Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS. Those of us who have been granted life and been able to work in it and enjoy the full fruits of it sometimes lose sight of just exactly where we come from. So this is a matter of conscience, the deep American conscience, especially when those who know and are motivated to do the right thing, those who work with it every day, tell us there is no reason for this procedure. I hope my colleagues will support the override of the President's veto. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is the eve of the second Senate vote to override the President's veto of the Partial Abortion Ban Act. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to listen to their consciences and vote to override the veto and enact the ban. Contray to the assertions of some, this bill is not about a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. It's not about Roe v. Wade. Regardless of one's views on abortion in general, the partial birth abortion procedures should be abhorrent in a civilized society. It is a gruesome procedure, performed late in the term, which most physicians believe is never medically necessary. Most Americans agree it should be banned. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has passed the Congress twice now with my support, first in 1996 and again last year. However, the President has twice vetoed this legislation against the will of the American people. I hope the Senate does the right thing by overriding the veto.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Karl Ohs, who will receive the Federal Bureau of Investigation's highest honor later this month for his part in ending the 1996 Freemen standoff in Montana. A quiet, unassuming rancher from Harrison, Montana, Karl has displayed uncommon courage and leadership not only during the Freemen incident, but throughout his life as a public servant and community leader. Born and raised in the farming town of Malta on Montana's Hi-Line, Karl was surrounded by agriculture from his birth. After graduating from Montana State University with a degree in agriculture, he began farming and ranching in Harrison. Karl quickly became an active member in the community, serving on the board of the local hospital and on the Harrison School Board. Karl's dedication to his community and agriculture led him to run for the Montana House of Representatives in 1994. After only one term, his peers selected Karl to serve as the majority whip for the 1997 legislative session. In this capacity, Karl led fights to cut administrative costs, increase investment in Montana for our long-term growth, and save the historical sites of Virginia City and Nevada City, which otherwise would have been lost, destroying important reminders of our great state's heritage. Unlike some of today's political leaders who preach virtues publicly while defying them privately, Karl has shown great courage and morality while not standing in front of a microphone or television camera. When Karl was approached by a friend to intervene in the Freemen standoff, he did so without a second thought. As a mediator during the standoff, Karl repeatedly put himself into dangerous situations because of his concern for human life, both of the Freemen and law enforcement officers. In the end, he was able to gain the trust of the Freemen and jumpstart negotiations that led to the end of the standoff. Without his invaluable service, a violent end to the situation would have been inevitable. In a nation that is suffering from a lack of moral leadership, I am happy to know that we have people like Karl taking an active role in their communities. Karl serves as an example for all of us. Again, Karl, congratulations on your award. We can all learn a lot from your model of courage and service, and I want you to know that you have my gratitude and that of the Nation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from New Mexico. I will not be long, I say to my friend and neighbor from North Dakota. I want to put some things in perspective. Yes, the lands belong to the United States of America and are held in trust for the citizens of this country. But the citizens of this country and the taxpayers in this country do not participate in the expense of drilling the well. There is no argument on the eighth that is the royalty that goes to the surface owner. After all, the oil companies did buy the leases. They paid hard money for those leases. If there is a resource--in this case, oil--under the ground, they go and find it. That is not to say that every well they put in the ground is successful. We have more dry wells than we have wells producing. The American people did not make any investment in drilling that so-called dry hole, and they didn't even participate in footing the bill; the expense of putting the well down is a producer's. There is no argument with the eighth. I can simplify this very easily. ``In kind'' would be right. If you want to participate in the value added to compute your royalty, as the chairman of the Energy Committee said is being attempted by MMS, then MMS should participate in the transportation and the cost of the value added. That is only fair. Now, if that is not fair, then I suggest that the Interior Department go out to the well site, take their truck, and every eight buckets of oil that come out of the ground, they get the eighth one, put it in their truck, and do with it whatever they want to do with it--go on open markets, like the independents or even the big companies do. It doesn't make any difference. That is their eighth. They have been paid. The market goes up, the market goes down; the risk is the same for the surface owner as it is for the one who is bringing it up. That is very simple. No argument with the eighth. What we are saying is: Fair is fair. If you want to collect the royalty on the value-added product, then there has to be expense incurred by those who want to participate in that part of the process of getting oil to gasoline and the energy that we need in this country. Senator Domenici brought up the point a while ago that people are paying more for their bottled water in the grocery store than they are for their gasoline. There is another aspect of this--and I think Senator Dorgan from North Dakota will agree with this--in this economy today, nobody who produces a raw product is making any money. Our farmers understand that. I will give my old ``F-U'' line here, old farmers union line they call it: Go and price Wheaties at the grocery store at $3.75 a pound and the farmer can't even get $1.75 for a 60- pound bushel of wheat. Something is out of whack here. So we are not arguing about the eighth. We are arguing where do you take the eighth and what our investment or our part of the expense should be. You can't let everybody else pay all the expenses and you just participate in the harvest of those dollars. It is a very, very simple thing. There is nothing difficult about understanding that. But I think that is what we ought to do. Yes, we are worried about children in schools. I sure am. I am worrying about the children of those folks who work awfully hard in the oil patch to feed their families, participate in their communities, and take care of the obligations they have as citizens of the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I am very pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction conference report for fiscal year 1999. This conference report was adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 417 to 1. It was sent to the Senate and now waits our final passage. We have worked hard with our House colleagues to bring the military construction conference to a successful conclusion. Both bodies took a different perspective on the allocation of military construction funding for the Department of Defense. In the final conference report, we met our goals of promoting quality of life initiatives and enhancing mission readiness. This bill has some points I want to highlight. It provides a total of $8.4 billion for military construction. Even though this is an increase of $665 million over the President's budget for fiscal year 1998, it is still a reduction of $759 million from what was appropriated last year--an overall reduction of 8.8 percent. Some 42 percent of the bill is allocated to family housing--a total of $3.5 billion. This includes new construction, improvements to existing units and funding for operation and maintenance of that housing. The base realignment and closure part of the bill account for 19 percent of our total funding--about $1.6 billion. This encompasses funding for environmental clean-up of the closing bases and construction of new BRAC-related facilities. I continue to be concerned about the growing costs of environmental clean-up at our BRAC installations. These costs frequently continue long after we have closed these bases. We strongly protected quality of life initiatives. We provided $716 million for barracks, $34 million for child development centers and $184 million for hospital and medical facilities. We provided a total of $480 million for the Guard and Reserve components. Overall, this represents an increase of $300 million from the President's budget request. Many of those projects will enhance the readiness and mission capabilities of our Reserve and Guard forces, vital to our national defense. I thank my ranking member, Senator Murray, for her assistance and support throughout this process. She and her staff were extremely cooperative. I commend this product to the Senate and recommend that it be signed by the President without delay. It is nice to see everybody back from vacation and the August break. I think most of us had time to travel around our States and talk with our folks at home and to bring back maybe some new ideas. I remind this body that for the first time in the history of this country, better than 50 percent of our military forces are found in our National Guard and our Reserves. If we continue to trend that way, then the infrastructure that it will take for those folks to be properly trained--and let's face it, those who serve in the Guard and the Reserves are as dedicated men and women to the national security of this country as anybody else, but they will need the infrastructure in which to operate. This administration did not really fully fund our infrastructure for our Guard and our Reserves, but this Congress did. I congratulate this Congress for doing so, because it becomes more and more important every day that these dedicated Americans who wish to serve their country as citizens, soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors have the infrastructure in which to keep them trained and to keep their dedication and their morale as high as we can possibly make it. I heartily recommend this conference report. (At the request of Mr. Burns, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record:)

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to strengthen America's tourism and travel related industry--the Value In Supporting International Tourism Act of 1998 (Visit USA Act). This legislation is a follow-on to the National Tourism Act, Public Law 104-288, enacted two years ago. In the National Tourism Act, Congress created the U.S. National Tourism Organization (USNTO) in order to re-establish the United States as the premiere destination for tourists throughout the world. While international travel and tourism remains the United States largest service export, its third largest industry, and a major producer of jobs and tax revenue for federal, state and local governments, our share of the international tourism market is threatened unless action is taken now. Public Law 104-288 authorized a public-private partnership, including a broad cross-section of the U.S. travel and tourism industry, charged with working with government to (1) promote and increase the U.S. share of the international tourism market, (2) develop and implement a national travel and tourism strategy, (3) advise the President and Congress on how to implement this strategy and on other critical matters affecting the travel and tourism industry, (4) conduct travel and tourism market research, and (5) promote the interests of the U.S. travel and tourism industry at international trade shows. The USNTO was authorized to conduct activities necessary to advance these national interests. The USNTO was also charged with developing a long-term financing plan for the organization. On January 14, 1998, the Board of the USNTO fulfilled its statutory mandate by submitting a report to Congress outlining, among other things, a long-term marketing plan to promote the United States as the premiere international travel destination. The Board is firmly committed to work with Congress to secure appropriate funding for an international marketing effort. Private sector and state support for the promotion of the United States as an international tourist destination exceeds $1 billion annually. This support, together with the commitment of the USNTO Board of Directors to use only non-governmental sources of funding for all USNTO general and administrative costs, provides a substantial commitment from the ``private'' side of the partnership and a foundation for a successful public-private partnership. The Visit USA Act establishes an international visitor assistance task force. This interagency body will support the creation of a toll- free telephone line to assist foreign tourists visiting the United States. It will also work to improve signage at airports and other key travel facilities, and facilitate distribution of multilingual travel and tourism materials. Each of these activities is intended to be conducted at minimal or zero cost to the federal government. This legislation also requires the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress on how federal lands are used and on how they may have influenced the tourism market, on any changes in the international tourist commerce, on the impact tourism has on the U.S. economy, and on our balance of trade. The facts concerning the increasingly competitive international tourism justify this legislative approach. While competition for the international tourism dollar has become one among national governments, the U.S. government is the only major industrialized nation that does not promote its tourism market abroad. Other governments spend millions on tourism marketing. In 1995, for example, Australia spent $88 million, the UK and Spain each spent $79 million, and France spent $73 million to promote tourism. Tourism is a significant element of the U.S. economy. The industry that depends on spending by foreign tourists is diverse, and includes restaurants, hotels, travel agencies, shops, tour bus services, rental car agencies, theaters, airlines, and theme parks. In particular, small businesses depend on revenues from international tourism. I encourage all Senators to join in supporting this important effort to strengthen our tourism-related economy. The dividends to be realized as a result of this modest investment will benefit every state and every congressional district.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Lott, Craig, Grassley, Hagel, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, and Thomas to introduce the Family Investment and Rural Savings Tax (FIRST) Act of 1998. Mr. President, today's family farms are in jeopardy. This bill will help all Americans as well as our nation's farming families. The bill consists of two titles--the first will reduce the top individual capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% and reduces the capital gains tax rate for individuals with lower incomes from 10% to 7.5%. Title two of the bill consists of two separate measures which work hand in hand: First, the bill will allow farmers to open their own tax deferred savings accounts. These accounts would provide farmers and ranchers an opportunity to set aside income in high-income years and withdraw the money in low-income years. The money is taxed only when it is withdrawn and can be deferred for up to five years. In 1995, 2.2 million taxpayers, qualified as farmers under IRS definitions, would have been eligible to use these accounts. Only 725,000 of those filed a net income while 1.5 million filed a net loss. Now that could mean one of two things: (1) fewer and fewer farmers are able to stay in the black or; (2) more and more farmers are going out of business. We cannot continue to treat our farmers and ranchers as second class citizens in our tax code. The second part of this title contains language that I introduced earlier this year. This language would allow farmers to use average their income over three years and make that tool permanent in the tax code. This bill will give American farmers a fair tool to offset the unpredictable nature of their business. The question is who will benefit most from income averaging and farm savings accounts. This is the best part--this legislation will allow farmers to delay payment of their taxes by reducing their overall income and spreading it out over a number of years. However, based on the tax rate schedule, this bill would favor farmers in the lower tax bracket. If a farmer could use these tools to reduce their tax burden from one year to the next, it is very conceivable that taxpayer would pay only 15% on his income compared to 28%. That is a significant savings. This bill leaves the business decisions in the hands of farmers, not the government. Farmers can decide whether to defer income and when to withdraw funds to supplement operations. Farmers and ranchers labor seven days a week, from dawn until dusk, to provide our nation with the world's best produce, dairy products and meats. Farming is a difficult business requiring calloused hands and rarely a profitable financial reward. This profession is not getting any easier. Today, we are seeing more and more of our family farms swallowed up by the corporate farms. Farming has always been a family affair. Rural communities rely on the family farm for their own economic sustenance. Although family farms are traditionally passed on from father to son--it is becoming more and more difficult as the economics of farming are becoming more and more complicated. Further tightening of the belt on these folks can only mean the eventual loss of the family farm. Montana's farmers take pride in their harvests. You could call today's farmer the ultimate environmentalist. They know how to take care of the land and ensure that future harvests will be plentiful. As land managers, farmers understand the importance of proper land stewardship. Those colleagues of mine who grew up on a farm or ranch would certainly understand the frustration of this business. Farmers and ranchers don't receive an annual salary. They cannot rely on income that may not be there at the end of the year and they certainly cannot count on a monthly paycheck. This is a crucial time for family farms and tax relief can mean the difference between keeping the family farm for future generations or losing it. With the recent passage of the Farm Bill, farmers are more than ever impacted by market forces and in the farming business, those market forces can be very unpredictable. Market forces in farming are very unique--drought, flooding, infestation and disease all play a vital role in a farmer's bottom line. And it's not often when the elements of mother nature allow for a profitable harvest. At best, most farmers are lucky to break even more than two years in a row. One year may be a windfall, while the next may mean bankruptcy. Farmers and ranchers are forced to make large capital investments in machinery, livestock and improvements to their properties. Agricultural markets are rarely predictable. Farmers, more than any other sector of our economy are likely to experience substantial fluctuations in income. We also need to address the issue of the estate tax. This is a death blow to a family farm that has been passed down through the generations. A family farm in Montana is not really referred to as an estate. We call it home, we call it work, and we call it our lives, but we don't call it an estate. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge you also to support future bills such as estate tax relief legislation to encourage America's farming family of a safe and secure future. I have letters in support of this bill signed by numerous agriculture groups as well as a letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). I ask unanimous consent to have both of these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Lott, Craig, Grassley, Hagel, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, and Thomas to introduce the Family Investment and Rural Savings Tax (FIRST) Act of 1998. Mr. President, today's family farms are in jeopardy. This bill will help all Americans as well as our nation's farming families. The bill consists of two titles--the first will reduce the top individual capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% and reduces the capital gains tax rate for individuals with lower incomes from 10% to 7.5%. Title two of the bill consists of two separate measures which work hand in hand: First, the bill will allow farmers to open their own tax deferred savings accounts. These accounts would provide farmers and ranchers an opportunity to set aside income in high-income years and withdraw the money in low-income years. The money is taxed only when it is withdrawn and can be deferred for up to five years. In 1995, 2.2 million taxpayers, qualified as farmers under IRS definitions, would have been eligible to use these accounts. Only 725,000 of those filed a net income while 1.5 million filed a net loss. Now that could mean one of two things: (1) fewer and fewer farmers are able to stay in the black or; (2) more and more farmers are going out of business. We cannot continue to treat our farmers and ranchers as second class citizens in our tax code. The second part of this title contains language that I introduced earlier this year. This language would allow farmers to use average their income over three years and make that tool permanent in the tax code. This bill will give American farmers a fair tool to offset the unpredictable nature of their business. The question is who will benefit most from income averaging and farm savings accounts. This is the best part--this legislation will allow farmers to delay payment of their taxes by reducing their overall income and spreading it out over a number of years. However, based on the tax rate schedule, this bill would favor farmers in the lower tax bracket. If a farmer could use these tools to reduce their tax burden from one year to the next, it is very conceivable that taxpayer would pay only 15% on his income compared to 28%. That is a significant savings. This bill leaves the business decisions in the hands of farmers, not the government. Farmers can decide whether to defer income and when to withdraw funds to supplement operations. Farmers and ranchers labor seven days a week, from dawn until dusk, to provide our nation with the world's best produce, dairy products and meats. Farming is a difficult business requiring calloused hands and rarely a profitable financial reward. This profession is not getting any easier. Today, we are seeing more and more of our family farms swallowed up by the corporate farms. Farming has always been a family affair. Rural communities rely on the family farm for their own economic sustenance. Although family farms are traditionally passed on from father to son--it is becoming more and more difficult as the economics of farming are becoming more and more complicated. Further tightening of the belt on these folks can only mean the eventual loss of the family farm. Montana's farmers take pride in their harvests. You could call today's farmer the ultimate environmentalist. They know how to take care of the land and ensure that future harvests will be plentiful. As land managers, farmers understand the importance of proper land stewardship. Those colleagues of mine who grew up on a farm or ranch would certainly understand the frustration of this business. Farmers and ranchers don't receive an annual salary. They cannot rely on income that may not be there at the end of the year and they certainly cannot count on a monthly paycheck. This is a crucial time for family farms and tax relief can mean the difference between keeping the family farm for future generations or losing it. With the recent passage of the Farm Bill, farmers are more than ever impacted by market forces and in the farming business, those market forces can be very unpredictable. Market forces in farming are very unique--drought, flooding, infestation and disease all play a vital role in a farmer's bottom line. And it's not often when the elements of mother nature allow for a profitable harvest. At best, most farmers are lucky to break even more than two years in a row. One year may be a windfall, while the next may mean bankruptcy. Farmers and ranchers are forced to make large capital investments in machinery, livestock and improvements to their properties. Agricultural markets are rarely predictable. Farmers, more than any other sector of our economy are likely to experience substantial fluctuations in income. We also need to address the issue of the estate tax. This is a death blow to a family farm that has been passed down through the generations. A family farm in Montana is not really referred to as an estate. We call it home, we call it work, and we call it our lives, but we don't call it an estate. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge you also to support future bills such as estate tax relief legislation to encourage America's farming family of a safe and secure future. I have letters in support of this bill signed by numerous agriculture groups as well as a letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). I ask unanimous consent to have both of these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998,'' a bill to update our nation's policies regarding the provision of international satellite services. During the final days of the First Session of the 105th Congress, I announced that I would engage in an effort to eliminate outdated regulations and foster competition in the global satellite market. Since that time, I have met with industry representatives and officials from the Administration, and my office has conducted a series of open briefings intended to fully educate Members and their staff on the competing interests and opposing views surrounding this complicated debate. The ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' represents the culmination of a great deal of hard work, and I would like to thank the Members and staff, industry representatives, and Administration officials who worked with me to develop a consensus bill for their efforts. It is my intention to hold a hearing on this legislation when the Senate returns in early September. Currently, the satellite policies of the United States are based upon the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, a bill drafted in the midst of the Cold War, when the United States was engaged in the ``Space Race'' with the Soviet Union. At that time, America wanted to demonstrate to the rest of the world its commitment to the peaceful uses of outer space and to bring the benefits of space technology to all the people of the world. In that effort, we have succeeded magnificently. The 1962 Act led to the formation of Comsat Corporation, and then later of INTELSAT, which today provides global connectivity from the United States to virtually every point on the globe. The 1962 Act has paid the United States enormous dividends, to the point where the policy framework established by Congress in 1962 has been eclipsed by the success of these ventures, and by the development of healthy marketplace competition. The ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' is designed to establish a new policy framework for international satellite communications for the 21st Century. It is designed to build on the success of the 1962 Act in a manner that preserves the benefits of that Act, while unleashing the power of private enterprise to provide new and innovative services to the people of the world. The ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' will help to bring about the privatization of INTELSAT and Inmarsat, so that market forces may shape the services and prices available to American consumers. This bill is also designed to open foreign markets to competition--but to do so in a way that does not harm consumers nor reduce the number of competitors in the marketplace. It requires that all satellite service providers be subject to the same regulatory requirements while preserving lifeline services to those countries that do not generate enough revenues to entice the entrepreneurs to offer service. This will ensure that universal service and global connectivity will always be available to U.S. consumers. Achieving the goal of drafting a thoughtful, balanced bill was not easy. I have worked with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to draft a bill that is fair in its approach, consistent with our international obligations, and which maintains universal service. At the same time the bill relies upon free enterprise, market forces, and competition. In my view, the ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' builds upon the successes of the 1962 Act, while recognizing that satellite technology has been successfully commercialized and that the old policy framework is no longer appropriate. I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, in which I have tried to balance competing policy objectives. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to enact this legislation, and update our international satellite policy for the 21st Century.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998,'' a bill to update our nation's policies regarding the provision of international satellite services. During the final days of the First Session of the 105th Congress, I announced that I would engage in an effort to eliminate outdated regulations and foster competition in the global satellite market. Since that time, I have met with industry representatives and officials from the Administration, and my office has conducted a series of open briefings intended to fully educate Members and their staff on the competing interests and opposing views surrounding this complicated debate. The ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' represents the culmination of a great deal of hard work, and I would like to thank the Members and staff, industry representatives, and Administration officials who worked with me to develop a consensus bill for their efforts. It is my intention to hold a hearing on this legislation when the Senate returns in early September. Currently, the satellite policies of the United States are based upon the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, a bill drafted in the midst of the Cold War, when the United States was engaged in the ``Space Race'' with the Soviet Union. At that time, America wanted to demonstrate to the rest of the world its commitment to the peaceful uses of outer space and to bring the benefits of space technology to all the people of the world. In that effort, we have succeeded magnificently. The 1962 Act led to the formation of Comsat Corporation, and then later of INTELSAT, which today provides global connectivity from the United States to virtually every point on the globe. The 1962 Act has paid the United States enormous dividends, to the point where the policy framework established by Congress in 1962 has been eclipsed by the success of these ventures, and by the development of healthy marketplace competition. The ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' is designed to establish a new policy framework for international satellite communications for the 21st Century. It is designed to build on the success of the 1962 Act in a manner that preserves the benefits of that Act, while unleashing the power of private enterprise to provide new and innovative services to the people of the world. The ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' will help to bring about the privatization of INTELSAT and Inmarsat, so that market forces may shape the services and prices available to American consumers. This bill is also designed to open foreign markets to competition--but to do so in a way that does not harm consumers nor reduce the number of competitors in the marketplace. It requires that all satellite service providers be subject to the same regulatory requirements while preserving lifeline services to those countries that do not generate enough revenues to entice the entrepreneurs to offer service. This will ensure that universal service and global connectivity will always be available to U.S. consumers. Achieving the goal of drafting a thoughtful, balanced bill was not easy. I have worked with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to draft a bill that is fair in its approach, consistent with our international obligations, and which maintains universal service. At the same time the bill relies upon free enterprise, market forces, and competition. In my view, the ``International Satellite Communications Reform Act of 1998'' builds upon the successes of the 1962 Act, while recognizing that satellite technology has been successfully commercialized and that the old policy framework is no longer appropriate. I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, in which I have tried to balance competing policy objectives. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to enact this legislation, and update our international satellite policy for the 21st Century.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the Committee's intent regarding the directive to the Secretary to make funds available for Highway 323 in Southeastern Montana. Under the Federal Lands Highway Program, the Secretary is to make funds available to conduct the environmental review, design and, to the extent possible, right-of-way acquisition for the future phased construction to a paved secondary road standard for 50.4 miles along Highway 323 between the communities of Alzada, Montana and Ekalaka, Montana. This additional language needs to be recognized in order to discourage duplication of work that has already been completed.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the Committee's intent on a couple of different issues in the Transportation Appropriations bill. Under the Federal Lands Highway Program account, two separate highway issues are addressed. I would like to ensure the Secretary is aware of the importance of both of these highway issues. The first, is in Northeastern Montana. Highway 93 is the primary route from Interstate 90 to the Flathead Valley and Glacier National Park. This area is growing in recreational popularity. This beautiful valley is home to Flathead Lake. Located between Kalispell and Polson, this is the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi. Glacier National Park receives numerous visitors by air and train. But the most popular means to reach the park is by Highway 93. Big Mountain recreational ski area is located to the north of the Valley. This resort area is a year-round attraction for outdoor enthusaiasts--many of whom drive to the area by way of Highway 93. I often travel this highway to visit my constituents on the Salish and Kootenai Indian reservation as well as my constituents in Kalispell, and Northwest Montana. Recently on this highway, I noticed I was literally traveling in bumper to bumper traffic. This is not a common phenomenon in Montana but the increased summer traffic in this area has many of the local users concerned about their safety and the safety of their passengers. For nearly thirty years, Montana's American Legion has taken on the responsibility to remind drivers of the dangers of highway travel by placing a white cross along the roadside. The roadside along Highway 93 is littered with these white crosses. As a result of the public outcry to help reduce the number of accidents on this highway, I, on behalf of the Montana Department of Transportation, would like to ask the Committee to direct the Secretary to authorize and release all funds designated for the four-lane expansion of Highway 93. I would also like to ask the Committee to direct the Secretary to withdraw the Federal Highway Administration's record of decision requiring resolution at the State, local and tribal levels.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to put more equality into the Medicare payment system for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The Skilled Nursing Facility Payment Fairness Act of 1998 will allow certain SNFs--those which will suffer a real cut in Medicare payments--to use a more equitable payment formula that more closely reflects their actual costs. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required HCFA to develop a prospective payment system (PPS) for Medicare-covered services provided by skilled nursing facilities. Under the PPS, SNFs will be paid a single federal per diem rate for all routine, ancillary, and capital- related Part A costs. For SNFs that participated in Medicare before October 1, 1995, there is a three-year transition period to the PPS. During this transition period, facilities will be paid a blended rate based on a facility-specific rate and a federal rate. In the first year of the transition, the blended rate will be 75% of the facility- specific rate and 25% of the federal rate; in the second year the split will be 50%-50%; and in the third year 25%-75%. For facilities that have had a substantial change in the level of services they provide since 1995, the transitional blended payment rate will have a severe impact. And of those facilities adversely affected, a significant number are low-utilization SNFs is rural areas. For example, facilities in Montana provide fewer services as measured by Medicare patient days than the national average. They are hit in two ways: first, their utilization levels (length of stay, level of acuity), though still low, are higher today than they were in 1995, so the facility-specific rate which is based on 1995 cost reports does not reflect today's costs; second, the low-utilization facilities are less able to absorb Medicare payment reductions and are more likely to drop out of Medicare altogether. As a result, rural communities with few providers may have no post-hospital services. Patients will then have to leave their communities to seek services elsewhere or go without these services. The bill I'm introducing today will allow facilities to skip the transition period and go directly to the more equitable federal rate if (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that the facility's level of services has changed substantially since 1995, or (2) the facility had fewer than 1500 Medicare patient days in its last cost reporting period. By receiving payments based on the federal rate, which is adjusted for case-mix, geographic variations in wages, and inflation, facilities will be compensated in an amount closer to their actual costs. On the other hand, the facility-specific portion of the current blended rate bases costs in part on 1995 expenses, which does not reflect current costs. Rural areas will suffer under the current prospective payment system. In Montana alone, cuts in Medicare payments to skilled nursing facilities are estimated at $5.6 million in the first year of the prospective payment system, which began on July 1, 1998. It will result in decreased access to care for Medicare patients as fewer services are offered and fewer facilities participate in Medicare. This bill provides a straightforward, workable solution and is supported by the Montana Health Care Association and the American Health Care Association. It will correct the unintended negative consequences of the transition to a prospective payment system and restore fairness to the process.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am concerned that the Feingold amendment is an inappropriate attempt to continue excessive government regulation of the cable industry. I believe that additional reports on the industry by the Federal Communications Commission would be an unnecessary waster of taxpayer money. Furthermore, any efforts to deal with cable rates should be dealt with in the upcoming hearing we have scheduled before the Commerce Committee this Tuesday. The Cable Bureau is largely a product of the 1992 Cable Act. I opposed that Act because I believed it was overly regulatory and heavy handed. I believe that my concerns were proven to be correct. However, in 1996, Congress responded to some of the excesses of the 1992 Act and to the growing competitiveness of the marketplace by adopting several Cable Act reform provisions as part of the Telecommunications Act. The aim of the Telecommunications Act as it related to cable services was to provide increased choices at lower cost by opening up historically monopolistic, regulated markets to new entrants. In return, cable operators would be allowed to enter new communications markets such as telephone and information services. As we move beyond traditional models of monopolies and excessive regulation to a climate of open competition, exciting new educational and commercial opportunities are beginning to appear. I am also very concerned about the recent spate of increases in cable rates. However, the answer to increasing rates is not found in ever- increasing government regulation but in providing for increased consumer choice. Rather than engaging in micromanaging the rate- structure of the cable systems, government should create a level playing field where new entrants can compete effectively with incumbent providers. It was for this reason that I must oppose further misguided efforts to engage the government in regulating cable rates. Mr. President, this issue has been studied to death. When this Congress decided to deregulate the cable industry, it was to expand services and enhance services of the cable industry. That has happened. If you look at the services and the expanded television coverage that we have now on cable as compared to as near as 5 years ago, you would see a big difference in the services that you receive today. There is a hearing on next Tuesday. We invite the Senator from Wisconsin to testify. This is no place to deal with this situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to put more equality into the Medicare payment system for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The Skilled Nursing Facility Payment Fairness Act of 1998 will allow certain SNFs--those which will suffer a real cut in Medicare payments--to use a more equitable payment formula that more closely reflects their actual costs. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required HCFA to develop a prospective payment system (PPS) for Medicare-covered services provided by skilled nursing facilities. Under the PPS, SNFs will be paid a single federal per diem rate for all routine, ancillary, and capital- related Part A costs. For SNFs that participated in Medicare before October 1, 1995, there is a three-year transition period to the PPS. During this transition period, facilities will be paid a blended rate based on a facility-specific rate and a federal rate. In the first year of the transition, the blended rate will be 75% of the facility- specific rate and 25% of the federal rate; in the second year the split will be 50%-50%; and in the third year 25%-75%. For facilities that have had a substantial change in the level of services they provide since 1995, the transitional blended payment rate will have a severe impact. And of those facilities adversely affected, a significant number are low-utilization SNFs is rural areas. For example, facilities in Montana provide fewer services as measured by Medicare patient days than the national average. They are hit in two ways: first, their utilization levels (length of stay, level of acuity), though still low, are higher today than they were in 1995, so the facility-specific rate which is based on 1995 cost reports does not reflect today's costs; second, the low-utilization facilities are less able to absorb Medicare payment reductions and are more likely to drop out of Medicare altogether. As a result, rural communities with few providers may have no post-hospital services. Patients will then have to leave their communities to seek services elsewhere or go without these services. The bill I'm introducing today will allow facilities to skip the transition period and go directly to the more equitable federal rate if (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that the facility's level of services has changed substantially since 1995, or (2) the facility had fewer than 1500 Medicare patient days in its last cost reporting period. By receiving payments based on the federal rate, which is adjusted for case-mix, geographic variations in wages, and inflation, facilities will be compensated in an amount closer to their actual costs. On the other hand, the facility-specific portion of the current blended rate bases costs in part on 1995 expenses, which does not reflect current costs. Rural areas will suffer under the current prospective payment system. In Montana alone, cuts in Medicare payments to skilled nursing facilities are estimated at $5.6 million in the first year of the prospective payment system, which began on July 1, 1998. It will result in decreased access to care for Medicare patients as fewer services are offered and fewer facilities participate in Medicare. This bill provides a straightforward, workable solution and is supported by the Montana Health Care Association and the American Health Care Association. It will correct the unintended negative consequences of the transition to a prospective payment system and restore fairness to the process.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to state for the record that I continue to have serious reservations about the federal government mandating the use of specific technologies to solve the problem of schoolchildren's access to inappropriate material on the Internet. I believe that school boards are much more effective in making decisions about appropriate policy or technology when dealing with Internet access for students than Washington. Advances in technology have brought wonderful opportunities, but we must not rely on technology to deal with complex public policy questions. Congress sets a dangerous precedent by stamping its ``seal of approval'' on software that may be obsolete next year or even next week. I initially expressed my reservations about a bill which would require mandated filtering systems, S. 1619, during the Commerce Committee markup that was held this past March. I considered offering an amendment during the markup that would have required schools and libraries to certify that they had appropriate Internet Acceptable Use Policies in place in order to receive universal service funding. The Chairman of the Commerce Committee assured me that if I were to pull my amendment he would be open to working with me to reach a compromise on the issue. Upon receiving this assurance, I withdrew my amendment. Over the last several months, I have held numerous meetings among all of the parties involved in the markup in an effort to reach consensus. My office has had an open door policy and had significantly altered the original language to expand its scope to reflect the concerns of my colleagues. The draft compromise amendment I was prepared to offer required that schools have Internet use policies in place that address not only access to the World Wide Web, but also the security of schoolchildren when using E-mail and chat rooms. These policies would have to be public, widely distributed and effective. Furthermore, the compromise amendment would significantly expand criminal penalties on ``cyberstalkers''--criminals who use computers to exploit or abuse children. The compromise amendment has achieved significant support because of its inclusion of these vital matters and its reliance on local communities rather than federal mandates. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Commerce Committee chose not to compromise on this very important issue. I had anticipated that this issue would be dealt with in its own right and that we would have several hours of debate to deal with S. 1619 and the amendment I had planned to offer along with several of my colleagues. Instead, it was attached to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill today. I did not express my opposition to the inclusion of S. 1619 because I did not want to hold up the passage of crucial Commerce-State-Justice appropriations. However, I want to make it very clear that I remain steadfastly opposed to big government mandates on the filtering issue and I will work closely with my colleagues as S. 2260 heads to conference to perfect the bill to reflect these concerns. I continue to believe that local communities acting through their school and library boards, rather than software programs that are at best questionable or the federal government, are in the best position to make decisions on this critical issue.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Missouri to note the statement at page 74 of the Report regarding the Agency's sector facility indexing project. I concur with the Committee's judgment. I would like to call to the Senator's attention some further concerns regarding the Agency's use of toxicity weighting factors in relation to both the sector facility indexing project and the environmental indicators project. For example, the Agency's Science Advisory Board recently criticized EPA's use of toxicity weighting factors based on policy rather than science and raised other scientific issues as well. Does the Senator share my concern?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, responding to the Senator's question, it will take me less than 5 minutes. I can assure the Senator from Nebraska that I will support his amendment. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Senator Cochran, I would like to discuss recent problems that have been facing the Wildlife Services aerial program.

Mr. BURNS. Yes. Despite a historically solid safety record, a series of aircraft accidents in the past two years including four fatalities of pilots, have prompted Assistant Secretary Mike Dunn to call for a full outside review.