Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is vitally important for the Northeast corner of my great state of Montana. As you are aware, water is the most valuable commodity in the West. Unfortunately, in many parts of the West the water available is unsafe to use. This is the case on the Fort Peck Reservation and in the surrounding communities. These communities are currently dependent on water sources that are either unreliable or contaminated. In some areas the ground water is in short supply, in others high levels of nitrates, sulfates, manganese, iron, dissolved solids and other contaminates ensure that the water is not only unusable for human consumption, but even unusable for livestock. Quite simply, the water is not safe. Safe drinking water is a necessity in all communities, however, these communities have a very unique set of needs that underscore the importance of clean water. This legislation would ensure the Assiniboine and Sioux people of the Fort Peck Reservation a safe and reliable water supply system. One of the largest reservations in the nation, the Fort Peck Reservation is located in Northeastern Montana and is the home of more than 10,000 people. In addition to a 75 percent unemployment rate, the residents suffer from unusually high incidents of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. These health problems are magnified by the poor drinking water currently available on the reservation. In one community, the sulfate levels in the water are four times the standard for safe drinking water. In four other communities, the iron levels are five times the standard. Some families have even been forced to abandon their homes as a result of the substandard water quality. In many cases, residents of the reservation purchased bottled water to avoid illness. While this isn't a big deal to those who can afford it, we are dealing with an area living in extreme poverty. To add insult to injury, one of the largest man made reservoirs in the United States is right down the road. Why must we continue to ask the residents of these communities to place their health at risk when a clean, safe, stable source of water is readily available? The economic health of the region is also affected by the poor water supply. In fact, a major constraint on the growth of the livestock industry around Fort Peck has been the lack of an adequate watering sites for cattle. Only an adequate water system will solve this problem, and hopefully serve to spur economic activity on the reservation. Recently the administration designated this area as an ``Empowerment Zone.'' The purpose of this designation is to help the tribal government enhance the economic and social well-being of the area's residents. What better foundation can we provide than a safe and reliable water infrastructure. This region's aspirations towards being healthy, both economically and physically, will continue to be stifled until we reach out a helping hand and work towards providing a safe water system. This legislation, which has the support of Fort Peck residents and the endorsement of the Tribal Council of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, would authorize a reservation-wide municipal, rural and industrial water system for the Fort Peck Reservation. A safe and reliable source of water would improve the health status of the residents and increase the region's attractiveness for economic development. As the future water needs of the Fort Peck Reservation expand, I believe that it is only right that we take action now. The people of the Fort Peck Reservation and the State of Montana are making a simple request--clean, safe drinking water. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, since the early 1980's, Montana has been faced with a very serious transportation problem regarding the transportation of our grain and coal out of our state at reasonable prices and in a reasonable period of time. Montana is a classic case of what happens to rail customers when you eliminate competitive transportation alternatives. Our rail rates go through the roof and our rail customers end up subsidizing rail rates in regions where competition is present. In a nutshell, our rail customers pay more for less service. The rail customers in regions with competitive alternatives pay less and receive more service. Now, we're seeing the same thing happen in other regions around the nation. Montana has been down this road and I encourage my colleagues to look at the problems we face in Montana as a pre-cursor to what will happen in their states. The Surface Transportation Board (STB), based on their deliberations over the McCarty Farms vs. Burlington Northern case, has indicated to the producer that BNSF's rates are not excessive. I am concerned that after 17 years of adjudication using the STB's decision making process, that process is flawed. In the West, we have only two Class I railroads and in Montana, we have only one Class I railroad. Under today's deregulated environment, we have come full circle back to limited competition. Because of this lack of competition, Montana's producers pick up the tab for those who have competition. Montana's shippers pay some of the highest rates in the world while our neighbors pay a significantly lower cost for transportation. In Montana, we are truly dependent on the railroads to transport bulk commodities that could not be efficiently transported by any other means. Agricultural shippers are the most vulnerable to predatory marketing by monopolistic practices of railroads. The farm producer unlike every other industry we know of in America, cannot pass the freight costs on to anyone else, they must simply eat it. We do not need to re-regulate the railroads; rather we need to restore the balance between rail customers and the railroads that Congress intended to achieve originally in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore the competitive balance in the rail transportation industry and level the playing field for our nation's rail customers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I'm here to announce my strong support of Senator Collins' bill S. 335, the ``Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act.'' I chose to be an original co-sponsor of this bill after hearing from several constituents who were confused, irritated, and even outraged by the deceptive language that is all too often found in sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. I think every one of us has received at least a few junk mailings which brazenly inform us that we have just won millions of dollars or that we are about to receive a car, a luxury cruise, or some other prize that sounds too good to be true. Well, the sad truth is that it almost always IS too good to be true. To many of us, these promotional mailings represent nothing more than a minor annoyance and are easily tossed into the garbage without a second thought. But for many others, these mailings are nothing more than a cruel hoax, a trap designed to play on the hopes and dreams of trusting folks who were raised in a time when most people meant what they said and said what they meant. As an example of the misleading and downright dangerous content found in many of these mailings, I'd like to read into the record a portion of a letter that was sent to me last year by a constituent of mine who resides in Columbia Falls, Montana. This gentleman writes, My father is a resident in a nursing home. He is 84, and suffers from mild dementia aggravated by high-powered medications which treat his incessant headaches. (The magazine he subscribes to) endlessly sends him these misleading and deliberately-designed ``You've Won!!!'' bulletins that he cannot understand except to believe fervently that he's just got to go pick up his check for hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. I believe these kinds of letters are deliberately designed to prey on the infirmities of old people, and of course get them to sign things that obligate them to free trials and unneeded products. Every episode brings my father increased stress, more headaches, and the need for additional medication. I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of people like Dad who want nothing to do with these phony promotions, but who can't get the mailers to remove them from the lists. Many, like Dad, don't have the daily clarity of thought to deal with mass-mailed deceptive come-ons like this. Mr. President, I believe that the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act will go a long way towards preventing this kind of abuse of our senior citizens and other trusting individuals. Senator Collins' bill would not only establish strict new standards for honesty and disclosure in promotional mailings, but would provide strong new financial penalties for those who continue to violate these standards. It is my hope that the Committee on Governmental Affairs will be able to approve this legislation quickly, on a bi-partisan basis, so that we can bring an end to this plague of deceptive sweepstakes mailings which prey on our most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today as one of the proud cosponsors of S. 529, Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act. This issue has been at the forefront of reform for American agriculture this session. The language offered today will bring about much-needed changes in the area of risk management for farmers and ranchers. Maintaining an effective farm income safety net is paramount to the survival of agriculture. I believe an effective crop insurance program will provide farmers and ranchers greater possibilities for economic sustainability in the future and help them out of the current financial crisis. A truly effective crop insurance plan involves simply three things: private insurance, the federal government and the farmer or rancher. The federal government can help facilitate a program to unite the producer and the private insurance company. Privatization with government intervention will ultimately put the control in the hands of the agricultural producer. With a risk management plan, bankers are also more likely to finance producers if they have both their commodity and their price covered, with a reliable insurance program. This bill will render relief to the inadequacies of the current program. All agricultural producers are painfully aware of the problems with the current crop insurance program. Unaffordable premiums are the primary stumbling block for producers. In years of depressed market prices, crop insurance, though badly needed, is simply unaffordable for farmers and ranchers. Other problems prevalent in the current program are inequalities in rating structure and the issue of unfair coverage given to multiple year disasters. This bill inverts the current subsidy formula, in order to provide the highest levels of subsidies to producers at the highest levels of buy-up coverage, and thus alleviate the unaffordable premiums. It also allows for the revenue policies to be fully subsidized. This bill also removes the exclusion for livestock in the current crop insurance program. For Montana, which derived $991 million from livestock sales in 1996-97 this exclusion is extremely important. Of course, the choice will remain up to the livestock producer whether they wish to purchase a policy. It is important however, that they are given the option. With several years of depressed market prices, livestock producers can no longer remain in business without assistance. This bill will also ultimately put more control in the hands of active producers. It restructures the Federal Crop Insurance board of directors to include two active producers; one in crop insurance, and one in reinsurance. The board would also include the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Under Secretary for Rural Development and the Chief Economist of USDA. In addition, it mandates that the Board Chairperson be one of the non-governmental members. These are important steps to ensure that the new program is run for the producers by the producers. A larger step towards private enterprise is the initiation of a flexible subsidy pilot program for the private sector to compete on rates and delivery expenses. I believe this will ultimately put the accountability factor on the companies carrying the policies. Much like auto insurance, health or medical insurance, companies will be forced to compete for agricultural producers business, in effect lowering premiums further. This bill is an important tool to reform the current crop insurance program into a risk management program, designed to help the producer in the long-term. It is vital to find a solution to provide a way for farmers and ranchers to stay in agriculture. They must be able to continue to produce and distribute the world's safest food supply at a profitable margin. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senators Roberts and Kerrey on this important piece of legislation. I will have some amendments forthcoming, that I believe will make this bill even more effective. I believe this bill will pave the way for massive crop insurance reform and help producers out of this economic crisis.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Vermont and my good friend from Massachusetts. It won't take me long to make a couple of points before we go into the vote, because I think everybody wants to wrap up and get out of here for Thursday evening. I am pleased to cosponsor and support this Ed-Flexibility Act. I want to make a couple of points. I want to thank our good friend from Tennessee, who a couple of years ago really elevated the awareness on the importance of this issue. The report that he prepared stands to be read by everybody. I don't know if everyone visits schools when they go home. But for the week that I was home a couple of weeks ago, I had two or three chances to go into some high school assemblies and to talk with some teachers. The problem they are incurring is that they teach for a half- day and then they spend the rest of that day on paperwork compliance. I think this is a very first step where teachers and parents and principals can make some very vital decisions on the education they want to give our children. All 50 States have the ability to grant individual school districts waivers from selected Federal education requirements, like title I--there is no lack of support in this body for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--and even the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act and the Applied Technology Education Act. When we talk about distance learning, nobody has been involved in distance learning longer than I have on the Commerce Committee, and I think the Senator from Massachusetts. We work very hard on demonstration units of distance learning. We even did it here on the inner cities and worked very, very hard on two-way interaction between teachers. We have over in eastern Montana, where we have a lot of dirt between light bulbs, schools as far as 200 miles apart with teachers sharing sciences and languages in a class. She teaches there and also interacts live with students in three other classrooms. The total graduating class of all those schools put together will be fewer than 50. Distance education, making those decisions of using the new technical tools that we have developed, has been one great thing to watch. It blossomed. Now we are teaching teachers in our land grant universities how to use those tools. Unfortunately, right now many of our Federal education programs are overloaded with rules and regulations. States and local schools waste precious time and also resources in order to stay in compliance. It is obvious that these State and local districts need relief from the administrative burdens that many federally designated education programs put on States, schools, and education administrators. We hear a lot about numbers of children in classrooms. I want to tell you, in our State the numbers are sort of going down. The goal of this legislation and our goal should be, at the Federal level, to help States and local school districts to provide the best possible first- class education for our children that they can. They can't do it if they are burdened with rules and regulations and always reading the book on compliance. This is one big step toward taking care of that. I compliment my friend from Vermont on his work in education and his dedication to it, because we will probably not take up any other piece of legislation that will have as much impact on local neighborhoods, on our taxing districts, and also the attitude of educators at the local level. This is one giant step in the forward direction. It won't fix all of the problems. It won't fix them all, because we can't fix them all. But I think it places the trust back in the people that the Federal Government, yes, does play a role. We want to play a role. But we want to play a constructive role in helping meet the needs of the local communities and put the decision back with teachers, parents, and, of course, administrators at the local level. I thank my friend from Vermont for yielding the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished Senator from Ohio and a number of my colleagues in supporting the Drug Free Century Act. This bill continues last year's efforts in the fight against drug use in our country in the form of the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, the Drug Free Communities Act, and the Drug Demand Reduction Act, all of which I supported. During my tenure in office I have read, listened to, and weighed the debate over illegal drug use and the policy our nation should follow in dealing with illegal drugs. In an attempt to put an end to that growing problem, I signed onto the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. This act was a bipartisan piece of legislation that authorized $2.6 billion over three years for drug eradication and interdiction efforts designed to restore a balanced anti-drug strategy. It offered significant promises for the reduction of the supply of coca and opium poppy in Latin America, as well as improving intelligence and interdiction capabilities against the national security threat posed by major narcotics trafficking organizations. Although this bill received bipartisan support and was signed by the President, the FY2000 anti-drug budget was cut by the Administration by almost $100 million below that appropriated in FY1999. I ask you, Mr. President, what kind of signal are we sending to our nation's youth if we allow this to happen? We in Congress took the necessary steps last year in restoring a balanced, coordinated anti-drug strategy. We must continue our efforts and we must impress upon the Administration the commitment needed in order to carry out that strategy. My colleague has pointed out that drug use and criminal activity since 1992 wiped out any gains made in the previous decade. America has witnessed an increase in illegal drug use among our nation's younger generation. Recent polls show that drug use among our nation's eighth graders has increased 71 percent since 1992. We have seen a reverse in gains made in the 1980s and early 1990s by de-emphasizing law enforcement and interdiction while relying on drug treatment programs for hard-core abusers in the hopes of curbing drug usage. In Montana alone, drug use among high school-aged youth has also risen. According to the Montana Office of Public Instruction's Youth Risk Behavior Survey, marijuana use among high school aged youth has risen approximately 18% since 1993. However, that 18% only represents an increase in one time use by teenagers. In fact, the same survey suggests that the percent of adolescents who have used marijuana repeatedly in the last 30 days has risen by 13%. But it isn't just marijuana use that has increased, Mr. President. No. In fact, a more deadlier drug, cocaine, is increasing in use among Montana teens. Approximately 5% according to the survey. This is the sad trend that our nation's youth is following, and the reason we in Congress need to make a strong statement against drug use. I believe that The Drug Free Century Act is such a statement. The Drug Free Century Act is a comprehensive approach to the nation's anti-drug policies. It strengthens education, treatment, law enforcement, and drug interdiction efforts. Although it is only the first step in our anti-drug strategy, it sends a clear message to the nation and our youth that we are committed to eliminating illegal drugs in the United States.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Mr. Breaux in co- sponsoring the Commercial Space Transportation Cost Reduction Act. This is a appropriate extension of programs that we have used to encourage other fledgling industries such as shipbuilding and rail. Through this legislation, we hope to build a commercially competitive launch industry here in America that brings the world's satellites to our doorstep for launch into orbit. This bill sets up loan guarantee programs; not grant handouts, but loan guarantees to help encourage commercial investment in start-up space industries. We want to encourage anyone with an idea good enough to raise some start up funds to approach the financial market with some assurance that their request for business loans will be approved. By placing $500 million in a NASA account in a guarantee program, we will leverage growth and investment to many times that. To encourage truly competitive ideas, we've placed a number of guidelines on this bill. We will only guarantee a maximum of 80% of the capitol required for a space vehicle construction project, the rest must be raised privately. Ten to twenty percent of the pool is set aside for small businesses, and we've specifically excluded the DoD launch vehicle development programs currently underway. There is a credit-worthiness requirement with specific loan criteria for being eligible for the loan. Finally, it guarantees the U.S. Government the best price for any launch system developed under this program. To make sure that no launch companies become dependent on this funding, we've provided for an expiration of this program in 10 years. I'm especially interested in the potential benefit to Montana. Many start-up companies choose to locate in Western states where they have room to actively test their ideas and inventions. When combined with VentureStar's interest in Montana, this loan guarantee program could help develop a space technology region in our state that would attract high-tech companies with high-tech jobs. Montana already has a lot to offer, and I'm convinced that this program is one more way to give potential businesses a reason to make Montana their headquarters. As seen this past summer, launching rockets is a risky business even for well-established companies. We need to find ways to encourage banks to qualitatively judge the overall risks and invest in creative new ways to get satellites into orbit. By providing loan guarantees to qualified companies, we can grow our capable domestic launch program into the world's choice for getting access to space. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Mr. Jeffords in co- sponsoring the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act. This bill requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a demonstration program to allow Medicare- eligible veterans to receive their treatment at VA treatment facilities. This is a thoughtful approach to try to help our veterans, especially our elderly veterans, receive all of their treatments in one place. In the process, we hope to save money for the taxpayers and get greater benefits for our treatment dollars. This is a voluntary program to establish 10 regional sites nationwide to provide this new service. This bill calls out several criteria for potential sites: one must be near a closed military base, one must be in a predominantly rural area, and no new buildings must be built as part of this program. I'm especially interested in the potential for Montana to be the rural site. We currently have veterans traveling hundreds of miles for their VA treatments. By establishing some type of joint VA/Medicare program, we create opportunities to expand access and improve continuity of medical care for Montana Veterans. I'm encouraged by the awareness being raised in the VA recently for our State. The recent town meetings by the VA officials are just the beginning. My presence there was intended to show the VA how serious we take the necessity of improvement. We have to get better. My commitment through the coming months is to look for additional ways to ease communication between Montana Veterans and the Washington, D.C. establishment. We also need to increase the opportunities for Veterans to hear more about the future plans for Veterans' health care. Again, I'll be working on both of these topics this spring. We owe our veterans a debt of service for their sacrifices for our country. The program in this bill is a great opportunity for us to be fiscally responsible while improving the care and treatment of a group of honored citizens. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that may not impact our nation but will have an impact on 120 students in my state of Montana. These students are victims of a bureaucratic bamboozle that should be an easily reconciled mistake. I would like to request the compassion of my colleagues. We all make mistakes and sometimes these mistakes have a financial cost to us as individuals. However, in the case of the Dodson Public School District, a misdirected application could result in a loss of impact aid funding. As you all know, Impact Aid funding is necessary for areas that have no local revenue raising mechanism. This application was inadvertently sent to the wrong office within the Department of Education by the deadline. Last year, we say how unbending the Internal Revenue Service was in terms of customer service--I would like to think the rest of the federal government does not follow suit. According to the Department of Education, deadlines are deadlines. During hearing last year, Congress determined this is not the culture we would like to see in the Department of Education or any other arm of the nation's federal government. The loss of funds would likely mean the demise of the entire public school system--a system that serves many residents of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. The economic state of Montana's reservations is not well and losing this school district would require many students additional transportation costs and travel of over thirty miles. Additionally, adjoining school districts and local governments would be extremely pressed to pick up the tab for additional education and transportation costs with much less proportionate revenue share. Dodson Public Schools in Dodson, Montana has a total enrollment of 120 students in K-12. In grades K-8, 53% of the total 74 students reside on federal land. In grades 9-12, 31% of the total 46 students reside on federal land. Of the total enrollment, 75% of the students are eligible for our free and reduced lunch program. Mr. President, I'm certain you'll agree not many schools in America can rival the need for impact aid funds like Dodson's schools. Now that you know the facts, I think you'll agree we cannot ignore the plight of Dodson School District. This is a simple plea from a modest Montana community that would like to continue their rich, historic culture and legacy. Mr. President, as you know, it is the role of Congress to protect the students of our nation. This bill will fix an unfortunate situation that could happen to any state in our nation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that may not impact our nation but will have an impact on 120 students in my state of Montana. These students are victims of a bureaucratic bamboozle that should be an easily reconciled mistake. I would like to request the compassion of my colleagues. We all make mistakes and sometimes these mistakes have a financial cost to us as individuals. However, in the case of the Dodson Public School District, a misdirected application could result in a loss of impact aid funding. As you all know, Impact Aid funding is necessary for areas that have no local revenue raising mechanism. This application was inadvertently sent to the wrong office within the Department of Education by the deadline. Last year, we say how unbending the Internal Revenue Service was in terms of customer service--I would like to think the rest of the federal government does not follow suit. According to the Department of Education, deadlines are deadlines. During hearing last year, Congress determined this is not the culture we would like to see in the Department of Education or any other arm of the nation's federal government. The loss of funds would likely mean the demise of the entire public school system--a system that serves many residents of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. The economic state of Montana's reservations is not well and losing this school district would require many students additional transportation costs and travel of over thirty miles. Additionally, adjoining school districts and local governments would be extremely pressed to pick up the tab for additional education and transportation costs with much less proportionate revenue share. Dodson Public Schools in Dodson, Montana has a total enrollment of 120 students in K-12. In grades K-8, 53% of the total 74 students reside on federal land. In grades 9-12, 31% of the total 46 students reside on federal land. Of the total enrollment, 75% of the students are eligible for our free and reduced lunch program. Mr. President, I'm certain you'll agree not many schools in America can rival the need for impact aid funds like Dodson's schools. Now that you know the facts, I think you'll agree we cannot ignore the plight of Dodson School District. This is a simple plea from a modest Montana community that would like to continue their rich, historic culture and legacy. Mr. President, as you know, it is the role of Congress to protect the students of our nation. This bill will fix an unfortunate situation that could happen to any state in our nation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the Senate in sponsoring the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. This bill clearly states that the policy of the United States is to provide for the defense of its territory against a potential missile attack by a rogue nation. A defense capability against missile attack is a necessity due to the increased threat of terrorism. An arms control commission formed to assess the missile threat to the U.S. concluded that ``concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces, and its friends and allies.'' Experts suspect that these countries are acquiring unaccounted-for Russian nuclear bombs as part of this development effort. Regional stability is being threatened by weapons programs in India, Pakistan, Iran, and others. North Korea is expected to be capable of a missile threat to U.S. citizens by 2010. The threat is very real. The Rumsfeld Commission concluded that the United States may have ``little or no warning'' before facing a threat from these so- called ``rogue states.'' We must find a way to defend ourselves against potential attack from any terrorist country. I have long supported the three tiered development of a National Missile Defense. Under these criteria, a missile defense could be deployed after showing that (1) a specific missile threat has been identified, (2) the technology has proven to be effective, and (3) the system is deemed affordable. As stated earlier, we've clearly confirmed that the threat exists. The technology is proving to be increasingly available. Most importantly, in a period where we are investing in modernizing our defense capabilities, we would be negligent if we failed to fund such a fundamental element of defense for our citizens. Now is the time to commit ourselves to completing the three steps and deploying a missile defense for all Americans. Senate Bill 257 is an important effort to document the will of the American people. With the increasing missile threat posed by outlaw countries, it is critical that the United States do everything in its power to prevent, reduce, deter, and defend against all weapons of mass destruction and missiles. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill. (Pursuant to a previous unanimous consent agreement, the following statements pertaining to the impeachment proceedings were ordered printed in the Record:)

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be jointly introducing with my fellow Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, a bill to settle the claims and define the water rights of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. This bill is the product of many years of work and negotiations in our state and will result in the federal government sanctioning the water rights agreement that has been adopted by the Montana State Legislature. This settlement represents a textbook example of how State and Tribal governments, together with off-Reservation local representatives, can sit down and resolve their differences. I am also pleased that local ranchers were involved in every step of discussions, and that their water rights are fully protected under this settlement. The state agreement quantifies the Tribe's on-reservation water rights and establishes a water administration system carefully designed to have minimal adverse impacts on downstream, non-tribal water users. In fact, our goal was to benefit downstream water users wherever possible. This is quite an accomplishment in an area of Montana with a scarce water supply. The Rocky Boy's Reservation is located in an arid area with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches or less. Fortunately, the annual runoff from the Bearpaw Mountains, with a annual snowpack of over 30 inches, contributes to a significant spring runoff. Effective use of that runoff through enlarged or new storage facilities on the Reservation is a critical part of the settlement package which this bill represents. Accordingly, $25 million in the budget of the Bureau of Reclamation is earmarked for specified on-reservation water development projects. To meet both the future water and economic needs of the Reservation, the bill contains an allocation of 10,000 acre-feet of storage water to the Tribe in Tiber Reservoir, a federal storage facility. To resolve future disputes, this settlement established a board composed of Tribal and off-Reservation representatives. In addition, the bill authorizes the initial steps of a more detailed process of securing long-term drinking water supplies for the Chippewa Cree Tribe, a process that is vital to the survival of the Tribe. Specifically, the bill authorizes the following: (1) $15 million in seed money toward the cost of a future project to import more drinking water to the Reservation. (2) $1 million for a feasibility study by the Secretary of the Interior to identify water resources available to meet the Tribe's drinkiater needs. (3) $3 million to evaluate water resources over a broader area of North Central Montana that contains two other Indian Reservations with water rights that have not yet been established. In closing, I believe that the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act is a historic agreement. It is a tribute to the Governor of Montana, Marc Racicot; the Water Rights Compact Commission; the Chippewa Cree Tribe chairman, Bert Cocoran; the Tribal negotiating team; Interior Secretary's Counselor, David Hayes; the Federal negotiating team; and the water users on the Big Sandy and Beaver Creeks in the Montana Milk River valley. This is truly a local solution that takes into account the needs and sovereign rights of each party. Just as the mentioned parties have worked closely together to get us to the submission of this bill today, I intend to work closely with all members of Congress to insure passage of this important bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be jointly introducing with my fellow Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, a bill to settle the claims and define the water rights of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. This bill is the product of many years of work and negotiations in our state and will result in the federal government sanctioning the water rights agreement that has been adopted by the Montana State Legislature. This settlement represents a textbook example of how State and Tribal governments, together with off-Reservation local representatives, can sit down and resolve their differences. I am also pleased that local ranchers were involved in every step of discussions, and that their water rights are fully protected under this settlement. The state agreement quantifies the Tribe's on-reservation water rights and establishes a water administration system carefully designed to have minimal adverse impacts on downstream, non-tribal water users. In fact, our goal was to benefit downstream water users wherever possible. This is quite an accomplishment in an area of Montana with a scarce water supply. The Rocky Boy's Reservation is located in an arid area with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches or less. Fortunately, the annual runoff from the Bearpaw Mountains, with a annual snowpack of over 30 inches, contributes to a significant spring runoff. Effective use of that runoff through enlarged or new storage facilities on the Reservation is a critical part of the settlement package which this bill represents. Accordingly, $25 million in the budget of the Bureau of Reclamation is earmarked for specified on-reservation water development projects. To meet both the future water and economic needs of the Reservation, the bill contains an allocation of 10,000 acre-feet of storage water to the Tribe in Tiber Reservoir, a federal storage facility. To resolve future disputes, this settlement established a board composed of Tribal and off-Reservation representatives. In addition, the bill authorizes the initial steps of a more detailed process of securing long-term drinking water supplies for the Chippewa Cree Tribe, a process that is vital to the survival of the Tribe. Specifically, the bill authorizes the following: (1) $15 million in seed money toward the cost of a future project to import more drinking water to the Reservation. (2) $1 million for a feasibility study by the Secretary of the Interior to identify water resources available to meet the Tribe's drinkiater needs. (3) $3 million to evaluate water resources over a broader area of North Central Montana that contains two other Indian Reservations with water rights that have not yet been established. In closing, I believe that the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act is a historic agreement. It is a tribute to the Governor of Montana, Marc Racicot; the Water Rights Compact Commission; the Chippewa Cree Tribe chairman, Bert Cocoran; the Tribal negotiating team; Interior Secretary's Counselor, David Hayes; the Federal negotiating team; and the water users on the Big Sandy and Beaver Creeks in the Montana Milk River valley. This is truly a local solution that takes into account the needs and sovereign rights of each party. Just as the mentioned parties have worked closely together to get us to the submission of this bill today, I intend to work closely with all members of Congress to insure passage of this important bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to join my Senate colleagues in supporting the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights as it comes to the floor for debate. As a former Marine, I am especially proud that the Senate Armed Services Committee has recognized the important contribution of my branch of service by including Marines in the title of this bill. This bipartisan legislation addresses the critical need of improving retention in our military services. We've heard much over the past months about the impending crisis in maintaining the force strength of our military. For example, the Air Force has missed its recruitment targets for the past three months, in all three of its recruitment categories. This is the first time that the Air Force has ever faced this problem. It is critical that we intervene now while the problem is still manageable. This bill concentrates on improving the attractiveness of a career in the military, not only for new recruits, but also for second and third term re-enlistments. First, this bill raises the pay of service personnel to keep salaries competitive with civilian equivalents. Second, it provides incentives for active duty personnel to keep longer service commitments by repairing the damage done in 1986 to the military retirement system. Third, this bill provides service members with the opportunity to save for their own retirement by allowing military personnel to contribute up to 5% of their base pay, before taxes, into the Thrift Savings Plan. Finally, this bill enhances the Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits. I'm also aware that some of my colleagues will be offering other amendments that will further enhance the incentives for long term service. These collective changes encourage both current and prospective service members to make the military an attractive alternative for an extended career. One of the first commitments in the Constitution is to provide for the common defense. We're demonstrating our commitment to the Constitution and our nation's defense today by taking this first step in improving the long-neglected quality of life for our service members. As we have already seen, when we don't take care of the people who are out in harm's way, they end up leaving the service. We have almost reached the point of needlessly risking the lives of those members choosing service careers due to the increased commitments required of them. So, we shouldn't just stop with this bill and call our work complete. Pay and Retirement incentives are not the only concerns voiced by military personnel when they discuss quality of life. They care about being able to participate in their family's activities. They want to be able to help raise their children. They want to provide a home for their families where the roofs don't leak and the water and sewer systems work. They want to be trained to handle the weapons they must use to maximize their ability to survive in a firefight. In our push to pass this piece of legislation, let's not forget that these other quality of life issues that service men and women weigh when they consider the military as a life-long career. As a next step, we should commit to eliminating the military construction backlog that has grown to a 100-plus-year maintenance cycle at its current funding level. Those who have seen military action in the Gulf or Panama or other regions will ask how Veterans are treated. We should commit to improving veterans' heath care and access to the VA system. No service member is naive enough to believe that military life will be easy or without sacrifice. However, we shouldn't intentionally be making the sacrifice for duty greater than it needs to be. Nor should we let the administration's promise of improving true quality of life stop at pay and retirement benefits. We owe it to our service members to continue addressing all areas of quality of life to make sure that our commitment of defense for the citizens of the United States is both real and effective. I'll be using my position on the Appropriations Committee as well as chairing the Military Construction Subcommittee to push for additional improvements in these other important quality of life issues. But let's not forget why we are here today. As demonstrated globally, the quality of our uniformed service personnel is second to none. By providing focused incentives for increasing the attractiveness of a military career, we ensure that our services will sustain its worldwide competitive edge. We owe it to the parents, spouses, and children of our service members to make sure that their physical devotion to patriotism doesn't come at fiscal expense. This bill is a critical first step in meeting our commitments to both family and country. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chief Justice and my Senate colleagues, we now close one of the most serious chapters in the history of this Senate. While some may not agree with the outcome, and others may not like the way I voted, I'm satisfied the Constitution has been followed. We must now accept this verdict and try to work together without talk of revenge or gloating. In reaching my conclusions, I asked myself two questions: Were the articles of impeachment proven, and if so, should the president be removed from office? I believe the president perjured himself before a grand jury. He put the protection of his presidency ahead of the protection of the institution of the presidency. He gave false testimony about his efforts to keep other witnesses from telling the truth. We have already learned in our history that lies lead to more lies, and the pattern in this case led to perjury. I also feel strongly that a case for obstruction of justice was proven conclusively. The Senate heard the many actions and motives of the president, and it was easy to connect the dots. Those dots reveal a clear and convincing case against the president. I believe the president tampered with the testimony of witnesses against him; that he allowed his lawyers to present false evidence on his behalf; that he directed a job search for a witness in exchange for false testimony; and that he directed the recovery and hiding of evidence under subpoena. Does this warrant the president's removal from office? I agree with my respected colleague, Senator Byrd, that this reaches the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, for a number of reasons: The president's actions crossed the line between private and public behavior when those actions legally became the subject of a civil rights lawsuit against him, and when he tried to undermine that lawsuit. His actions were an attack on the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches when he abused his power in an effort to obstruct justice. Remember, he impeded a lawsuit the highest court in our land allowed to proceed on a 9-0 vote. It's clear even to some of the president's supporters that he committed many of the offenses he has been charged with. But given this outcome, I hope for our system of justice and for our character as a nation that these votes are never seen as treating actions such as perjury and obstruction of justice lightly, whether by a president or by any citizen. Our new world of communications has made more information available to us than ever before. But it also contributed to the media overkill that jaded the American people to this process long ago. When the Lewinsky story became public, the president conducted a poll in which he learned that Americans would tolerate a private affair, but not perjury or obstruction of justice. His goal from that point on to was to poison the well of public opinion. Once the focus shifted away from the facts and toward opinion, once the clatter and clutter echoed on 24-hour talk television, the president's goal was reached. But the facts remain, and they are not in dispute. Montanans didn't send me to the Senate to be a weathervane, shifting in the wind, but to be a compass. It may be common to say the president's offenses don't ``rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors,'' but I believe that would ignore our history and what we stand for as a nation. That's why I also oppose censuring the president. The Constitution gives us one way to deal with impeachable offenses: a yes or no vote on guilt. Anything else would be like amending the Constitution on the fly and infringing on the separation of powers between the branches of government. As we accept this outcome and move forward, we have plenty of time left ahead to help out Montana's farm and ranch communities, which is my top priority. We have time to save Social Security in a way that fixes the program without raising taxes. We have time to give control of education back to parents and teachers, and to give federal funds to classrooms, not bureaucrats. We have time to cut the record burden of taxation on Montanans, many of whom are forced to take more than one job to make ends meet. We should all roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley and others, as an original co-sponsor of a bill, S. 414, that would provide alternative energy tax credits that will help our nation become a leader in environmentally sound energy usages. As a nation, we consume more energy per capita than any other country in the world. However, because of available technology and efficient use of our resources, we are also a leader in the use of environmentally-friendly practices. Last year, President Clinton and Vice-President Gore expressed their interest in ratification of the Kyoto Treaty. I am concerned about the implications of applying the Kyoto Treaty to the U.S. economy. The treaty, negotiated by 160 countries in December 1997, would require the United States to reduce its energy-related emissions 30-40 percent below levels otherwise projected for the years 2008-2012. To enter into force, at least 55 nations representing 55 percent of the industrial world's 1990 emissions must ratify the agreement. The U.S. plays a pivotal role. If the U.S. does not ratify, neither Japan nor the European Union will do so. In July 1997, the Senate passed, 95-0, a resolution opposing any agreement that exempts developing countries from emission limits. The Treaty does so exempt such countries. Key developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea have refused to limit their emissions. These countries create a proportionately larger share of emissions than developed countries. Therefore it would be unfair for the Congress to subject the Treaty on the American taxpayer. I am further concerned that the Clinton Administration led by Vice-President Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol announcing plans to launch new Kyoto-friendly federal energy procurement and transportation initiatives. If implemented, Kyoto could: Increase gasoline prices up to 53% (up to $1.91/gallon); Increase electricity prices up to 86%; Eliminate up to 16 million U.S. jobs over the next six years. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration concludes that natural gas market share will increase from 14% to 33% by 2020 and coal market share will decrease dramatically. Mr. President, I am very committed to reducing global emissions but I am also convinced that such actions must not be at the expense of U.S. energy consumers. We have not given proper attention to a largely untapped and unlimited resource--that resource being wind generated power and other alternative energy sources. If you drive through our State, you will feel the power of our unharnessed wind. Our Northerly wind can at times present a danger along the Rocky Mountain front, and certainly makes it's presence felt just about any time of the year. The vast majority of wind development has been in California. However, many states have a much greater wind potential than California. Montana has an annual wind energy potential of 1,020 billion kilo Watt hours and little has been done to harness that energy. Such potential deserves exploration and that exploration needs to be fostered. Congress is also responsible to help foster such growths in other alternative energy sources. Last year, I was very active in efforts to provide for an extension of the ``placed-in-service'' date of the Section 29 tax credit. Although this tax credit does not expire until 2008, it is important for Congress to allow new entrants to develop their technologies and build their facilities. I look forward to pursuing this issue again this year. It will be a great addition to current legislation supporting energy tax credits for oil and gas development. I would like to request the attached colloquy from last year regarding Section 29 tax credits between me and twelve of my colleagues be entered into the Record. The colloquy follows: Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of Congress regarding tax incentives for alternative fuels. These incentives are important tools for our nation's long-term energy policy. Starting with the energy crisis in the 1970s, Congress has acted on numerous occasions to provide tax credits intended to develop alternative fuels. Prior Congresses took these steps in recognition of the need to encourage the development and use of alternative fuels which promise that we as a nation will never be dependent on others for our energy resources. For example, Section 29, which expired earlier this year, and Section 45, which is due to expire next June, were both intended to encourage the development of nonconventional fuels. Today, our nation not only needs to continue its efforts to develop alternative fuel resources, but given our ever growing energy requirements, we must consider the environmental impact that conventional and nonconventional fuels have on our environment, particularly in light of the Clean Air Act. In order to maximize the most efficient use of our nation's resources, Congress needs to commit to the development of clean alternative fuels. We need also to use our nation's technologies to develop environmentally clean alternative liquid fuels from coal. In Montana, we have vast coal reserves. There are technologies that can upgrade the coal from these reserves and reduce current difficulties associated with the development of these fields. However, these technologies are not likely to be developed, and therefore these vast natural resources are not likely to be used, unless Congress provides incentives to develop clean alternative fuels. I am concerned that we have not been able to fully discuss the merits of such incentives in our budget debate this past month. For example, an extension of Section 29 was included in the Senate version of the tax extenders, but that provision was not included in the final package. I would urge my colleagues to bring this debate to the floor in the 106th Congress to ensure that the issue of encouraging the development of clean alternative fuels is a priority in our nation's energy policy. Mr. LOTT. I agree with my colleague from Montana. As our nation continues to seek ways to improve environmental quality and to reduce the need for imported energy, several new technologies run the risk of not being developed if Congress does not act to provide incentives to develop clean alternative fuels. These technologies provide two significant benefits to our nation. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the technologies provide cleaner results for our environment. For these reasons, I want to assure my colleague from Montana that I will make a priority of addressing the need for tax incentives to produce clean alternative fuels. Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with my colleagues from Montana and Mississippi about this very important issue. The development and use of alternative fuels are important to this nation, and we must encourage their use and development. Wind energy has long been recognized as an abundant potential source of electric power. A detailed analysis by the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest Laboratory in 1991 estimated the energy potential of the U.S. wind resource at 10.8 trillion kilowatt hours annually, or more than three times total current U.S. electricity consumption. Wind energy is a clean resource that produces electricity with virtually no carbon dioxide emissions. There is nothing limited or controversial about this source of energy. Americans need only to make the necessary investments in order to capture it for power. The Production Tax Credit, section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This tax credit is a sound low-cost investment in an emerging sector of the energy industry. I introduced the first bill that contained this tax credit, so you can be sure that I am sincere in my belief in the need to develop this resource. This tax credit currently provides a 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour credit for energy produced from a new facility brought on-line after December 31, 1993 and before July 1, 1999 for the first ten years of the facility's existence. Last Fall, I introduced a bill to extend this tax credit for five years. My legislation, S. 1459, currently has 22 cosponsors, including half of the Finance Committee. The House companion legislation, introduced by Congressman Thomas, currently has 90 cosponsors, including over half of the Ways and Means Committee. These numbers are a strong testament to the importance of the section 45, and renewable fuels in general. In addition, I plan to work to expand this tax credit to allow use of the closed-loop biomass portion of this tax credit. Switchgrass from my state and other Midwestern states, eucalyptus from the South, and other biomass, can be grown for the exclusive purpose of producting energy. This is a productive use of our land, and will be an important step in our use and development of alternative and renewable fuels. I was very pleased to see that Congress expressed its understanding of the importance of alternative and renewable fuels by extending the ethanol tax credit in this year's T-2 legislation. These tax credits are a successful way of promoting alternative sources of energy. These tax credits are a cheap investment with high returns for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren and even their grandchildren. Congress needs to again pass this important legislation to ensure that these energy tax credits are extended into the century. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with my colleagues. Implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments is creating a real need to develop clean alternative fuels. For example, of the 64 remaining U.S. coke batteries, 58 are subject to closure as a result of the Clean Air Act. The steel industry can either use limited capital to build new clean coking facilities or they can choose to import coke from China, which uses 50 year old highly pollutant technologies. Restoring the section 29 credit to encourage cleaner coker technologies will greatly reduce emissions and will slow our increasing dependence on foreign coke, at the same time creating jobs in the United States in both the steel and coal mining industries. In addition, the United States has rich deposits of lignite and sub-bituminous coals. There are new technologies that can upgrade these coals to make them burn efficiently and economically, while at the same time significantly reducing air pollution. This is proven technology, but to make the development of this technology throughout the nation feasible, the Congress needs to provide tax incentives. Mr. ENZI. The people of Wyoming have always had very strong ties to our land. That is why the words ``Livestock, Oil, Grain and Mines'' appear on our state seal. Those words clearly reflect the importance of our natural resources to the people of my state, and our commitment to using our abundant natural resources wisely and for the benefit of current and future generations of Wyomingites and the people of this country. Congress has determined the need to find newer and cleaner technologies. Wyoming is blessed with an abundance of clean burning coal reserves. It would seem to be a perfect match. We are eager to provide what is needed for our country's present and future fuel needs. But those reserves aren't likely to be developed unless we provide the incentives necessary to make it possible for the coal to be harvested in a safe and environmentally friendly manner. Mr. ABRAHAM. I concur with my colleagues. The development and production of alternative fuels provides a real opportunity for the country to improve the environment while ensuring a constant, reasonably priced fuel supply. But recent efforts to provide such assurances have been hampered. For example, in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Congress extended the placed-in-service date for facilities producing synthetic fuels from coal, and gas from biomass for eighteen months. However, progress in bringing certain facilities up to full production has been hampered by the Administration's 1997 proposal to shorten the placed-in-service date and because, in many cases, the technology used to produce the fuels is new. Such delays have created uncertainty regarding the facilities eligibility under the placed-in-service requirement of section 29. While it is important that the Congress consider again this issue in the 106th Congress, I would also urge the Secretary to consider the facilities I mentioned qualified under Section 29 if they met the Service's criteria for placed-in- service by June 30, 1998 whether or not such facilities were consistently producing commercial quantities of marketable products on a daily basis. Mr. CONRAD. I agree with my colleagues. Through the section 29 tax credit for nonconventional fuels, Congress has supported the development of environmentally friendly fuels from domestic biomass and coal resources. There are lignite resources in my state that could compete in the energy marketplace if we can find a reasonable incentive for the investment in the necessary technology. As soon as possible in the 106th Congress, I hope we will give this crucial subject the attention it deserves. Mr. HATCH. I concur with my colleagues. This is a very important tax credit for alternative fuels. It is an issue of fairness, not one of corporate welfare. Earlier this year I, along with 18 of my colleagues, introduced a bill that would extend for eight months the placed-in-service date for coal and biomass facilities. The need still exists to extend this date and I am very disappointed that this was not included. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in supporting tax incentives for alternative fuels. Our country has assumed a leadership role in the reduction of greenhouse gases because of the global importance of pollution reduction. As my colleagues have also pointed out, promotion of alternative fuels is not just an environmental issue, but an issue important to our domestic economy and independence as well. We cannot afford to slip back toward policies which will leave us dependent upon foreign sources of oil for our economic growth. With the huge reserves of coal and lignite in the United States and around the world, as well as the tremendous potential for use of biomass, wind energy, and other alternatives, it is particularly important to our economy and the world's environment that new, more environmentally friendly fuels are brought to market here and in developing nations. But bringing new technologies to market is financially risky. In particular, finding investors to take a new technology from the laboratory to the market is difficult because so many technical problems need full-scale testing and operations to resolve. Few investors are prepared to take on the risks associated with bringing a first-of-a-kind, full- sized alternative energy production facility on-line without some level of security provided by a partnership with the federal government. Tax incentives represent our government's willingness to work with the private sector as a partner to bring new, clean energy technologies to the market. These incentives demonstrate our country's commitment to the future. Mr. GRAHAM. There are two principal reasons I support extension of sections 29 and 45. First, in a period where America is continuing to increase its dependence on foreign oil, we need to develop alternative fuel technologies to prepare for the day when foreign supply of oil is reduced. These tax credits have spurred the production of fuel from sources as diverse as biomass, coal, and wind. America will desperately need fuel from these domestic sources when foreign producers reduce imports. Second, the alternative fuels that earn these tax credits are clean fuels. For example, the capture and reuse of landfill methane prevents the methane from escaping into the atmosphere. I will support my colleagues in an effort next year to extend these provisions. Mr. THURMOND. I join my colleagues in support of extending the tax credit for Fuel Production from Nonconventional Sources. Through this credit, Congress has emphasized the importance of establishing alternative energy sources, furthering economic development, and protecting the environment. The alternative fuels credit strikes a proper balance between each of these objectives. I support efforts to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion, early in the next Congress. Mr. THOMAS. I strongly agree with my colleagues regarding the importance of the Section 29 tax credit. Wyoming has some of the nation's largest coal reserves and this tax credit gives producers an incentive to develop new and innovative technologies for the use of coal. I am disappointed that an extension of the Section 29 tax credit was not included in the Omnibus Appropriations package and urge my colleagues to make this matter a top priority during the 106th Congress. Mr. ROTH. I understand my colleagues' concerns. For some time now I have been studying how to provide targeted incentives to develop clean alternative fuels. It is essential for Congress to develop sound tax policy for alternative energy to help protect our environment. Several weeks ago, I introduced legislation to provide such incentives for facilities that produce energy from poultry waste. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues early in the 106th Congress.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications (ORBIT)'' bill, an important piece of legislation that will modernize our nation's laws and policies regarding the provision of international satellite communications services. I also thank the help and hard work of my colleagues who are original cosponsors of this bill, including the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senator Brownback, Senator Bryan, Senator Dorgan and Senator Cleland. Dramatic technological and marketplace changes have reshaped global satellite communications in the thirty-six years since enactment of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962. These changes necessitate that we update our nation's satellite laws to establish a new policy framework for vibrant international satellite communications in the 21st century. The bill I introduce today reflects a reasoned and balanced approach that will enable more private companies, as opposed to government entities, to bring advanced satellite communications service to every corner of the globe--including poor, remote and lesser developed countries. This bill puts the full weight of the United States squarely behind the privatization of INTELSAT, an intergovernmental organization embracing 142 countries, which, in turn, will transform the international satellite communications marketplace into a more robust and genuinely competitive arena. The beneficiaries of this legislation will be American companies and their workers who will have new opportunities to offer satellite communications services worldwide and consumers who will be able to enjoy a choice among multiple service providers of ever more advanced communications services at lower cost. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States responded immediately and aggressively to recapture the lead in the advancement of satellite technology. Our nation understood the tremendous potential of satellite technology, but at the same time recognized that because of the cost, risk and uncertainty, no individual company would develop it alone. Therefore, the U.S. enacted the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 which created COMSAT, a private company, to develop by itself, or presumably with the assistance of other foreign entities, a commercial worldwide satellite communications system. Subsequently, the international treaty organization, INTELSAT, was created to provide mainly telephone and data services around the world. COMSAT and INTELSAT have worked together over the last three decades to introduce satellite communications services here and abroad. The INTELSAT/COMSAT experiment has been a magnificent success. INTELSAT, has grown to include 142 member countries, utilizing a network of 24 satellites that offer voice, data and video services around the world. In the last fifteen years, technological advances, improved large-scale financing options, and enriched market conditions have created a favorable climate for new companies to provide services that only INTELSAT had previously been able to offer. However, while the success of INTELSAT has spurred multiple private commercial companies to penetrate the global satellite market, these private companies have expressed serious concern about the existence of INTELSAT, in its present form, and the unlevel playing field upon which they must compete with INTELSAT. My legislation addresses their concerns. This legislation prods INTELSAT to transform itself from a multi- governmentally owned and controlled monopoly to a fully privatized company. The legislation articulates the new United States policy that INTELSAT must privatize as soon as possible, but no later than January 1, 2002 and it creates a process to encourage and verify that this privatization effort occurs in a pro-competitive manner. This legislation puts clear and specific restrictions on INTELSAT's ability to expand its service offerings into new areas, such as direct broadcast satellite services and Ka-band communications, pending privatization. At the same time, it preserves INTELSAT's ability to provide its customers services they currently enjoy. INTELSAT customers are not artificially denied services to which they already have access. INTELSAT also is offered incentives to privatize. One of INTELSAT's most important business objectives is to obtain direct access to the lucrative U.S. domestic market. My legislation does not hand this over to INTELSAT and the other 141 member countries without commercial reform. Rather, it withholds this desired benefit until privatization is complete. I should add that with the introduction of this legislation, I call on the FCC to halt its pending rulemaking to allow Intelsat to directly access the U.S. market before privatization. This rulemaking undermines a central tenet of this bill, and would exceed the agency's authority in any event. I urge the FCC to let Congress resolve this issue through the legislative process. This legislation provides the President of the United States with the authority to certify that INTELSAT has privatized in a sufficiently pro-competitive manner that it will not harm competition in the U.S. satellite marketplace. The President is required to consider a whole array of criteria such as the owner structure of INTELSAT, its independence from the intergovernmental organization, and its relinquishment of privileges and immunities. These criteria will ensure that INTELSAT is transformed into a commercially competitive company without any unfair advantages. If the privatization does not occur within the time frame provided in my legislation, January 1, 2002, the President is required to withdraw the U.S. from INTELSAT. I believe that the House and the Senate, working constructively together, can enact international satellite competition legislation this year. In particular, I want to commend the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, Representative Bliley, for all the good work he did last Congress in passing H.R. 1872 through the House. I am confident that our shared objectives will enable us to resolve differences on a number of specific issues and obtain the broad, bipartisan support needed to move this legislation quickly. I especially look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Senate to reaching swift agreement on this bill which will enhance America's competitive position as we enter the 21st century.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications (ORBIT)'' bill, an important piece of legislation that will modernize our nation's laws and policies regarding the provision of international satellite communications services. I also thank the help and hard work of my colleagues who are original cosponsors of this bill, including the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senator Brownback, Senator Bryan, Senator Dorgan and Senator Cleland. Dramatic technological and marketplace changes have reshaped global satellite communications in the thirty-six years since enactment of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962. These changes necessitate that we update our nation's satellite laws to establish a new policy framework for vibrant international satellite communications in the 21st century. The bill I introduce today reflects a reasoned and balanced approach that will enable more private companies, as opposed to government entities, to bring advanced satellite communications service to every corner of the globe--including poor, remote and lesser developed countries. This bill puts the full weight of the United States squarely behind the privatization of INTELSAT, an intergovernmental organization embracing 142 countries, which, in turn, will transform the international satellite communications marketplace into a more robust and genuinely competitive arena. The beneficiaries of this legislation will be American companies and their workers who will have new opportunities to offer satellite communications services worldwide and consumers who will be able to enjoy a choice among multiple service providers of ever more advanced communications services at lower cost. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States responded immediately and aggressively to recapture the lead in the advancement of satellite technology. Our nation understood the tremendous potential of satellite technology, but at the same time recognized that because of the cost, risk and uncertainty, no individual company would develop it alone. Therefore, the U.S. enacted the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 which created COMSAT, a private company, to develop by itself, or presumably with the assistance of other foreign entities, a commercial worldwide satellite communications system. Subsequently, the international treaty organization, INTELSAT, was created to provide mainly telephone and data services around the world. COMSAT and INTELSAT have worked together over the last three decades to introduce satellite communications services here and abroad. The INTELSAT/COMSAT experiment has been a magnificent success. INTELSAT, has grown to include 142 member countries, utilizing a network of 24 satellites that offer voice, data and video services around the world. In the last fifteen years, technological advances, improved large-scale financing options, and enriched market conditions have created a favorable climate for new companies to provide services that only INTELSAT had previously been able to offer. However, while the success of INTELSAT has spurred multiple private commercial companies to penetrate the global satellite market, these private companies have expressed serious concern about the existence of INTELSAT, in its present form, and the unlevel playing field upon which they must compete with INTELSAT. My legislation addresses their concerns. This legislation prods INTELSAT to transform itself from a multi- governmentally owned and controlled monopoly to a fully privatized company. The legislation articulates the new United States policy that INTELSAT must privatize as soon as possible, but no later than January 1, 2002 and it creates a process to encourage and verify that this privatization effort occurs in a pro-competitive manner. This legislation puts clear and specific restrictions on INTELSAT's ability to expand its service offerings into new areas, such as direct broadcast satellite services and Ka-band communications, pending privatization. At the same time, it preserves INTELSAT's ability to provide its customers services they currently enjoy. INTELSAT customers are not artificially denied services to which they already have access. INTELSAT also is offered incentives to privatize. One of INTELSAT's most important business objectives is to obtain direct access to the lucrative U.S. domestic market. My legislation does not hand this over to INTELSAT and the other 141 member countries without commercial reform. Rather, it withholds this desired benefit until privatization is complete. I should add that with the introduction of this legislation, I call on the FCC to halt its pending rulemaking to allow Intelsat to directly access the U.S. market before privatization. This rulemaking undermines a central tenet of this bill, and would exceed the agency's authority in any event. I urge the FCC to let Congress resolve this issue through the legislative process. This legislation provides the President of the United States with the authority to certify that INTELSAT has privatized in a sufficiently pro-competitive manner that it will not harm competition in the U.S. satellite marketplace. The President is required to consider a whole array of criteria such as the owner structure of INTELSAT, its independence from the intergovernmental organization, and its relinquishment of privileges and immunities. These criteria will ensure that INTELSAT is transformed into a commercially competitive company without any unfair advantages. If the privatization does not occur within the time frame provided in my legislation, January 1, 2002, the President is required to withdraw the U.S. from INTELSAT. I believe that the House and the Senate, working constructively together, can enact international satellite competition legislation this year. In particular, I want to commend the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, Representative Bliley, for all the good work he did last Congress in passing H.R. 1872 through the House. I am confident that our shared objectives will enable us to resolve differences on a number of specific issues and obtain the broad, bipartisan support needed to move this legislation quickly. I especially look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Senate to reaching swift agreement on this bill which will enhance America's competitive position as we enter the 21st century.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business to allow Senators to speak and introduce legislation. There are a number of Senators who have indicated a desire to speak, and therefore Senators should expect the Senate to be in full session until late this afternoon. As previously announced, the Senate will resume consideration of the articles of impeachment beginning at 1 p.m. on Thursday. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daschle or his designee be in control of the time between the hours of 12 noon today and 1 p.m. and Senator Coverdell or his designee be in control of the time from 1 to 2 p.m. I further ask unanimous consent that beginning at 2 p.m. Senators be recognized to speak in morning business for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison, many members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and other Senators who recognize the importance of our domestic energy market in presenting the United States Energy Economic Growth Act. This act is extremely important given the current state of our domestic oil and gas industry. The current market, coupled with government inaction and misguided regulation, has created an environment that is forcing many of our producers out of the energy market. I have risen many times before, and unless things change I will rise many times again, to voice my concern over that fact that we are running our producers into the ground. Agriculture, timber, mining and energy; it doesn't seem to make a difference these days which natural resource market you work in, you don't get a fair price for an honest day's work. This morning in the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, we had a hearing on this very problem. I must say, I heard some of the best testimony that I have ever heard before a Senate Committee. It just made good sense. We didn't have people asking for handouts. We didn't have people placing blame. We had some hard working oil and gas producers, state governors and representatives of oil and gas producing states outline the problem and offer solutions. One of the biggest problems discussed was the loss of domestic production capability in the form of marginal wells. We are losing these wells at an alarming rate. As a result our reliance on foreign energy sources is skyrocketing. We are running our producers out of business, increasing our dependence on foreign oil, and throwing our trade balance askew. This legislation will help our independent producers running marginal wells stay in business. Much more needs to be done, but this bill will help relax the heavy hand of government on an ailing industry. As pointed out this morning, the current administration stepped in to help the straw broom industry when less than a hundred jobs were at risk. It's time this Congress takes a stand, and hopefully the administration will join us, in supporting an industry where tens of thousands of jobs, our national security, and our economic well-being are all being placed at risk.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison, many members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and other Senators who recognize the importance of our domestic energy market in presenting the United States Energy Economic Growth Act. This act is extremely important given the current state of our domestic oil and gas industry. The current market, coupled with government inaction and misguided regulation, has created an environment that is forcing many of our producers out of the energy market. I have risen many times before, and unless things change I will rise many times again, to voice my concern over that fact that we are running our producers into the ground. Agriculture, timber, mining and energy; it doesn't seem to make a difference these days which natural resource market you work in, you don't get a fair price for an honest day's work. This morning in the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, we had a hearing on this very problem. I must say, I heard some of the best testimony that I have ever heard before a Senate Committee. It just made good sense. We didn't have people asking for handouts. We didn't have people placing blame. We had some hard working oil and gas producers, state governors and representatives of oil and gas producing states outline the problem and offer solutions. One of the biggest problems discussed was the loss of domestic production capability in the form of marginal wells. We are losing these wells at an alarming rate. As a result our reliance on foreign energy sources is skyrocketing. We are running our producers out of business, increasing our dependence on foreign oil, and throwing our trade balance askew. This legislation will help our independent producers running marginal wells stay in business. Much more needs to be done, but this bill will help relax the heavy hand of government on an ailing industry. As pointed out this morning, the current administration stepped in to help the straw broom industry when less than a hundred jobs were at risk. It's time this Congress takes a stand, and hopefully the administration will join us, in supporting an industry where tens of thousands of jobs, our national security, and our economic well-being are all being placed at risk.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-sponsor of a bill that I envision as just one piece in Congressional efforts to correct the inequitable treatment our Federal government forces on our nation's farmers. How many times do we need to impress upon this Administration that agriculture is a foundation for our economy? Agriculture producers are at the beginning of the food chain--they provide the food that feeds our nation and we, as American consumers of these products, enjoy the world's best food distribution system in the world. This bill, the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act of 1999, requires the President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on agricultural commodities and also provides a termination date for the embargo. In the past, we've seen this Administration take steps to sanction a foreign country in an attempt to coerce that country's policy or behavior. I question the effectiveness of these measures in today's global environment--what may have worked forty years ago may not be today's solution. The Administration's use of this negotiating tool has an economic impact, not only on the country being sanctioned, but also on the rest of the global economy. And that is the important issue--not what we are trying to accomplish with the sanction, but what impact such actions are having on other nations' exporters at the expense of America's exporters. In Montana, and other states that rely on farmers and ranchers to fuel our nation's economy, the sanctioning process has a very substantial impact. Last year, Congress recognized an embargo on Pakistan based on it's nuclear policies was a bad policy decision and corrected the Administration's policy. Pakistan was recently ranked as the fifth largest importer of United States wheat and in recent years has emerged as the single largest buyer of soft wheat from the United States. Think about the impact on our producers when you reduce United States wheat exports by 1.7 million metric tons and that's just to Pakistan alone. Let's back up a little bit and talk about what has happened to farm exports, and especially to farmers in the Northwest. We need to keep in mind the global economy has helped to bring U.S. agriculture to it's knees over the past couple of years and in very short period of time. I am overwhelmed to think that the financial collapse of the economies in Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea could put a farmer in Shelby, Montana out of business. But that's the reality of this situation--we are so tied into the global economy that every foreign policy decision made has an impact on our domestic economy. That's a powerful notion, but again, it's a reality. If you don't believe me, go talk to my farming friends in Montana. Prior to the plague of the Asian flu, I was very convinced that you cannot let the economies in four major importing countries of agricultural products cave in and it not affect this country. Sadly, I was correct. So our exports to that part of the world have decreased dramatically. Then the President came along with sanctions. Let me tell you a little about sanctions. I have never been convinced that sanctions on agriculture commodities really work. I will tell you in an instant that if we unilaterally sanction a country on American agricultural exports, the following will occur: that country is still capable of buying a supply from somebody else in the world. However, the market is aware of these sanctions; therefore, the rest of the world maybe increases the price per bushel of wheat by 1 or 2 cents. Now, 1 or 2 cents doesn't sound like a lot for a bushel of wheat that weighs 60 pounds, but when you're buying 300,000 metric tons, it is a lot of money. To the farmer, it is the difference between making the land payment and not making the land payment--that's the value of 2 cents a bushel. Once that sale is made to the country that we have sanctioned, other wheat exporting nations pour the rest of their crop on the world market. So our farmers compete for fewer markets at a lesser price. That is not right. Sanctions do not deny a country of a food supply for the people who live there, but it has denied our farmers entry into the marketplace a place to compete. In the last 4 years the United States has imposed 61 unilateral economic sanctions on 35 countries containing 40 percent of the world's population. Now, what action does that country take in reaction to the sanction? It retaliates: I am not going to buy American products at any price. So, in essence, we have denied our grain producers access to that market to even be considered to compete. We are talking about food here--I realize that to some folks that is not very important--until it comes suppertime. But to a farmer who only gets one or two paychecks a year, that is how he makes his payment on his operation, his fertilizer, his machinery, his land payment. It contributes to his community, his county, his state and his nation. U.S. farmers have developed export markets because of two factors: quantity and reliability. We are a reliable trade partner. We approach trade policy from a free market perspective--we compete against subsidized grain from many of the world's major exporters. We don't pool our wheat and we don't sell our wheat on the international market by a decision made by Government. So I ask my colleagues to support this bill and support the American farmer and, in turn, support the U.S. economy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-sponsor of a bill that I envision as just one piece in Congressional efforts to correct the inequitable treatment our Federal government forces on our nation's farmers. How many times do we need to impress upon this Administration that agriculture is a foundation for our economy? Agriculture producers are at the beginning of the food chain--they provide the food that feeds our nation and we, as American consumers of these products, enjoy the world's best food distribution system in the world. This bill, the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act of 1999, requires the President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on agricultural commodities and also provides a termination date for the embargo. In the past, we've seen this Administration take steps to sanction a foreign country in an attempt to coerce that country's policy or behavior. I question the effectiveness of these measures in today's global environment--what may have worked forty years ago may not be today's solution. The Administration's use of this negotiating tool has an economic impact, not only on the country being sanctioned, but also on the rest of the global economy. And that is the important issue--not what we are trying to accomplish with the sanction, but what impact such actions are having on other nations' exporters at the expense of America's exporters. In Montana, and other states that rely on farmers and ranchers to fuel our nation's economy, the sanctioning process has a very substantial impact. Last year, Congress recognized an embargo on Pakistan based on it's nuclear policies was a bad policy decision and corrected the Administration's policy. Pakistan was recently ranked as the fifth largest importer of United States wheat and in recent years has emerged as the single largest buyer of soft wheat from the United States. Think about the impact on our producers when you reduce United States wheat exports by 1.7 million metric tons and that's just to Pakistan alone. Let's back up a little bit and talk about what has happened to farm exports, and especially to farmers in the Northwest. We need to keep in mind the global economy has helped to bring U.S. agriculture to it's knees over the past couple of years and in very short period of time. I am overwhelmed to think that the financial collapse of the economies in Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea could put a farmer in Shelby, Montana out of business. But that's the reality of this situation--we are so tied into the global economy that every foreign policy decision made has an impact on our domestic economy. That's a powerful notion, but again, it's a reality. If you don't believe me, go talk to my farming friends in Montana. Prior to the plague of the Asian flu, I was very convinced that you cannot let the economies in four major importing countries of agricultural products cave in and it not affect this country. Sadly, I was correct. So our exports to that part of the world have decreased dramatically. Then the President came along with sanctions. Let me tell you a little about sanctions. I have never been convinced that sanctions on agriculture commodities really work. I will tell you in an instant that if we unilaterally sanction a country on American agricultural exports, the following will occur: that country is still capable of buying a supply from somebody else in the world. However, the market is aware of these sanctions; therefore, the rest of the world maybe increases the price per bushel of wheat by 1 or 2 cents. Now, 1 or 2 cents doesn't sound like a lot for a bushel of wheat that weighs 60 pounds, but when you're buying 300,000 metric tons, it is a lot of money. To the farmer, it is the difference between making the land payment and not making the land payment--that's the value of 2 cents a bushel. Once that sale is made to the country that we have sanctioned, other wheat exporting nations pour the rest of their crop on the world market. So our farmers compete for fewer markets at a lesser price. That is not right. Sanctions do not deny a country of a food supply for the people who live there, but it has denied our farmers entry into the marketplace a place to compete. In the last 4 years the United States has imposed 61 unilateral economic sanctions on 35 countries containing 40 percent of the world's population. Now, what action does that country take in reaction to the sanction? It retaliates: I am not going to buy American products at any price. So, in essence, we have denied our grain producers access to that market to even be considered to compete. We are talking about food here--I realize that to some folks that is not very important--until it comes suppertime. But to a farmer who only gets one or two paychecks a year, that is how he makes his payment on his operation, his fertilizer, his machinery, his land payment. It contributes to his community, his county, his state and his nation. U.S. farmers have developed export markets because of two factors: quantity and reliability. We are a reliable trade partner. We approach trade policy from a free market perspective--we compete against subsidized grain from many of the world's major exporters. We don't pool our wheat and we don't sell our wheat on the international market by a decision made by Government. So I ask my colleagues to support this bill and support the American farmer and, in turn, support the U.S. economy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievements of Montana's Bozeman High School marching band. On January 1, 1999, two hundred and ninety-eight of Montana's finest students performed in front of an estimated 425 million spectators in the Rose Parade in Pasadena, California. Each New Year's Day, the world focuses its attention on Pasadena for the Tournament of Roses Parade and Rose Bowl Game. It's a celebration that is more than a century old complete with flowers, music, and sports, unequaled anywhere in the world. This is why it is such an honor to be chosen to perform on this festive day. I want to commend the accomplishments of our young folks. The Bozeman High School Band program has a history of success in competitions statewide and across the nation. This is to the credit of Director Russ Newbury. In 1998, the band placed second overall at the Mountain West Marching Band Competition in Idaho with the Color Guard winning the show. In Spokane, Washington, Bozeman High placed second two years consecutively at the Lilac Festival Marching Band competition. There are countless other victories for this organization, all of which tell volumes about the quality of students we raise in good ole' Montana. I stand in front of the nation today to say ``congratulations'' and ``a job well done'' to each and every student that represented the State of Montana in this year's Rose Bowl Parade.