Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my privilege to honor a very special woman for her nearly 25 years of service with the Social Security Administration. Jan Soelter was raised in Billings, MT, and was a Billings Senior High School graduate. Jan furthered her education at Eastern Montana College, now MSU-Billings, and graduated with honors, obtaining a combination of degrees with a major in psychology and a minor in art. Ms. Soelter was hired as a Service Representative at the Billings Social Security Administration in January of 1980. She was rapidly promoted to data review technician in 1981, claims representative in Bozeman, MT, in 1982, and transferred back to Billings as a field representative in 1985. Jan found her true calling when she was promoted, in 2002, to her present position as public affairs specialist. Ms. Soelter served on the Board of Directors: in the early 1970's for the Billings Multiple Sclerosis Society, Helping Hands from 1991 through 1993, and from 1994 to 2000 for the Billings Community Center. Jan has participated in local, regional and national workshops and conferences. She has also received many local, regional, and national awards and recognition for her employment with the Social Security Administration. When Jan Soelter retired on December 31, 2004, we lost a very dedicated and caring public servant. She is an inspiration to us all, and a tireless worker for the cause of Senior Citizens. I have personal knowledge of Jan's dedication, drive and commitment, not only to her profession, but more importantly to the people she worked with, and the citizens she worked for. Thank you, Jan, for your service to our country.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my privilege to honor a very special man for his 43\1/2\ years of service with the Social Security Administration. Mr. Orland Bergene was raised in Circle, MT, graduating from Circle High School in 1955. He graduated in 1960, with a degree in Business Administration, from Rocky Mountain College in Billings, MT. Mr. Bergene and his wife, Judy, were married in 1965 and have two children, Steven and Jana. Mr. Bergene has helped citizens obtain disability benefits and information through the Social Security Administration, by beginning his career as a Claims Representative in Billings, MT, in June 1961. Realizing his potential, Orland was promoted to Field Representative in 1965, Operations Supervisor in Grand Forks, ND, in 1971, and Staff Officer at the Denver Regional Office in 1973. Mr. Bergen was selected for the Staff Development Program in January of 1975 and became the Public Affairs Assistant in the Regional Office in Denver, CO, in August of that same year. He moved to Pueblo, CO, in 1978 as Assistant District Manager and was reassigned as branch manager in LaJunta, CO, in January of 1993. Orland served on a variety of details in the Denver regional office and the Colorado Disability Determination Services, until being reassigned in January 1994 and coming home to Montana to his present position as district manager in the Social Security Administration's Billings District Office, as their district manager. When Mr. Bergene retired January 3, 2005, we lost a very dedicated and caring public servant. He is an inspiration to us all, and a great teacher to many who have worked for and with the Social Security Administration. I have personal knowledge of Orland's dedication, and commitment, not only to his profession, but more importantly to the people he worked with, and the citizens he worked for. Thank you, Orland, for your service to our country.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in today's Federal Register, the United States Department of Agriculture has published a final rule that could have significant adverse impacts on our domestic cattle industry. The regulation I am referring to designates Canada as a ``minimal risk region'' for BSE, known as mad cow disease, and allows Canada to export more beef and beef products to the United States. I understand the desire of the administration to work with Canada, and I know how frustrated Canadian cattlemen are with the current situation. It is the same frustration my Montana cattlemen feel, as they watch Australia and New Zealand expand market share in the Pacific Rim, while those markets remain closed off to the U.S. But this rule has some significant problems, and to the extent that those flaws could harm domestic consumer confidence and the reopening of international markets, I'm not going to support the administration's decision to open the U.S.-Canadian border to increased Canadian exports. As I am sure everyone recalls, in May 2003, Canada discovered a case of BSE in Alberta. To protect the safety of America's food supply, USDA banned all imports of Canadian beef. In December of that same year, a Canadian-born dairy cow in Washington State with BSE was discovered and so we have the cow that stole Christmas. Important export markets around the world closed their doors to U.S. beef, the highest quality beef in the world. USDA then instituted a rapid screening pilot program to test random cattle samples for BSE. To date, the United States thankfully has never had a case of BSE in a U.S.-born cow. Since BSE jumped to the forefront of the cattle industry in 2003, USDA has been working with other nations, such as Japan and Korea, to reopen markets to U.S. beef. In October 2004, Japan agreed in principle to begin accepting U.S. beef and beef products from cattle under 20 months of age. While that agreement represents an important step forward, exports have not yet started because of scientific and technical obstacles. I remain optimistic that exports will begin this spring, and would be very concerned about any decisions that could jeopardize our relationship with Japan. In addition to negotiating the resumption of U.S. exports, USDA has also been working with Canada to resume imports of Canadian beef. USDA began accepting Canadian boneless beef from cattle under 30 months of age in August 2003. In October 2003, USDA first proposed designating Canada as a minimal risk region, but after the December 2003 discovery of BSE, the rule was delayed. With the exception of a few incidents, that trade has generally been uneventful, and has had little impact on U.S. cattle prices. Most importantly, consumer confidence in the food supply remains strong. But today I fear USDA has gone too far. The rule published in today's Federal Register, which takes effect on March 7, will allow Canada to export to the United States live cattle under 30 months of age for feeding or immediate slaughter; sheep and goats under 12 months of age for feeding or immediate slaughter; meat from cattle, sheep, goats and cervids--deer, elk, caribou, moose and reindeer; and certain other products and byproducts, including bovine livers and tongues, gelatin, and tallow. Feeder cattle must be branded to indicate country of origin, must have an eartag so we can trace back to the premises of origin, and must be slaughtered before reaching 30 months of age. The identification requirements must be preserved only to the point of slaughter, not carried through to the retail level. Cattle designed for immediate slaughter must move as a group in a sealed container to the facility and must be slaughtered as a group. As I said, this regulation has some significant problems, most notably, Canada's enforcement of its feed ban and the decision to allow beef and beef products from cattle slaughtered at any age. USDA needs to withdraw this rule now and fix these problems. USDA asserts that Canada has high levels of compliance with its feed ban, but fails to provide the hard data that supports that finding. In fact, USDA's own risk assessment states that in 2002, 8 percent of feed mills were not in compliance with the feed ban. This indicates that feed contamination is a recent issue, rather than a concern taken care of years ago. Even more surprisingly, the risk analysis states that the fact that no cases of BSE have been found in animals born after the feed ban is evidence that the feed ban is working. USDA claims that this rule is based only on science, but that is hardly a scientific assessment. It could just as likely be evidence that Canada is not testing enough samples in its rapid screening process. Montana ranchers are not going to rest easy based on these findings. On Dec. 17, the Vancouver Sun ran an article indicating that nearly 60 percent of Canadian feed contains ``undeclared animal parts'', but that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, decided not to use DNA testing to determine if the feed is contaminated with cattle materials. While the presence of animal parts does not necessarily indicate feed ban violations, Canada should be willing to take necessary steps to reassure the United States, as well as its own cattle producers, that the feed is not contaminated. Failing to act represents a lack of commitment to enforcing the feed ban, in contrast to the effectiveness that USDA is willing to presume. Industry sources quoted in that article expressed concern about conflicting messages from CFIA, yet USDA seems quite willing to rely on CFIA representations for its scientific assessments. Similarly, the decision to allow beef and beef products from cattle slaughtered at any age is troubling. These products are likely to contain animals born before Canada's 7-year feed ban. While USDA seems certain that Canada can safeguard against contaminated beef, the rule provides little evidence to support that claim. In fact, USDA clearly admits that beef products could contain animals that have consumed contaminated feed, but brushes off the risk as ``low.'' Let me repeat-- I am certain of the safety of the U.S. food supply. However, I remain concerned that USDA has not fully evaluated the impact on consumer confidence of resuming Canadian imports. In its risk assessments, USDA seems most focused on preventing a BSE epidemic. A look at the past year shows that just one case--even the suspicion of a case--can throw the cattle markets into a tailspin. One single, non-native occurrence of BSE in the United States resulted in dozens of export markets closing to U.S. cattle producers. The economic and psychological impact of BSE needs to factor into USDA's analysis. Cattlemen need to be able to trust their markets, and consumers need to be able to trust their food. If exports to Japan have not resumed by March, then Montana ranchers will be in the unacceptable position of having to compete domestically against Canadian beef flowing through three Montana ports without having the option of exporting our products to other markets. In fact, given concerns already expressed by key export markets about Canadian beef, the decision to allow expanded Canadian imports could prevent those same markets from accepting U.S. beef. I cannot accept this outcome. I have often said that I support free trade, as long as it is fair trade. Right now, the situation facing Montana cattle producers is anything but fair. I urge USDA to reconsider some of the provisions of this regulation, to ensure that Canadian beef coming into the U.S. does not adversely impact the domestic cattle industry. There must be independent assessments of Canada's enforcement of its food ban. The 30-month limitation on beef and beef products deserves another look. Like many folks back home, I am anxious for the Japanese market to reopen and do not want anything to stand in the way. We must do what's right for the U.S. cattle industry first.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his question and commend his State for its leadership on E-911 issues. It is not our intent to give any less priority in grant eligibility and funding to States like Tennessee that have made substantial progress in wireless E-911 deployment. We recognize that once a State or local government achieves E-911 service, other challenges and needs exist such as those pointed out by the Senator. So that was not our intent in the crafting of the ``grants'' provision.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate what Senator Nelson had to say, also, on this legislation. This Congress should not go sine die without passing these three pieces of legislation. All three of them are very important. In fact, I would say the E-911, the enhanced 911 bill, is probably the most glaring public safety legislation we have worked on in many years. One would think this legislation that says we are going to take the money that is collected and it has to be spent in our PSAPS--in other words, our communications centers--to upgrade their technology, so that when a 9-1-1 call comes in from a cell phone we can locate the caller. We have that in wired lines, but we do not have it so much in wireless phones. I think it is time that we do that. This is a great piece of public safety legislation, and we have been working on it for about 4 years. One would think that would be a no- brainer. It took us long enough to pass legislation to make a 9-1-1 call go into the nearest first responder. It used to be if one was out of their home territory and their phone was in roam, they could dial 9- 1-1 and they were apt to get the 600 Cafe in Miles City, MT. That does not do one a lot of good when they are on the outskirts of Tallahassee, FL. It did not know where to go, and now it does. So we think this is very important legislation. The E-911 caucus was established by folks who work in public safety and public communications every day. We keep hearing what we should be doing about our communications systems in our cities, but how does a fire department communicate with the police department, with the highway patrol, and with the Federal agencies? Well, not very good. We have the technology there for them to do it, and folks want to do it. The only thing we lack is the funds. This says take those funds that are collected--when we all pay our phone bill, there is a little checkoff there around 50 cents that goes to emergency telephone technologies. Well, guess what. We sent the money to the States. The States balanced their budgets, but they did not spend the money upgrading their communications centers. We think that is just terrible. That is why this legislation needs passing. There is no objection to it. It has passed this body. It has passed the House of Representatives. Now, for those who do not think they have a dog in this fight and they live in a rural area, take a look at another part of it, which is the Universal Service and Anti-Deficiency Act exemption. This money was collected in universal service for a specific purpose, and it should be used for a specific purpose. It is very simple to do the right thing and do it right now. What has happened is they have found some abuse, a little fraud, so across the country they shut down making their payments to every school and library on the E-rate. It affects over 70 cities and schools in my State alone. I come from Montana, and in eastern Montana we have a lot of dirt between light bulbs. It is expensive trying to bring the new technologies to smaller schools to upgrade their technologies to take advantage of distance learning. Sometimes it is telemedicine. We know that we have an aging population, a rural population. They are getting older every day. We have to administer our health care in a different way. This also affects that. Again, for this body and this Congress, this is an absolute no- brainer. I realize that these are not issues that are great, sexy issues that one will find above the fold in their newspaper, but this is very important at the community level and to the folks who have kids in schools in rural areas. It is important to the infrastructure from which they learn and receive goods, and most of all health care. Also, the spectrum relocation bill is in here, too--again, a no- brainer. What do we want? What do we hear from our first responders? We need spectrum. We need emergency spectrum. We need that spectrum so that we can deploy new technologies as broadband. Years ago, we used to hear a signal and we knew it was either television, a picture, a voice, or data. We could differentiate from the signal what it was. We are in a different kind of a world now. It does not make any difference if it is data, audio, video, whatever. It is all ones and zeros. It is all digital. So now we do not talk about what kind of a signal. We talk about bandwidth, bytes, megabytes, gigabytes. We talk about this ability to move information, no matter what it is, at the speed of light through fiberoptics and even our new wireless technologies. What do they say? We have to have spectrum. Even in my State of Montana, we can now take the computers that we see used by the clerk in this body, and with a little card in there, get on the Internet driving down the highway. It is not the fastest right now. It is around 56K, but these are the first steps to broadband wireless services that will be deployed in areas where it is very expensive to string a line. All three of these issues are wrapped together in this package that should be passed, and there is no issue that is important enough that can even stand up to the importance of these issues at the closing of or the eleventh hour of this Congress. Not one I can think of. And it is needed. Enhanced 911 services--we have already gone over that.

Mr. BURNS. I will yield.

Mr. BURNS. I tell my good friend from Florida that negotiations are currently underway.

Mr. BURNS. We are talking. I think we are going to get this resolved.

Mr. BURNS. I want to say something. The Senator from Florida has been working with my cochair. The cochair on the Internet caucus is Senator Clinton from New York. I will tell the Senator, the Senator from New York has just been an absolute champion on this because she understands upstate New York and she understands her rural areas. She doesn't just understand downtown New York. That might be the political base but, nonetheless, when she was elected as a Senator she all at once realized, and came to me and said: I have a rural area that I have to serve. She has been very diligent. She has worked very hard, especially on the other side of the aisle. I appreciate the contribution of the Senator from Florida, and I thank Senator Clinton for her cosponsorship and her work, as well as many other colleagues who have worked with me--Senator Lott, Senator Frist, Senator Sununu, and many others who worked to improve this legislation. They, too, place it very high on the priority list of items that should be passed before we go home. The cochairs of the E- 911 caucus, Representative Shimkus and Representative Eshoo in the House, who have been tireless advocates, along with Representative Chip Pickering and many other Representatives--Joe Barton has been a champion on this issue. We have been working on E-911 issues for many years now, and we all agree this is a good product and the final product we can have this year. Mr. President, E-911 services are about as clear an example as you can get of Congress acting in the public interest and in the interest of public safety as we could possibly have. If someone dials 9-1-1 from a cell phone, that person's location should be transmitted to a public safety answering point so the police, fire, or rescue first responders can know exactly not only what to do--they already know what to do--and where to go. How do we find this dialer of 9-1-1? When we first started to look at emergency services, we found out that 9-1-1 was not the national norm for an emergency number. We found many numbers, in many different areas. Basically, what we did was we nationalized 9-1-1. We said no matter where you are and what your circumstances are, 9-1-1 will be the national emergency number. So when we take a look at this, this technology will save lives. It is already saving lives. E-911 services are already being rolled out in this country, and this bill authorizes some more money, about $250 a year for 5 years in matching grants made to appropriate entities so that progress will occur more rapidly in the next phase of implementation of those two technologies. So I ask my colleagues to not only help us but to take these three essential parts of this piece of legislation and pass it, and let's send it to the President for his signature. I think that is about the best Christmas gift we could give to people who rely on emergency services.

Mr. BURNS. I say to the Senator, I don't know exactly what is going on. We know some of the things, but I do not think that is material here. I am just pleading that it gets done. Let's look at the importance of this and our priorities and let's finish our work and go home. To my knowledge, there is not anything any more important than that we finish this, for the simple reason we have schools and libraries now that are receiving no payments. There are no payments until we pass this legislation. With the support of the administration we should be moving this legislation. There are some who think it should be an appropriated account. It was never in an appropriated account. This money was not collected as taxes. It was collected for a particular purpose. So I say, they signed the letter. My colleague from Florida is exactly right, and the Senators who signed the letter are exactly right.

Mr. BURNS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the good works of my good friend from Florida. I see both Florida Senators are in the Chamber. Of course, Senator Graham is just about to close out his career in this Senate, and he will be missed. He was one of my neighbors when I first came here some 16 years ago, when they were living just not too far down the street. So I appreciate him and all the talents and the contributions he has made to this body and to the country. I hope he is successful in the Black Angus business in Florida. He will be going back to his beloved ranch and probably do a little writing, get a little philosophical. I know he has done that at times. He can do it in an environment that is befitting a retired Senator. We appreciate him. We do not say goodbye in our part of the country. We just say so long. Our trails will cross one of these days.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Government of Aruba, a leader in the fight to stop the flow of terrorist funds in the Caribbean and Latin America. There can be no doubt that terrorism is the defining challenge of the Nation since 9- 11. While I have always believed that the United States must boldly and confidently lead the way in this brutal war we find ourselves in, I believe that help from our allies is essential to stop the financial networks that support terrorism. One of the most important fronts in the war on terror concerns the funding mechanisms that support terrorist activities, including underground financial systems, illicit charities, and corrupt financial service providers. Financiers, fundraisers, or donors who provide financial support to terrorists need to be stopped. Earlier this year, I had met with the Prime Minister of Aruba, Mr. Nelson Oduber. We discussed the international threat of terrorism and a number of other issues. Prime Minister Oduber stressed his nation's support for stopping terrorism and his determination in stopping money laundering and terrorist financing in his nation. In fact, Aruba's leadership in this field started in 1990 when it hosted what became known as the Aruba Drug Money Laundering Conference, a regional mirror of the Financial Action Task Force--FATF--launched at the Paris G-7 summit of 1989. This started a process, which eventually led to the creation of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force-- CFATF--an organization that now plays a key role in the War on Terror. On October 30, 2001, the FATF adopted eight special recommendations on terrorist financing and Aruba has moved to implement some of those recommendations. I pay tribute today to Aruba for joining the United States of America in the War on Terror.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a great man and his long career of selfless service to our country. On August 31, Major General John E. ``Gene'' Prendergast retired after serving 12 years as Montana's Adjutant General. His 46-year career in the Montana National Guard began 1958, when he joined the Montana Air National Guard. I had the pleasure of getting to know Gene during his time as Montana's Adjutant General. His leadership, vision, and dedication brought a great deal to the dedicated and professional men and women of the Montana National Guard. Over the years, he worked to improve the Guard's infrastructure in the State and saw the 1940s vintage buildings at Fort Harrison converted into some of the most state-of-the-art facilities in the country. Top of the line military training sites exist today at Limestone Hills. In addition, new and improved infrastructure exists at the Air National Guard Base at Gore Hill in Great Falls and the Army Aviation Support Facility at the Helena Airport. Our warfighters need the best equipment and infrastructure possible to do their jobs. Gene understood this and I enjoyed working with him to make some of these improvements a reality. As a result, Montana's Guard is known as one of the best in the Nation. His work did not just stop there. During General Prendergast's time as Adjutant General, Montana's involvement in the Partnership for Peace Program with the country of Kyrgyzstan became a model for the rest of the United States. Also, the Montana National Guard's Youth Challenge Program has successfully transitioned hundreds of ``at risk' youth to active, involved members of society. While he had a talented, dedicated, selfless group behind him, General Prendergast led in an inspiring and intelligent manner which will not be forgotten. I enjoyed my time working with General Prendergast--a man I am proud to call my friend. His presence will be missed, but a new chapter of his life lies ahead, and I wish him well as that chapter unfolds.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have a little business to do before the Senate which has been cleared by both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent we do that little piece of business, and then I will make my statement. This is December 7. It is the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the fateful day in 1941. I ask unanimous consent we might do that.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, where were you on December 7, 1941? There are some of us who can remember that day. I was around 6 or 7 years old. I remember being on that small farm where I was raised. We were doing the evening chores when my mother--we did not have electricity in those days so you had a battery-operated radio and you did not turn on the radio until the evening. But mom had turned on the radio and the newscast was that Japan had attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. When she told dad about that--I remember dad had two feed buckets in his hands--he said: ``Where in the world is Pearl Harbor?'' We did not even know where it was. At 6 o'clock in the morning, Pearl Harbor time, 183 Japanese aircraft were launched from six major fleet carriers and flew toward Oahu. At 7:02 a.m. Honolulu time, the Japanese aircraft were spotted on their approach to Oahu, and they were mistaken for a flight of B-17 Flying Fortresses on an approach to the islands. At 7:15 a.m., a second wave of 167 Japanese planes departed the fleet carriers for Pearl Harbor. At 7:55 a.m., the attack on Pearl Harbor began, with the first Japanese dive-bomber appearing over Pearl Harbor. It was followed by a first wave of nearly 200 aircraft, including torpedo planes, bombers, and fighters. The ships in our fleet were sitting ducks, all gathered up in one place. The anchored ships in the harbor made perfect targets for those bombers, and since it was Sunday morning--a time chosen by the Japanese for maximum surprise--they were not fully manned. In fact, back in those days in the Navy, half of the crew on the ships was on liberty. Most of the damage to the battleships was inflicted in the first 30 minutes of the assault. The Arizona, which still lies in state, so to speak, at that harbor, sank. The Oklahoma was capsized. The California, Nevada, and West Virginia sank in shallow water. In all, more than 180 aircraft were destroyed. U.S. military casualties totaled about 3,400. That was a fateful day in 1941. Tied up to the Arizona was a ship, the USS Vestal. A good friend of mine, a member of our church, and his two brothers were on that ship. It was a repair ship. They were working on the Arizona. He said he remembers that day like it was yesterday. Glenn Sahlgren is gone now. I spent many hours on the Big Horn River fishing with him. I told him: When they find our bones one of these days, they will be down here on this river with a fly pole in our hand. He said: Conrad, every day since December 8, 1941, has been a bonus to me. He and his two brothers were raised in Saco, MT. All three of them were in the Navy and on that ship, and it too sank. All three survived that fateful morning. They were young Americans, hit by surprise. Now we are talking about another intelligence bill on the heels of 9/11. There were 3,581 killed, missing, and wounded. In my State alone, on the USS Arizona, Montana lost seven of its finest: Lloyd Daniel, Jerald Dellum, Joseph Marling, Earl Morrison, Robert Pearson, Harold Scilley, and George Smart. Of course, that attack launched America into World War II where it suffered even more losses. Thousands of men and women died in World War II, but it changed the face of the world and gave us the freedoms we enjoy today. None of us here earned those; we inherited them. What Tom Brokaw called ``the greatest generation'' is a true statement. For after that attack, this country bound up its wounds and didn't look back. We honored those who were lost, and we built a better peace. As this holiday season approaches and we gather around friends and family, it is important that we count our blessings. Most of those blessings were inherited and not earned. We remember those who went before us. We turn to this holiday and think about those families who are missing someone either because a family member died for their country or he or she is standing tall on foreign soil around the world. One characteristic about Americans, we have always thought about the next generation. Those who answered the call in 1941 knew full well it was worth the sacrifice so that their families, their children and grandchildren, would never be vulnerable to anything like that again. We are witnessing today's greatest generation also. They understand the risk and the mission, but they also understand their families and what this great country stands for--we tend to forget that every now and again--because they, too, think it is worth the sacrifice so their children and grandchildren will not live under the pall of terrorism, perpetrated on the world from the shadows by faceless people. Today we have brave military men and women again, just as those who have gone before them, standing on alert, securing our freedoms, guarding the innocent abroad. I salute their bravery and their sacrifice, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. This December 7 is a reminder of where we have been, how we reacted, what we have done, and the challenges to be faced in the future by young folks who are willing to pay the price. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5365, which is at the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 484, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5360, which was received from the House.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3204, which is at the desk.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 483, submitted earlier today by Senator Brownback.