Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 243 introduced earlier today by Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. The Senator from Florida has explained his amendment very well. I have no questions.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Thursday, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. Tomorrow morning the Senate will resume debate on Senator Byrd's amendment No. 1818. It is hoped that we can begin voting on the pending amendments and any other offered amendments at an early time tomorrow morning. Earlier tonight the Senate agreed to a limited list of amendments. Therefore, Senators should notify the managers if they intend to offer an amendment from that list. Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day and into the evening tomorrow in relation to amendments to the Iraq-Afghanistan appropriations bill. I want to put a footnote here. I did attend the reception for Senator Mansfield. He was a man of few words. He knew the weight of a word. I was also in the press corps in Montana when he served in this body. I tell you, if the producer told you to fill 5 minutes, it would take 30 questions to do it. He shall be missed by the State of Montana. He is missed by this country. Now he belongs to history, and that is the way it is supposed to be.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3229, which is at the desk.

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 the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, October 16. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison or her designee and the second 30 minutes under the control of the minority leader or his designee, provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1689, the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. I further ask that amendment No. 1818 then be the pending business.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Texas. I also thank my friend from Louisiana because I think she brings up some very valid points. If one visits Iraq--especially the neighborhoods, which are just like some of the neighborhoods across this country--one will see poverty that is rampant, as well as poor living conditions. These neighborhoods are no place that I know that any American, having the choices we have in this country, would choose to raise their children. But they will get better because of the benevolence of a great country, the United States of America. We opted to make that choice after World War II in the rebuilding of a destroyed axis, both east and west. As it turned out, it was a very wise investment. We have the same opportunity now in a part of the world where great changes are starting to take place. Because of our presence in Iraq and the actions we are taking there, Saudi Arabia is for the first time in its history going to offer elections. Have they done that because of what we didn't do in Iraq? I think one would have to question that. I congratulate my friend from Kentucky. When he goes on a working trip--we had 8 days in the field. I mean it is getting up early in the morning, catching an airplane, and flying into an area where let's say most of the action was centered, working all day, and then flying back and getting a hotel even without dinner. That is all right. I can afford to miss a dinner or two. I can afford to miss a few meals. But we were ground level. Central services are being reestablished in Iraq way ahead of schedule and are now at the same level or beyond what they were prewar. The plan that has been laid out--and everybody knows it and everybody reads it--is working. Fifteen hundred schools have now been refurbished and another 1,500 will be finished by the first of the year. We now see schools open, with kids and parents very happy. An Iraqi contractor used 30,000 Iraqi carpenters, painters, and people who refurbish in that endeavor. Iraqi people are picking up their own neighborhood because they have the freedom to do so and telling us that if we leave now, they cannot go with the job only partly done. Is there a timeline? There is never a timeline for this kind of an operation. That is kind of like me going out and saying I am going to build a fence until the 10th day of November. Bad weather comes, and a lot of things intervene. I don't get the fence done. Come the 15th of November, am I going to quit building the fence? I don't think so. So timelines on projects such as this are very slow but they are moving forward. Are we talking about a lot of money? You bet we are. It is money that sometimes we think we don't have. But sometimes we make investments in things with money which we don't think we have either. There is a powerplant that would be shut down in this country in a New York minute. There are six turbines and only two are operating. It was built in 1928, and not a nickel was ever invested in the O&M of that plant. There are no computers nor control rooms; it is entirely manually operated. Efficiency of producing electricity and even conserving electricity is not there. Central services of water, telephone, and even health care are back beyond what they were prewar. We found out one thing: Saddam Hussein did two things really well. He built great palaces. We were in a couple of them. They are pretty good digs. He also built a good road system. But that is where it stopped. Irrigation systems around Mosul and along the Euphrates River are falling apart--not because of damage in an armed conflict but because of no investment in O&M. Now we are restoring those irrigation systems; people will be able to feed themselves. We are making an investment in people who are educated and motivated and who want to have something to say about their own fate when it comes to the economy and to their political freedoms. That is what this is about. Is this about establishment of a government that will look like ours? No. It will not look like ours. But at least it will be a representative form of government--another one in that region that changes the mindset of the entire Middle East. Elections in Saudi Arabia are just part of that. This is the cradle of terrorism. This is where it starts. This is where it is planned, and this is where it is financed. But with economies of scale, as they grow, terrorism diminishes. We take the fear out of doing business or going to school or doing shopping or even in recreation. It will be Americans who will do that. Money is just a tool. It can be used for good. It can be used for evil. We have chosen to use it for good. Talk to the parents of those children going to school. I talked to a lad of about 10 or 11 years. I asked him if there is any difference this year. He said: Yes; there are a lot of girls in my class. He had never experienced that before. Their eyes are bright; they are eager to learn; and their parents are happy that we are there. That is at the neighborhood level. It is not in some headquarter being briefed by the State Department or the military people. Talk to the soldiers on the street. Do they understand what the mission is? Yes, they do. Are they motivated to carry it out? Yes. They understand that there is great risk, but there is always great risk with freedom. We have assumed that risk in this country. We assume a high level of risk for that very precious thing called freedom. We have to rebuild the infrastructure with these appropriations, get their economy going, and then bring our troops home. They can come home faster than if we say we are just going to leave them alone. What kind of a signal does that send to the meeting next week in Madrid where we are calling the world's nations together to participate with us in rebuilding an infrastructure for a people who actually deserve it and which was denied by a tyrant for the last 25 or 30 years? This is what America is about. I am proud to be a part of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 1474), and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That is the genius of our country, when we look at it. We have always lived for the next generation. Our mothers and fathers wanted us to be educated better than they were. I was raised on a small farm in the Midwest before I went to Montana when I was 18. The generation before us wanted us to be educated better than they were. They wanted us to start up the economic ladder a little bit better than they started. I was a product of the Great Depression in the 1930s. In doing that in the family unit, of living for the next generation, this system has afforded the highest quality of life and standard of living for more of its citizens than any other society that has been developed on the face of this planet. That is what makes this particular mission in Iraq, in the Middle East, very important. Those young people who met and have a very positive view of Americans, who are the young ages of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12--the most impressionable years of a young person's life--will never forget that. That will be burned in their brains. There might be a lot of propaganda flying around, but they know. They shook the hand of and met our best ambassadors. We didn't start this fight. We didn't start this fight. Because if 9/ 11 of the year '01 doesn't mean anything else, it should carry the same significance as Pearl Harbor or any other devastating attack that has been carried out against this country. We didn't start this fight, but they brought the fight to the wrong people and the wrong country because of our values and because what we really believe in is that freedom equals opportunity, opportunity means choices, and choices have consequences. It is this warrior who cleared the way. The polls now say the majority of the people in Iraq believe they are now better off than they were under the tyrant Saddam Hussein. Why is $21 billion important? Saddam Hussein had a knack of controlling his people. He did it through the rationing of central services, the very basics of our community. He only had about 60 percent or 70 percent capacity to produce as much electricity for his country as he needed. So if he didn't like you, or you made him mad, or you came from the wrong side of the creek, you didn't get electricity. If anybody wanted centrally controlled health care? He had it. He rationed it. He used it to control. Water, whatever the central services, his infrastructure was in complete disarray. But he liked it like that. So he had to go, that tyrant--mass graves, history of gassing people, killing people, raiding his neighbors. So we didn't start this fight. We are sure going to conclude it. We are sure going to develop a country of people who desire to be free and to live, to educate and to raise their kids in a free society. Representative government has already taken over in Iraq. The overwhelming majority of these funds, of course, go to our military in this particular piece of supplemental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. But those who would deny them freedoms and opportunities, and control them through fear, understand what this is about. It is about people who are in charge of their own destiny and are not afraid to stand for freedom or die for the next generation. That is what it is all about. That is what this President envisioned when we were hit on 9/11. He didn't ask for those planes to fly into the World Trade Center or hit the Pentagon or the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. He didn't ask for the first attack on the World Trade Center. He didn't ask for the attacks on the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, our embassies around the world. There is no negotiating with folks who use fear to control. For, if we fail here, the battle line is probably our own country. Since the Civil War, not a shot has been fired here. We have always carried the fight to the enemy's ground. That is what it is all about. Representative government in small towns and political bounds and political units in Iraq have already taken hold. We are already establishing an interim government in Baghdad and it will not be long before they have a constitution, they will have elections. Our interest there is in the generation of school kids because it is an investment. Is it an investment? Yes, but it is an investment in human lives, in human endeavors. Sure, it is a lot of money, but money is a tool. Money is a tool that can bring good or it can be evil, and we have chosen to use ours in the name of good. Yesterday in committee we had some very good ideas on how we should help these people get on their own feet and prosper, how we can help. Yes, the $20 or $21 billion in this will do that. But how to administer that, what should it go for? What should it do? Because it is America's hand. It is not our hand of Congress, it is the people of America reaching out because the people of the United States know what is at stake. There were some very good ideas. Some were premature. Some will be considered here on the floor of the Senate and they will be argued on their own merits. But when we take a look at the overall package, it is a pretty solid package that we extend toward these people who now stand in harm's way, who now risk some disdain from their neighbors for joining a police force or a militia that will stand for good. It takes some bravery to do that, in a land where terrorism and death and destruction have been commonplace for the last 2 decades. We will be that steel in their backbone. But we also have to give them the funds with which to build. They have made the decision. There are polls which indicate that. They have made the decision to stand for good and right and freedom. That is what this bill is all about. It may be characterized in many ways, but I think it is America's best hour. To establish another democracy in the Middle East where basically there is only one, to expand those freedoms now to the other side of the river, it is a noble and just thing to do. I thank the Chair for the time to express my views about the importance of this legislation. Their values are not much different than ours: Their families, their kids, their country. Our ability to fix irrigation systems and communication systems so they can talk, and a system within which they can feed themselves, and have something to say about their own destiny, that is a noble cause. That is an American cause. That is what we are all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, I do not know where she got hold of that poster, but I have said ever since the invasion started, and the assault towards Baghdad, our greatest ambassadors, who are on the ground and are still there today, are our warriors. The effects of our action in Iraq will not really be felt for another 10 years or so. When the young folks seen in that poster become adult age, they will remember that warrior who walked up to them, dusty, sandy, dirty, greasy, ladened with armor, weapons and goggles on his helmet; yet they reached out the hand of friendship in the form of a bottle of water or a candy bar. One must remember these young folks were hunkered down in their homes and told how evil this Army was that was approaching their area. When the Army arrived, they found out those things they had been deprived of, the bare essentials to survive the last few days, were available and had come from the hand of an American soldier or marine. That is why we hear so many of our military on the ground today telling us to rebuild the infrastructure, bring back the central services so these people can live, improve their quality of life, and rebuild their own country. To a man, all the military people I have visited with who have come home have said that.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for a woman who was recently named the American Trucking Association's National Driver of the Year, and resides in Lavina, MT. Since Doris Hansen started driving semi trucks in 1967, she has logged more than 3 million miles. Beginning at the age of 19 as a driver for her father-in-law, Doris has preserved an accident-free driving record, with a personal commitment to safety for over 35 years. While Doris and her husband John sometimes drove as a sleeper team, she has logged most of her hours as a solo driver at a time when women were rare in the business. When Doris began her career, some companies did not offer separate shower facilities and break rooms, while others denied women access altogether. Doris is currently leased to Quality Transportation, Inc. stationed in Baker, MT. Since signing with Quality in 1987, she has never lost a single cargo or filed a damage claim. She currently operates a conventional three-axle tractor and a 48-foot flatbed trailer, hauling general freight in ``the lower 48.'' She has also logged the last 13 summers in-State pulling belly-dump trailers on road construction projects, winning numerous safety and industry awards, including Montana Motor Carriers 2002-03 Driver of the Year. Although her job keeps her on the road, she and John have raised two children. Danielle is now a nurse in Big Sandy, MT, and J.J., who shares Doris' love of the road, is a truck driver as well. Doris has been named American Trucking Association's first woman, and first Montanan, National Driver of the Year for 2003. Doris will be honored at American Trucking Association's 2003 Safety and Loss Prevention Management Council's Fall Conference in Jacksonville, FL tomorrow, and again at the American Trucking Association Management Conference and Exhibition in San Antonio, TX on October 20. I applaud Doris for her continued commitment to safe driving, and hope that she will keep up the good work.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last week the Department of Commerce signed the sixth amendment to a memorandum of understanding between the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, and the Commerce Department. The first agreement was signed in 1998 to establish an organizational body to manage the technical coordination of the Internet Domain Name Addressing System. In the subsequent years the agreement has been amended to reflect the needs of the organization to accommodate the industry and constituency it was created to support. The Department of Commerce is hopeful this will be the last agreement they have to sign with ICANN. The hope is for ICANN to show they have become a responsible organization and there can be a transition of the Domain Name System, DNS, management to private sector control, out of the hands of the department permanently. Several items of interest have been brought to my attention during our oversight hearing on ICANN that I would like the Department of Commerce to consider before ICANN receives the freedom they want as an independent organization. They must first prove they are doing their job. I would encourage the Department of Commerce to establish dates of accomplishment to the milestones they have set out in their most recent memorandum of understanding with ICANN. Specific, quantifiable goals will help ascertain if ICANN has created a stable environment where innovation and competition can flow freely for the area surrounding the DNS. It was noted before Congress in the July 31, 2003, hearing that ICANN should be the organization to provide a forum for best practices for the naming and numbering system. The recent amendment to the memorandum of understanding notes the need to continue to develop and test accountability mechanisms. I would ask the department to set a date to determine if these best practices guidelines focusing on stability, security and interoperability have been determined and a set time for their implementation. The initial best practices could be established by a working group by the beginning of 2004 with a follow-up strategic plan for implementation of the first best practice guideline for the industry with in the first 6 months of 2004. The memorandum of understanding recommends the continued development and implementation of transparent procedures. I would again call for a date certain to ensure the decisionmaking process set by ICANN is transparent, predictable and timely for all parties involved in the decisions ICANN influences. Established procedures for a transparent decisionmaking process should be established by the end of this year to ensure ICANN has this as a top priority and as a signal to ensure the industry and constituents involved in ICANN can begin to plan for a process that will be applied equally across all parties and in a predictable fashion. One concern that has been noted through our congressional oversight hearing is that parties with contractual obligations to ICANN are disadvantaged in providing services that non-ICANN contracted parties are free to offer. There is reason for this discrepancy to exist in an open market. ICANN should take into consideration the entire global Internet industry when making decisions. Disadvantaging contracted parties should be a thing of ICANN's past and new service level agreements should be negotiated with all ICANN participants that allow the rights of a registry and root zone operator to independently determine functionality, pricing and operations of existing services and sue services as part of their new agreement with the Department of Commerce. The decisionmaking process needs visible criteria and independent arbitration procedures to ensure no party is being unjustly prosecuted by decisions made at the hands of the ICANN board. Ensuring that ICANN is considered a decisionmaker in global economic commerce hinges on their ability to reach agreements with the other international bodies. They have been required in previous memorandums of understanding to reach agreements with the other country code operators. I would call on the Department of Commerce to put a target date in place for ICANN to reach an agreement with a majority of the other country code operators. The new leadership of both ICANN and at the National Telecommunications Information Administration should be able to take a fresh look at the challenges that lie before ICANN and its partners and bring a more orderly and professionally accountable way of doing business that encourages competition, innovation and stability for the global internet structure.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment at the Oklahoma Federal district court decision preventing the Federal Trade Commission from going forward on implementing the Do Not Call list. The Do Not Call list has proven to be one of the most popular and necessary consumer initiatives in history. From the day consumers have been able to sign up for the Do Not Call list on June 26, over 50 million Americans have registered, including 138,841 in Montana. So urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that in the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 26, over 650,000 citizens added their numbers to the list. Yesterday's ill-considered decision by the Federal district court in Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect next Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong in its core assumption that the FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and administering the Do Not Call list. In fact, Congress clearly granted the FTC the authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call Implementation Act in February of this year. This act gave the agency authority to collect fees from telemarketers to establish and enforce the list. The Omnibus Appropriations Act in February also authorized the FTC to enforce the do not call provisions. Rather than waiting for an appeals court to overturn this wrongheaded decision, we must act quickly so that Americans do not have to suffer the needless and unwarranted intrusions into their lives by aggressive telemarketing. Unwanted telemarketing calls have reached unacceptable levels in our country. By one estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 105 million calls daily; implementation of the Do Not Call list would reduce these calls by almost 80 percent. Americans are rightly sick and tired of these endless interruptions in their private lives, which often take place during the dinner hour, or at times when parents wish to spend uninterrupted quality time with their children. By responding rapidly to overturn this reckless and sloppy decision by the Oklahoma district court, Congress sends a clear message that this destructive hyper-marketing will no longer be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to the FTC's authority to maintain and implement the Do Not Call Registry.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee and everybody on the committee. You are probably hearing from the core of that committee today, reacting to the disappointment that we have gotten from the Oklahoma Federal District Court preventing the Federal Trade Commission from going forward and implementing the Do Not Call list. The Do Not Call legislation turned out to be the most popular and probably the most necessary consumer initiative we have ever passed in the history of this body. From day one, people started to sign up; that was June 26. Up until now--you have heard the figures--over 50 million people have registered, and 138,000 of those are in Montana. So urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that in the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 16, 650,000 people called up. That gives us some idea of how consumers think of these telemarketers. The ill-considered decision yesterday by the Federal District Court in Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect next Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong and its core assumption is that the FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and administering the Do Not Call list. Let us make it very clear, Congress clearly granted the FTC the authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call Implementation Act in February of this year. The act gave the agency authority to collect fees from telemarketers and to establish and enforce the list. In fact, the Omnibus Appropriations Act in February also authorized the FTC to enforce the Do Not Call list. Rather than waiting around for an appeals court to overturn this wrongheaded decision, I am certainly glad the Congress has taken action very swiftly. It did not take long. In fact, one of my good friends who does not serve in this body anymore, who served from North Carolina, said this is almost a june bug issue, and it really is. We do not have to put Americans through unwarranted intrusions into their lives by telemarketing, and so we will pass this today. I tell my good friend from North Dakota, my wife has it all figured out about telemarketers. We both may be home; the call comes in: Is Mr. Burns there? She says: I will call him--whether I am there or not. She lays the phone down and goes off and leaves it until we hear the little disconnect: ``If you are trying to place a call, please hang up and try again.'' So that is our attitude towards that. By any estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 105 million calls daily. The implementation of the Do Not Call list would reduce these calls by almost 80 percent, and those are figures that are out now. So if they do not get the message by talking to a telephone that does not have an ear on the other end of it, then we will take care of it this way. People are rightly sick and tired of this endless interruption into their private lives. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank my good friend from Nevada for allowing me this time, and Senator Dorgan and the chairman of the full committee for acting this swiftly, because this takes care of it. Let's make no bones about it, they clearly had the authority. They clearly had the funds to implement it. We gave it to them in appropriations and we gave them the authority this year. The telemarketers did not choose to abide by that law. So I heartily commend my good friends for offering this legislation. By the way, if I am not on the list, you may put me on the list. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I am wondering if the Senator from California wants to speak, if we are going back and forth here. I don't want to preempt her.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield part of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to propound. I ask unanimous consent that prior to a series of stacked votes, which will begin at 4:45 p.m., there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740; further, that there be a total of 50 minutes equally divided in the usual form in relation to the Voinovich and Reid amendments on competitive sourcing. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 4:45 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 1753, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Voinovich amendment which is to be modified to be a first-degree amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1731; provided, further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the vote, with 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the second-degree amendment. I certainly understand some of Senator Reid's concerns about the competitive sourcing initiative. For one, most of the agencies funded in this bill failed to budget adequately for the costs of the competitive sourcing studies. As a result, funds that would have been available for other purposes--such as maintenance projects or grazing management--were diverted. Ultimately, I regard this as a failure of the Office of Management and Budget as much as anything. Yes, competitive sourcing in some cases may result in actual savings. But those savings are likely to be over the long term, and the fact that there may be savings doesn't relieve agencies of the need to budget for the implementation costs up front. It is for that very reason that we included language in this bill that made further competitive sourcing work by the Forest Service contingent on approval of a detailed reprogramming request. The Forest Service is slated to spend more than any other agency in this bill on this initiative. But the question before us now is whether to shut down any and all competitive sourcing studies by agencies in this bill. This strikes me as overkill. Has the administration flawlessly implemented its initiative? Certainly not. We have already discussed its failure to adequately budget for the initiative. I would also note that the administration initially proposed quotas of positions that each agency was to competitively source. I think this was inappropriate. Competitive sourcing makes more sense in some agencies than it does in others. And some agencies have already used forms of competitive sourcing to great advantage. There should be some recognition what these agencies have done previously. Finally, I know there is much concern among my colleagues on this side of the aisle about the potential impact of competitive sourcing on rural areas. I absolutely understand and share this concern. In such areas the potential loss of a handful of well-paying Government jobs is not a trivial thing. This is particularly true if there is no guarantee that any jobs that are outsourced will remain in the community. I don't think the administration has fully appreciated this fact. But the root of the question raised by this amendment is whether competitive sourcing is, in all cases, a bad thing. The answer is clearly no. Competitive sourcing experts can cite numerous examples--and they have been cited in the Chamber--of success in the Department of Defense. But even within the Department of the Interior, careful use of outsourcing has resulted in both dollar savings and improved performance. The construction program of the National Park Service is one such example. I have one of those in Great Falls, MT. Proponents of this amendment can certainly cite examples of poor performance or malfeasance by contractors. Without question, there are cases of this. But we know well enough that there are at least as many instances of poor performance by Federal employees. This argument simply doesn't fly. Finally, I note that the pending amendment is identical to language included in the House bill. The Statement of Administration Policy states that the President's senior advisers will recommend a veto of the Interior bill if such language is included. While I am not generally one to back down in the face of such a threat, I do think we should consider whether we want to take that trip. Wouldn't it be better to see if we can't go to conference and produce language that further improves the quality of the competitive sourcing initiative, rather than simply throwing what amounts to a legislative tantrum? I vow to my colleagues that I will work hard with the administration to see that their concerns are addressed. But do we put an absolute stop to a management practice that has been available to agencies in this bill for many years? Or do we instead try to improve the product, and increase congressional oversight of competitive sourcing efforts? I simply find it hard to accept that in all cases competitive sourcing is a bad thing. And I am guessing Federal employees will win more of the competitions than people think if they're well structured. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Reid amendment, and to work with me as we go to conference to produce a better solution.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, for a hearing on proposals to limit eligibility for veterans' compensation benefits to disabilities directly related to ``performance of duty'' injuries only. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Health Technology during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.