Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would normally object to any amendment that would withdraw any lands from energy development or consideration. However, this one is just a little bit different. This is already tied up in litigation. I think anytime we shield land from energy exploration, we do not do this country a great favor, nor do we help our situation in the Middle East. So I think should it be in any other form--there are litigation discussions now ongoing that could possibly expose this Government to a massive takings litigation. However, the way it is worded, it is only a sense of the Senate, and I do not object.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I see no one else seeking recognition. I would suggest we recess the Senate for the party caucuses.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this simply changes the administrative cost cap for the Northern Pacific Research Board, an entity that was created by Congress in the fiscal year 1998 Interior bill to conduct marine research. The amendment has been cleared by both sides.

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4526 To Amendment No. 4472

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from Louisiana, Sen. Landrieu, to introduce the ``Emergency Communications and Competition Act of 2002'' or ``ECCA.'' This bill will build upon previous legislation I authored, the LOCAL TV Act, to help ensure that all local TV stations, not just those in the largest markets are available to consumers. As a former broadcaster, I know Montana has some of the smallest of the Nations' 210 television markets, from 169th-ranked Missoula all the way down to 210th-ranked Glendive. Today, the satellite operators provide local channels in 52 markets. I'm not crossing my fingers that they will get to Glendive anytime soon. That's why we need this legislation. It will enable the rapid deployment of the new Multichannel Video Programming and Data Distribution Service, MVDDS, which the Federal Communications Commission authorized earlier this year. I commend the FCC for authorizing this new service, it not only promises to bring local channels to all markets, regardless of size, but it will also provide broadband Internet access to rural Americans who have no such access today. I expect that the low cost of this wireless technology will translate into low prices for consumers. This is precisely the kind of innovative new technology we should encourage and promote. I am most concerned, however, that unless we pass this legislation, we may never see the deployment of this new service. The FCC has determined that licenses for this new service should be auctioned. I appreciate the FCC's effort to help generate new revenues for the Federal Treasury, but we must never let that consideration override good public policy judgments. The public interest is best served when the spectrum is licensed promptly to applicants that are ready to deploy service. While auctions make sense in many instances, this is not always the case. Two years ago, Congress passed the ORBIT Act, legislation I authored which, in part, exempted from auctions ``spectrum used for the provision of international or global satellite communications services.'' We are now confronted with a case of first impression in which the FCC has determined to issue licenses to both terrestrial and satellite applicants that share the same spectrum. Previously this was thought to be technologically impossible, as I mentioned, the FCC has now determined that the terrestrial-based MVDDS can share with satellites. In my judgment, the same Federal resource must be licensed in the same manner to all applicants, regardless of the technology they will employ. To do otherwise is to pick industry winners and losers. This bill corrects this problem.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. BURNS. We used 23 of it?

Mr. BURNS. I don't know how much time I have to yield.

Mr. BURNS. That would be fine. I say to my friend from Montana, I am trying to protect those who oppose, but I have no problem with yielding 5 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

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

Mr. BURNS. Can I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Colorado and allow him to outline his statement?

Mr. BURNS. I ask the Chair if the time of those who support the amendment has been used?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BURNS. In other words, those who oppose this amendment have not seen fit to come to the floor. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

Mr. BURNS. I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield to the senior Senator from Wyoming for his statement?

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

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--I need a clarification, though, how that could be disposed of. Then would the Senator from Connecticut lay his amendment aside after it being offered to the main bill or to the underlying bill?

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Minnesota. Senator Byrd will be a little bit late this morning. If the Senator would like to give his statement now, that is perfectly OK with me. I think there will be more speakers on our side. I am supporting the amendment. We will make those points at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to make another note about this process being hijacked for the last year and a half. When we started talking about drought and disaster relief and agriculture, the number was much smaller. In the meantime, we did pass a farm bill that I reluctantly supported. Of course, I was a party, with the Senator from Kansas, in offering a substitute amendment that I think would have been better for agriculture. We have a circumstance at this time in this particular case where the money was taken out of agriculture and a drought where you have no crop for sale. We have a cashflow problem. In other words, we would like to see our agricultural producers go to the insurance program--we think it is much better than it was, say, 2 years ago--and to assume some responsibility in risk management. That is not the case now because of the drying up of funds over the last year and a half. The circumstances have changed. Thus, we have the amendment on the floor that is before us today. I appreciate the work the Senator from Kansas has done in providing real help instead of getting into a position where we fall to the whims of politics. There are circumstances that arise that make this issue a very contentious issue. I thank him for his work.