Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring recognition to a special Montanan, Phil Petrik. Phil is a commercial pilot in Sidney, Montana. One afternoon, Phil overheard another pilot talking to someone at the Williston, North Dakota airport on the radio. Apparently, the pilot was above the clouds and could not find a hole to make it through to land. The pilot stated that he would fly on to the Watford City airport and see if he could land there. Later in the day, Petrik once again heard the pilot calling the Eilliston airport, requesting information about landing. Unfortunately, the conditions had not changed. Phil then contacted the Williston airport to inquire if there was someone there who could guide the pilot down. He was informed that there was not. Phil got into his own plane and flew to approximately where the plane in distress should be and he finally found him. The other pilot told Phil he had about 30 minutes of fuel left. Phil had the FAA clear the airspace and they started down through the clouds. The two planes were in the clouds for about 90 seconds. Petrik guided the other plane to the airport and returned home. Upon his arrival in Sidney, Phil found out that the pilot had actually only one minute and 20 seconds of fuel left when he made it to the ground. Phil has already been recognized by the Federal Aviation Association for his valiant act of selflessness. His peers in Montana have all told me that this is an example of the type of man Mr. Petrik is. It is a great honor for me to share this story of valor and compassion. One man willing to risk his life for another. Please join me in offering congratulations and thanks to Phil Petrik.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished Majority Leader and Senator Stevens for working with me, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senator Breaux on the passage of S. 376, the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act, better known as ``ORBIT.'' The passage of ORBIT by unanimous consent today clearly indicates the Senate's overwhelming support for the approach taken in ORBIT to reform our satellite communications laws. I look forward to working with my good friend in the other body, Chairman Bliley, on getting this legislation enacted into law this year. ORBIT is a truly bipartisan bill that updates the Satellite Communications Act of 1962, expands competition, and encourages new market entrants in satellite communications. It will help to secure the rapid and pro-competitive privatization of INTELSAT by a date certain of January 1, 2002. The bill provides new incentives for INTELSAT's privatization, while at the same time, carries tough consequences if INTELSAT fails to achieve this important objective. The bill also brings needed reform to the U.S. signatory to INTELSAT, COMSAT, by removing its special privileges and immunities. In addition, the bill eliminates outdated statutory restrictions on the ownership of COMSAT, which will allow COMSAT to function like a normal, private commercial company. ORBIT will enhance competition in satellite communications, bringing far reaching and long-term benefits to consumers both here and abroad. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I especially want to thank the staff. The staff of all parties was involved in this. There have been long hours and long days devoted to this particular issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. 376 as reported by the Commerce Committee.

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and agreed to, the committee substitute be agreed to, as amended, and the bill be read for the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, this weekend I traveled across my home State discussing the issues that are before us today, and also had the opportunity to travel into Canada to talk about agriculture, to try to solve some of the problems that face agricultural producers today. What is happening here is a matter of fact. The hostages are those folks who depend on food stamps, those folks who depend on the WIC Program--young women with children and infants who depend on those nutritional programs. What is happening is we are trying to do the business of the Nation, and that is funding the programs that Americans want. Yes, agriculture is in tough straits. We have seen in this past year commodity prices dip way below the prices they were during the Great Depression. Yet we expect our agriculture producers to produce. We expect our grocery stores to stay full. We expect to buy those foods in any amount, prepared in any way; to be handy--and they are. This Nation is truly a blessed nation in that we have producers like that. While I realize the debate on health care is very important, let's not lose sight of the Nation's business. Let's not take our eye off the ball. The Nation's business, first and foremost, is to pass the appropriations bills to fund those Departments and those programs that depend on those bills, and then debate health care or Medicare reform. Nobody on either side of the aisle underestimates the importance of that debate. But the business of the Government is to finance and provide funds for programs so this Nation can operate. That is what is being held hostage. Madam President, 23 percent of the gross national product depends on agriculture. No other part of the American economy contributes so much to our gross national product. Yet here we stand, talking about an amendment to an agriculture bill that is strong enough to be debated as a stand-alone piece of legislation. I talk to my farmers in Montana. They want the agriculture appropriations bill passed. In this bill there is research money. In this bill there is money needed to open up export markets, to let agriculture producers take advantage of added value to their own products. It allows them to find niche markets. It allows them to live. The health care bill has nothing to do with agriculture--nothing. You cannot claim germaneness. You cannot claim anything. I think the health care issue deserves a stand-alone debate, but it should not block the financing of Government programs. That is too important. The lives of too many producers are on the line, as are their farms and their ranches. We hear complaints all the time about legislation on appropriations bills. In the majority of these cases, the amendments at least have some relationship or some germaneness to the issue at hand. But what significant relationship does a Patients' Bill of Rights have to agricultural production? We should pass the appropriations bills, get them into conference, send them down to the President, and let him sign them. There is ample time left to debate health care in the United States. My farmers and ranchers are a little bit baffled. They do not have a clue as to what is really happening. I say that somewhat in jest because the majority of them do know what is happening. They are being held hostage. How do I explain to them that the money allocated to programs important to them is being held up entirely for a debate on an issue which should be a stand-alone issue? Let's pass these appropriations bills. Let's get them out of the way. Let's assure the American people we can do the Nation's business. Let's assure the American farm and ranch people their programs will be passed and financed. Let's tell those who depend on food stamps their money is going to be there. Let's tell the elderly people who depend on Meals on Wheels it is going to be there. Let's tell the young mothers with infants and children who depend on nutritional programs the money will be there. There is no sickness in the world worse than starvation. Do you want to drive health care costs higher? Then disregard the nutritional programs found in this agricultural appropriations bill. Whom are we hurting? Those who can afford it least. Let's get back on track. My farmers and ranchers are tired of waiting and so are the folks who depend on these programs. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to stand with Senator Lott today, our majority leader, in honor of the coming change of command of the U.S. Marine Corps and the Commandant and the retirement of Gen. Charles C. Krulak. We all share one thing, and I think the leader missed one thing the General stands for. It is written out there on the Iwo Jima Memorial. Uncommon valor was a common virtue. Every marine carries that and semper fi. As a former enlisted marine, there is no other comparable military fraternity. In fact, I credit the Marines Corps for saving my life. I remember as a young man I was sort of adrift. The Marine Corps has the habit of setting a person straight. I share the kindred spirit that is fundamentally the heart and the soul of the Corps. It has been my pleasure to work with General Krulak in my duties as chairman of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Committee since he assumed his duties as the 31st Commandant in 1995. His military career extended back almost 40 years to his entry in the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated in 1964 and went on to The Basic School in Quantico, VA. He continued to distinguish himself in command positions too numerous to count, including two tours in Vietnam. During the gulf war, General Krulak commanded the 2nd Force Service Support Group for the Atlantic Fleet Marine Forces. If you read through his commendation list, it seems he earned almost every award and decoration possible, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, a Silver Star, Bronze Star, two Gold Stars, and a Purple Heart, just to make a few. I think it goes to show every American how appropriate it was for General Krulak to be nominated for the Commandant's office. He told me the other day that when he leaves the Marines Corps this will be the first time a Krulak has not been in a marine uniform for over 80 years. What a great tradition. He knows the marines. He was raised in the society. He stood up for them and their fundamental beliefs. In his farewell to the Corps in the June edition of Leatherneck Magazine, General Krulak reminds us of two simple qualities that define all marines. First is the Touchstone of Valor. When marines are called to battle, they suit up and go, and they fight. Winning is mandatory; losing is not an option. This has been true from the earliest days of the Revolutionary War through modern-day battles. The battle list is long and distinguished: Iwo Jima, Inchon, Danang, Kuwait, and now Kosovo. The Commandant reminds us that ``the memory of the marines who fought in these battles lives in us and in the core values of our precious Corps.'' The second quality is the Touchstone of Values. Marines have always held themselves to the highest standards. Words like ``honor,'' ``courage,'' and ``commitment'' are convictions that are embedded within the recruitment and training of all marines. Semper Fidelis is not just a Marine Corps motto; it is a heartfelt passion. When you hear General Krulak's statement, you understand why the name U.S. Marine brings confidence to America's allies and general respect from all of our potential enemies. He was a leader by example and he will continue to be a leader by example. He stood as an anchor on the Joint Chiefs, paving the way for Congress to make some progress in military readiness. He is widely known for his openness, his honesty, and his cruel truth. The general has the toughness of the Corps, but he has a sensitive side also, which is the quality of a leader. I have a shirttail cousin who served in the Marine Corps and was wounded in Vietnam. Last summer, Cpl. Dan Critten and his wife visited this town and attended a dinner and we were honored to have General Krulak attend. Danny is confined to a wheelchair because of his injury sustained in Vietnam. He was at Danang. As it turned out, General Krulak was just a hill away that very day. Dan came home back to Missouri in a wheelchair, and he went right back to farming. He fixed up his tractor. He had all the hydraulic lifts and he could chase his cattle and do his farming. He never whimpered once. He, too earned the Bronze Star and has lived a life that is truly the model of an American and a marine that we all know and notice. I remember that meeting when we went to that dinner, when the general met the corporal that evening. It was a special moment in the human experience. There was no rank, just a special feeling of two warriors who faced and survived the horrors of war. I will never forget that moment. It reminded me why this Nation, this United States, will lead the world and why the Corps is respected wherever it is assigned. It has dedicated men and women who have a sense of duty, the willingness to win but also a quality of heart. Every change of command brings happiness and sadness. There is satisfaction and appreciation for a job well done, and there is mourning for departing the fellowship of the Corps. The good news is there is no such thing as an ex-marine. I am convinced that General Krulak will be as effective in his future position as he was a marine. On behalf of United States, I say thank you, General, for your incredible service and your dedication to your country. We owe you and all marines a debt that can never be repaid. You have lived honorably in extraordinary circumstances and have left the Corps stronger and more capable in your wake. We say, Semper Fi. Now we welcome a new Commandant, another marine who has stood the test on the field of battle and among his peers. I have no doubt about the future of this Nation's U.S. Marine Corps. The tradition continues. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today with mixed feelings. On one hand I desperately want to do everything possible to help out America's oil patch. My state has lost thousands of jobs over the last decade and our small independent oil and gas producers are being forced out of the business. Our oil towns are now ghost towns and oil development plans for Montana are far and few between. I would love nothing more than to find a way to help out this vital segment of Montana's economy. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the piece of legislation is the best course of action. With all due respect to my colleague, Senator Domenici, I cannot support any legislation that dips us deeper into the Social Security fund. We have made a stand. We will not continue to dip into this fund and put a further cramp on a system already strained to its breaking point. One step here, another there, and the next thing you know the pledge is gone, and along with it a promise I have made to my fellow Montanans. It is a hard, hard decision, but I know that Montanans will support me. I have already heard from many of them on this vote. I have called some of my independent producers and asked them if this is the course of action they need us to take right now. Some of them originally supported the program, but more often than not I heard an answer that made me even more proud to know these men and women. They told me that they don't want a handout, and this legislation doesn't address the heart of the problem. The problem in oil country is pretty simple. The federal government is running us off the land and ensuring we can't make a profit. If you want to help the true independents out there, the Montana businesses, and the other producers who live in the communities, then you better look at royalty relief and streamlining the process to keep our marginal wells in production. You need to let us get to the oil and gas, and you need to be there working with producers, not against them. The Bureau of Land Management, the Department of the Interior, and the United States Forest Service need to change. We don't need to set up a loaning bureaucracy to place more restrictions on our producers and rope them into more capital investment in a market of uncertainty. Passing this legislation without addressing the heart of the problem is the same as increasing someone's credit limit because they are on the edge of bankruptcy. You have to address the problems of price and access versus production cost, you can't just give them more lead rope and hope the market rebounds to allow them to repay their loans. Additionally, the legislation before us says you are only eligible for loans under this proposal if credit is not otherwise available, and you can ensure repayment. Well, that sounds like we are talking out of both sides of our mouths. To make matters worse, the legislation dictates that you have to let the General Accounting Office take a full look at your company's records. Not many Montanans that I know want the federal government having full access to their books as a bargaining chip in their effort to get a loan. The other big problem is that the Guarantee Board is made up of appointees of the Clinton-Gore Administration. I believe the real problems facing our producers are political. Would this legislation only make this problem worse? The administration has a known political agenda that is attempting to move all economic activity off our public lands. They are locking it up piece by piece. Will this agenda infect the decision process as to who gets loans? A lot of our interest is on public land and I don't want to have to face the possibility that some of my producers would be discriminated against because they operate on public land. I know that my colleagues who support this measure mean well, and they are looking for a way to respond to the pain in the oil patch as quickly as possible, but this is not the way to do it. We need to rally behind a consensus bill that gives tax relief and helps lower the cost of production. We need to stand firm on royalty rates, and we need to continue pushing our Cabinet agencies to stop running our producers off the land. We can extract oil and gas responsibly, and our nation depends on it. Unfortunately, the agenda of the current administration is blinded by politics and is set on completely ignoring the reality of what is good both for the West, and for the security of our nation. No matter what the outcome of the vote today, I hope it does not distract us from working together to find a real solution. If the legislation passes, I don't want to hear that we have fixed the problem. If it fails, I hope those of us who understand the problems facing our oil and gas producers can come together and work towards passing legislation that goes to the core of the problem.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will have to ask some of the staff but I think Mr. McCain will not be present to make his statement this morning. I will make mine, and then we will work that out later. I am pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 2000. The bill reflects a bipartisan approach that the ranking member, Senator Murray of the State of Washington, and I have tried to maintain regarding military construction and this subcommittee. This isn't the first year we have put this bill together. We are getting to be old hands at it. But I want to say personally it is a pleasure to work with the Senator and her staff. It seems as if we have a lot of luck in working out some of the problems some people would run into before we ever get the bill to the floor. So those problems are taken care of. I appreciate the attitude and manner in which we have worked together on this bill. This bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee on June 10 by a unanimous vote of 28 to nothing. The bill recommended by the full Committee on Appropriations is $8,273,820,000. The administration submitted the fiscal year 2000 military construction budget with all of the military construction and family housing projects incrementally funded over a 2-year period. We are finding that some of that is working and some of it is not, and we will probably be looking at this in a different light in another year. To have proceeded in this manner would have demonstrated a poor financial stewardship on the part of the Senate and placed the Department's 2000 military construction program in great jeopardy. That is the reason we are taking a look at it. The subcommittee rejected that recommendation and provided full funding for all of the construction projects. Accordingly, the bill is $2.8 billion over the budget request, but the bill is still $176 million less than what was appropriated just a year ago. However, more important, the legislation reflects a reduction of $1.7 billion from just 3 years ago. We have sought to recommend a balanced bill to the Senate. We believe it addresses key military construction requirements for readiness, family housing, barracks, quality of life, and of course we do not want to forget our Guard and our Reserve components. This bill honors the commitment we have to our Armed Forces. It helps ensure that the housing and infrastructure needs of the military are given proper recognition. Also, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the bill is within the committee's 302(b) budget allocations for both budget authority and outlays. This bill has some points I want to mention. We have added $485 million above the budget request to provide better and more modern family housing for our service personnel and their families. Just less than a month ago, we opened a new housing unit at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. I said at that time, and I still mean it, there is no better way to send a strong message to our fighting men and women than to provide them with good housing in a good atmosphere and the greatest way we can say we care. On another quality of life measure, we added substantially to the budget request for barracks construction projects, some $587 million for 47 projects throughout the United States and overseas. I say right now to the American people, we have American troops deployed in over 70 countries around the world. This funding will provide single service members a more favorable living environment wherever they are stationed. The committee also fully funds the budget request of $245 million for funding 25 environmental compliance projects. We also addressed the shortfalls that continue to plague our reserve components. I continue to be greatly alarmed that the Department of Defense takes no responsibility for ensuring that our reserve components have adequate facilities. Their lack of disregard for the total force concept very much concerns me and a number of our colleagues. This comes at a time when our country is so heavily dependent on the Guard and Reserve to maintain our presence around the world. For example, the President's budget requested funding of only $77 million for all of the Reserve components and the National Guard. Recognizing this chronic shortfall, we have again lent support by adding $560 million to these accounts. In each case, the funds will help satisfy essential mission, quality of life or readiness requirements. We fully funded the budget request for the base realignment and closure account by providing $706 million to continue the ongoing brac process. All of the projects that we have recommended were thoroughly screened to ensure that they meet a series of defensible criteria and that they were authorized in the defense authorization bill. We will work very closely with the Senate Armed Services Committee, as we put together a conference package for military construction. There are many other issues that I could speak about at this time. I urge the Members of the Senate to support this bill and move it forward expeditiously. I yield the floor for the ranking member.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud sponsor of this pesticide harmonization legislation. As many of you are aware, there are a number of trade imbalances facing the agricultural industry. In my home State of Montana and many other western and mid-western states, trade imbalances occur primarily between Canada and the United States. However, disparities occur between the United States and many foreign countries. One of those trade imbalances is pesticide harmonization, which is a serious issue for American farmers. There are numerous disparities between chemicals and pesticides that are allowed in foreign countries and those that are allowed here in the United States. In many cases a chemical will have the identical chemical structure in both countries but be named and priced differently. Why should an American producer be expected to pay twice the amount for an identical chemical available in a foreign country for less? In order for free trade to truly occur, this issue must be addressed. Farmers have dealt with several years of depressed prices with no immediate end in sight. To compound the economic crunch American farmers are feeling, American agricultural producers must pay nearly twice the amount that foreign producers pay in their country for nearly the same chemical. This leads to a huge disparity between the break-even price on crop production between foreign and American farmers, and gives foreign producers an unfair advantage. It is unfair for American producers to pay twice the amount for pesticides and chemicals as many of our trading partners. Furthermore, it is against the law for American producers to purchase an identical chemical in a foreign country and bring it across the border. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be held accountable to American producers and assure that producers have the same advantages in this country in regards to pesticides and chemicals that foreign producers enjoy. My bill assures that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be held accountable to domestic agricultural producers. Primarily, it mandates that the EPA give mutual recognition to the same chemical structures, on both existing and new products, in the United States and competing foreign countries. It does this by several provisions. First, it permits any agricultural individual or group, within a state, to put forth a request through the State Ag Commissioner (Head of the Department of Agriculture) to the EPA to register chemicals with substantially similar make-up to those registered in a foreign country. Within 60 days of receiving that request the EPA would be held responsible to either accept or deny that request. They must then give the same recognition to American producers for chemical structures that are substantially similar to cheaper products available in competing foreign countries. Additionally, my bill will ensure that the Administrator of the EPA will take into account both NAFTA and the Canada/U.S. Trade Agreement, in making these determinations. These provisions will level the pricing structure by making sure that chemicals with the same (or substantially similar) structures are priced fairly in the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue to American farmers and ranchers. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud sponsor of this pesticide harmonization legislation. As many of you are aware, there are a number of trade imbalances facing the agricultural industry. In my home State of Montana and many other western and mid-western states, trade imbalances occur primarily between Canada and the United States. However, disparities occur between the United States and many foreign countries. One of those trade imbalances is pesticide harmonization, which is a serious issue for American farmers. There are numerous disparities between chemicals and pesticides that are allowed in foreign countries and those that are allowed here in the United States. In many cases a chemical will have the identical chemical structure in both countries but be named and priced differently. Why should an American producer be expected to pay twice the amount for an identical chemical available in a foreign country for less? In order for free trade to truly occur, this issue must be addressed. Farmers have dealt with several years of depressed prices with no immediate end in sight. To compound the economic crunch American farmers are feeling, American agricultural producers must pay nearly twice the amount that foreign producers pay in their country for nearly the same chemical. This leads to a huge disparity between the break-even price on crop production between foreign and American farmers, and gives foreign producers an unfair advantage. It is unfair for American producers to pay twice the amount for pesticides and chemicals as many of our trading partners. Furthermore, it is against the law for American producers to purchase an identical chemical in a foreign country and bring it across the border. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be held accountable to American producers and assure that producers have the same advantages in this country in regards to pesticides and chemicals that foreign producers enjoy. My bill assures that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be held accountable to domestic agricultural producers. Primarily, it mandates that the EPA give mutual recognition to the same chemical structures, on both existing and new products, in the United States and competing foreign countries. It does this by several provisions. First, it permits any agricultural individual or group, within a state, to put forth a request through the State Ag Commissioner (Head of the Department of Agriculture) to the EPA to register chemicals with substantially similar make-up to those registered in a foreign country. Within 60 days of receiving that request the EPA would be held responsible to either accept or deny that request. They must then give the same recognition to American producers for chemical structures that are substantially similar to cheaper products available in competing foreign countries. Additionally, my bill will ensure that the Administrator of the EPA will take into account both NAFTA and the Canada/U.S. Trade Agreement, in making these determinations. These provisions will level the pricing structure by making sure that chemicals with the same (or substantially similar) structures are priced fairly in the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue to American farmers and ranchers. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise to highlight the hypocrisy that I have heard during this debate on S. 96, the Y2K legislation admirably led by my friend, Senator John McCain. I have heard a number of Senators up here saying they would not do anything to hurt the high- tech industry. Those same Senators then turn around and offer an amendment or voice their support for an amendment that no one in the high-tech industry supports, but there is one group who supports their amendments, the American Trial Lawyers. As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, I work with leaders from the high-tech industry on a daily basis. I sit back in amazement when I watch the economic success of our nation, which is largely driven by the high-tech industry. In fact, yesterday, June 14, Alan Greenspan testified in front of Chairman Mack's Joint Economic Committee and placed strong emphasis on the fact that the high-tech industry is driving our current economic boom. It is creating an economy like we have never seen before. I am working toward the goal of bringing high-tech jobs to Montana, my home state. I believe in my heart that the day will come when the high-tech economy delivers more good paying jobs to my fellow Montanans. I do not want anything to get in the way of this possibility. Let me give you a few amazing statistics that outline the success and tremendous growth opportunities in this industry. In 1998, there was anywhere from $32 billion to $50 billion in electronic commerce done worldwide depending on which research firm you listen to. The Gartner Group projects that in 2003 there will be $3.2 trillion in electronic commerce done worldwide. Think about that, $32 billion in 1998 and over $3.2 trillion in 2003 or 100 times as much electronic commerce in five years. Friends, we have never seen growth like this in an economic sector in American history. Further, in 2010, 20 percent of worldwide commerce will be done online. I ask myself, ``What can the Government do to make sure these numbers become a reality?'' We need to stay out of the way. What can the Government do that could stop this unprecedented growth? I can tell you what we could do to stop the growth of the industry, we could listen to our colleagues who are up here carrying the water of the trial lawyers. Let me show you exactly why the American trial lawyers do not want to see this legislation pass. The Gartner Group estimates that the cost of dealing with the Y2K bug worldwide will run in excess of $600 billion. Yet, we continuously hear that class action lawsuits and other suits are being filed or are being written for later filing that may reach past the $1 trillion mark. Do you know any industry in the world that is so resilient that it can easily take a $1 trillion hit without being slowed down in its growth? I don't. As a matter of fact, as big as the Y2K problem is, the biggest problem our high-tech industry faces is from the trial lawyers. We cannot stand by and let this happen. I want the American people to see why many Senators are carrying Amendments that are supported by the American trial lawyers. In the 1998 election cycle, nearly 90 percent of the roughly $2.4 million given to federal candidates by the American Trial Lawyers Association was given to Democrats. Every single one of the Amendments offered here on the Senate floor that the American Trial Lawyers Association backed has been offered by Democrats. It is not hard to see the correlation and draw conclusions. President Clinton has threatened to veto S. 96 if passed in its current form. Sure enough, if you look back to his election in 1996, you find that over 90 percent of the money given by the American Trial Lawyers Association was given to President Clinton over former Majority Leader Bob Dole. The Democrats stand on the Senate floor and say that their proposed amendments to S. 96 are proconsumer. I am here to highlight the hypocrisy in that statement. Is it proconsumer to slow the growth of our Nation's economy because of frivolous legislation? What the amendments do and President Clinton's threatened veto stand to do are to slow one of the most outstanding eras of economic growth this country has ever seen. And they say this is proconsumer? As voices for the people, we are elected to do what is best for the citizens of America. The high tech industry, which is carrying us into an unprecedented era of economic strength, wants to see this bill passed so that the $1 trillion plus in threatened lawsuits by the American trial lawyers never become a reality. The Democrats are again threatening to play politics with a matter of grave danger and utmost importance to the American economy. I want to say to my colleagues, stand firm. Push this bill through unchanged, and send it to President Clinton. The growth of the high-tech industry is absolutely critical to the continued growth of our Nation's economy. Make President Clinton tell the American people that he would rather see the trial lawyers have their day and pay rather than see one of the most exciting industries in American history continue its rise to the top of our Nation's economy. Do not let the American trial lawyers dictate our economy, stand in support of Senator McCain's bill, S. 96.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today to discuss my grave concern regarding the Section 201 petition brought forward by America's domestic lamb industry. This case has been sitting on President Clinton's desk for more than 2 months. He has had more than ample time to make a decision. Furthermore, the decision was slated for June 5. For 10 days, America's sheep producers have been waiting, wondering what is going to happen to their livelihood. On February 9, 1999, the International Trade Commission voted unanimously that lamb imports are a threat to our industry. On March 26, the sheep industry scored another victory with the decision by the International Trade Commission to support 4 years of market stability. Several remedies have been offered, including tariff rate quotas and ad-valorem tariffs. Now a decision by President Clinton to approve, deny, or modify those remedies has been expected since June 5. This administration has virtually ignored the request by America's sheep producers to solve the issue of excessive imports. While these producers are suffering, the President continues to deal with any and all other issues but this important agriculture case. While I understand that Kosovo and other world issues require much time and consideration, domestic policy cannot stand still during international situations. The agricultural producers of this country that provide food and fiber for the rest of the Nation, warrant more time and attention than this administration has paid them. I feel as though the crisis facing the sheep producers of this country is receiving about the same consideration from this administration as agriculture received 5 months ago in the State of the Union Address. Agriculture received a mere thirty seconds during that address and is receiving even less time in this important case. The domestic lamb industry has every reason to believe their market has been substantially undercut by these countries. Imports now make up nearly one-third of the domestic market, and comparisons of imported and domestic lamb meat have found that imports undercut domestic products nearly 80 percent of the time. Between 1993 and 1997 imports increased 47 percent. The problems of imports are very real and have had a substantial impact on sheep producers. Furthermore, the domestic industry has followed the legal process for trade action that is available to all industries under our trade agreements. The unanimous ruling of the ITC during the injury phase of this 201 case, followed by the entire Commission's recommendation to impose trade relief, clearly shows U.S. sheep producers have a viable case. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in urging the president to make an extremely timely decision in support of the section 201 petition and the recommendations made by the domestic sheep industry for strong and effective trade relief.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is extremely important to a small town in north central Montana. Landusky is a small agriculture community just south of the Fort Belknap Reservation and just north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Unfortunately, an oversight which may seem small in the eyes of those used to the hustle and bustle of Washington D.C. places the Landusky school district in a difficult position. The legislation I am introducing today corrects this oversight by conveying the surface and mineral estates of two lots the school has occupied for a number of decades. The legislation is strongly supported by the town of Landusky and the Bureau of Land Management. It is imperative that we move quickly on this legislation. I would like nothing more than to have the students of Landusky return to school this fall with the knowledge that the problems facing a small town in Montana are worthy of our attention and we were willing to move forward and ensure that their school's future is as bright as their own.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is extremely important to a small town in north central Montana. Landusky is a small agriculture community just south of the Fort Belknap Reservation and just north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Unfortunately, an oversight which may seem small in the eyes of those used to the hustle and bustle of Washington D.C. places the Landusky school district in a difficult position. The legislation I am introducing today corrects this oversight by conveying the surface and mineral estates of two lots the school has occupied for a number of decades. The legislation is strongly supported by the town of Landusky and the Bureau of Land Management. It is imperative that we move quickly on this legislation. I would like nothing more than to have the students of Landusky return to school this fall with the knowledge that the problems facing a small town in Montana are worthy of our attention and we were willing to move forward and ensure that their school's future is as bright as their own.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements of an outstanding student from Kalispell, Montana. The Montana chapter of the American Association of University Women sponsors an annual essay contests for students in grades 11 and 12. The topic of the essays was ``Women in Montana History.'' Courtenay Burt, an Eleventh Grader at Bigfork High School, had her essay chosen as the best of all submitted in Montana. She writes about her grandmother, a woman of integrity and wisdom who died when Courtenay was only eight months old. Her essay tells us the story of a woman who grew up during the Great Depression, survived the often harsh climate of Montana, raised a family, earned the respect of her community, and maintained a healthy sense of humor throughout it all. I ask that Courtenay Burt's essay ``Big Mama'' be printed in the Record. The essay follows: ``Old Mama'' (By Courtenay Burt) ``Dear Courtenay, I wish you could only know how much I had looked forward to watching you grow up, but I guess that just wasn't meant to be. Not to worry, though--we'll get better acquainted later.'' My grandmother, who was affectionately referred to as ``Old Mama,'' wrote those words in a shaky hand just before she passed away in 1982. I was eight months old, then, and so I have no memories of her; instead I've borrowed the memories of those who knew and lover her, as I wish I could have. Through reminiscing with those close to her, I have discovered the courageous, colorful woman my grandmother was and I have begun to paint a picture in my mind. ``Old Mama,'' was born Mary Katherine Emmert on February 7, 1918, in Kalispell, Montana. From an early age, it was apparent she would make her own decisions, and her strong will served her well. Using her active imagination, young Mary reportedly kept her parents as a full gallop. Mary's adolescent years might have been similar to any of ours, but they were marked by the hardships of the Great Depression, which began in 1929. ``Old Mama'' actually was one of those children who walked three miles to school in a blizzard. Like many, young Mary was eager to grow up. ``You always look up to the next step and think how grown up you would feel to be there, but when you get there, you don't feel any different than you ever did. I have found this to be the way with life,'' she stated in a paper for her English class at Flathead County High School. As a young woman, Mary lived the American Dream: She married Tommy Riedel, a local boy, and they eventually had two children. The couple worked side by side building a home on family farmland south of Kalispell, and the years that followed were typical for a young family of the '50's: Tommy worked while Mary raised the children. There were neighborhood events, outdoors activities, and there were always the joys of the farm life. My mother recalls horseback rides with Old Mama on those long-ago summer evenings, dusk falling hazy and pink as they loped the long fields home. Old Mama was a constant and steady support for her children. At one time she drove all the way to Nebraska to watch my mother compete in the National track finals. ``During those teen years, it was her never-failing presence more than her words that assured me of her love,'' my mother once wrote. After Tommy had a sudden heart attack in his mid-forties and became disabled, Mary did not sit helplessly by. She inventoried her skills and went to work in Kalispell, becoming a legal secretary. She took great pride in her work. Years later, when it was fashionable for women to have more grandiose plans, my mother once made the mistake of remarking that she intended to be more than ``just a secretary.'' Old Mama gathered herself to full indignation and retorted that, indeed, Christ had been ``just a carpenter.'' Eventually, hard work and commitment opened a door for Mary Riedel. When the Justice of the Peace fell ill--for whom she'd been ``just a secretary''--Mary was appointed to act in his place. From all accounts, the job was perfect for her. ``Old Mama,'' had an uncanny ability to discern people's character and it served her well, as did her dry sense of humor. On one occasion, Mary intercepted a note that a previous offender had written to a friend who was due to appear in her court. ``Watch out for Mary Redneck,'' the note cautioned; it went on to complain of a substantial fine and a stern lecture. As Judge Mary read the note, all eyes were riveted on her. Slowly, Mary began to smile. Then she was laughing-tear streaming, gut-wrenching laughter. She returned the note to offender with the notation: ``Sorry. This seems to have gotten misdirected. Best wishes, Judge Mary Redneck.'' So often, in the shadow of life's triumphs come the cruel, unexpected twists. My grandmother was diagnosed with terminal cancer only a few years after being elected Justice of the Peace. Determined to battle the disease, she struggled to survive the ravages of chemotherapy. With all of her heart she fought, until she could see that it was time to give in with grace. On the last evening, she gathered her family together. ``I told God I wanted ten more years,'' she said, that wry smile still working the corners of her mouth. ``But when you're dealing with Him . . . you have to compromise a little.'' To the end, Old Mama was indomitable. On April 14, 1982, Mary Riedel was layed to rest. Although she is not here in person, her spirit lives on in the hearts of those who loved her; her strength, faith, and courage fire my imagination and warm my heart. Mary Riedel was a woman to be admired and remembered, and I am proud that she was my grandmother. She showed us how to live . . . and when the time came, she showed us how to die. works cited Beers, Burton F., World History: Patterns of Civilization: Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Needham, Massachusetts; Updated Edition, 1993. The Bible, New International Version as written by the Apostles. Burt, Justin, ``Mary Riedel: An Influencing Force in Montana History,'' Women of Montana Essays 1991-1995; American Association of University Women; Kalispell, Montana 1996. Burt, Kathleen, ``Remembering Mary Redneck,'' an unpublished paper. Burt, Kathleen, A personal interview. Riedel, Mary, ``Pat,'' an unpublished autobiography.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in this letter, the DSCC is making a broad request under the Freedom of Information Act regarding any information sent from my office to HHS or received from the Department. But it just doesn't include me. I have already said that. It includes a lot of Senators--10 of them, in fact, all Republicans, all up for reelection this year. The Freedom of Information Act request covers, ``all correspondence, inquiries and other information requested by or provided to'' my office over the past 10 years in the Senate, including ``all direct correspondence between the Senators or members of their staff and the HHS, including letters, written material, reports, constituent requests [very important] and other relevant materials.'' In other words, they want access to our casework. I have written to President Clinton demanding that he put an immediate stop to this or any similar action. What we are witnessing here is an unprecedented attempt to corrupt the nonpolitical casework system of Senate offices for political gain. I find these efforts repugnant, and if there are any Americans alive who think politics can't sink any lower, they need to look no further than right here. Through the letter to the HHS, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wants more than just to peer into private correspondence of political enemies; it wants to leer into the private lives of those who contact their Senator seeking help with Federal agencies. I have made tens of thousands of contacts on behalf of Montanans who asked me to help them with problems they are having with the Federal Government. These are problems which, if publicly revealed, could possibly ruin their lives. Many of these people are at the end of their emotional rope. Some of them are at the end of their financial world. It is beyond belief that the DSCC would consider ruining the lives of ordinary Americans to be all in a day's work in order to defeat this old Senator. This effort would put a permanent chill on the ability of Senators to help constituents in need. It saddens me to think that those who view a Senator's help as their last resort may now believe they have nowhere to turn. Just today, my office received a letter from a man in Billings, MT, whose wife we helped to receive treatment for breast cancer. As a Federal employee, she was having a hard time receiving the treatment. And she was entitled to it. After she asked for our assistance, we were able to resolve the matter for her and she got the care she needed. When her cancer spread, the Federal bureaucracy told her she couldn't get the care she needed close to home. Quoting his letter to me: After becoming totally frustrated with the whole process, we just gave up. But this time we decided to fight the issue again. I turned to the Senator's office again to enlist his help. And again in what seemed to be a flash of light, the situation has been resolved. Our office again stepped in. We cut the redtape. We helped her receive the additional radiation therapy while staying at her home in Billings. These are the people who depend on our help--real people whose lives are literally on the line. But the man who sent me the letter specifically asked that his name not be used in order to protect his privacy and, yes, that of his wife. Is it right that he should be subject to a Freedom of Information request, that some bureaucrat somewhere could decide on a whim to release this personal, sensitive information? It is hard to comprehend that the DSCC would use the time and the resources of the administration for political purposes in such a massive research effort, regardless of who ultimately pays. This effort is as constitutionally breathtaking as it is politically suspect. All those who value their civil rights should be outraged at this attempt to invade the privacy of countless unwary citizens. If indeed Federal law permits it, it is an absolute shame. It is enough to make me wonder whether Americans should now expect politicians to use any means to achieve their ends--laws, morals, and ethics be damned. Our President has said he deplores the politics of personal destruction. However, in this case we are not talking about the destruction of one political opponent, but the lives of innocent Americans. And I am sickened by it. I ask the President and all Americans to stand up against this kind of invasion of privacy, all in the name of gaining an electoral advantage. My political opponents are welcome to engage me anytime, anywhere, on my record, which I am proud to stand on. But when you try to drag the lives of innocent Montanans into your ugly schemes, I will fight with every breath in my body. It is a sad day. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to alert my colleagues to what may be a very disturbing precedent. My office recently received a copy of a letter dated May 18 and sent from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to the Department of Health and Human Services. I want to read the first paragraph: I am writing to request documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., involving all correspondence, inquiries and other information requested by or provided to the following United States Senators for the time periods noted. There are some 10 Republican Senators that are listed here over the last 10 years. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

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

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the Senate proceeds with its debate on the Defense Appropriations Bill, it is appropriate that we pause and recognize the contribution of a Defense Procurement Official on the occasion of his retirement. Colonel William Alexander--Alex to his friends--is retiring this month after an Air Force career spanning almost 30 years. Alex has spent much of his career leading and mentoring Defense Acquisition Professionals, leaving as his legacy a new generation of experienced procurement managers. Born in the baby boom era between WWII and the Korean War, Alex grew up in Indiana, where he attended DePauw and Indiana Universities. After completing his Masters Degree in 1970, he entered the Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Some of his early projects started the development for today's generation of precision guided weapons. It was a whole lot trickier then, without the advantage of the Global Positioning System, but his team worked to develop a way to triangulate a target designation to improve bomb targeting reliability. The Air Force recognized the contributions of this young officer and moved him into a career in procurement and satellite operations. Alex spent the next 20 years of his career moving between different aspects of the complex world of keeping satellites operating successfully on orbit. He was a procurement official in a number of software source selections, using his abilities to aid the Air Force in getting revolutionary operating software for its expanding fleet of satellites. After his work in operations, the Air Force wisely transferred him into the National Reconnaissance Office as the Director of the Acquisition and Engineering Group within the Communications System Acquisition and Operations Directorate. When the Deputy Director of the Communications Directorate was reassigned, Alex was selected for this position in light of his vast experience in successful acquisitions. However, I don't want to spend too much time discussing the technical details of Colonel Alexander's career. There are many successful procurement officials within the Air Force and the Department of Defense, but few are as widely recognized for their crafting of personnel in addition to their acquisition expertise. Although the project was always treated with importance, Alex always made sure that his people came first. He was always looking to find ways to challenge his staff to grow both in technical ability and in interpersonal relationships. His success gives credence to the philosophy of empowering and caring for your people, which ultimately leads to the program success. One night during his time in satellite operations, a satellite was having difficulties getting initialized. Scores of people were working around the clock trying to work through the complex issues involved. Recognizing that people do not perform at their best when they are exhausted, Colonel Alexander banished a number of people from the operations floor until they had a rest period. The engineers returned to the floor with clearer heads and ultimately were able to get the satellite up and running successfully on orbit. When there was a tragic death of an employee on official travel, Alex temporarily set aside his own grief to assist others in the office in addition to the employee's family. In the confusion that surrounded the funeral, Alex took time to meet with all of the family members to try to help them understand the events that had taken place. It was a difficult time for all involved, but Alex clearly demonstrated his caring for his co-workers and should be commended for his actions. One area where Colonel Alexander should be especially proud is in his initiatives for acquisition reform. Alex was always driving to improve all aspects of buying satellites and software, looking for new and innovative ways to execute the program. At his encouragement, one division has studied purchasing satellites on-orbit, which would be a first for the NRO. He has been an advocate for openness and revolutionary thinking, balancing trusted methods with new ideas. Under his leadership, a security rebaselining was started which resulted in his program appearing on CBS' Eye on America. His drive in this area has literally saved the federal government millions of dollars. Finally, I want to thank Colonel Alexander for one final initiative. After being nominated for a Congressional Fellowship by Colonel Alexander, a member of his staff has joined my staff for the legislative year. This staff member has been of great assistance already in the Defense bills that have gone to the floor, and I look forward to his continuing contribution through the rest of the Senate's session. I'm sure that there are still many details for Colonel Alexander to work out as he transitions to a ``former'' military life. I wish him the best in his endeavors and pass along a sincere thank you on behalf of Congress for passing along his life's philosophy to the generation that will follow in his procurement footsteps. The legacy left behind is greater than mere relics of satellites and software, which will age and be disregarded. Colonel Alexander's heritage is in a corps of people who now have a greater understanding of the balances and pressures in life and a toolkit with how to deal with them. This is a true success, and one that I hope will be a sustained source of pride throughout his retirement.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel J. Stewart, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on the defense authorization bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to everyone's attention the issue of lamb imports. These imports are being sold well below the price of identical domestic products and have created a slow motion, chain reaction collapse of the lamb market that continues through this day. This nation's lamb industry suffers not only from the unprecedented surge of imports that have flooded the domestic marketplace. It suffers not only from the skyrocketing, record-setting levels that now dominate one-third of all lamb consumed in the United States. This industry also suffers from severe and consistent price undercutting by importers. Evidence of the price disparity can be found in the report prepared by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The Commission made dozens of product-to-product comparisons. In 8 out of 10 comparisons, the Commission found imports undercutting domestic products by margins of 20 percent to 40 percent. Other comparisons have found disparities reaching as high as 70 percent. This gulf is directly related to global economic conditions. In Asia, the widespread economic crash left traditional buyers unable to pay for new shipments of lamb meat from Australia and New Zealand-- those products had to go somewhere. It couldn't go to the European market. The European Union has absolute quotas in place to govern the amount of lamb imports into that market. Instead, it came here, to the United States market. It came to a market that stands open and unprotected. To a market where the government has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to protect its own domestic industries from devastating surges of imports. That surge began what amounts to a slow-motion crash of the domestic lamb market in the fall on 1997. Packers and processors with lamb to sell suddenly lost account after account to the cheaper imports. Losing money by the day, they had none to pay to their own suppliers and the lamb feeder level. And so it went, with domestic producers hoping the surge would slow of its own accord. Hoping the importers would realize the devastation they'd wrought. Hoping they could stay in business long enough to finish upgrading equipment, or solidifying alliances--to become more competitive. But the onslaught from imports was relentless. From the processors and packers to the feeders, the domestic market crash now reaches all the way to farms and ranches that have stood for generations--an entire industry teeters on the edge of financial ruin. Last fall, some producers with sheep to sell couldn't find a single buyer. For the second Easter/Passover season in a row, the market's traditional high point and the largest holiday marketing period of the year--live lambs were selling in the 60-cent per pound range. Few producers in the country can remain in business at those prices. Let me add my voice to those urging the President to fashion strong, effective import relief for the U.S. lamb industry. This relief must do two things, curb this unprecedented surge of imports and level the playing field.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today an award ceremony for one of the nation's best and brightest short line railroads, was held to honor Montana Rail Link's safety record. Montana Rail Link, commonly referred to as MRL, offers essential and competitive freight service to a large number of customers along Montana's Southern rail line from Billings to Sandpoint, Idaho. MRL was honored today by being awarded the E.H. Hariman Memorial award. This award is specifically designated to recognize railroad safety improvement. Working on the railroad is not like having a desk job. It's not a job for the timid--it's a job where hard work and plenty of sweat are part of everyday tasks. Each year, it is tragically inevitable that railroad employees are involved in accidents which can result in serious injury or even death. With the reception of this award, it is very apparent that MRL places a significant value on the safety of their employees. As a Montanan, I am relieved to see that a Montana railroad is the recipient of this award. Montana railroads have a long and colorful history in the establishment of our state. And I have friends that work on the railroad. Montanans are very dependent on this rail transportation. We are dependent on this competitive alternative. As many are aware, I have introduced legislation that will help to assure the nation's shippers of competitive rail access. It is my intent to not only create free- market competition in the rail industry, I would also like to improve service of the nation's Class 1 railroads. I've heard from many Montanans about the importance of rail car availability and affordability. The nation's rail system is dominated by four large behemoths of railroads. In Montana, those railroads are the target of much criticism based on their pricing and contractual practices. It is the short lines that help to balance out the public's perception of railroads. In Montana, MRL has been hailed as a very reliable transportation alternative. MRL has also been hailed with this award today. You've all heard me make a reference to Montana's vast distances-- from corner to corner, the distance from Alzaka to Yaak, Montana is equivalent to the distance from Washington, D.C. to Chicago, Illinois. I'm sure my colleagues will agree with me, especially when you consider the variance in terrain we are faced with in our state. Pulling a train over multiple mountain passes in the dead of winter can be a daunting task. In Montana, we value good, honest, quality service. MRL is very much an example of what is best about Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I hope that Americans will look upon this debate. I think it is indicative of how hard and how difficult it is to deal with this issue. One cannot paint with a broad brush, whether we are talking about firearms or entertainment programming or games, or anything else. We cannot paint with a broad brush. We are under the heels of tragedies such as Littleton, CO. We are very quick to blame. We are also reluctant to admit our own shortcomings in assuming our responsibilities as citizens, as parents, as schoolteachers, and as members of a community. This particular amendment pretty much says, let no good deed go unpunished. It is too broad. We may table this amendment, and it should be tabled. But I hope that those who are in the business of entertainment and providing programming in its many forms, I hope this message gets to downtown Burbank and Hollywood and Vine. This basically, if you look at the amendment, is pretty much a lawyer's amendment. It says: We shall define the term ``hours'' when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience, and the term ``violent video programming.'' I will tell you that argument will go on for just a little more than a moon, because we know that long hours of television are experienced just after school when they first get home. Then ``prime time,'' we would have to define ``prime time'' as somewhere between 8 o'clock and midnight. It also includes maybe the Internet. You could interpret this to say the Internet, because it says in this section the term: ``Distribute'' means to send, transmit, retransmit, telecast, broadcast, or cablecast, including by wire, microwave or satellite. You can also interpret that as the Internet. We have never to this point put restrictions on the Internet. There may be a day coming when, if the ISPs and the programmers don't show some kind of responsibility, Government will. It is almost unenforceable. In fact, it is unenforceable. I have never seen a section like this that says if any part of this amendment is found unconstitutional, then the remainder stays in. I think again that is pretty much full employment for our legal profession. The amendment runs counter to the meaning that we had when we all sat down and worked out the V-chip. There were some of us who said the V- chip will probably not work unless we have responsible parents who are in charge of the television, basically. We were told at that time that the V-chip people were ready to go for it. Do you know that the first television to have a V-chip in it--this was an agreement 2 years ago, back in July of 1997. Guess what. We have yet to see the first television set to have a V-chip in it--2 years later. That television won't be on the market until July of this year. Let's give it a chance to work, as far as the V-chip is concerned. I want to send a strong message to those who will provide entertainment. You should get the message right away. There are people looking, and there are people willing to take some steps, if they show no responsibility at all in programming to our young people. I thank the Chair. I thank the floor leader for the time.