Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in sponsoring the Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen's Bill of Rights. This legislation addresses the critical need of improving retention in our military services. The President's Budget has too long ignored the challenges facing our military recruiters as they competed against the civilian sector for highly skilled personnel. For too long, we have spend tax dollars training recruits in critical skills such as aviation maintenance, nuclear engineering, and medicine only to have these skills transferred to civilian companies. We need to stop the hemorrhaging and address the problems that underlie this issue. First, we need to raise the pay of service personnel to keep salaries competitive with civilian equivalents. This bill raises base pay by 4.8% in 2000, with additional pay raises tied to the Employment Cost Index. Second, we need to provide incentives for active duty personnel to keep longer service commitments. To do this, we need to repair the damage done in 1986 to the military retirement system. This bill re- establishes the pre-1986 retirement system for military personnel who commit to serving their country for 15 years or more. Finally, we need to provide service members with the opportunity to save for their retirement. This bill would allow service members to contribute up to 5% of their base pay, before taxes, into the Thrift Savings Plan. This is the same plan available to all government civilian employees and has already encouraged thousands of government employees to take an active step in their retirement planning. By extending this benefit to the military, we encourage them to think ahead and to save for their retirements. The quality of our uniformed service is second to none in the world. We owe it to the people standing on the front lines to ensure that their commitment to our country does not include a commitment to debt and poverty. This bill is an overdue first step in improving the quality of life for all of the men and women who serve in uniform. We owe it to them; we owe it to their families. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and co- sponsor patient protection legislation. There is noting more important than protecting the patient-doctor relationship and guaranteeing our citizens the right to choose their own doctor. It is important to make sure patients have the information they need to make decisions about their health care and make sure doctors, not accountants or lawyers, decide which medical services are needed. Under Senator Nickles' Patients' Bill of Rights Act, no health plan will be beyond the scope of federal or state patient safeguards. The bill will expand access to doctors, incuding guaranteed access to obstetrical and gynecological care and pediatric care, and require managed care plans to offer patients the option to receive care outside a plan's network of doctors. In addition, health plans would have to provide patients with information on covered services, cost-sharing requirements, payment restrictions for services from out-of-network providers, rules for out- of-area coverage, preauthorization requirements and procedures, and rules for grievence and appeals filings. Health plans would be required to have both an internal appeal and external third-party review if coverage for any service is denied. Plans would also be required to safeguard patients' medical information or face civil penalties. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act will also make it easier for many Americans to afford health care. Over 3 million self-employed individuals and their families will benefit from increasing the tax deductibility of health insurance to 100 percent, the same deduction most companies take for their employees. This bill also gives every American the right to have medical savings accounts (MSAs) and puts MSAs on an equal tax treatment footing with standard health care insurance. These flexible savings plans allow you to save money for health expenses tax-free as long as you have a high-deductible health insurance plan. MSAs are currently only available for employees in companies with 50 or fewer employees. In this era of managed care, patients need a Bill of Rights to make sure they get quality health care and not a plan that will lead to higher costs and greater numbers of uninsured. I am happy to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and co- sponsor patient protection legislation. There is noting more important than protecting the patient-doctor relationship and guaranteeing our citizens the right to choose their own doctor. It is important to make sure patients have the information they need to make decisions about their health care and make sure doctors, not accountants or lawyers, decide which medical services are needed. Under Senator Nickles' Patients' Bill of Rights Act, no health plan will be beyond the scope of federal or state patient safeguards. The bill will expand access to doctors, incuding guaranteed access to obstetrical and gynecological care and pediatric care, and require managed care plans to offer patients the option to receive care outside a plan's network of doctors. In addition, health plans would have to provide patients with information on covered services, cost-sharing requirements, payment restrictions for services from out-of-network providers, rules for out- of-area coverage, preauthorization requirements and procedures, and rules for grievence and appeals filings. Health plans would be required to have both an internal appeal and external third-party review if coverage for any service is denied. Plans would also be required to safeguard patients' medical information or face civil penalties. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act will also make it easier for many Americans to afford health care. Over 3 million self-employed individuals and their families will benefit from increasing the tax deductibility of health insurance to 100 percent, the same deduction most companies take for their employees. This bill also gives every American the right to have medical savings accounts (MSAs) and puts MSAs on an equal tax treatment footing with standard health care insurance. These flexible savings plans allow you to save money for health expenses tax-free as long as you have a high-deductible health insurance plan. MSAs are currently only available for employees in companies with 50 or fewer employees. In this era of managed care, patients need a Bill of Rights to make sure they get quality health care and not a plan that will lead to higher costs and greater numbers of uninsured. I am happy to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill being introduced by myself, Mr. Craig and Mr. Thomas on an issue of great importance to my state and the agricultural industry. The issue is that of labeling meat coming into America from other countries. This language offered today will require all meat products that are imported from a foreign country to be labeled with the country of origin of that meat. This bill will protect the consumer as well as the agricultural industry, which has had to face severe competition from foreign countries in recent years. American agricultural producers are currently faced with a huge influx of imports from both Canada and Mexico. Country of origin labeling would do two very important things. First, it would present the consumer with the knowledge to make the choice which meat they want to buy. 78% of consumers polled by Wirthlin Worldwide endorse country of origin labeling. 70%! This says to me that consumers want to be making informed decisions. The vast majority of other types of products that come into the U.S. are labeled with the country they originated in. To name a few, we are aware of where our textiles, manufactured parts, automobiles and watches come from. Why should food be any different? Consumers go to the store with the assumption they are buying U.S. made product. In fact, this is usually not the case. Consumers are completely aware of the country of origin of each article of clothing they put on the outside of their body. Yet they have no idea where any of the food they put inside their body comes from. Many consumers prefer to buy ``Made in the U.S.A.'' and they especially have a right to know. Secondly, this bill will protect both the American producer and the American consumer. Currently, foreign meat that comes into the U.S. is rolled with the USDA grade stamp. This is grossly unfair to the producer and consumer alike. The USDA stamp on foreign product is a detriment to the producer because foreign countries get the benefit of the grade stamp, without having to pay for it. America's producers need the protection of country of origin labeling to assure that the USDA label really means just that--produced in the U.S. It is a detriment to the consumer because they deserve to know that they are buying American and that they are buying absolutely the safest food supply in the world, which is grown by American farmers and ranchers. Furthermore, other countries already require labeling of meat and meat products. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico currently require country of origin labeling. The European Union plans to do the same by the year 2000. If we are to compete in an international market, the U.S. must step up and level the playing field. Again, American agriculture provides the American consumer with the safest, most reliable source of food and fiber in the world. Consumers have proven they want to know where their food comes from. With this in mind we then should be informing the American consumer that they really are purchasing American product. I am proud and very pleased to serve as sponsor of this bill and I look forward to moving it through the legislative process so we may give our consumers the information and the choice to buy ``Made in the U.S.A.''

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that will establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative. As valuable as this position is to our Nation's farmers, I am concerned that it is not statutorily part of the Federal Government that plays a large role in agriculture trade policy. In December, Peter Scher, the current agriculture negotiator was an instrumental player in a United States-Canada trade agreement that addressed many of the inequities as a result of past trade agreements. Montana's farmers, and many other farmers nationwide, are dependent on this office to provide oversight and redress for NAFTA and other b- and multi-lateral agreements that may have not had U.S. agriculture in mind. I say that with a critical tone as past agreements negotiated by the current administration were focused on high-tech industries, all but ignoring the plight of the American farmer. The Canadian trade problem in Montana is monumental, however, it is just a small taste of the beginning of our agriculture trade problems with the European Union which has been less than compromising on many issues. The European Union (E.U.) unfairly restricts imports of U.S. agricultural products. Breaking down these barriers to trade must be a top priority of the U.S.T.R. American farmers can compete for any market, any where in the world, but they must have access to a level playing field. We currently have an extraordinary number of unresolved trade disputes with the E.U., yet the U.S.T.R. continues to seek U.S./E.U. trade pacts on issues unrelated to agriculture. It is critical that the U.S.T.R.'s agricultural trade negotiator be included in these discussions. Otherwise, we will be forced to react to poor planning and negotiating as we were last month in Canada. In 1996, U.S. agricultural exports reached a record level of $60 billion, compared to a total U.S. merchandise trade deficit of $170 billion the same year. By establishing this position within the U.S.T.R., it is my hope the administration will recognize what America's farmers mean to our Nation's economy. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring your attention to Dan Mortensen's fifth National Finals Rodeo Championship. Dan Mortensen hails from Manhattan, a small Montana town just off Interstate 90 near the headwaters of the Missouri River. He made the decision to ride saddle broncs on the pro rodeo circuit--and Montana is proud that he did. In a year when Montana's agriculture community saw many defeats, we thank Dan for inspiring us. He gave us a great show and a championship to boot. We were there with him for his ten white knuckled rides. However, we had stationary seats while he had the notorious saddle bronc horse of the year, Skoal's Wild Card, trying to buck him off in a breaking 88 point ride in the final round. The 88 point ride earned Mortenson one more National Finals Rodeo Championship. In winning his fifth world saddle bronc title, Dan is working toward a record established by the famous Casey Tibbs for consecutive world titles; a record established in the early days of professional rodeo in America. I would like to personally thank Mortensen for entertaining us with his breathtaking rides and wish him the best of luck in upcoming rodeos. He is truly an inspiration to competitors in any sport.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, seeing no Senator seeking the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 6:30 p.m. today and that the majority leader be recognized at that time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my colleagues. Yes, the amendments do satisfy my concerns. The amendments to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) approved by the Senate today, to implement in the United States the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, are an important achievement in ensuring fair play for American companies doing business overseas. The value of this legislation for U.S. business fully justifies the action we are taking today. However, there are provisions in this bill that are unrelated to implementation of the OECD convention. I would have preferred a bill that did not contain these unrelated provisions, principally embodied in Section 5. The House earlier passed S. 2375 with an amendment making significant changes to language addressing the treatment of international organizations providing commercial communications services which had earlier been contained in Section 5 of H.R. 4353 as reported by the House Commerce Committee. These changes reflect an agreement between the House and Senate Commerce Committee leaders. It is my understanding that the House Commerce Committee report accompanying H.R. 4353 addressing Section 5 of that bill is not germane to the interpretation of section 5 in light of the significant changes made therein. With respect to Section 5 and the other provisions of the bill concerning the international organizations INTELSAT and Inmarsat, the Senate is accepting these provisions because of our understanding that nothing in the bill will change the immunities treatment of INTELSAT and Inmarsat, nor create an inconsistency with U.S. obligations under international agreements (e.g., by requiring action or inaction by the Executive Branch) or interfere with the President's authorities under the constitution to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. To achieve the objectives of Section 5, the President can be expected to use existing and future negotiations aimed at the privatization of the telecommunications services of INTELSAT and Inmarsat. I have the following specific views with regard to the bill's telecommunications provisions: The United States remains in a positions to meet fully its obligations under the INTELSAT Headquarters Agreement, an international agreement under which the United States has undertaken international legal obligations to INTELSAT. Nothing in the statute changes the immunity standards of that Agreement. Based on my discussions with the administration, I expect that the President will designate the INTELSAT Headquarters Agreement under subsection (d)(2). The requirement in [section 5(d)(1)] for the President, consistent with requirements in international agreements to which the U.S. is a party, to take all appropriate actions to eliminate or limit substantially any privileges and immunities from suit or legal process accorded to an international organization applies only to suits or legal process in respect of the organizations' commercial activities. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the theory of sovereign immunity to which the United States adheres. The requirements [in Section 5(d)] for the President, consistent with requirements in international agreements to which the U.S. is a party, expeditiously take all appropriate actions to eliminate or limit substantially privileges and immunities does not compel the President to take any action which the President may find to be contrary to the interests of the United States and does not compel the President to decertify INTELSAT or Inmarsat under the International Organizations Immunities Act I am pleased that subsection 5(d) gives the President broad discretion to determine what measures are ``appropriate'' to achieve the objectives of section 5. The bill should not frustrate negotiations by the President to privatize successfully the commercial activities of INTELSAT and Inmarsat in a fashion that eliminates all privileges and immunities for such activities; this being the best means of satisfying the objective of fair and open commercial competition. I further understand that all efforts of INTELSAT and Inmarsat to restructure into private business organizations constitute core functions of these organizations, not commercial functions, within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of Section 5. I understand that Section (5) of S. 2375 is not intended to overturn or disturb any judicial decision interpreting the privileges and immunities of signatories of INTELSAT and Inmarsat, especially Alpha Lyracom (PanAmSat) v. COMSAT, 946 F.2d 168 (2d Cir. 1991). It is my understanding that subsection (d) of Section (5) is intended to become effective on May 1, 1999 when subsection (c) becomes effective, since the two subsections are intended to operate in concert. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the scope and intent of this legislation. At this time, I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation if he concurs?

Mr. BURNS. I thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his remarks and want to confirm that I plan to introduce this legislation next year. Also, I want to congratulate Senator Ford on his efforts on this legislation. Due to his persistence, much of the preliminary work on this bill has been done. While we will miss his presence on the Commerce Committee next year, we will continue to benefit from his work as a member of this body.

Mr. BURNS

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. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2070, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURNS. Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. It always helps the day to open the Senate under the gavel of our distinguished friend from South Carolina.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate is expected to begin debate in relation to the omnibus appropriations bill while awaiting House action on the measure early this evening. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. The next rollcall vote, assuming one is still required on passage of the omnibus bill, is expected to occur at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 21st. All Members will be immediately notified when the exact voting schedule becomes available. I thank my colleagues for their attention. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4283, which is at the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Senator DeWine has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of H.R. 3633, which is at the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives H.J. Res. 137, the 1-day continuing resolution, the resolution be considered read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4501, which is at the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 129, which was submitted by Senator Murkowski.