Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That's absolutely correct. As you know, Wildlife Services provides a broad range of services across the country and the aerial operations program is a key component of these services. In fact, distribution of rabies vaccine baits by Wildlife Services occurred earlier this year in Texas, Ohio, New Hampshire and other states. These activities help protect pets, children and others from the spread of rabies.

Mr. BURNS. That's right. The aerial program helps researchers track radio-collared wolves so we learn about wolf movements, habitat needs and feeding patterns. Without the aerial program it would be much more difficult to tranquilize and relocate wolves preying on domestic livestock. And, in the event of a wolf persists on killing livestock, it enables the program to efficiently remove the specific problem animal.

Mr. BURNS. The review found that not enough resources are being devoted to maintaining the safety of the program. Because of increasing demand for their aerial services, the program directs most of their resources into program delivery. This, coupled with ongoing budget constraints have limited the ability of the program to keep pace with developing technology and training in aircraft operations. It is my understanding that the House has provided funds to address this situation. I hope the Senate conferees on this bill will review the findings of this study in the conference to assess whether additional funding is justified.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a pretty straightforward amendment. This is an indemnification amendment that would be part of the reauthorization of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We have in process now the building of the X-33 and the X-34, which are unmanned space capsules, and it is probably key to our next step into space. Those tests are due to start next year, and no test has ever been conducted by this country that this clause was not included to cover the testing of those experimental aircraft. I have been told by the leadership that this will require a vote in the morning, and so I would just let the amendment remain at the desk and also call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS. That is all the time I need. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I'd like to clarify the issue of funding for a new sewer line connecting Fort Harrison VA Medical Center to the City of Helena. The Senate Appropriations Committee Report directs the VA to work with interested parties on a cost-sharing plan for the sewer line. The Committee has received a commitment from the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide $1.4 million for the sewer line out of its minor construction account. This amount is slightly over half of the estimated total cost for the project. Does the Chairman concur that the Committee endorses this funding agreement and expects the VA to make the funds available in an expeditious manner?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Industry's plan to allow law enforcement access to the plaintext of some encrypted communications demonstrates that market solutions can truly address many areas of law enforcement's concerns with encryption. At the same time, we should not forget that there is a continuing need for legislative privacy protections governing how and when law enforcement should have access to encrypted data.

Mr. BURNS. Encryption is also an essential part of new ``digital signature'' techniques used to identify parties and authenticate transactions online. These techniques are widely viewed as an essential feature of electronic commerce. The use of digital signatures raises complex business and privacy issues, but these issues are completely separate from the questions raised by encryption used for confidentiality. There is a great deal of ongoing activity in the private sector and at the state level attempting to sort out these complex issues of business use and consumer protection. Federal digital signature legislation is clearly needed, but should be dealt with separately from encryption reform legislation.

Mr. BURNS. Yes, these recent developments continue to highlight the desperate need for a change in U.S. encryption policy. Last week the Administration announced it would make exceptions in encryption export policy allowing banks and certain financial institutions to export strong encryption, without vulnerable key recovery systems, to their subsidiaries in a select group of 40 countries. This is a welcome development for those companies that will qualify for this narrow exception but it does not provide the same protection of online privacy for everyday Americans.

Mr. BURNS. I commend the Majority Leader and Senators Leahy, Craig, Ashcroft, Abraham, and Shelby for their continuing hard work and vision on these difficult but critical issues. I hope we will be able to move forward legislatively on both encryption reform and digital signatures this session.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I just want to make one point. You have three packers that are handling 85 percent of the national cattle that are killed today. And they don't want to report the prices so that the people who produce calves and replacement cattle and feed cattle in the feed lots, the individual producers, or a small packer, can compete with them. It doesn't make sense. We have always reported those prices. And now, with a lot of packer-owned cattle moving in there, we get no information at all. Let's look at this pilot program. Let's work with the postmarketing surveillance. We can come up with some way to report these prices so that we know what these cattle are worth all the way back to the ranch. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the amendment allows the head of the stockyards division to look into a way to set up mandatory price reporting. Right now, we only have one segment of the chain in the cattle market that is doing any price discovery at all; that is at the auction market. When cattle changes hands in feedlots and packing houses, these prices are not reported, or they go unreported for a week. We cannot make marketing decisions if you are producing replacement cattle while doing business like that. I suggest the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would eliminate the outdated broadcast ownership restrictions in place at the Federal Communications Commission. I am pleased to note that I am introducing this legislation with the co-sponsorship of the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. I welcome Senator McCain's support on this issue and look forward to working with him to make sure that these impractical restrictions are eliminated. Currently, the FCC disallows ownership of stations in separate markets if the broadcast signals overlap. For example, a broadcaster may not now own a station in each of the Washington, DC, and Baltimore markets. I believe that ownership of stations with overlapping signals should be allowed if the stations are licensed to communities in different markets. Practical ownership policies will encourage the construction of new television stations and broadcast networks that will promote increased consumer choice. In the Senate Communications Subcommittee, I have recently held numerous FCC oversight hearings on how best to create a regulatory framework for the age of competition. I believe this bill will help to move in the direction of deregulation and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of discussion here today about agriculture and the fix that it finds itself in, most of it caused by forces not under the control of the folks who live on our farms and ranches in this country, and in particular about our good friends who live in North Dakota along the northern high plains that stretch across the northern reaches of Minnesota, from Grand Forks to Williston, and yes, even over into my home State of Montana. I went through the 1980s as an auctioneer. I sold out some awfully good friends in that era. And, there again, that was caused by forces that were not under the control of those who make a living from our farms and ranches across this country. You know, we, some of us, might take this lightly. But we are talking about something that involves every American. Every American has a stake in this, because the second thing you do every day after you get up is eat. I don't know what the first thing is because we have a lot of choices, I guess, but the second thing is that we eat. We understand the pain on the northern high plains because I have experienced the same kind of situations and been around agriculture a long time, in the business of ag business and, yes, on the land, too. We understand that. We cannot write anything into legislation in the way of farm policy of a one-size-fits-all. Each State is different. Each county is different. Each region of this country is different, producing different crops under different circumstances, under different growing seasons, different soils, and that makes it a real challenge to try to develop any kind of farm policy as far as this Government is concerned from this place here in Washington, which I refer to every now and again as 17 square miles of logic-free environment. What we did in the FAIR Act was to try to put agriculture into a position where farmers can enjoy as much versatility and flexibility in their cropping and making their decisions on how to market as each individual producer or operator could have. Risk management--that was part of it, part of it, making decisions on what to grow and when to grow it, how to market it, and, yes, even having some say in transportation. We have heard a lot of people say this act is still a work in progress, that there were some things that we should really do that would facilitate the final policy of the FAIR: Farm savings accounts. Do something about estate taxes. We don't need estate taxes. Something has to be inherently wrong when you have to sell the farm to save the farm. Capital gains--a reduction in capital gains has already proven that, yes, it is an economic enhancer. We got income averaging for 3 years; now we need to put it in permanent law. And, yes, the sanctions reform, of which we have heard a lot in the past week and during this week --do that reform. And also reg reform. Now, reg reform doesn't sound very big, but just this morning, in the full Committee on Appropriations, there was a memorandum of the Department of Transportation to deal with hazardous material with regard to agriculture, the hauling of hazardous materials from the city to the farm and from farm to farm with limited space and no reason that this Federal Government should preempt State regulations on handling those materials. Agriculture had enjoyed an exemption, when it comes to production agriculture, in providing the services that are needed on the farm and getting the crop back to the farm. Yet this Department of Transportation wants to change all of that. They want to preempt the States on how they handle hazardous material. It is just a little thing, the requirement of a CDL, just to do farm work--commercial driver's license, just to do farm work, not only putting the crop in but getting it out and getting it where it can be transported to the markets. That is reg reform--the ability to use some pesticides and herbicides on growing new crops that have been introduced into the northern high plains, where we have competition from our friends in Canada where they have 15 to 20 different kinds of herbicides and pesticides to grow 1 crop while we are limited to 5 and cannot get FDA approval to go on and take care of the crop the way it has to be done. One could also look at the situation, the terrible situation in North Dakota, where they have the disease scab. There is regulation on plant growth health. We could also put together that same package of trade, trade, and trade. We know the effect of the financial crisis in the Pacific rim. Last January, we visited Australia. In talking to the Australians, they didn't think it would affect their GDP at all. When I walked out of that meeting in Canberra, Australia, I knew that these folks had really misread the crisis in the Pacific rim. They had underestimated exactly what was going to happen, when you have four major economies absolutely go in the tank, and then the economy that was to ride in and help them out can't do anything about it--and that is Japan. Those forces are completely out of the control of the American farmer and the American rancher. So, fast track, normal trade relations to move our product into those markets and have a shot at that market. Right now, with sanctions, we are getting no shot at all. That is not right, and it is not fair. I would probably say that sanctions have very little effect, if any at all, on any kind of product. What happens when you put sanctions on anything is, they will find the foodstuffs; they will find the grain. They might pay a little more for it, a couple of pennies a bushel more, and then we have to compete against the lower end of that market? That is not fair either. So, sanctions very seldom work. There is also another end of this that I haven't heard anybody talk about in this country, and I do not know how to deal with this problem, but I know there is a problem. The percentage of the consumer dollar going back to the farm is the smallest it has been in the history of agriculture. What do I mean by that? If some of you go to the grocery store and do your shopping, go down the cereal line and see what Wheaties are worth per pound. I think you will find they are around $3.75 a pound. Cereal is not cheap--$3.75 a pound. I want America to know--do you realize that we cannot even get $2.50 for a bushel of wheat that weighs 60 pounds? There is more money in the box than there is in the wheat that is the basis of the product. Something is a little out of whack. Yet, we have some of our great agricultural processors and purveyors and buyers calling themselves a supermarket to the world. What we are saying though is: If you are such a good supermarket, then give us more of the consumer dollar. You have an obligation, like anybody else, to make sure the producer gets at least his cost of production. That would help them stay in business, but it also helps the processor to stay in business. I noticed, there was a little letter that came this way from one of the great processors in this country wanting to go back to the old way of doing business. It makes sense to me. If I am out here buying corn and soybeans and wheat, I can buy it very cheaply, yet the taxpayer pays the profitable margin in this country to the farmer. That is not right either. That should be paid at the marketplace, and a percentage of that should go to production agriculture. We are still a work in progress, and, yes, we have a situation on the northern high plains with which we are going to have to deal and for which we have an obligation to deal. NAFTA, has it been good? Maybe for all America, but it sure hasn't worked for us on the northern high plains. When you have 300 loads of cattle a day coming across the wheat grass in northern Montana, and yet we have a cattle market and you have $60 steers--I have a good friend who lives over in Miles City, MT. Of course, he has a great sense of humor, and it is a great thing. You have to have a good sense of humor when you farm a ranch. He said $60 fat cattle, $40 hogs, and $2.50 wheat, and $9 oil. Remember, oil only costs about $9 a barrel at the wellhead. That would tell me anybody who is in the business of producing a raw product is not getting paid very much for their product, but the price hasn't been reflected at the pump or at the grocery store. If they go down for the consumer, I guess all of us can live pretty good. But I said, ``Well, that doesn't sound too good.'' He said, ``Yeah, but there's a silver lining--we've got a lot of it.'' And that is the kind of attitude you have to carry into this business. How do we deal with the northern high plains, victims of flood and drought and those farm families that really just eke it out every year? They are land rich, but they are cash poor. That has been the story of agriculture for a long, long time. I am afraid that story is not going to end with any action taken in the Congress. Do we want the Government back in the grain business? Do we want those huge stocks that cost the taxpayer a lot of money in storage? Do we want those stocks to overshadow the market? This man who wrote this letter saying we should go back to the old way of doing business thinks it is all right, because he is going to get his supply from stocks that didn't cost very much money. Yet, his end product is not going to go down a great amount. In fact, it won't go down at all. They will always say ``inflation.'' The percentage of the consumer dollar we don't have any control over either. Just remember that little illustration that there is more money in the box that contains the Wheaties than there is in the wheat that is the base ingredient of that great food, a percentage of the consumer dollar. Going back to the old way will not cure the ills of what is happening in the northern high plains. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and those of us who have been meeting every day to open up markets and to deal with sanctions, because it is trade, trade, trade. Just like in the business of the real estate, when you buy, there are three main things: Location, location, location. We must continue to do that. This administration must use every tool they have to open those markets and to move the product, whether it be through Public Law 480, through EEP, or export credits. We must get in the world market, and we must compete and move the products. I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would eliminate the outdated broadcast ownership restrictions in place at the Federal Communications Commission. I am pleased to note that I am introducing this legislation with the co-sponsorship of the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. I welcome Senator McCain's support on this issue and look forward to working with him to make sure that these impractical restrictions are eliminated. Currently, the FCC disallows ownership of stations in separate markets if the broadcast signals overlap. For example, a broadcaster may not now own a station in each of the Washington, DC, and Baltimore markets. I believe that ownership of stations with overlapping signals should be allowed if the stations are licensed to communities in different markets. Practical ownership policies will encourage the construction of new television stations and broadcast networks that will promote increased consumer choice. In the Senate Communications Subcommittee, I have recently held numerous FCC oversight hearings on how best to create a regulatory framework for the age of competition. I believe this bill will help to move in the direction of deregulation and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the important issue of private property rights and to support the Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998, S. 2271. Private property rights have been the cornerstone of our free society. The fifth amendment of our Constitution states, ``private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.'' Currently, too many Americans are being denied fair access to Federal courts in order to uphold their fifth amendment constitutional rights. S. 2271 would expedite access to the federal courts for individuals hurt by a government ``taking'' of private property. At the same time, it protects states rights by ensuring that any question of state or local law that is unclear to the fundamental merits of a case is to be sent back to the state courts before a federal court can continue. Mr. President, the right of the people to be represented and heard is the basis of our government. S. 2271 gives us the opportunity to ensure that the people of our nation are not ignored. It allows an individual citizen to exercise their fifth amendment rights provided to them by our founding fathers without costing them thousands of dollars and without taking 8 or 10 years of court proceedings to maintain these rights. As we've all heard before, ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' S. 2271 only re-enforces the constitution and the intent of our founding Fathers who understood the value of private property from the standpoint of individual political freedoms and individual economic freedoms. Those who would argue in opposition are supporting more government control by not allowing an individual to care for their own property. I believe each individual land owner can and should be responsible for their property without breaking current environmental, federal, state, or local laws. This bill does not create special rights for property owners; it simply allows them the same access to federal courts as other plaintiffs claiming a violation of their constitutional rights. Mr. President, for these reasons I stand in support of S. 2271 and hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do the same. I also want to thank Mr. Lott and Mr. Hatch for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Thank you. Mr. President, you tell me where they have worked when it comes to the supply of food. That is the very basic of all of our necessities every day. The Senator from Idaho is exactly right. We have developed export markets by using two methods--it is quality, it is quantity, and it is reliability. We are a reliable customer, and to deny our producers--and you can go all over the world. Our producers compete on an individual basis. We don't pool our wheat like Canada. We don't sell wheat on the international market by a decision made by Government. We do it by individual producers who want to sell their crop at a given time. Given the proper tools of risk management, they could take advantage of the international market. I urge support of this amendment. I thank my friend from Kentucky for championing it.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Kentucky. I also want to thank the Senator in a couple of other areas, because responding to what we have in the Northwest is, in my regard, an emergency. Let's back up a little bit and talk about what has happened to farm export, and especially to the Northwest. Last January, we sat down with officials, including the Prime Minister of Australia, and talked about what has been commonly referred to as the Asian flu, the financial crisis in the Pacific rim--the complete, or almost complete collapse of financial conditions in four countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea. And then we talked a little bit about the financial situation that Japan finds herself in, not being able to ride to the rescue of her neighbors in the rim. At that time, there was a consensus that maybe those countries that found themselves in financial difficulty would not impact the GDP of Australia, and little was regarded here in this country. I thought at the time 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 gone to zero. Now we come along with sanctions. Let me tell you a little bit about sanctions. I have never been convinced that sanctions on food really work. I will tell you in an instant that if we unilaterally sanction a country on American agricultural exports, here is what happens: That country is still capable of buying a supply from somebody else in the world. But the market knows of these sanctions; therefore, the rest of the world maybe puts 1 or 2 cents a bushel on wheat. Now, 1 or 2 cents doesn't sound like a lot for a bushel of wheat that weighs 60 pounds. That is in a short ton anyway. But when you are buying 300,000 metric tons, it is a lot of money. Even to a farmer, it is the difference between making the land payment this year and not making the land payment--that 2 cents a bushel. Once that sale is made to the country that we have had sanctions on, then the country that did the selling pours the rest of their crop on the world market. So what do we do and what do our farmers do? They compete at a lower level. That is not right. It hasn't worked, as far as denying the country that had the sanctions on it. It didn't deny them of food supply for the people who live there. But it has denied our farmers entry into the marketplace, a place to compete. To give you an idea, 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 does that country do when that sanction is placed? It retaliates: I am not going to buy American products at any price. I am not going to do that. So, in essence, we have denied our grain producers access to that market to even be considered to compete. I realize that 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 schools, his community, his church. But under the conditions right now, they cannot do this. So I ask my colleagues to strongly support this amendment. Yes, I know there are far-reaching implications of sanctions and, yes, there are folks who really understand that maybe national security may be at stake.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today and introduce legislation which will amend the boundaries of the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site in the State of Montana. Congress authorized the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site on August 25, 1972 to preserve the Grant-Kohrs Ranch that operated from 1860-1972. Preserving the ranch also preserved a historic reminder of our Nation's frontier cattle era. The ranch's intact 120-year archive, 26,000 artifacts, and 88 historic structures capture the heritage of the American cowboy and cattlemen. Today the area is the hub of a thriving tourism industry and also provides unique educational opportunities. Tourists are constantly in search of a feel for the true American West. The Grant-Kohrs Ranch offers a vivid recollection of life on the frontier while providing a great experience for visitors and jobs for local residents. The ranch has been designated a National Historic Landmark and is a true asset to Montana. The legislation that I am proposing will incorporate an additional 120 acres of land into the authorized boundary of the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site. The 120 acres that will be included in the new boundary of the ranch are already owned by the National Park Service and their inclusion in the ranch's boundary is recommended as a means of conserving the property of the original ranch from future development. I ask unanimous consent that the administration's letter of transmittal, the bill, and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today and introduce legislation which will amend the boundaries of the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site in the State of Montana. Congress authorized the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site on August 25, 1972 to preserve the Grant-Kohrs Ranch that operated from 1860-1972. Preserving the ranch also preserved a historic reminder of our Nation's frontier cattle era. The ranch's intact 120-year archive, 26,000 artifacts, and 88 historic structures capture the heritage of the American cowboy and cattlemen. Today the area is the hub of a thriving tourism industry and also provides unique educational opportunities. Tourists are constantly in search of a feel for the true American West. The Grant-Kohrs Ranch offers a vivid recollection of life on the frontier while providing a great experience for visitors and jobs for local residents. The ranch has been designated a National Historic Landmark and is a true asset to Montana. The legislation that I am proposing will incorporate an additional 120 acres of land into the authorized boundary of the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site. The 120 acres that will be included in the new boundary of the ranch are already owned by the National Park Service and their inclusion in the ranch's boundary is recommended as a means of conserving the property of the original ranch from future development. I ask unanimous consent that the administration's letter of transmittal, the bill, and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the military nominations which were reported today by the Armed Services Committee. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 264, 501, 646, 650, and 651. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2728, for myself, the ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Murray, along with Senators Stevens, Byrd, Inouye, and Lott to be added as original cosponsors.