Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, to conduct a hearing on the oversight on the monetary policy report to Congress pursuant to the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 25, 1998 at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on the high-tech worker shortage and U.S. immigration policy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we didn't make our opening statement a while ago because we had sort of a logistics problem. But we have most of that ironed out. There are a couple of points that I would like to make on which the support for the override of this veto is very important. I assure my good friend from Nebraska that I will not take long. We have worked with Senator McCain, who serves on the Armed Services Committee, in developing parameters and guidelines on what we should do when making determinations of spending that money on military construction. I am beholden to him, and I thank him for his leadership, because not only did it help us develop our guidelines but also it helps us to at least coordinate the activities of military construction with Armed Services. There are two different entities here. I agree that it is alarming whenever we see the attrition, especially an accelerated attrition and losing people who are essential to make our fighting forces really effective--in other words those pilots, those specialized people, who are highly technical and necessary to operate in today's modern Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps. There has been some attention given to Guard facilities. There is a very good reason for that. This administration since it came to town has been integrating Guard and Reserve units with regulars wherever they can because the force structure and our cutback in defense spending has required them to do that. In each one of those places where you have Guard or Reserves, it takes facilities that at least come up to the standard that you would find in any regular unit. So there is a new way of looking on how we build facilities and what facilities are going to be needed. I also say that losing through attrition these people that we depend on in technical positions concerns me. But it also concerns me that if they do not accept advancement or more money to fly 5 or 6 more years, then there is another reason why they are leaving the military. You say they are away from their families. I would say quality of life has a lot to do with that. And the emphasis of the last 3 years or 4 years or so has been on quality of life--not only quality of life for the person that is serving in uniform, or serving in our particular services, but also the spouses of those men and women because that is just as important, too, when we take a look at family life on any base, post, or operation. It might surprise a lot of Senators that the biggest share of appropriations--the lion's share--goes to environmental cleanup caused by BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The ranking Member and I have looked at some figures, and fully a third of next year's appropriations will be in environmental cleanup. It does nothing to add to the quality of life nor to build facilities nor to integrate anything that has to do with the security and the defense of this country. There we ought to make some changes, because I think sometimes when we go into environmental cleanup when a base is closed and all of these requirements we are putting on, a lot of these bases are not going to end up being day care centers. Maybe we ought to find out what they are going to be used for and go to that degree as far as environmental cleanup. I am not against environmental cleanup. I do not want to go as far as I can to eat off the floor of barracks. But that is what we are talking about here. All of these so-called add-ons were authorized by the committee. Those are the guidelines. Those are the guidelines and the parameters that were set down. We will continue as long as I am chairman of this committee to press for quality of life, and also the new thrust of how we are going to prepare our young men and women for the defense of this country. And if we are going to integrate what we would call regulars with the Reserves or with the National Guard, then it is going to take a new thrust in the way we allocate money to maintain the infrastructure for that to happen. That is the thrust we have used today. I yield the floor. (Mr. COATS assumed the chair).

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few comments about at least one amendment that has been offered here this afternoon. As we work our way through the debate on campaign finance reform and you listen to Senators express themselves in the legal areas, the more one thinks that maybe we have got enough laws in place, maybe it is a matter of enforcing them. I remind Senators that it was in 1996 when one major party failed to file their FEC report on the date it was supposed to be filed. In fact, it never was filed until after the election was over. So I would argue that law enforcement probably has as much to do with the problems we see in political campaigns more than anything else. All through this process, we try to pass legislation that would maybe bring political campaigns into the light of public scrutiny. We would try to cap contributions, how much an individual or an organization can contribute to a particular campaign. We would try to cap spending. We would try to establish and make permanent filing dates. Yet all of them would be to no purpose if we do not enforce them. In fact, we have gone into some approach of asking for free advertising from radio and television based on a faulty assumption, an assumption, if we do something, get something for nothing, we can limit the expenses, thus making it easier for everybody to run for political office. I would ask those who would advocate such a regulation to offer free television and free radio time, I would ask them, the newspapers and publications, will they be made to offer free space? Will printers lay out people, graphic artists? Will they donate their labor for direct mail and fliers and stickers and, yes, those things that we mail direct to our constituency? While we are talking about that, would we also write into the same regulation that they may be sent postage free? Should the laborers of the post office, or whoever, be made to do it for nothing? And my answer to that is, of course not. Radio and television is a unique medium. Some would say it operates on the public airwaves. How public are they? If a radio station or a television station owns a chunk of frequency, do they not own it? They are only given so many hours in a day--like 24--that they can sell time. Once that time has passed, it cannot be recovered or made up later on. Are we asking them to give away their inventory? Are we asking them to pay their production people to dub and to produce? Why are not their expenses the same as any other segment of the American media? The amendment is nothing more than that the FCC should not advocate or use funds to regulate radio and television stations for free time or free access. It just does not make a lot of sense, especially when broadcasters lead this country in public service, in news and weather and services to a community. Yes, they get paid for the advertising for some of those programs, but basically they are there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Of course, they are being asked to do something for nothing. So I hope in any kind of reform that passes this body, that this amendment to prevent the FCC from requiring radio and television stations to give free advertising space would be a part of that reform. But bottom line--and I am not a lawyer; never been hinged with that handle--as I listen to the argument, it boils down to, bottom line, the integrity of the folks that are supporting an issue or an individual for political office. It all comes down to that. For if lawyers write this law, it will be lawyers that will figure a way around it. It is a matter merely of enforcing the law. Cloture Motion

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending bill.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this cloture vote will be the last of three consecutive cloture votes occurring Thursday morning, assuming none of the previous cloture votes is successful. The leadership will notify all Senators as to the time for these votes, once the leader has consulted with the minority leader. However, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived with respect to all three cloture motions filed today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, at 11:30, under a previous consent agreement, the Senate will debate the veto message to accompany H.R. 2631, the military construction appropriations bill. All Senators should be aware that although there is a 2-hour limitation on the veto message, that rollcall vote will occur later in the day in an effort to accommodate those Members attending the funeral of former Senator Ribicoff. All Senators will be notified when that vote is set. Following the debate on the veto message, the Senate will resume debate on the pending legislation regarding campaign finance reform. Additional votes can be expected during Wednesday's session relating to campaign finance reform. Finally, as a reminder, three cloture motions were filed during today's session to pending amendments and the underlying bill, S. 1663. These votes will occur on Thursday of this week. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators requesting time to speak, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 25, and immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there then be a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Hutchinson, 20 minutes; Senator Gorton, 5 minutes; Senator Brownback, 10 minutes; Senator Byrd, 20 minutes; Senator Mikulski, 15 minutes; Senator Gramm of Texas, 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that Executive Calendar No. 380 be returned to committee.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today to recognize an Olympian from the great state of Montana. Eric Bergoust, a Western Montana native from Missoula, will represent our nation next week in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Eric, 28, is a freestyle aerialist skier--a sport that requires athletes to launch themselves off a snow ski ramp, twist and turn their body in mid-air and land on the slope below. You certainly cannot appreciate the physical requirements of this sport until you are able to see it. And the landings don't always end up feet down. Watch the sport long enough and you are bound to see an unplanned landing. But Eric is not new to the challenges of freestyle aerial skiing. Eric was profiled on network television earlier this week during a look at the 1998 Winter Olympics. The profile included photos of Eric diving off the roof of his parents' Missoula home into mattresses on the ground below. Mr. President, I am happy to see that Eric's adventurous spirit is now compensated and insured. When I was a kid, we also had to be creative to fill our time, but my feet stayed on the ground and rarely reached a height higher than the stirrups of a tall horse. Although he has claimed his share of injuries from the physically demanding sport, I am proud to claim Eric as a native Montanan. He has represented our state well in world class events. Eric is participating in his second Olympic games and has matured into one of the sport's premiere athletes. Last month, Eric won a World Cup event in British Columbia and is at the top of the World Cup standing entering the Olympics. I've sent Eric a telegram wishing him well next week in the freestyle aerial events. I wanted to make sure my colleagues and the American people are aware of Eric's roots and the Montana spirit that drives him to be the world's best in his sport.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, Tuesday, February 3, 1998, has been declared Teen Day throughout the State of Montana. This celebration is an opportunity to honor and recognize Montana's outstanding teens for their accomplishments and contributions. On this special day, events and activities across Montana are being held to acknowledge these young individuals for their achievements and contributions to their community. Teen Day is also an opportunity to congratulate teens for continuing to choose healthy lifestyles, such as not smoking, not taking drugs, and not drinking. Montana's youth are more likely to be enrolled in school, graduate and attend college than the national trend. For our future business owners, professionals and community leaders, Teen Day 1998 is a time for all Montanans to recognize its young citizens and continue to acknowledge and encourage their scholastic, social and community pursuits.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend two Montana artists for their dedication and talent. In the West, we are accustomed to western art whether in the form of a Charlie Russell painting or a Frederick Remington bronze. But today I would like to recognize the future of Western bronze sculpture art defining our nation's roots and the hardy souls who lived off the land and gave us the rich history that will always be a part of our nation's beginning. Bruce and Kathy Contway of Whitehall, Montana, have helped to preserve that history as well as to find their own place in history as American artists. These two artists are becoming well-known internationally for their abilities and their works celebrating a colorful Native American and Old West past. Their art has helped to make accessible to all of us the distinctive culture and customs of this nation's first inhabitants. The Contways, have certainly earned the honors they have received. Their dedication and hard work were recently rewarded when they each received the admiration of their peers and fans alike. 1997 was a year of recognition for the Contways. Bruce was named the Indian Arts and Crafts Association (IACA) Artist of the Year and was also awarded the steer wrestling and bareback riding bronze commissions during the 1997 Calgary Stampede Trophy Bronze Competition. Kathy was awarded the envy of all artists participating in the Stampede competition--the Chuckwagon Race Outriders bronze. Mr. President, bronze artists everywhere understand the significance of these honors. The work of Bruce and Kathy indicates a strong pride in their Native American heritage. Their remarkable talent combined with modest self- recognition is an inspiration to young artists across our country. And their desire to pass on their legacy and pride is a tribute to all Montanans. Among their peers, Bruce and Kathy are considered world-class artists. Among their neighbors, Bruce and Kathy are considered friends. The Contways are very involved in the local community. Accomplished high school and college rodeo stars, they enjoy working with local students in the high school's rodeo club. Last December, the front page headline of the Whitehall Ledger read, `Contway art ``Stampedes'' to great year'. The article was a fitting tribute to two of Montana's best. Artists with this kind of talent are difficult to find, and you can bet that a Contway bronze will be a treasured work of art on any lucky owner's mantel.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I am introducing draft legislation to complete the third phase of the Gallatin Land Consolidation Act. As Congress winds down to the final hours of this session it has become increasingly important to show Montanans that we are committed to completing this act. In Montana there are many folks who have small problems with the details of the proposed agreement between Big Sky Lumber and the U.S. Forest Service. Also at stake are the exceptional natural resources of the Taylors Fork lands. These lands are privately owned and face an uncertain future. By showing the private landowners that Congress is, in fact, committed to completing this exchange, the environmental value of Taylors Fork will be preserved. Taylors Fork is a migration corridor for wildlife which leave Yellowstone National Park for winter range in Montana. With legislation I am committed to preserving Taylors Fork as close to a natural state as possible. I am confident that by working together, the Montana congressional delegation will be able to resolve the outstanding land use issues in the Bridger-Bangtail area. I also believe we can resolve the concerns of the timber small business set-aside. This bill is a placeholder. There are many details that need to be included. The deadline for ensuring the Taylors Fork lands remain included in the agreement is December 31 of this year. My intent with this bill is to satisfy the deadline to preserve our option on Taylors Fork and to provide a forum for Montanans to begin to comment on the details of the package. I look forward to moving ahead with Senator Baucus and Congressman Hill and completing the original act of 1993 in the next session of Congress.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave disappointment in the statement that Sara Lister, the Army's Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, made in reference to the U.S. Marine Corps. We just finished Veterans Day, and November 10 is traditionally the Marine Corps' birthday. So I guess her sense of timing is unbelievable. But, basically, this is what the Assistant Secretary said: ``The Marines are extremists'' and ``wherever you have extremists, you've got some risks of total disconnection with society.'' For whatever I have done with my life personally, I attribute some of what I learned in the U.S. Marine Corps. I think the statement that she made is grossly unjust, and is an affront to every person who has ever worn the uniform of the U.S. Marine Corps, or to any person who has worn any uniform of the Armed Forces of this country, and those who have died for the very freedoms that we Americans, even Ms. Lister, enjoy today and every day. Mr. President, back in 1955, we were taught that the code of the corps is honor, courage, and commitment--honor in the defense of freedom, courage in the face of adversity and commitment to the members of your unit but, more important, to those folks at home. I am very proud to say that these principles have guided my life, and I hope that these would be the principles that our society could emulate, not values that should be considered ``disconnected'' with the norm. I am wondering who is really disconnected here. The corps has always presented to its new members a challenge for higher standards and higher achievements. In its 222-year history, they are incomparable and, yes, they are the guiding light of all services and something of which every American can be proud. I understand Ms. Lister has sent an apology to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak. That might be enough for him, but it is not enough for me. She claims that she was quoted out of context. I don't accept that either. No one service should be placed over another. Nobody has a corner on bravery or valor or commitment to this country. But you must remember that it was these men and women who fought and died for the blessings of liberty for our Nation, and no one should forget that their words still reflect today. So I am saying Secretary Lister should resign her post, because I personally think that she is unfit to serve in a leadership position in the military of this Nation. I am very sad about this day.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I see my friend from New Mexico on the floor. I would like to make a brief statement and then yield the floor to him, if he doesn't mind.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with each Senator permitted to speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I am introducing draft legislation to complete the third phase of the Gallatin Land Consolidation Act. As Congress winds down to the final hours of this session it has become increasingly important to show Montanans that we are committed to completing this act. In Montana there are many folks who have small problems with the details of the proposed agreement between Big Sky Lumber and the U.S. Forest Service. Also at stake are the exceptional natural resources of the Taylors Fork lands. These lands are privately owned and face an uncertain future. By showing the private landowners that Congress is, in fact, committed to completing this exchange, the environmental value of Taylors Fork will be preserved. Taylors Fork is a migration corridor for wildlife which leave Yellowstone National Park for winter range in Montana. With legislation I am committed to preserving Taylors Fork as close to a natural state as possible. I am confident that by working together, the Montana congressional delegation will be able to resolve the outstanding land use issues in the Bridger-Bangtail area. I also believe we can resolve the concerns of the timber small business set-aside. This bill is a placeholder. There are many details that need to be included. The deadline for ensuring the Taylors Fork lands remain included in the agreement is December 31 of this year. My intent with this bill is to satisfy the deadline to preserve our option on Taylors Fork and to provide a forum for Montanans to begin to comment on the details of the package. I look forward to moving ahead with Senator Baucus and Congressman Hill and completing the original act of 1993 in the next session of Congress.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we just introduced a placeholder in a bill on the Gallatin exchange to preserve that option. It expires December 31. It is a land exchange in the Gallatin National Forest. I support that land exchange. I did not want to get into an adjournment situation and let the time run out and not have a placeholder, because I am concerned about one area in particular, as is everybody. I heard the concerns of my constituents in the Bridger Bang Tail area of the Gallatin National Forest and in the Taylor Creek area. This area has to be kept in the condition that it is now because it is probably the most important migration area for wildlife we have from Yellowstone Park into Montana and out of Montana. This is a migration corridor that must be protected. We have an obligation to complete this land exchange. It is a good land exchange. It is the right thing to do for that particular part of our country, and I will support it. Of course, the delegation from Montana will get together and work out the details. But I wanted to put that in there to make sure that our options are left open when Congress comes back into session, because I feel very strongly about this area, about the preservation of this area in the management of forests, especially in very fragile areas and in areas that are very, very important to the migration of wildlife, in particular elk and deer. We have introduced that placeholder for those reasons today. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Snowe in introducing the Prostate Cancer Research Stamp Act of 1997 and urge the support of my colleagues. S. 1389 is a companion bill to Representative Sherrod Brown's bill, H.R. 2545, which has 41 cosponsors. The Prostate Cancer Research Stamp Act would authorize a new first- class stamp priced at up to 8 cents above a regular first-class stamp. Postal patrons who choose to purchase the prostate cancer stamp will be contributing to prostate cancer research at the National Cancer Institute. As important, a special prostate cancer stamp will help to raise awareness of this disease, promote screening, and save lives. Prostate cancer, the most common form of cancer in American men, will take 41,000 lives this year, nearly approaching the breast cancer death toll of 44,300. One of every eight is at risk of getting prostate cancer. Unfortunately, as the number of prostate cancer cases rises dramatically, research funding lags far behind what is needed to fight this disease. Although prostate cancer accounts for nearly 25 percent of diagnosed non-skin cancer, only 3.7 percent of Federal cancer research dollars are devoted to fighting it. Apart from the important contribution to prostate cancer research, the prostate cancer stamp will raise awareness of this disease and help to persuade men over age 40 to have annual prostate exams. Prostate cancer is detectable, and when found early is often fully treatable through several different methods, including surgical removal of the prostate and radiation treatment. Men must demand both a PSA blood test and a digital-rectal exam as part of their annual medical exam. At the recent Senate Aging Committee hearing on prostate cancer, I commented that we men are such crybabies that we go out of our way to avoid medical tests. The women at the hearing erupted in laughter, but the men were pretty quiet. The fact is that prostate cancer can only be treated early if it's detected early, and the long list of survivors all say that early detection made the difference. The sooner we enact this bill and make a postage stamp available, the greater the number of men who will get tested; and more testing means more men will survive prostate cancer.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in recent days, Chairman McCain and I have addressed the Commerce Committee's communications agenda for next year. I expect the Communications Subcommittee, which I chair, to have an active and full slate of issues as we approach the second session of the 105th Congress. Chairman McCain and I have agreed that the Communications Subcommittee will hold a series of oversight hearings on the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We will examine the degree to which the act has met its objectives of promoting competition and deregulation. We will examine the level of competition in the local and long-distance markets, between cable companies and alternative video providers, competition in the wireless industry and other important issues. We will devote considerable attention to interconnection issues and universal service. I would like to address in some depth an issue that will be one of the most important issues before the Communications Subcommittee, that of international satellite reform. The Communications Subcommittee has already begun to examine the international satellite communications market. On July 25 of this year, the subcommittee held a very informative hearing on this vital issue. We learned of the need for further changes in the regulation of the international market. We need to promote greater competition internationally while lifting unneeded regulations domestically. The issues in this debate are complex--they involve trade policy, fair treatment for those with existing investments, allocations of spectrum and orbital slots, market access, and elimination of outdated regulations. Recently, my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, introduced S. 1328, which is virtually identical to a bill introduced earlier this year in the House by Chairman Bliley. Senator Inouye has stated that he hopes his bill will help ``spur debate on this important issue.'' I share this hope. Senator Inouye's bill has been referred to the Commerce Committee. I look forward to working with him and others next year to develop an appropriate international satellite policy for the future, and also to address other domestic satellite issues. As we move forward, I am going to be guided by the principles of former President Ronald Reagan. In 1984, President Reagan signed an Executive order that effectively eliminated outdated regulations and allowed U.S.-licensed satellite companies to compete around the world. That competition has resulted in greater consumer choices, lower prices, and the ability to reach anyone anywhere in the world. Now as we approach the turn of the century, we need to complete President Reagan's vision. The Satellite Act, which was enacted in 1962 at a time when satellites were still experimental, has become outdated. This country cannot afford to have an industry guided by rules that were created in the days of Sputnik. We need to look forward at ways to roll back unwarranted regulations and fully unleash the potential that this industry holds. I share the goals of increasing competition, privatizing intergovernmental organizations, and enhancing market access abroad for American satellite companies. Any legislative action should be designed to promote opportunities for American businesses, while making sure they are not harmed by the very effort that seeks to enhance their ability to succeed in the international marketplace. These are extremely complex issues and there may be different paths that lead to the same goals. The approach the subcommittee will take in further exploring these issues will be balanced. We will examine in detail how best to eliminate outdated regulations, address universal service concerns and provide for the needed flexibility to achieve an international agreement on satellite policy. I will continue to work with the Communications Subcommittee on this critical issue. I look forward to holding further hearings, and intend to develop legislation with Chairman McCain, ranking member Hollings, Senator Inouye, and other committee members to establish fair rules that are competitively neutral for the international market.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That is my view as well.

Mr. BURNS. I agree with my colleague from Michigan. Commercialization of Federal research, particularly through non-profit organizations, could play a significant role in expanding the benefits from this research and get the most from our Federal research investments.