweeper that encompasses everybody. There are some folks in this 
country who just cannot, and some who will not, be covered with an 
insurance plan. We hear the figure of 37 million people who do not have 
insurance. I would have to agree with that. During the year, at some 
time or another, there are people always without insurance, who are 
between jobs and this type thing. But most of those people are people 
who have chosen the option not to be covered under insurance. They are 
making payments on a home, saving for a new home, wanting a new 
automobile--many things. Family gets in the way.
  I can remember when I was in my twenties, I did not have any health 
insurance. I really did not give it much thought. I knew I was as smart 
as a busload of county agents and had a bulletproof brain. I was 
invincible. I would never get hurt, never get sick.
  So you have that attitude among some of those folks who were not 
covered by insurance. But if we could logically look at what we really 
need to do and fix those things we can fix, and build on the system we 
now have, we can have a health care plan by the end of the year--or by 
the end of this Congress.
  Insurance reform? Yes. If you fix preexisting conditions, then we 
have fixed portability or job lock. Insurance people say they are ready 
to come to the table and talk about those issues: ready to talk about 
administration, paperwork, some things that have to be done in that 
respect; ready to talk about tort reform. I have not talked to one 
physician who has not said that is a big part of his operating expense, 
malpractice insurance--liability. So we can fix those areas.
  We can also deal with rural health and inner-city health-care 
problems, problems of the underserved areas, through taxes. Take my 
State of Montana, where we have quite a lot of dirt between light 
bulbs. We have a hard time attracting physicians to rural areas. We 
have 148,000 square miles and only 800,000 people. It does not give one 
a great base for investment in education to pay back the student loans 
it took to get through med school, let alone with a willing heart to 
serve in rural areas, especially in the medical field. So we have to 
give them some incentives to do that, and I think that is possible here 
in this Congress.
  So, that debate goes on. Yet it is linked really with the debate we 
had today with regard to health care, because how much more of a 
struggle will it be to talk about budget reconciliation with another 
big program on the books that has to be funded? Reform does have 
something to do with the budget and income available to this 
Government.
  In States where there is an absence of large holdings, Government 
holdings of public lands, it is hard to understand rangeland reform. 
Some would put it in the context of the environment. Some would put it 
in the context of subsidies. But in those States where there are large 
holdings of Government land, they regard it as a culture, a way of 
life.
  The Secretary of the Interior has proposed some ranchland reforms 
that so far have not been met with much pleasure by those who run 
grazing on public lands or who mine public lands. Nonetheless some 
reform is due. Some would like to frame the argument in the area of 
grazing fees, forgetting that there are other areas that need to be 
addressed, not just fees. So we have some major concerns.
  When the Secretary of the Interior came out with his draft outline he 
released it on Saint Patrick's day. I thought he was confused, because 
after I looked through it, it looked more like April Fools' Day.
  There are some areas of concern, when you take a look at those 
reforms. Today, the actual language was to be released. I have not 
received it yet, but I imagine I will in due time. But there are some 
areas of major concern about those who are in charge of taking care of 
the public lands, like advisory councils. This is in the area of 
grazing. Each district has an advisory council and the makeup of those 
councils is usually people who are in the community, who live in the 
community, and are also users of that grazing.
  The Secretary has proposed to change the makeup of those advisory 
councils, calling for a little broader mix of representation, of 
different interests on those public lands. We like local authority; we 
like local options with most of the decisions being made at the local 
level. That usually works best. I was a product of local government, 
county government. I was a Commissioner before being elected to the 
U.S. Senate. I have found that government closest to the people is 
usually better for the people. It is more accessible, with options and 
flexibility to move with the seasons.
  In the northern high plains of Montana where weather conditions have 
more to do with making a profit than anything else, Mother Nature, 
every now and then, can rear her head. We are just coming out of a 7-
year drought. For that to happen, an area does not have to have a great 
decrease in rain, especially in our part of the country where the 
average rainfall, including the snow in winter, is only 14 inches a 
year. So water and moisture become a very, very important thing.
  But the local advisory councils call for local people to serve on the 
council with the exception of the so-called environmental groups. They 
are given the ability to serve on a council when they may not even live 
in the neighborhood. They may not even live in the State. They may live 
somewhere else and serve on an advisory council in such far away places 
as Garfield County, or Jordan, MT.
  Understanding of the range is quite a feat in itself. Back in 1980, 
we started a thing called Montana Range Days. I helped finance that, 
and it attracted some 400 people all the way from age 7 up through 
adults. It was a 3-day range science adventure, teaching not only about 
plants but also water quality, water conservation, lay of the land, 
carrying capacity, and also the effects of drought and, yes, too much 
rain in that fragile land. That is a very, very fragile part of the 
country.
  So you study that for 3 days. We sort of become experts in the 
business of running livestock on public lands but also knowing that we 
are the caretakers of that public land.
  So the makeup of that advisory council is very important. Are they 
people who really understand range and how it serves that community and 
how it serves us as a society? Those who use and those who live there 
usually make the right decisions when it comes to the caretaking of 
that land.
  The other concern we have with the proposed reform is the process for 
setting standards and guidelines. In other words, standards and 
guidelines could be set in Washington, DC; it could be set in Kansas 
City; it could be set in Denver. But those standards and guidelines 
will be based supposedly on science.
  If we have seen anything in the management of our public lands, it is 
that we are attracting young people into the science of range 
management, and, yes, I would also have to say in forestry, people who 
have very little background in the actual business of growing things. 
They went to school and they read it in a book and what the book says, 
this is the way it is going to be.
  The books are not always right. They do not necessarily fit the 
conditions. You have to be flexible, understanding the relationship of 
range soil and sunlight.
  So when we talk about setting standards and guidelines, do we want 
those decisions being made here or should those decisions be made upon 
the land? It would be awfully hard to make whatever kind of a farm or 
ranch produce if the decisions were not made on that farm or ranch. 
There are not two alike.
  I was raised on a small farm in northwest Missouri. My father made 
160 acres of two rocks and one dirt produce, made us all a living, fed 
us pretty good. It did not make a lot of money, but it kept us fed.
  I can remember back in the seventies when that farm was sold to 
another man, and he had to start the experience all over again of 
really learning the personality and the makeup of that farm to make it 
produce because he changed some things and some of them did not work--
not like my father made it work, anyway.
  We have seen that happen in business when sons inherit a business and 
they change it from the way dad ran it and then it did not run very 
good.
  So setting standards and guidelines away from somewhere else does not 
always work or you do not always get the maximum production from that 
particular piece of land.
  Another area of concern: the level of fees and details in the 
incentive package. What has been proposed is a new fee level, which 
some would debate, and some economists who live in the country would 
choose to debate that. But also there is proposed an incentive system; 
that is, you would be rewarded with lower grazing fees if you comply 
with the standards and guidelines or you are a good caretaker of that 
property.
  I see no problem with that, except the fact that it takes a long time 
to prove that your incentive package has worked. We cannot change 
management of any piece of property, and when you are growing a crop, 
you cannot change it willy-nilly at any time of the year. They say that 
a farmer plows with faith and seeds and hope and reaps with charity. 
But during that growing season, you cannot change your plans. So we 
would have to see not only the level of fees, but we would have to take 
a look at the incentive package, because is it a viable option to a 
producer?
  With these public lands and with the lease, certain things were 
expected of the lessee: water development, fences, some kind of roads, 
maintenance of reservoirs, pipelines, the way we spread our mineral, 
the way we scatter our livestock so it does not overgraze in one area 
and another area is left to grow up.
  In order to do those things, we have to put some sort of improvements 
on there. Remember that when you lease this property, you just get the 
property, you do not get anything with it. Uncle Sam expects you to put 
all those improvements on there. Corrals, yes; a way to move livestock, 
yes. All of those things are paid for by the person who is leasing that 
property.
  Right now they are saying that in this rangeland reform that once a 
lease changes hands, the improvements on that property go to the 
Government. Well, that is not very fair. The Government did not pay for 
putting it there. So how can they assume ownership?
  The most contentious issue in the whole reform is how water language 
is drafted. When you live in a part of the world where there is not 
very much water and the demands for that water are great, there comes a 
lot of discussion on who owns it, who controls it, who pays for it and 
who develops it.
  It has been said that if you want to change the culture of the West, 
you control the finances and you also control the water.
  A long time ago, when I first drifted into Montana, I took a look at 
the streams, the headwaters of the mighty Missouri River, and I said 
back then that before I am departed from this Earth that water would be 
Montana's greatest resource, fresh, pure water.
  We have worked awfully hard for the last 100 years to maintain that 
great resource in that State, the Yellowstone River, being the longest 
free-flowing river without any dams. It just flows out of Yellowstone 
Park, across the southern borders of Montana, and dumps into the mighty 
Missouri at Williston, ND. We think it is pretty special.
  We think that all the resources around it that evolves in that water 
are probably the lifeblood of the West. And so we get pretty jealous. 
It was said at one time that the West would rather be at the head of 
the ditch than at the head of the church, and that is true when we 
start talking about water rights, water development, and water 
conservation.
  I do not think there is a representative in this body or the body 
across the way in the House of Representatives that represents a 
constituency in the semiarid country of the West that really does not 
understand that.
  I would say that whenever you start talking about controlling the 
finances and then controlling the water--a long time ago there was an 
old fellow Montanan who taught me that you do not give the Government 
the rights to the water. That has to go with the land. It has to stay 
with the land because a tyrant can make as good a use of water as he 
can with arms.
  So we get pretty touchy and concerned when we start talking about 
water and how that water language is drafted.
  Before it is all over, and maybe even before the turn of the century, 
those States that do not have great holdings of public lands, and, yes, 
have conditioned themselves to depend upon the rains that fall--they do 
not get too concerned about water, but they will because the population 
will at one time demand a better source of water because it is the 
lifeblood of this society.
  As those rangeland reforms come down, we must make America aware not 
only of the cultural part of this issue but also what it means to every 
American and our ability to feed and clothe ourselves, and, yes, 
produce that material that produces shelter for this great country.
  The second thing we do every day--I have a colleague in the Chamber 
who understands that--the second thing we do every day is we eat, and 
we eat pretty good, and it is done by the ingenuity of our great 
American agriculture, those who produce not only for themselves but 
around 125 other people around the world. He is a producer.
  We talked about a budget. Everybody wanted to know how to save money. 
It might not really surprise you that in our part of the country they 
want to reintroduce the wolf. It is a nice animal but not too nice a 
neighbor to a stockman, however. But for Americans, they should know 
that we offered to give Canada $6 million to buy some of their wolves 
to bring them down here and put them in our Yellowstone Park.
  If they stay in the park, I have no problems with that. However, I 
find that those rascals do not read those signs very well. But $6 
million? Six million dollars to spend on wolves to bring them down here 
when we already have them and there is a natural migration of that gray 
wolf across the line. He does not understand the Canadian boundary and 
the United States boundary any better than he does a boundary in 
Yellowstone Park. I think we have that ironed out. It escapes me though 
why we would spend $6 million to do that. I think we would take that 
money and spend it in better places for the betterment of this society.
  On the other hand, we are going into an area now called the natural 
biological survey which is going full steam ahead and has not even been 
authorized by law. I think Americans should know about that. And they 
wonder why we get excited about the wastefulness in our budgeting and 
trying to hold things in bounds. We do not set our priorities very 
well.
  Mr. President, I yield to my friend from South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Pressler].

                          ____________________