Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as an individual who has spent his entire life involved in agriculture. I am extremely concerned about the current state of the agricultural economy. Farmers and ranchers in my state of Montana and across America cannot afford another year of zero profit. Price declines for agricultural commodities have had a devastating impact on agricultural producers in Montana and the economy of the entire state, which depends so heavily on agriculture. The farmers and ranchers in Montana have suffered too much already. With continued low prices, many agricultural producers have been forced to sell the farms and ranches many have spent their entire lives working. They seem to have all the cards stacked against them. Agricultural producers face high numbers of imports as well as a downward trend in demand for their product. Further, the world market is not providing adequate opportunities for international trade. The European Union continues to place non-scientific trade barriers on U.S. beef as well as bans on Genetically Modified grain products. Asia, usually a strong export market, continues to recover from the economic flu and many of our other trade partners have been subjected to sanctions by this administration. Additionally, the value of beef and grain imports have decreased dramatically as a percent of the world market. Montana may not be able to survive another year of this economic plight. If market prices continue to go down as they have, I am fearful that more farmers and ranchers will be forced out of business. If a drastic measure is not passed in Congress this year, I don't know how much longer the agricultural community can persevere. As I said before, the impact is not limited to those working the fields or raising livestock. Look at Main Street, Rural America. The agricultural economy is so bad that other businesses are failing as well. And not just agri-business. No longer is it just the livestock feed store or seed companies that are failing due to the economic crunch. It reaches much further. All kinds and types of businesses are feeling the depressed agricultural economy. Montana is ranked in the bottom five per capita income by state, in the nation. Ironically, I also read recently that Montana is rated in a nationwide poll as the 7th most desirable place to live in America. That won't be the case much longer if we can't return more of the economic dollar to the agricultural producer. Montana is a desirable place to live because of agriculture. Without the wheat fields and grazing pastures, Montana loses its very being. Without the return of more of the economic dollar to the agricultural producer there will be no more farming or ranching and consequently no more wheat fields or pastures to graze livestock. I have used the comparison before of the agricultural producer drowning. I believe he is. The way I see it, the farmer is drowning in a sea of debt and many in Congress want to continue to send lifeboats. The problem is, that once the producer makes it into the boat he never makes it to shore. He just keeps paddling trying to keep his head above water, and waiting for the next boat. I want the farmer to get back to land and on his feet. We have to provide them the oars to get to shore and then keep them out of the water. I would like to see a strong agriculture assistance package passed and then a base for long-term benefits, in the form of laws on country of origin labeling, crop insurance reform and mandatory price reporting. My Montana farmers and ranchers need help now. They need a package that provides solid short-term assistance. They need AMTA payments at 100% to bring the price of wheat per bushel to a price that will allow them to meet their cost-of-production. Additionally, they need funding for specialty crops, sugar and livestock. I don't agree with many of the provisions included in the Democratic package. Funding for cotton and peanuts does not help my agricultural producers. Neither does $300 million for the Step 2 cotton program. These provisions bump the price tag up significantly and seem to help other areas of the country more than the Northwest. However, all agriculture is in dire straits. Montana needs funding and they need it fast. Thus, I will vote for the package that gets that money to my producers as quickly as possible. I believe that AMTA is the most effective way to distribute the funding that grain producers need. The Republican package contains 100% AMTA payments, which will bring the price of wheat up to $3.84. It also contains important provisions for specialty crops, lifts the LDP cap and encourages the President to be more aggressive in strengthening trade negotiating authority for American agriculture. Freedom to Farm needs a boost. It is a good program, but simply cannot provide for the needs of farmers and ranchers during this kind of economic crunch. From 1995 to 1999, $50.9 billion have been distributed as direct payments. This tells us that commodity prices are not going up. Farmers and ranchers are not doing better on their net income sheets. We need to let Freedom to Farm work. I believe it will. When more of the economic dollar is returned to the producer and when the farmer or rancher receives a price for commodities that meet the cost-of- production. For now, we must keep the agricultural producer afloat. An assistance measure which will provide them a means to stay in business at a profitable level is the only way to do that this year.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to bring before the Senate the Military Construction Conference Report for fiscal year 2000. Mr. President, this conference report was passed by the House of Representatives last week by a vote of 412 to 8. It was sent to the Senate late last week and now awaits or final passage. We have worked hard with our House colleagues to bring the Military Construction Conference to a successful conclusion. It reflects a strong bipartisan effort of behalf of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both bodies took a different perspective on the allocation of military construction funding for the Department of Defense. However, in the final conference report, we met our goals of promoting quality of life initiatives and enhancing mission readiness. Mr. President, this bill has some points I want to highlight. It provides a total of $8.37 billion for military construction. Even though this is an increase of $2.9 billion over the President's budget for fiscal year 2000, it is still a reduction of $79 million from what was appropriated last year. The conferees rejected the administration proposal to incrementally fund military construction and family housing projects throughout the Department of Defense. Instead the conferees believed that fully funding these projects was essential for the well being and moral of the men and women who serve in uniform. Some 43 percent of the bill is allocated to family housing--a total of $3.6 billion. This includes new construction, improvements to existing units and funding for operation and maintenance of that housing. We strongly protected quality of life initiatives. We provided $643 million for barracks, $22 million for child development centers, and $151 million for hospital and medical facilities. We provided a total of $695 million for the Guard and Reserve components. Overall this represents an increase of $560 million from the President's budget request. Many of those projects will enhance the readiness and mission capabilities of our Reserve and Guard forces, vital to out national defense. I would like to thank my ranking member, Senator Murray, for her assistance and support throughout this process. She and her staff was extremely helpful. I commend this product to the Senate and recommend that it be signed by the President without delay.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today to speak on the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act of 1999, of which I am an original cosponsor. This legislation will ensure that the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) will carry out its original intent while protecting agricultural producers from unnecessary regulations. The FQPA, enacted in 1996, was put in place to ensure that highest level of food safety. This is a necessary and worthwhile goal. However, the EPA currently makes rulings that are based on data without a sound science base. Instead, assumptions are based on propaganda and worst-case scenarios. This legislation requires EPA to modernize the laws governing pesticide use, using science-based data and evaluations. This will ensure that American consumers will continue to receive the world's safest food supply, and still allow those agricultural producers that provide food and fiber the means to do so. This bill will also require EPA to establish and administer a program for tracking the effect of regulatory decisions of U.S. agriculture as compared to world trends. Producers in other countries often do not face the regulatory nightmare American producers do. This will provide a measure for that different and the impact it has on agricultural producers in the U.S. Additionally, this bill will establish a permanent Pesticide Advisory Committee including food consumers, environmental groups, farmers, non- agricultural pesticide users, food manufacturers, food distributors, pesticide manufacturers, federal and state agencies. Such a diverse group will serve all interests and maintain a safe food supply. I thank Mr. Hagel for sponsoring this fine bill and look forward to working with him in its passage. Through it we can work for the good of agriculture and food consumers alike.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will offer an amendment that will help to keep our Nation's air clean and healthy. This amendment will provide a tax credit for our Nation's energy producers to produce an environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient alternative fuel using otherwise unusable waste products and natural resources. This proposal would provide for a biomass coal tax credit and offer an incentive for the Nation's energy producers to construct facilities that would process low-grade, high-moisture, coal. We have large supplies of this type of coal in our nation. This proposal provides half of the credit that is being allowed to produce electricity using biomass and wind power. This is a production tax credit you can only claim the credit if you produce the qualified product. However, it has been determined that in order for companies to use this credit, they need to have an idea that the credit is going to be available for an extended number of years. Otherwise the costs of building the facilities to provide this environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient fuels would be cost prohibitive. The marketplace demands a premium, low pollutant coal, to meet the nations needs and in response to the Clean Air Act and the Kyoto Protocol. We cannot jeopardize America's competitiveness by complying with Kyoto's costs on our consumers and markets. Providing this tax credit marks the beginning of a new industry. Based on current market pressures resulting from deregulation and environmental regulations, numerous companies are interested in constructing these facilities. This is a tax credit that will help to clean our Nation's air and keep our skies blue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask my good friend from Illinois, what environmental law? What environmental law are we talking about here?

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I can propound a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BURNS. That is not an environmental law.

Mr. BURNS. What environmental law are we talking about here?

Mr. BURNS. What environmental law? Is it the Clean Water Act? Is it the Clean Air Act? Is it the National Environmental Policy Act? Is it the National Federal Lands Management Act? What environmental law is the Senator talking about when he refers to environmental law?

Mr. BURNS. I suggest to the Senator that is a land tenure law and subject to all of the environmental laws. The miners are not exempt from them. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Terry L. Grindstaff, a legislative fellow in my office, during the debate of the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. The Senate is accepting my amendment to allocate $250,000 for the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan as part of the Idaho and Montana Coldwater Fishery Enhancement Program. This funding is imperative in the preparation of a voluntary Habitat Conservation Plan aimed at saving our native fish populations in the two states. As you know, we are at the upper end of the Columbia River drainage and the impacts seen on salmon in that drainage are interrelated to our native trout as well. As the debate raged on about what exactly was impacting the native fish populations in the lower Columbia system, those of us in the upper reaches of the system were doing our best to ensure that enough water was sent downstream at the appropriate time to help the native fish as much as possible. What we have learned from this practice is that the health of our bull trout population is linked to that of the salmon. Fewer salmon returning from the ocean to spawn placed concern on the health of the entire river system, and the traditional actions taken to help one species sometimes had negative impacts on others. As is commonly the case with these types of issues, we didn't always realize the interrelation until some negative impacts had already taken place. Making these funds available for the Idaho and Montana Coldwater Fishery Enhancement Program will help us address more of the survival needs of native fish species in the Columbia Basin. Stabilizing the bull trout population and developing this plan will allow us more flexibility in helping the salmon populations recover as well. Senator, I hope you will join me in clarifying where this money is to be directed and to reaffirm the value of developing a state-led voluntary Habitat Conservation Plan for bull trout in Idaho and Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming. I doubt I need 3 minutes. When this accounting system was adopted in the telecommunications industry way back in 1935, and it evolved through the years, we did not foresee the advances of technology and the need to change equipment would happen in that area as fast as it is happening now. New technology is coming on line. If there is a holdup in the buildout of this technology, of maybe some of our locally owned companies--and some of our cooperatives as cooperatives, I doubt, will be affected by this --it is so we can get rid of some of this old equipment we carry on the books because it is not all depreciated out. It has not kept pace with the technology. There was, a couple of years ago--it was more than that, 5 or 6 years ago, with then-Senator Brown from Colorado--offered an amendment to standardize accounting clear through the Government. We did not get that done. But nonetheless here is an old accounting system that is very important to the high-tech area when it comes to buildout in the rural area, so broad-band technologies can be deployed and get rid of some of the old equipment still on the books. This amendment needs passing. I yield the floor and thank my friend from Wyoming.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleagues in a tribute to the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission. Thirty years ago today, our nation was launched into the lead of a global space race. Not only was this an important step for our nation, it was an important step for America in the Cold War--a war waged in technological and economic terms rather than on the front lines of the battlefield. A war in which America later claimed victory during President Reagan's administration. The Apollo 11 mission played a role in that victory. The famous words, ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'' was more than appropriate. It was one of the highlights of NASA and during the pinnacle of the agency's existence. On the morning of July 16, 1969, the mission's Saturn V rocket was launched from the Kennedy Space Center, landing on the moon four days later. On board with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin was Michael Collins, who piloted the command module while his comrades used a landing craft, the Eagle, to make that historic visit to the lunar surface. The mission was a unifying event in an era when America was wracked by social protest and divided over the Vietnam War. People across the country, and around the world, sat glued to television sets as the Apollo crew did what was once thought impossible. The important achievement of Apollo demonstrated that humanity is not forever chained to this planet. Mr. President, I regret that the push for manned space flight has faded in the years since Apollo. I find it ironic, that 30 years after first going to the moon that children today are learning about space travel in history class, rather than science class. May 13, 2004, will mark the launch of the Corps of Discovery bicentennial. It was during this adventure that Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, along with a small band of men, set out on a voyage of exploration that was to earn them a place in America's history. Tasked with exploring a new and largely unknown world, Lewis and Clark opened the West and provided storytellers with a compelling, historic drama. Today, NASA's role in space exploration parallels the role of the Corps of Discovery. No other federal agency is faced with such intriguing and limitless boundaries. No other federal agency captivates the attention of school children around the nation. But NASA's obstacle is not a technology barrier--rather it is a barrier of financial abilities. Space activities require decades of planning. Short-term constraints of a political agenda do not address this necessity. It is not where we want to be next year, rather where we want to be 20 years from now. That is a blindness many politicians are hampered with. For the sixth year in a row, NASA's budget has declined while its productivity improves. We know what NASA is able to do. In the 1960s, the Saturn/Apollo program put a man on the moon. Only recently has the commercial sector approached NASA's heavy-lift capacities. Our nation's history is one of triumph and tragedy. We have rejoiced in NASA's success and mourned in its grief but the Apollo 11 mission was one of the greatest moments in our nation's history. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will establish a commission to study the future of the travel agent industry and determine the consumer impact of airline interaction with travel agents. Since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was enacted, major airlines have controlled pricing and distribution policies of our nation's domestic air transportation system. Over the past four years, the airlines have reduced airline commissions to travel agents in an competitive effort to reduce costs. I am concerned the impact of today's business interaction between airlines and travel agents may be a driving force that will force many travel agents out of business. Combined with the competitive emergence of Internet services, these practices may be harming an industry that employs over 250,000 Americans. This bill will explore these concerns through the establishment of a commission to objectively review the emerging trends in the airline ticket distribution system. Among airline consumers there is a growing concern that the airlines may be using their market power to unfairly limit how airline tickets are distributed. Mr. President, if we lose our travel agents, we lose a competitive component to affordable air fare. Travel agents provide a much needed service and without, the consumer is the loser. The current use of independent travel agencies as the predominate method to distribute tickets ensures an efficient and unbiased source of information for air travel. Before deregulation, travel agents handled only about 40 percent of the airline ticket distribution system. Since deregulation, the complexity of the ticket pricing system created the need for travel agents resulting in travel agents handling nearly 90 percent of transactions. Therefore, the travel agent system has proven to be a key factor to the success of airline deregulation. I'm afraid, however, that the demise of the independent travel agent would be a factor of deregulation's failure if the major airlines succeed in dominating the ticket distribution system. Travel agents and other independent distributors comprise a considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States. There are 33,000 travel agencies employing over 250,000 people. Women or minorities own over 50 percent of travel agencies. The assault on travel agents has been fierce. Since 1995, commissions have been reduced by 30 percent, 14 percent for domestic travel alone in 1998. Since 1995, travel agent commissions have been reduced from an average of 10.8 percent to 6.9 percent in 1998. Travel agencies are failing in record numbers. Mr. President, I think it is important to study this issue as well as the related issues of the current state of ticket distribution channels, the importance of an independent system on small, regional, start-up carriers, and the role of the Internet.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to talk about health care. I am very proud that this great country of ours provides the best quality of health care in the world. With this comes the question of how to manage the constantly growing costs associated with this and how to guarantee that as many Americans as possible can be provided affordable health care. Currently, 43 million Americans are uninsured and many more live with the anxiety that they will lose their employer-sponsored health plans if premiums go up. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Senator Kennedy's bill, S. 6, will increase private health insurance premiums 6.1 percent above inflation. Data from the Barents Group, an economic consulting firm, reveal an increase of this magnitude will impose hundreds of dollars in hidden taxes on families, eliminate jobs, and cancel the health coverage of millions. In Montana, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses pull the wagon and are the main source of income in our great state. You can only imagine what would happen if Senator Kennedy's Patients' Bill of Rights bill passes. Hundreds of Montanans will lose their insurance for their families and quite possibly many could lose their jobs. With the current agriculture prices as low as they this would only make things much worse for Montanans. The Republican Patients' Bill of Rights bill provides new rights to American patients. This bill will guarantee access to emergency room care, access to the doctor of your choice, access to ob-gyn care without prior authorization and access to a pediatrician without prior authorization. The Republican bill also improves continuity of care if a doctor leaves a health plan and improved access to medication. These are just a few of the things that our Patients' Bill of Rights bill guarantees patients. I will not vote for a bill that squeezes patients into a one-size- fits-all health plan. We do not want a Washington-knows-best solution. As a former county commissioner I have always believed in local control. The Republican bill provides tax-free medical savings accounts for patients and allows for 100 percent deductibility of health care costs for the self-employed. Medical savings accounts are similar to individual retirement accounts, except they are used to pay for health care needs instead of retirement. They permit individuals to set aside money, tax-free, to pay for medical expenses. The Democrats want to pass a bill that would regulate the structure and operation of all health insurance products at the federal level; impose mandates on consumers, health insurers and employers; enable new lawsuits against employers and insurers for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages; and increase the number of uninsured Americans by an estimated 1.9 million. In contrast the Republican bill guarantees to make health insurance more affordable for the self-employed by letting them deduct 100 percent of their health premiums in 2000--three years ahead of schedule. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Democrats bill, S. 6, would increase health insurance premiums an average 6.1 percent which would force 1.8 million to 1.9 million Americans to lose their health coverage. This bill will also lower household wages an average of $207 annually, and would eliminate 194,000 jobs by 2003. I am firmly behind a bill in the United States that will provide consumer protections and enhanced health care quality, while keeping insurance affordable and actually expanding access to insurance for millions of Americans. Under the Republican bill, the patients have the right to talk freely and openly with their doctors about all treatment options and the right to see the doctor of their choice. Even more important, they have the right to a quick and cost-free appeals process if a health plan refuses to cover treatment. The Republican bill does all these things, and also expands opportunity for millions of uninsured Americans to come into the health care system. We offer tax-free medical savings accounts to all, and extend tax equity to self-employed individuals. Mr. President, the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights Plus makes sure all Americans have the access and protections they need and want. Americans deserve access to the best doctors and specialists available; reliable information about their doctors and their health plans, and affordable, quality care at every stage of life. This week, I will work to make sure Congress addresses these important issues with a plan that puts you, not a bureaucrat, in control of your health care. I thank the chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will establish a commission to study the future of the travel agent industry and determine the consumer impact of airline interaction with travel agents. Since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was enacted, major airlines have controlled pricing and distribution policies of our nation's domestic air transportation system. Over the past four years, the airlines have reduced airline commissions to travel agents in an competitive effort to reduce costs. I am concerned the impact of today's business interaction between airlines and travel agents may be a driving force that will force many travel agents out of business. Combined with the competitive emergence of Internet services, these practices may be harming an industry that employs over 250,000 Americans. This bill will explore these concerns through the establishment of a commission to objectively review the emerging trends in the airline ticket distribution system. Among airline consumers there is a growing concern that the airlines may be using their market power to unfairly limit how airline tickets are distributed. Mr. President, if we lose our travel agents, we lose a competitive component to affordable air fare. Travel agents provide a much needed service and without, the consumer is the loser. The current use of independent travel agencies as the predominate method to distribute tickets ensures an efficient and unbiased source of information for air travel. Before deregulation, travel agents handled only about 40 percent of the airline ticket distribution system. Since deregulation, the complexity of the ticket pricing system created the need for travel agents resulting in travel agents handling nearly 90 percent of transactions. Therefore, the travel agent system has proven to be a key factor to the success of airline deregulation. I'm afraid, however, that the demise of the independent travel agent would be a factor of deregulation's failure if the major airlines succeed in dominating the ticket distribution system. Travel agents and other independent distributors comprise a considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States. There are 33,000 travel agencies employing over 250,000 people. Women or minorities own over 50 percent of travel agencies. The assault on travel agents has been fierce. Since 1995, commissions have been reduced by 30 percent, 14 percent for domestic travel alone in 1998. Since 1995, travel agent commissions have been reduced from an average of 10.8 percent to 6.9 percent in 1998. Travel agencies are failing in record numbers. Mr. President, I think it is important to study this issue as well as the related issues of the current state of ticket distribution channels, the importance of an independent system on small, regional, start-up carriers, and the role of the Internet.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor to honor a Department of Justice team that is receiving the top prosecution award today at Constitution Hall. This team of 12 prosecutors and investigators was faced with the challenging task of bringing LeRoy Schweitzer, Richard Clark, Daniel Petersen, Rodney Skurdal, Dale Jacobi, Russell Landers, and others, known as the ``Freemen,'' to justice. As you may remember, the Montana Freemen were a group of individuals who refused to recognize any authority by U.S. officials. Instead, they created their own ``republic'' and court system. After warrants were prepared for multiple counts of fraud, armed robbery, and firearms violations, they holed up on their ranch for 81 days in a tense standoff. The team recognized today were critical in preparing the warrants, negotiating the peaceful resolution of the standoff, and convicting twenty-one members of the group. In addition, this team worked with many other prosecution teams to prepare and present related cases in over thirty federal districts. It makes me especially proud that there were seven Montanans among the group being recognized. They are Assistant U.S. Attorney James Seykora, Paralegal Specialist Deborah Boyle, IRS Special Agents Michael Mayott and Loretta Rodriquez, FBI Senior Resident Agent Daniel Vierthaler, FBI Special Agent Randall Jackson, and Montana Department of Justice Agent Bryan Costigan. I also appreciate the contribution of Robertson Park, George Toscas, David Kris, Tommie Canady, and Timothy Healy as award winners contributing from agencies outside of the state. I also think it's only appropriate to recognize the investigation and prosecution leader, Montana U.S. Attorney Sherry Matteucci. Although this entire prosecution effort fell under her responsibility, as a political appointee, she is not eligible for this award. The Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service is given once each year, with the decision based upon the following: performance of a special service in the public interest that is over and above the normal requirements and of an outstanding and distinctive character in terms of improved operations, public understanding of the department's mission, or accomplishment of one of the major goals of the department, exceptionally outstanding contributions to the Department of Justice or exceptionally outstanding leadership in the administration of major programs that resulted in highly successful accomplishments to meet unique or emergency situations, or extraordinary courage and voluntary risk of life in performing an act resulting in direct benefits to the department or nation. From where I sit, this team has met or exceeded all of these high standards during the course of the investigation. Few other prosecutions have received the external scrutiny in the press, Justice management, and the public eye as did the Freemen prosecution. A terrific amount of juggling priorities and concerns was necessary to pull off a peaceful resolution of this crisis. Their conviction record on this case was solid, and will likely be the model from any similar situations in the future. So, it gives me great pleasure to bring our attention to this team's success, and I add my thanks for a job well done. We wish them nothing but continued success as they move on to other jobs within their home agencies. Again, congratulations on this great, well-deserved honor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I believe you can see how fitting it is that this article be included in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago, I stood on the floor in recognition of General Chuck Krulak's retirement as Commandant of the United States Marine Corps. Since then, I've attended the change of command ceremony at the Marine Barracks, and I must say, I was impressed with how General Krulak reminded us once again what makes Marines and the U.S. Marine Corps important. I am equally impressed with the conduct of General James Jones, the new Commandant, and his recognition of the challenge he faces in following General Krulak's command. I wish him well and encourage him to continue the traditions maintained by his predecessor in dealing with Congress. I come to the floor again today for one final addition to General Krulak's record before Congress. Oliver North wrote an excellent editorial recently in the Washington Times that captures the exceptional performance of the Commandant. I ask consent to have it printed in the Record. The material follows: Semper Fidelis (By Lt. Col. Oliver L. North (Ret.)) Washington, DC.--One recent morning, an invitation arrived in the mail. It was to a retirement ceremony at the Marine Barracks here in our nation's capital. I've probably been to more than a hundred of these rites of passage since I joined the Corps more than three decades ago. I won't be able to attend and had to send my sincere regrets for the invitation was to the retirement ceremony for a friend--General Charles C. Krulak, the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps. Now, Marine Lieutenant Colonels, even those of us no longer on active service, aren't in the habit of referring to Generals as friends--particularly when the General in question is the top Marine. And we sure don't offer a public critique of his performance as Commandant of all Marines. It just isn't done. But in this case, somebody needs to do it. Because when Chuck Krulak takes off his Dress Blues with those four stars on the shoulders for the last time as he will at the end of this month, the conscience of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have retired. And in this town, that kind of moral authority is going to be missed more than most people realize. For four years, Chuck Krulak has been ``the General who tells it like it is''--in public and in private. Whether in testimony on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon's ``tank'' where the Joint Chiefs of Staff meet, or at the White House, Chuck Krulak could be counted upon to tell the truth--whether they wanted to hear it or not. His reputation for integrity in a city that too little values this virtue is unparalleled--and a credit to the Corps of Marines he has led through some of the most tumultuous events in our history. His steadfast devotion to his 174,000 Marines is evident in all that he has said and done as Commandant. And very little of it endeared him to an administration hell bent on downsizing, feminizing, and de-``moralizing'' America's Armed Forces. When General Krulak was appointed Commandant in 1995, the Clinton White House was busy taking an axe to America's defense establishment. By the time these draconian cuts were done, the Army would lose eight active combat divisions. The Air Force and Navy would lose 20 air wings--and 2,000 combat aircraft. Another 232 strategic bombers, 13 ballistic missile submarines, four aircraft carriers, all of our battleships, and more than 100 other combat vessels would be sent to the boneyard. Only the Marine Corps was able to withstand Commander-in-Chief Clinton's quest for a mothballed military. And it didn't stop there. The Marines were badgered to make their boot camps co-ed. General Krulak said no. The Corps was told that it should put women in ground combat assignments in their expeditionary forces. Again, the top Marine said no. When the Pentagon started talking about relaxing the standard on sexual misconduct, Chuck Krulak just said, no. And when a Clinton political appointee responsible for ``feminizing'' the military decried the Marines as ``extremists,'' the Commandant fired back a blistering response that yes, they were, ``extremely fit, extremely faithful and extremely patriotic.'' In every case he was right. And he didn't give an inch when the vaunted Clinton ``National Security Team'' acted as though the Marines had done so much for so long with so little that they could continue to do everything with nothing forever. Faced with unprecedented global commitments and the prospect of declining readiness, Krulak pulled no punches. He told the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that the Marines were ready to perform Mission Impossible--but that they needed to be better armed and equipped. He got what he wanted. While the other branches of our Armed Forces struggle to meet recruiting and retention goals, lower their entrance standards, ease training requirements and try to make military service less ``military''--the Corps has done exactly the opposite. Krulak extended boot camp--adding his ``Crucible Training'' to the already rigorous initiation into the Corps. His Marines loved him for it, and the Corps has thrived. The power brokers in Washington, who favor ``yes men'' over honest men, probably won't miss Chuck Krulak very much. But his Marines will. And I will--mostly because I remember him as a young Captain of Infantry, thirty years ago, when we served together in a corner of hell called Vietnam. He was then, as he is today, a warrior and a man of principle, integrity and character. He embodied then, as he does today, the guiding ethos of the Marines--Semper Fidelis--Always Faithful.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great Montanan who is a man of extraordinary talents and accomplishments, one of the most notable being President of the Amateur Trapshooting Association. This Association is the largest clay target shooting organization in the world with more than 100,000 members. This year as President, he will preside over the Grand American 100th Anniversary trapshoot in Vandalia, Ohio from August 12-21, 1999. This past week in Missoula, Montana, July 8 was designated Gene Clawson, Jr. Day by the Montana State Trapshooting Association to recognize his dedication and service to this sport. Gene's dedication started over 40 years ago when he began shooting with his father and brother. When Gene started, he dominated state junior competitions and earned All-American status. His dedication and love for the sport propelled him to win 10 state championships, a national doubles Class AA championship. He was selected to the Montana All-State Team thirty- one times and in 1995 he was inducted into the Montana State Trapshooting Association Hall of Fame. One of his more phenomenal accomplishments was shooting the amazing ``perfect'' doubles score of 100 for a total of sixteen times. Gene's service to trapshooting also has been an unusual example of unfaltering support and leadership. Gene started out helping his father with the duties of secretary-treasurer of the Missoula Trap and Skeet Club. From there his involvement grew to include being on the club's board of directors, Montana's delegate to the Amateur Trapshooting Association, and the Western Zone Vice-President for the Association in which he presided over 13 western States and Canadian provinces. Now as the President of the Amateur Trapshooting Association, he deals with virtually all of the Association's business. In all his endeavors, he has gained the respect and admiration of many people as well as to inspiring others to participate in the this exciting sport. In addition to being a master of his sport, he is also a successful businessman. He has been President of the family-owned business, Clawson Manufacturing, for over 30 years. When his father started the business in 1948, they concentrated on unfinished furniture and cut stock. Since then, Gene has moved the company into designing, producing, and selling windows and roof trusses worldwide. Gene is also a dedicated family man. Ranging in ages from 12 to 79, the Clawsons are an amazing example of family tradition, devotion, support, and success. For several years, three generations of Clawsons have hunted elk, waterfowl, and upland birds together. Three of Gene's sons (Nick, Bill, and Brad) have followed in their father's footsteps in excelling at trapshooting competitions. Now his grandson has joined the firing line. In these days when guns are associated with destroying families, it is refreshing to see an example of how the shooting sports can bring a family closer together. Mr. President, I recognize Mr. Gene Clawson, Jr. and congratulate him for his accomplishments as an amateur trapshooter, father, and businessman. I was him and his family the best and much success in their future endeavors. Please join with me in recognizing this great Montanan and outstanding American.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. There is a managers' amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.