Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I believe the NSF and all agencies participating in the SBIR program should coordinate with the SBA in determining their extramural research budgets. This is what the GAO recommend.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Consumer Anti- Slamming Act, as it addresses a severe problem that has arisen as an unintended consequence of additional competition in the telecommunications marketplace: the unauthorized switching of customers' telephone service providers. I also understand that the managers' amendment of the bill includes language that addresses another serious, unintended problem posed by the growth of information technology: the explosion of junk e-mail, or ``spamming.'' I congratulate Senators Murkowski and Torricelli for their hard work on dealing with the issue of spamming. S. 1618 as amended includes language that would require commercial e-mailers to identify themselves. This language is simply a ``Truth in Advertising Amendment.'' As any of us who use e-mail are finding out, millions of junk e-mails are sent out with fake e-mail addresses which prevent citizens from requesting that they not be sent any further clutter from the same sources. The amendment also requires that a junk e-mailer must honor requests from individuals to be deleted from mailing lists. I should add that the problem of junk e-mail is particularly important to customers in rural areas such as Montana. Often, rural residents must pay long distance charges to receive these unwanted solicitations, many of which contain fraudulent messages. ``Spamming'' is truly the bane of the information age. This problem has become so pervasive that entire new networks have had to be constructed to deal with it, when resources would be far better spent on educational or commercial needs. I welcome the inclusion of this language as a much- needed step forward in dealing with this increasingly serious problem. I would now like to speak on an issue involving more traditional communications, that of slamming. I have held two field hearings in the Communications Subcommittee on this important topic, one in Billings last August and one in Denver last October. During the field hearing in Billings, I heard from consumers, industry representatives and regulators on a variety of slamming issues. I learned in Billings that slamming is not confined to big cities. It is reaching every part of our country. Consumers are falling prey every day to companies that intentionally mislead and deceive. Today, I look forward to building on the record we started in Montana. I should also recognize that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has shown real leadership on this issue through his introduction of an anti-slamming bill, particularly at the field hearing in Denver, which he attended. The bill before the Chamber today, S. 1618, incorporates language from S. 1051, Senator Campbell's slamming bill. The amendment including Senator Campbell's language was passed unanimously out of the Commerce Committee on March 12 of this year. This language requires that the FCC will annually report to Congress the ``Top Ten'' slammers for that year, as well as carriers assessed fines or penalties during the same period. The ``Top Ten'' list would identify those carriers subject to the highest number of subscriber slamming complaints compared to the total number of subscribers they serve. This ratio approach ensures that large companies are not automatically singled out by virtue of having a large customer base. The focus is on those companies with the highest percentage of slamming complaints relative to their total customer base. This ``Top Ten'' list represents the core of Senator Campbell's anti- slamming bill. Having held two field hearings in the Communications Subcommittee on this important topic, I am convinced that Senator Campbell's approach will prove very valuable in deterring carriers from engaging in illegal tactics. As competition develops in new communications markets, we could see slamming migrate to new areas and become an even bigger problem. Clearly, something must be done soon to protect consumers and to protect good, clean competition. I am confident that the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act as amended will accomplish this goal and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to withdraw an amendment that I had on this bill, but I want to make a short statement. Although this amendment will be ruled as not relevant to this piece of legislation, it is very relevant to the field of agriculture. I have submitted S. 1879, which would make income averaging for farmers permanent in the Tax Code. Last year, I offered an amendment to the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 which extended to farmers the ability to average their income over a 3-year period. That amendment was included and made part of the U.S. Tax Code, but only after further negotiations will we have to extend it beyond 2001 because it sunsets in the year 2001. I don't think many of my colleagues really understand what is going on in agriculture today. There are a few. If there is one way we can affect change regarding farm income, it would be through how we treat it regarding taxes. We will consider the agriculture research, and we will consider crop insurance later on this month. It is really in the best interest of this Government to pass that piece of legislation so that it is enforced with this year's crop. It won't be long until we are coming into harvest time. This business of farming and ranching is difficult at best; we know that. There are no monthly checks. There is not much reward in the financial field for those who participate in it. And it is not getting any easier. Today we are seeing more and more family farms fade from the landscape of middle-income America, where this country has been. Corporate farms become more and more of a factor every day. Those of us who grew up in the farming communities understand the frustrations of the business. Of course, we are trying to do something right now at a time when just about all parts of agriculture, if you are in the business of producing a raw product, are in trouble. We cannot make it selling our farm commodities below what they were selling for in 1948 and still expect to provide the abundance of food that we provide for this country. I will make one point. It is hard for me to understand, and it is hard for our farmers to understand why if you go into a grocery store and you look down and find out you are paying $2.75 for a pound of Wheaties, and we can't get $2.75 for a 60-pound bushel of wheat. America must understand that. And if this is allowed to happen, there will be no wheat, because it will just be beyond the cost of production to produce it. Market forces are funny. Right now, we have a situation in the Pacific rim where you have four, maybe five economies that are in desperate trouble and could not buy even if they wanted to. When you live in a State where the biggest share of your production goes to the Pacific rim, that means we are in big trouble. Last fall, we had the fiasco in the rail business in Houston. A lot of grain didn't get moved, or they took advantage of a higher market that cost us a lot of money--out of the control of the farmers. Yet, they are the ones that pay the costs. So we are going to consider this. And I hope that this will be made part of the permanent law of the Tax Code. I would like to get some kind of commitment from this committee and the Finance Committee that it will be considered because it is very, very important. We had income averaging at one time, and we lost it in 1986. The bill, last year, received overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate, and I understand that it will be ruled irrelevant now by the Parliamentarian, so I plan to withdraw the amendment. Before I do, I want to emphasize to this body that we have a situation not only in the grain industry, but the livestock industry, and it is in areas where the producer has little or no control. They are at the end of the line. They sell wholesale, they buy retail, they pay the transportation and the taxes both ways. We have to do something in the middle to at least give them some relief. This bill has very little impact on our Federal budget. The American people would look at this as an insurance policy. We must pay to insure our cars or our lives. How much would you pay to ensure that the grocery store is full every time you go there? There are a lot of us that know about the front end of the grocery store; very few of us know anything about the back end. So I think America has a stake in this-- all the citizens that live in this country. I will agree to withdraw the amendment, but I want to reaffirm my commitment to the American farmer that this Congress will act, and this will become a permanent part of the Tax Code before we end the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be withdrawn from consideration. I thank the managers of the bill and yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I congratulate my colleagues, Senator Ashcroft and Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy and I have been on many issues with regard to the Internet. I think Senator Leahy, whenever we talk about this issue, what we want to do with it, also understands another issue called encryption and how important security is. We have been around to see this thing grow and blossom. They go hand in hand, basically, as we use this technology more. My friend from Missouri being very interested in this, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, we will continue to work on these kind of issues. This should be an easy amendment for this body to support--in fact, for this Congress to support. If you want to continue to use the same burdensome and bureaucratic methods that we have used in the past, then don't support this amendment. Don't support this amendment if you like the status quo. If we, as a voice of our constituents, are truly interested in IRS reform for taxpayers, then we need to support it. More and more Americans are becoming Internet savvy, and the day is not far off when most of the business and personal transactions will take place on the Internet. We are already banking; we are handling financial transactions on the Internet. So why should this not be one that we can use, at least once a year? The Internet is just not for surfing anymore. If you want to surf, I guess you can go to California. But in Montana and rural areas, our connection to these kinds of services is going to come through that medium. We need electronic commerce. It is going to be the future of the new way, and we have to accept that and learn to use it. Adopting this amendment will encourage the American taxpayer that we are interested in reforming the way the IRS does business. There is no reason to treat electronic tax filers any different than taxpayers using the traditional filing methods. The deployment of electronic commerce will ultimately save American taxpayers not only time, but it will save them money. Such discriminating treatment makes no sense and has a far-reaching negative impact in delaying the benefits to both the U.S. Government and citizens in conducting business electronically. The amendment at issue is a perfect example of that. What possible justification is there in placing the presumption upon the taxpayer improving a case simply because he chose to file his tax return electronically instead of putting it in an envelope? It is just unproductive. If we are not supposed to look to the future, then what are we supposed to be doing around here? Are we not supposed to make our Federal Government friendlier and more accessible to the taxpayer? I would say yes, we are. Are we not supposed to have a visionary agenda regarding the IRS? I say we should. We in Congress should strive for a consistent treatment for functionally equivalent transactions, and I believe this will be one of our most significant challenges as we move into the next century. More and more businesses, and communications generally, will be transacted over the Internet. That is why I am a cosponsor of this amendment. It will level the playing field for all taxpayers, regardless of the method they choose in filing their taxes. The Internet offers unlimited opportunity to both business and personal transactions. We need to foster those opportunities. We need to make it easier for taxpayers to file their taxes. Our antiquated understanding of how transactions have to be treated historically is not the way we can do things in the future. This is why I am an advocate of a variety of different measures that would foster and encourage commerce and communication over the Internet, including the Internet Tax Freedom Act. And the use of encryption comes into this also, because the technology itself will never bloom until we can have some confidence in the security of the information that we send over the Internet. We have to work on that just as much. The continuing buildout of broadband infrastructure is very important. We will continue to develop that to make sure that it is accessible to every American and not just a chosen few, regardless of geographic location. Madam President, I ask support of this amendment because I think it is very important if we are really serious about changing the way the IRS does business. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today to recognize a very special Montanan. Penny Abegglen has received the Secretary's Award for Excellence in Nursing from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am very proud that Penny's hard work and dedication to veterans is being recognized with this award. The Secretary's Award for Excellence in Nursing is one of the highest honors for nursing, and Penny competed with 172 nurses from around the country for this award. Her work in opening a sleep lab at Fort Harrison, Montana, demonstrates initiative above and beyond the call of duty. It has saved Montana's veterans with sleep disorders from making long trips out-of-state to receive treatment. Penny has worked hard to provide better care to patients and to make herself a better nurse. She should be very proud of her accomplishments and of their well-deserved recognition by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a pleasure to let my colleagues and the American people know of the fine service Penny Abegglen has provided to Montana's veterans.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Baucus and 48 other of our fellow colleagues, to a resolution to designate April 30 as ``National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day.'' As you know, we introduced a similar resolution last year, which the Senate passed through unanimous consent. In order to continue eliminating racism and hate crimes, we must again recognize April 30 as a day to stop racism and hate crime. Through recognition of such a day, we as citizens can stand together in order to prevent future crimes from occurring. According to the United States Department of Justice, there were over 8,000 racially and biased crimes committed last year. Because of this high number, my colleagues and I have stood up to recognize, for a second year, the importance of preventing such crimes from continuing. We must work together, as adults and children, to bring our Nation back to its origin, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of thought. We as an elected body must promote this recognition by passing this resolution again this year. We must remember that diversity has been a cornerstone of our Nation's heritage and should continue to be. An understanding of individual differences promotes unity throughout our communities and States. We must take it upon ourselves to promote these diversities and pass this Senate resolution. I would like to thank the YWCA and many organizations throughout the United States for their assistance in supporting diversity throughout this year and every year. I would also like to thank all of my colleagues that have joined and will join us in recognizing a way to eradicate the forces that divide our country.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act. Joining me as co-sponsors of this legislation are Senators Dorgan, Chafee, Leahy, Kerrey, D'Amato, Murkowski, Roberts, and Helms. Complying with complex and overlapping federal regulations is time- consuming and costly for any business, but small businesses bear a disproportionate burden. Given their limited resources, small businesses need all the help they can get when it comes to complying with environmental, tax, and workplace safety regulations. Yet small businesses rarely turn to the regulatory agencies for assistance, either out of fear of punishment or because help isn't available. This legislation would use the existing network of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)--over 950 nationwide and serving 600,000 businesses annually--to provide small businesses with non-punitive, confidential regulatory information and assistance. The SBDC network currently offers business expertise to growing firms, yet information and assistance needed to comply with EPA, OSHA, and IRS rules is often unavailable to these small firms. The legislation authorizes SBDCs to develop compliance guidelines in conjunction with these federal agencies and then use that information to educate small businesses on regulatory compliance. With this information, businesses will be able to follow important environmental, safety, and tax laws, and the government will spend fewer resources on costly enforcement measures. This bill is pro-small business and pro-compliance. It will help small firms develop practical business solutions to regulatory compliance problems.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act. Joining me as co-sponsors of this legislation are Senators Dorgan, Chafee, Leahy, Kerrey, D'Amato, Murkowski, Roberts, and Helms. Complying with complex and overlapping federal regulations is time- consuming and costly for any business, but small businesses bear a disproportionate burden. Given their limited resources, small businesses need all the help they can get when it comes to complying with environmental, tax, and workplace safety regulations. Yet small businesses rarely turn to the regulatory agencies for assistance, either out of fear of punishment or because help isn't available. This legislation would use the existing network of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)--over 950 nationwide and serving 600,000 businesses annually--to provide small businesses with non-punitive, confidential regulatory information and assistance. The SBDC network currently offers business expertise to growing firms, yet information and assistance needed to comply with EPA, OSHA, and IRS rules is often unavailable to these small firms. The legislation authorizes SBDCs to develop compliance guidelines in conjunction with these federal agencies and then use that information to educate small businesses on regulatory compliance. With this information, businesses will be able to follow important environmental, safety, and tax laws, and the government will spend fewer resources on costly enforcement measures. This bill is pro-small business and pro-compliance. It will help small firms develop practical business solutions to regulatory compliance problems.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today to recognize one of Montana's next generation jewels--Positive Systems in Whitefish, Montana. As a result of the dedication and commitment to their industry, Positive Systems has been recognized by the 1998 Governor's Excellence in Exporting Award Certificate of Appreciation. Incorporated in 1991, Positive Systems provides a technical service in a rather unique and young industry. Dale Johnson, Cody Benkelman and Ron Behrendt designed a digital aerial photography service that will benefit many sectors of our economy. Positive Systems is the only business using such methods in the rapidly growing aerial mapping industry. These three men from different backgrounds combined their skills to launch this new enterprise. Positive Systems has mapped landscapes throughout the world working for everyone from farmers to NASA. The four cameras mounted in a small aircraft take pictures in the visible spectrum as well as in the near infrared. Although the human eye is capable of sensing just a portion of the entire light spectrum, the cameras can see much more. The camera lenses pick up the nearest infrared which has several remarkable attributes including the fact that it interacts with chlorophyll, reflecting very well off of healthy plants. By designating a color to the near infrared the cameras can detect the amount of light bouncing off of a given plant--the more reflective the plant, the healthier it is. In an age of high-tech, precision agriculture, every advantage helps. An acre of farmland, for instance, can support upward of 11,000 heads of lettuce; so to lose even a few acres on a corporate farm can mean a huge financial impact. Understanding the whole system is a primary focus at NASA, where the Earth sciences program is providing government funds for private sector research into global change over time. In addition, Positive System teams with NASA for standard education and land use projects. They have recently been awarded a contract with NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center to map 1,000 square miles of Mississippi's coastal region. The system engineered by the Whitefish company, in fact, is so far out on the cutting edge that Positive Systems has had to wait for the rest of the world to catch up. I would like to congratulate Positive Systems on the Certificate of Appreciation. This kind of growth and opportunity for a small Montana business is impressive. As a member of the U.S. Senate Small Business Committee, it is becoming increasingly clear that business owners can effectively reach a global market regardless of where they live. Positive Systems has demonstrated they can compete and succeed. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, 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 held several meetings with representatives from the industry. In addition, my staff has conducted a series of open briefings with the various parties currently competing in the market, as well as representatives from the White House, the State Department and the International Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission. These meetings have recently concluded, and I now plan to move forward legislatively on this critical issue. The international satellite market is poised for phenomenal growth as it looks to the 21st century. A mere 10 years ago there was only one service in place: Intelsat. Today a breathtaking array of services are either already in existence or planned to be launched in the near future. With this rapid transformation, it becomes clear that one day people everywhere from Bozeman, Montana, to Beijing, China, will send and receive telephone, video and data transmissions via satellite. The future of satellite communications is a future where opportunities are no longer limited by geography. Unfortunately, while the industry hopes to reach a new orbit, U.S. policy in this area is still being left on the launching pad. Not since Ronald Reagan deregulated the satellite market in 1984 have we taken steps to bring our policy more in line with the competitive pressures of today. As a result, many consumers both here and abroad have not been able to benefit from the increase in services or the lowering of prices that have resulted from President Reagan's vision. This is why I am going to use the upcoming recess to begin putting together a bill that will move U.S. satellite policy from the Stone Age to the Space Age. I intend to incorporate the views of all interested parties and I urge my colleagues to come to me with their ideas. I expect to have a bill completed and ready for introduction when we return later this month. I will hold a hearing in the Communications Subcommittee on the bill shortly after the Senate returns from the Easter recess. While I had originally planned to hold the hearing on April 22, I am moving the hearing date to April 29 to ensure that members have adequate time to give their insights and suggestions on this most important issue. As I indicated when I first took on this issue, there will be several principles that will help guide me along the way. Competition, deregulation, privatization and competitive neutrality are all principles that have helped drive past industries toward success. While the global satellite industry is somewhat different because we are dealing with sovereign nations around the world, there is no reason that the United States cannot take a strong position and lead by example. It was our leadership under the 1962 Satellite Act that gave this industry its beginning and it can be our leadership today that brings the industry firmly into the 21st century. In fact, Mr. President, we recently witnessed such U.S. leadership. Last week, the Intelsat assembly of parties approved the creation of a spinoff company. This effort was achieved through the hard work of the U.S. delegation and the 141 member nations of Intelsat. I believe this is a positive first step on the path to bringing boundless opportunities to folks all over the globe. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in crafting legislation with the ultimate goal of encouraging competition in this industry. The rapid changes in technology and consumer behavior dictate that we act expeditiously. Market forces simply will not wait. I intend to work closely with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to make sure that consumer interests are protected as we move forward on this vital issue.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Montana, Senator Baucus, to introduce the The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1998, a bill to settle the claims and quantify the water rights of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. This bill is the culmination of many years of work and negotiations in our state and will result in the federal government sanctioning the water rights compact that has been adopted by the Montana State Legislature. This settlement may represent a textbook example of how state and tribal governments, together with off-reservation local representatives, can sit down and resolve their differences. I am pleased that local ranchers were involved in every step of the discussions. The Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, the present homeland of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, is located in area of scarce water supply. The region is arid with an average annual precipitation of 12 inches suitable for growing hay. However, an average annual precipitation of 30 inches of snowpack in the Bearpaw Mountains contributes to a significant spring runoff. A more efficient and effective utilization of that runoff is a critical part of this package. The state legislation authorized funding for efficiency improvements that mitigate the impact of tribal water development on off-reservation water use. By reaching an out of court settlement, the parties will--once this package is implemented--go to the state water court and ask that all pending litigation involving claims by the Tribe, and by the United States on behalf of the Tribe, be dropped. The quantification of the Tribe's water right will also clearly benefit upstream and downstream users of water in the effected drainage, including the Big Sandy and Beaver Creek as well as the Milk River. These other users will be able to plan for their future because they will know precisely how much water the Chippewa Cree Tribe is entitled to. One of the progressive components of this settlement is a Water Compact Board made up of three members, a tribal representative, an off-reservation representative and a third person mutually agreed to by the state and tribe. This Board will be tasked with resolving disputes between users of the tribal water right and users of water rights recognized under state law. The bill set ups a Chippewa Cree Fund that will include funds for the administration of the compact, a tribal economic development account and a future water supply facilities account. The bill allows for increased on reservation storage at existing dams and two feasibility studies for alternative sources and methods of delivery for MR&I water supplies for both the reservation and the region. Finally, all parties to this settlement agree that the Tribe will need more water in the future for drinking purposes. While the settlement reserves 10,000 acre feet of water in Tiber Reservoir, it does not propose a method of delivery. We are all committed to revisiting the on-reservation drinking water matter in the near future either through a pipeline or other methods that will be part of the authorized studies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from our state's Governor, Marc Racicot, endorsing this legislation. Senator Baucus and I will soon be asking the Indian Affairs Committee to hold hearings and then to act favorable on this bill as expeditiously as the Committee's schedule will allow.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Montana, Senator Baucus, to introduce the The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1998, a bill to settle the claims and quantify the water rights of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. This bill is the culmination of many years of work and negotiations in our state and will result in the federal government sanctioning the water rights compact that has been adopted by the Montana State Legislature. This settlement may represent a textbook example of how state and tribal governments, together with off-reservation local representatives, can sit down and resolve their differences. I am pleased that local ranchers were involved in every step of the discussions. The Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, the present homeland of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, is located in area of scarce water supply. The region is arid with an average annual precipitation of 12 inches suitable for growing hay. However, an average annual precipitation of 30 inches of snowpack in the Bearpaw Mountains contributes to a significant spring runoff. A more efficient and effective utilization of that runoff is a critical part of this package. The state legislation authorized funding for efficiency improvements that mitigate the impact of tribal water development on off-reservation water use. By reaching an out of court settlement, the parties will--once this package is implemented--go to the state water court and ask that all pending litigation involving claims by the Tribe, and by the United States on behalf of the Tribe, be dropped. The quantification of the Tribe's water right will also clearly benefit upstream and downstream users of water in the effected drainage, including the Big Sandy and Beaver Creek as well as the Milk River. These other users will be able to plan for their future because they will know precisely how much water the Chippewa Cree Tribe is entitled to. One of the progressive components of this settlement is a Water Compact Board made up of three members, a tribal representative, an off-reservation representative and a third person mutually agreed to by the state and tribe. This Board will be tasked with resolving disputes between users of the tribal water right and users of water rights recognized under state law. The bill set ups a Chippewa Cree Fund that will include funds for the administration of the compact, a tribal economic development account and a future water supply facilities account. The bill allows for increased on reservation storage at existing dams and two feasibility studies for alternative sources and methods of delivery for MR&I water supplies for both the reservation and the region. Finally, all parties to this settlement agree that the Tribe will need more water in the future for drinking purposes. While the settlement reserves 10,000 acre feet of water in Tiber Reservoir, it does not propose a method of delivery. We are all committed to revisiting the on-reservation drinking water matter in the near future either through a pipeline or other methods that will be part of the authorized studies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from our state's Governor, Marc Racicot, endorsing this legislation. Senator Baucus and I will soon be asking the Indian Affairs Committee to hold hearings and then to act favorable on this bill as expeditiously as the Committee's schedule will allow.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I send the desk an amendment to the budget. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Every year, we have authorized and we have appropriated moneys for programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help market grain abroad; in other words, to beef up our exports and to be able to compete in the international market. We are going through times now where prices are very, very stressed and depressed, I would say. We need all the help we can get to move the supply that we have into foreign hands after the collapse of the financial markets in the Pacific rim that have been major buyers of our agricultural commodities. Of course, the actions of the IMF and what this country has undertaken to help those countries out of that financial condition will help those of us who depend heavily on agricultural exports. This is just a sense of the Senate to tell the USDA and the International Trade Representative that we need help. It does no good to put the loaded pistol in the holster if the USDA doesn't pull it in times when we really need it. The time is now. This is just a sense of the Senate to say that we have authorized it, we have funded it, and we hope the USDA will use it.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Wyoming. Mr. President, the 45th parallel up there is the only thing that keeps us apart, and we get arguments over that. Nonetheless, we get along pretty well as neighbors. A lot of what I am going to talk about today is what we have in common. Our agriculture is similar, and a few other things that one might not recognize at first. Montana and Wyoming are watershed states, Wyoming is the only State in the country where the water runs from it from all four directions. There may be a reason for that, maybe not. My colleague talked about dealing with a $5 trillion national debt. I would take that another step forward and remind the American people and my colleagues who make decisions based on history that we have almost double that number in a little fund, an unfunded liability, when we talk about Social Security. So in our dealings with doing something about the national debt, we are in essence dealing with the problem that we have in Social Security. I thank my friend from Wyoming for allowing me to edge in on his time here. Mr. President, I have another subject on which I want to speak.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I introduced an amendment to the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 back in 1997. It extended to our agriculture producers--farmers and ranchers--the ability to average their income over a 3-year period. The amendment was included and made part of the U.S. Tax Code, but only after further negotiations, sunset the provision after 3 year which would make it run out in 2001. Today, I would like to introduce a bill that would make income averaging for our agriculture producers permanent in the U.S. Tax Code. This bill will give our agriculture producers--farmers and ranchers--a fair tool to offset the unpredictable nature of their business. Our man in the chair this morning from the great agricultural State of Nebraska, and the rest of us in the breadbasket of this country understand what farmers and ranchers go through. It has always been a good business and at times it is a great business. But we are going through some times now that are very stressful. As a friend of mine said the other day, there is nothing wrong down on the farm except the price. That is what we have now. There are not very many segments of the American economy that are taking in the same amount of money for their commodity today as they were taking when World War II ended, some 50 years ago. However, they are expected to keep producing food not only in generous proportions but also the safest, the best quality and nutritious food in the world. What makes this Nation unique is, we not only produce it, but we have the infrastructure that allows distribution--our processors, purveyors, transportation, grocery stores, everything from the breakfast table of America all the way back to the first seed that goes into the ground is unmatched anywhere in the world. It is something of a great marvel in this country. And it is also true that every one of us alive today in this country goes about our daily business of feeding the Nation. Somewhere along the line, we are participants in this great infrastructure to deal with our own subsistence. But basically, I want to talk about--the production level, I don't think there is a commodity today that is not hurting when it comes to the marketplace and to the whims of Mother Nature's elements that she rains down on agriculture. Agriculture production is a 7-day-a-week job as anybody that has ever worked on a dairy farm knows. I assumed that most Americans knew that, but I am finding out that I was wrong. They think milk cows take off the weekend, too, but they don't. Farming is an ongoing situation--7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Farmers and ranchers take pride in their work. They produce as economically as they possibly can, knowing that they fall under the old philosophy that they although they sell wholesale, they have to buy retail, and they pay the freight both ways, knowing that agriculture has always been in that kind of a predicament. Not only do they take great pride in what they produce, but probably no other segment of the American public has a greater understanding of land stewardship and the environmental problems that face our country today. Yet, very few of them are ever asked their advice on how to deal with an environmental problem. Several colleagues that serve in this body, who grew up on a farm or a ranch, certainly understand the frustration of the business. They only get paid about two, maybe three times a year. So it is a crucial time for the farm families across this country when we take a look at the situation we find ourselves in now. With the financial collapse of many Asian markets in the Pacific rim, we see wheat at an all-time low. Our corn and soybeans will suffer. As far as export trade is concerned, we export a lot more than we receive. We also see a time when we fall whim to the psychology of the market more than the market itself. With the recent passage of the freedom to farm bill, we told farmers that subsidies were going to go away, that they were going to have to stand on their own. We also said that we would give them the tools with which to operate their farms. Market forces are unique. We still fall victim to flood and drought, disease, new infestations which are far, far beyond the control of the producer himself. Farmers make money one year, but may break even the next year, and then lose money the next two years. If you take market elements and Mother Nature into consideration, farmers fall outside of the business of control. So, at best, they are lucky to break even 2 years in a row, and if they have done that, they think they are really ahead. The business is capital intensive, and labor intensive. To give you an idea just why this is an important thing, many young people right now due to death taxes--in other words, estate taxes--agriculture producers usually find themselves in the situation where they are land rich but they are cash poor. Passing the farm and ranch on to the next generation is hard when the tax situation is where they cannot do it. They may have exceeded the limit and heavy estate taxes prevent that. With increases in the top marginal tax and with a record of high commodity taxes, it is time to allow some of that income that goes back to the farm to be retained and to allow them to average their income over 3 years at those marginal tax rates. We made a deal with agriculture when we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. We made a deal with them that there would be no more subsidies, but we would give them income averaging and all the tools that it would take to hang on to their money so that they could invest in next year's crop. If you want to really measure a man's faith, have him take his money, his time, his efforts, and his investment and have him put a seed in the ground in hopes that it will just sprout, let alone harvesting a crop. That is faith, we have always had it in agriculture, and it has always been the backbone of every State economy and it still is. When things are good in agriculture, they are usually good for the rest of the country. But I would say this economy right now, the one we are experiencing that everybody raves about is still riding the backs of those who are in the business of producing a raw commodity. So, Mr. President, I offer this bill to put in a permanent place for income averaging for agriculture producers. Mr. President, there will be letters coming out to my colleagues explaining what we have done here. I think it is very important. It is important to my State. It is important to all of us. It is important to the smaller communities of America, because if agriculture is not healthy, those communities suffer also. That is why we work very hard on communications infrastructure, and that is why we work awfully hard on power infrastructure. Smaller communities that rely so heavily on agricultural income must find ways to attract other economic opportunities and those two other parts are very important to their infrastructure in the future. I appreciate the time from my friend from Wyoming. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Indiana, the chairman of the Ag Committee. I remind folks that in the appropriations, and through the leadership of my friend from Mississippi, the EEP is funded. We have appropriated that money every year to be used as a tool in the market, so it is not that we have not done our work here in this Senate as far as the agriculture producers are concerned. I think the administration, both through the International Trade Representative and the Ag Department, has to start taking a look at the tools or the weapons they have in their arsenal in order to help these folks. This is not going to help our farmers who need money to get back in the field to plant their spring crops, but I will tell you that we are going to work very, very hard to make sure it is there next year and this administration uses the tools it has at its disposal. I appreciate the time, and I yield the floor. And noting no other Senator choosing to use time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I appreciate the courtesy. It won't take me very long to sum up why we think this is important. I agree with everything that the chairman of the Ag Committee has said. The problem is, we have not gotten the administration to implement those tools they have at hand to help us out. They have not confronted our Canadian neighbors to live within their quotas. When you start talking about putting together a farm bill--and I think the Senator from Indiana would agree--it is hard to write farm legislation that is not flawed. Because of the diversification in our agriculture, that is tough to do. Flexibility in crops in Montana has not come, for the simple reason that we have a short growing season and soil that is unlike that in Indiana or Missouri or Iowa or Nebraska or wherever. A fellow walked up to me a while ago and said, ``The President is in Africa, and he is making a lot of friends.'' If I had his checkbook, I could be making a lot of friends. I think he ought to be offering food--wheat, principally--and those things that help people most in nations where they are suffering from malnutrition and hunger. I hope this doesn't set a precedent, that this stays with us this year. But I will tell you what it does. It allows a small group of farmers from North Dakota and from Montana to gain financing so they can get a crop in, because we have some who will not be refinanced on their operational loans. That is what it does. That is who we are speaking for today, those people who are caught between a Canadian situation and a total collapse of the financial situation in the Pacific rim, which takes most of our crops. I speak in favor of it. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the INTELSAT Working Party, which recently met here in Washington, DC, and finalized its recommendations concerning the spin-off of a private entity from this inter-governmental treaty organization to compete in the global satellite communications marketplace. These recommendations, which must be ratified by the 142 Member-Nations of INTELSAT in the coming weeks, were made in consultation with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and the White House. With that many cooks in the kitchen, it's astounding that any agreement was reached. This is a landmark achievement which deserves our applause. I view this agreement as a significant and positive first step in the process of this intergovernmental treaty organization. As many of my colleagues are probably aware, I am presently working with Members of the Commerce Committee to craft legislation that will foster a competitive environment in the vibrant industry of satellite communications. I have already conducted a hearing on this matter before the Subcommittee on Communications and have another scheduled to take place in April. Furthermore, over the past several months, I, along with my colleagues in the Senate, have met with a wide range of domestic and international satellite communications companies, including representatives from several Member Nations of INTELSAT. Sometime prior to the upcoming hearing, we will introduce legislation which will create a more competitive marketplace where consumers worldwide will reap the benefits of enhanced communications services at reduced costs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House, specifically, Chairman Bliley, Representative Markey, Chairman Tauzin and others, to arrive at the most constructive legislation. Until that time, I encourage my colleagues to keep an open mind as we move forward to resolving this very difficult issue. Once again, I want to offer my congratulations to INTELSAT for taking this important first step toward privatization. I will be watching the discussion in Brazil with great interest, and I hope that the Working Party's recommendation with respect to the spin-off are adopted, so that we will soon see the consumer benefits from another competitor in the private marketplace.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today and join with my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, to introduce an amendment to the current farm program. The amendment will assist our farmers in Montana. I think we have sort of an isolated circumstance in Montana. But I think it will also help others, too, because of the depressed price in wheat. This bill is not a fix. It doesn't do everything maybe that we want to do. But it will assist many of our farmers in getting back in the fields this season, and it will also allow a little time to deal with some of the pressures that we are experiencing along the Canadian border. As we enter a week commemorating agriculture and celebrate what agriculture provides for us, I am glad to come to the floor and help in the introduction of this bill. America and the general public need to learn more about this great industry. It is the largest industry in our country--and again, with insight into the role that agriculture plays in our everyday lives--not only from an economic standpoint, but at least three times a day for most of us, and some of us more, for the role that it also plays. Two years ago we passed the freedom-to-farm bill--the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. We anticipated at that time that it would give us the flexibility on the farm to do some things that we want to do. That was only a year ago. Now, with that flexibility, of course, farmers operate on a big calendar called a year. Sometimes that flexibility takes a little bit longer than planned. We have some circumstances that are beyond the control of our grain farmers. Everything that we had hoped would occur has not happened. One is the Canadian situation. Prices have continued to drop, making it very difficult for our operators to meet their commitments on time. So this amendment would not give them anything extra. It will just give them a chance to make those payments in a timely manner. Today, Senator Baucus and I, with our colleague in the House, Representative Hill, are moving forward to correct a portion of that contract we made with our agricultural producers. We are seeking a minor adjustment in the law that passed Congress and was signed by this President. The portion that we seek to correct is the timeframe for repayment on marketing loans. We are not seeking a major change in that portion of the contract--just a minor adjustment. This adjustment will provide farmers with a slightly larger window in which to repay their marketing loans--an extension of only 6 months; nothing major; just enough for the producers to contract with purchasers to move their grain into the market. A large number of our producers have not yet priced their 1997 wheat crop--the one harvested last fall. Many have taken out loans with the Commodity Credit Corporation and USDA-sponsored programs to assist farmers with marketing their wheat. A large number of these loans are coming due in May and June of this year. With the world wheat market already being depressed due to additional grain on the domestic market, it will do nothing but really compound the whole problem. The farmer deserves just this little bit of assistance. They will provide us with a reliable, safe, and inexpensive food supply all around this country, and now I think they need just a little relief. This is a minor step that we are making today with the introduction of this bill. The legislation will help a little, but it will not solve the major problem that we face in agriculture. The plain and simple fact is we need to move our grain into world markets. Unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture seems determined not to assist our producers in this endeavor. In 1996 Congress made a contract with the farmer in exchange for reducing the amount of money they receive from the Government for their crops. We contracted with them to move grain into the market--namely, the world market. So the farmer in Montana and across the Nation accepted this contract. They have done their part. Now it is time for Congress and the Department of Agriculture and this administration to live up to their end of the deal. As a member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, I have made my thoughts known to the committee and to the administration. However, this past week, while I visited with the wheatgrowers in Montana, I learned one thing that would ease the burden. Today, we stand before the Senate, and I call for the administration to move at least 100 million tons of grain as soon as possible. This will not solve the problem we face on the farm. But it will ease the pressure and allow farmers to think about the future. Today they think only about the future and about how it would be like without the farm. So, I call on President Clinton, the Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, and the U.S. Trade Representative to make an effort to assist the man and woman on the ground, to do something to show that you are concerned about them. We had a situation last fall that was not the making of our producers. In the railroad industry, Houston was tied up so badly that it left us without any way to ship grain. We still received tons and tons of grain from Canada in this country. We have to deal with these measures. The legislation will allow us some time to do that and also will allow our farmers to get back in the fields. It is my hope that the legislation that we introduce today will assist in some little measure to give the farmer the hope to continue. I also hope that the administration will see their role in this and move forward in providing what they can to make life a little more bearable for our agricultural producers in our country. There is also another situation that was not created by us or the farmers; that is, we are not allowed to access about 11 percent of the world market due to embargoes--by governments and countries that probably have some problems in the area which the State Department usually handles. And, denied that market, there are other producers in other nations taking advantage of that. They get a premium for their grain and then dump the rest of theirs onto the world market for which we have to compete at a lower price. We have to address that problem also. Mr. President, I join with my colleague in introducing this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today and join with my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, to introduce an amendment to the current farm program. The amendment will assist our farmers in Montana. I think we have sort of an isolated circumstance in Montana. But I think it will also help others, too, because of the depressed price in wheat. This bill is not a fix. It doesn't do everything maybe that we want to do. But it will assist many of our farmers in getting back in the fields this season, and it will also allow a little time to deal with some of the pressures that we are experiencing along the Canadian border. As we enter a week commemorating agriculture and celebrate what agriculture provides for us, I am glad to come to the floor and help in the introduction of this bill. America and the general public need to learn more about this great industry. It is the largest industry in our country--and again, with insight into the role that agriculture plays in our everyday lives--not only from an economic standpoint, but at least three times a day for most of us, and some of us more, for the role that it also plays. Two years ago we passed the freedom-to-farm bill--the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. We anticipated at that time that it would give us the flexibility on the farm to do some things that we want to do. That was only a year ago. Now, with that flexibility, of course, farmers operate on a big calendar called a year. Sometimes that flexibility takes a little bit longer than planned. We have some circumstances that are beyond the control of our grain farmers. Everything that we had hoped would occur has not happened. One is the Canadian situation. Prices have continued to drop, making it very difficult for our operators to meet their commitments on time. So this amendment would not give them anything extra. It will just give them a chance to make those payments in a timely manner. Today, Senator Baucus and I, with our colleague in the House, Representative Hill, are moving forward to correct a portion of that contract we made with our agricultural producers. We are seeking a minor adjustment in the law that passed Congress and was signed by this President. The portion that we seek to correct is the timeframe for repayment on marketing loans. We are not seeking a major change in that portion of the contract--just a minor adjustment. This adjustment will provide farmers with a slightly larger window in which to repay their marketing loans--an extension of only 6 months; nothing major; just enough for the producers to contract with purchasers to move their grain into the market. A large number of our producers have not yet priced their 1997 wheat crop--the one harvested last fall. Many have taken out loans with the Commodity Credit Corporation and USDA-sponsored programs to assist farmers with marketing their wheat. A large number of these loans are coming due in May and June of this year. With the world wheat market already being depressed due to additional grain on the domestic market, it will do nothing but really compound the whole problem. The farmer deserves just this little bit of assistance. They will provide us with a reliable, safe, and inexpensive food supply all around this country, and now I think they need just a little relief. This is a minor step that we are making today with the introduction of this bill. The legislation will help a little, but it will not solve the major problem that we face in agriculture. The plain and simple fact is we need to move our grain into world markets. Unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture seems determined not to assist our producers in this endeavor. In 1996 Congress made a contract with the farmer in exchange for reducing the amount of money they receive from the Government for their crops. We contracted with them to move grain into the market--namely, the world market. So the farmer in Montana and across the Nation accepted this contract. They have done their part. Now it is time for Congress and the Department of Agriculture and this administration to live up to their end of the deal. As a member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, I have made my thoughts known to the committee and to the administration. However, this past week, while I visited with the wheatgrowers in Montana, I learned one thing that would ease the burden. Today, we stand before the Senate, and I call for the administration to move at least 100 million tons of grain as soon as possible. This will not solve the problem we face on the farm. But it will ease the pressure and allow farmers to think about the future. Today they think only about the future and about how it would be like without the farm. So, I call on President Clinton, the Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, and the U.S. Trade Representative to make an effort to assist the man and woman on the ground, to do something to show that you are concerned about them. We had a situation last fall that was not the making of our producers. In the railroad industry, Houston was tied up so badly that it left us without any way to ship grain. We still received tons and tons of grain from Canada in this country. We have to deal with these measures. The legislation will allow us some time to do that and also will allow our farmers to get back in the fields. It is my hope that the legislation that we introduce today will assist in some little measure to give the farmer the hope to continue. I also hope that the administration will see their role in this and move forward in providing what they can to make life a little more bearable for our agricultural producers in our country. There is also another situation that was not created by us or the farmers; that is, we are not allowed to access about 11 percent of the world market due to embargoes--by governments and countries that probably have some problems in the area which the State Department usually handles. And, denied that market, there are other producers in other nations taking advantage of that. They get a premium for their grain and then dump the rest of theirs onto the world market for which we have to compete at a lower price. We have to address that problem also. Mr. President, I join with my colleague in introducing this legislation.