Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. How much of that 4 hours would you like, Senator?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have one other scheduled speaker after Senator Graham, and then Senator Byrd has requested some time. But I ask unanimous consent that the vote on S. 1292 take place at 4:30 this afternoon, and reserving 10 minutes for the ranking member of the full committee and recognizing Senator Bumpers as the next speaker.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act. This legislation will provide new opportunities for sportsmen with disabilities to hunt and fish on the numerous Department of Defense facilities across this Nation. This legislation will also allow the Department of Defense to work with private sector groups to build facilities and operate programs for the benefit of sportsmen with disabilities. The beginnings of this legislation originate from a program developed at the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, VA. The program, run by Lt. Col. Lewis Deal, is a prime example of the work that can be done to provide new opportunities for people with disabilities. Lieutenant Colonel Deal has combined private sector volunteers work with donations from other people to build permanent disabled accessible blinds for deer hunting, which are used during both gun and bow seasons. These blinds provide people living with disabilities many of the same opportunities for outdoor recreation that we all enjoy. There are plans underway at this time to construct a fishing pier on the Potomac River for access by people with disabilities. This pier is to be built with lower railings, and stops to provide access and security for disabled persons. This legislation, uses the current program at Quantico, to allow the Department of the Defense to provide access to it's 30 million acres of wildlands by disabled individuals, as long as it does not interfere with the primary mission of the military, that of our Nation's defense. The military installations around the Nation offer a number of recreational and outdoor activities for both military and civilian personnel. This legislation, will encourage the Department of Defense to give access to individuals with disabilities and allow the Department to accept donations or money and materials as well as use volunteers for the construction of facilities accessible to sportsmen with disabilities. The bill would allow this voluntary work to be done without cost to the Federal Government or the taxpayer. Madam President, this legislation has the support of numerous organizations, including the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans. Among sportsmen's groups the bill has the endorsement of the Wheeling Sportsmen of America, Safari Club International, Wildlife Management Institute, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. I join today with my friend Congressman Duke Cunningham to bring this important legislation to the attention of my colleagues. I hope that all my colleagues in Congress would join Congressman Cunningham and myself in supporting this legislation for disabled sportsmen in our country.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 10:30 a.m. in open session, to consider the nominations of Hon. Robert M. Walker, to be Under Secretary of the Army; Mr. Jerry MacArthur Hultin, to be Under Secretary of the Navy; and Mr. F. Whitten Peters, to be Under Secretary of the Air Force.

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 Thursday, October 30, 1997, to conduct a hearing on the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 9:15 a.m. in SR-328A to mark up the nominations of Ms. Sally Thompson to be Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Mr. Joe Dial to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. BURNS. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a hearing on the following nominations: Richard J. Griffin, to be Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs; William P. Greene, Jr., to be Associate Judge, Court of Veterans Appeals; Joseph Thompson to be Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs; and Espiridion A. Borrego to be Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training, Department of Labor. The hearing will take place on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 5 p.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on the nomination of William Clyburn, Jr., to be a member of the Surface Transportation Safety Board, Duncan Moore and Arthur Bienenstock to be members of Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on class action lawsuits: examining victim compensation and attorneys' fees.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, the Public Land Management Improvement Act of 1997.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 30, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's hydroelectric relicensing procedures.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of William Kennard as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Throughout the confirmation process, I have taken a particular interest in universal service. The ruling earlier this year by the FCC to structure a universal service fund from a 25-percent Federal contribution and a 75-percent State contribution has caused me a lot of concern, along with many of my colleagues from rural States. I do not believe that this ruling is consistent with the intent of Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Such a rule could have severe impacts on Montana and other rural States that are asked to make this contribution. In the process of determining the attitudes of the nominees, I have heard statements about a reliance on the historical split between States and the Federal Government in the structure of this fund. However, in the case of Montana, which has not even had a universal service fund until it was enacted this year by the State legislature, we are on new territory, and history may be different from present circumstances. In rural States like Montana,the universal service fund is absolutely critical to the provision of basic telephone service. It should further be noted that maintaining the universal availability of telephone service at reasonable and affordable prices is not just a vague goal but an explicit statutory mandate. I ask how well has the FCC done in fulfilling this mandate? To answer this question, it is helpful to look at the record of the hearings which the Commerce Committee held in September 1993, on the nomination of Reed Hundt to be FCC Chairman. In response to a question which I posed on universal service, Mr. Hundt said-- Universal service is, and should be, one of the paramount goals of the Government and specifically the FCC. Mr. Hundt also characterized the appropriate role of the FCC in response to another question. He said the FCC's mandate was, [T]o implement the will of Congress, as expressed in legislation, [and that] to that end, the Commission's policymaking activities should take into account incentives and disincentives for private investment in the network, and the creation and offering of service. Mr. President, after reviewing the activities of the FCC during the past 4 years, it is clear that Reed Hundt has been unable to fully carry out the promises which he made to this committee and to the Senate during his confirmation. I should also note that Mr. Kennard served as general counsel to the FCC during this time and bears substantial responsibility for its record. It should be clear from the record that by focusing on the expansion of the definition of universal service to include broad-ranging social programs, the FCC's progress toward maintaining universal service has been delayed. While such goals as providing internet access to schools and libraries may be laudable, they were never meant to be part of universal service as it has traditionally been known. Indeed, a huge additional burden has been placed on rural States such as mine, in Montana, in meeting these newfound definitions. The FCC has addressed those goals in a fashion which many believe is detrimental to maintaining universal telephone service--which is so important to me and other Members of rural States. As I have noted before, there are some 55 million Americans who live outside metropolitan areas today--which is about the same as the total population of Great Britain, Italy, or France. The largest single element of the U.S. population today is Americans aged 50 or older--a group that represents almost 40 percent of the total population. Ensuring that these people have access to affordable, quality telephone service is especially important to all of us. Coming from Montana, I have an appreciation for the unique character and the difficulties of rural life. In a State with 148,000 square miles and only about 850,000 people, we do not always have the luxury of face-to-face communication that people have in highly populated areas, nor do we have the ability to shoulder the disproportionate burden that would be placed on us by taking on 75 percent of the cost of universal service. It is the people of States like mine for whom universal service is intended, and I do not want to see it dismantled. In view of all of these facts, I must oppose Mr. Kennard's nomination. Mr. President, what we are faced with in Montana in this particular area is pointed up by an article that was in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle by Oliver Staley. I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this week one of the most important events since the end of World War II will take place here in Washington. It is the State visit of the National Leader of the Peoples Republic of China. The future of United States-China relations will somewhat be forged on the occasion of the visit of the President of People's Republic of China, Jiang Zemin. This summit will, hopefully, define our challenges and opportunities and could and should serve as a model for future discussions for both nations. Let me say that I continue to be disturbed by some of the actions embarked upon by the PRC. The militaristic actions toward Taiwan, the sale of weapons to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and other nations, and the internal human rights violations that continue to occur to name the main ones. However, policy of isolation has never proven successful in international relations. In fact, a detriment to all this nation has to offer and the very doctrines we abide by and stand for. An example: I have not been totally convinced the need for the expansion of NATO--I can hear it now--what does China and NATO have to do with one another and it there a relationship. Well, as a Western State Senator, I have a tendency to view our foreign policy from the Pacific, rather than the Atlantic. In my opinion, looking from the standpoint of NATO, Europe, Russia continues to have difficulties with the fact that NATO enlargement is under consideration. Russia is a cash poor nation with an overabundance of military weapons, a silent industry base, and a unmanageable bureaucracy. On the other hand, the PRC, their neighbor, is a cash rich nation searching for ways to expand investments throughout the world. For the moment China, has not been allowed access to Western military technology. The West has not allowed and for good reason. I wholly agree with a nonaccess policy given obvious actions taken by the PRC. Therefore, China's defense industry does not have the command, control, computer, and communication systems, known collectively as ``C4''. Even with these limitations, China continues its work on advanced cruise missiles, a satellite positioning system, and airborne early- warning radar. To facilitate this continued work, China's government has now turned to Russia as the best available source of military foreign technology from foreign sources. It has brought 72 SU-27 fighters--and plans to build more under license--as well as Russian kilo submarines. There is good news. With a limited procurement budget, it cannot splash out on imports. The only good news is that Russia is still unwilling to sell China its best equipment. From these facts, one is able to determine that a China that is alienated by the United States will continue to invest their funds for modern military technology wherever, even with their neighbor, and possible ally, Russia to ``divide and conquer'' any perceived threats to their borders, whether it be their Eastern or Western border. However, if the United States commits to an open dialog--tries in the most earnest way to work out the differences that exist, it is my hope the PRC will become an integrated member of the international community and begin to act as responsible member of that community. This can only further peace and stability for both nations and the world. Besides its recent economic advancements, it is incumbent that the United States have a constructive working relationship with China. The reasons are obvious: The People's Republic of China [PRC] plays a major role in the post- cold-war world; It is the world's most populous nation, about 1.2 billion people, and the third-largest in land mass after Russia and Canada; It has nuclear weapons, is a growing military power, and plays a key role in regional stability while emerging as a regional leader in Asia; and As one of the five permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council, China has veto power over security council resolutions dealing with key multilateral issues, including international peacekeeping and the resolution of regional conflicts. Finally, Mr. President, the upcoming summit is an important opportunity to address many issues that will be of importance to all Americans especially Mountains. Agriculture cannot be left out in these discussions. Our Nation was founded on hard work, innovative technologies in agricultural production. U.S. farmer and ranchers have supplied our Nation and the world with clean, safe and affordable food since our humble beginnings. We are a leader in agriculture exports. This fact is sometimes transparent in the eyes of those who would rather consider the United States as a nation of fiber optics rather than food and fiber. But, I say we can do both. In 1996, China's farmers produced a bumper wheat crop. That along with a dispute over unfounded accusations and over reaction over alleged infected wheat contributed to a severe decrease in the United States grain exports to China. China's ban on United States imports of wheat is based on scientifically unfounded trade evidence linked to insignificant disease commonly known as tck smut. This diseases is present in Canada, as well as Europe. Such barriers-to-entry are and will be a barrier to China's entry into the WTO. We've seen this type of attack on U.S. agriculture before. Recently, the European Union objected to United States beef imports based on scientifically unfounded evidence; eventually, the United States prevailed in a WTO challenge but not before the United States cattle industry was damaged and European markets found their beef exports elsewhere. Mr. President, U.S. farmers and ranchers produce the healthiest and best food commodities in the world. If we are truly supposed to be a global economy, we need to put our great American agriculture on an equal basis with semiconductors and automobiles. Agriculture has always been dealt away first in all of the trade agreements in the last 50 years. It is not fair or right that the great machine of food and fiber production be left picking up the scraps. I think that the United States is following the same course as our relations with Russia in the late 1980's. An establishment of ties with China does not necessarily imply an endorsement of their policies. I believe that the freedom that the United States embraces can only serve as an example to the Chinese people. The summits between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev brought about the fall of the Berlin wall-- there were naysayers then so maybe the talks that the we begin now, will lead to the opening of the Great Wall of China.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. This morning the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of William Kennard to be a member of the Federal Communications Commission. I now ask unanimous consent there be an additional 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders and, further, the vote on the nomination will occur at 12 o'clock noon today.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, Members can expect the first vote at 12 o'clock. Following that vote, it is the two leaders' intention for the Senate to turn to consideration of H.R. 1119, the national defense authorization conference report, or the D.C. appropriations bill. The Senate may also begin consideration of Senator Coverdell's legislation dealing with education IRA's. Subsequently, Members can anticipate further rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, I rise today to pay tribute to our Nation's veterans, their families, and to those who died in defense of our great land. On November 11, 1997, we will again pay tribute to our Nation's veterans. There will be parades, ceremonies, and in my home State of Montana, where I served as Yellowstone County commissioner, a dedication of a veterans wall will take place in Billings. One must stop and wonder on Veterans Day 1997, if our Government is doing all we can for our country's veterans. For the many men and women who rely on Uncle Sam to provide the benefits they earned by putting their lives on the line, the answer is a resounding ``No.'' We must do more to ensure that veterans and their families are looked after and afforded every opportunity to receive the health care and the benefits they so rightly deserve. The veteran stepped forward when the Nation called; it is time the Government stepped up to the plate and delivered the benefits the veterans deserve. Today, I would like to say ``thank you'' to the veterans for the sacrifices you made defending our country. Thank you for the time you spent away from your home and families to heed the call of our great Nation. Mr. President, we must never forget those brave men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives for the United States of America. As the saying goes, ``If you love your freedom, thank a vet.'' I urge our Nation to reach out and shake the hand of a veteran today and say ``thank you'' for a job well done.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on the issue of campaign reform, the words I speak here might not climb to the intellectual level of constitutional dialog as others who are more versed in the subject. I don't think it has to go that high. I think the simpler we keep it, the easier it will be for the American people to understand what we are trying to do. I want to premise this by saying that I believe, and strongly believe, in four basic principles: We should abide by current law. We should have full and timely disclosure. All contributions to campaigns must be voluntary contributions. And, yes, we have to abide by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Through this debate, a debate, I might add, whose time has come, a lot will be said of the good and not so good points of the pending legislation, which, basically, right now is the new McCain-Feingold legislation. It does address some of the concerns that I have had from the beginning. However, I am still bewildered by one basic question in this whole process that we have been through since Christmas a year ago: Why is it, no matter what law we have, that it has become common practice to ignore the law? I suggest to my colleagues, after all is said and done--and maybe more will be said than done--but to change our existing campaign finance law, one important question remains to be answered: Why do we reform or rewrite? Why don't we just abide by current law? It is only logical to me that the best campaign reform is to enforce current law. If one or a series of campaign laws have been broken, it is clear to me that the enforcement of such laws should take center stage in every case. Indicting the breakers of the law, the alleged violators, would do more to reform campaign finance practices than any proposed legislation that we could ever pass through this body. Think about that a little bit. Indicting the alleged violators of present law to make them stand for their practices would do more than any reform we could do for campaign practices that is before us today. It is very simple. Volume 18, United States Code, section 607 clearly prohibits soliciting and receiving contributions in a Federal building. I quote: It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contribution in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties. No one has ever been prosecuted under this statute. To reiterate what many others have stated as a matter of fact, in the 1996 election cycle, that law was allegedly broken. In fact, Mr. President, it was clearly established during Senator Thompson's hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee that that was the case. The offending parties have not been brought to the altar of justice. Yet, the alleged violators contend that they have sent millions of dollars back to their original donors after the election. What does that say? What does that tell us? How is it that we, as a nation, became a nation where we do not enforce the law? It seems that a patrolman in Montana today was in town enforcing the law. What is the difference? It plainly states--and I quote--``any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.'' Now, if it has been broken, it should be enforced. If we would enforce the law, if we would indict the alleged violators, arrest, present them to a judge and a jury, I think that would do more than anything we can do in changing the law before us. You know, Mr. President, I spent a long time refereeing football. We are in football season. It catches everybody's imagination--the Super Bowl, everything. I am wondering why that game can hold the order that it does. Let me tell you, I thought about that a long time. In order to capture the imagination of the American people, there has to be some order to it, it has to be competitive, it has to be fair. So the first thing that happens is there is only one rule book. The rules for high school or college or professional football is the same in Kentucky as it is in California as it is in Colorado--one federation. And why is it on Saturday afternoon or Sunday afternoon four old men in striped shirts can go down on a field of 22 of the most mobile, hostile, heavily armored people intent on doing each other in and they have very few problems? No. 1, the rules are enforced on both sides of the ball. And, No. 2, that old man in a striped shirt is the arresting officer, he is the judge and the jury, he is the penal officer, and he does it all in 30 seconds. A young man can haul off and slug his opponent. The referee sees it, throws the flag. That is the arrest. The judge and jury--you are guilty. ``So, 15 yards against your team and, you, young man, are out of the football game.'' He can say, ``I come from a broken family.'' It doesn't say anything in that rule book about that. The rule book says, ``Thou shalt not hit thy opponent with the open hand. If thou doest, your team will be penalized 15 yards and you will get to watch the rest of the football game.'' It does not make any difference who you are, what you are; you are out of there. So everybody understands the rules, everybody understands the penalties. It is all done in 30 seconds. And they are enforced immediately. And after an hour of play on the field, we have very few problems. What are we missing in real life when we start talking about that? No doubt that the White House made phone calls from the White House. They claim the law doesn't apply to them. It has never been tested in court. Somebody has to file charges. Here in the Senate there is one simple rule, one simple rule here in the U.S. Senate: Do not make fundraising calls from your office. It is not acceptable in any form, not by phone, not in person, not in letters, and not by hosting events. And basically common sense would tell you, do not put the taxpayers' property at the disposal of your campaign. We keep hearing about that we need to change the laws. What I am saying here basically is, just obey the laws we have now. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that 938 people stayed overnight in the White House between 1992 and 1996 and they raised over $10 million, and that 103 coffees raised $26 million over 18 months. All of these activities are clearly established by the hearings. The law is very clear. To misunderstand or to refer to loopholes, I think, is just absurd. To comment on the newly revised McCain-Feingold legislation, I am pleased to see that some of those steps have been made in the right direction on this piece of legislation. The authors certainly have improved it from its original version. Unfortunately, however, it is not in a comprehensive form. That is why I commend the leader for what he has done because a major tenet to campaign finance reform should be that all Montanans, all Americans, who desire to give money or to participate in any way in a political campaign, do it voluntary. That is all we are asking. I do not want anybody to tell me where I have to give my money. If you do not want to contribute, you should not have to. No one should be forced to do that, no political party, nobody, whatever, no organization should have the power to collect dues or any other form of payment for political uses without receiving consent. The McCain-Feingold bill contains the Beck language, but that leaves a lot to be desired. And in some cases it is not as fair as it could be or should be. It allows union members to receive a refund upon request. But that union member must give up his union privileges at that moment. You are not allowed both. You cannot choose whether or not to make political contributions and still be a member of the organization. So the Paycheck Protection Act is not a poison pill. It is a right. It is a basic right. It is a basic right for every man and woman and child in this country, whether to give funds or your services or your labors for a candidate, for a political party, or a ballot issue. It makes no difference. You should do it voluntarily. It is just a basic American freedom. So this provision, the Paycheck Protection Act, I think we can all agree on that, that all contributions should be voluntary. That is the reason that is important, for no one person, no one group, no association should be able to spend your hard-earned dollars without your consent. There are troubling provisions. They still remain in this legislation. Clearly, as it exists today, it runs afoul of the first amendment. That has been already taken to a plain that I am sorry I cannot attain. Political spending is equated with speech. The courts are clear and consistent on that point. We cannot say, on the one hand, we are protecting speech and, on the other hand, restrict the means by which that speech is carried out. Under the revised bill, corporations and other organizations would be prohibited year-round from issuing communications to the public that fall under the bill's much broader definition of ``express advocacy,'' which includes ``words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly identified candidates'' or ``expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or opposition to 1 or more clearly identified candidates when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as proximity to an election.'' With respect to that restriction, it is my belief it would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo--that is all going to be talked about--in striking down the $1,000 limit on independent expenditures enacted by Congress in 1974 as a violation of the first amendment, noted that such limitation ``would appear to exclude all citizens and groups except candidates, political parties, and institutional press from any significant use of the most effective modes of communication.'' In other words, we don't want to take away the power of the people and place it in the hands of politicians, the Government and the press. So I suggest to my colleagues there is an answer and it is a better answer. It is simple, it is understandable, easily complied with, even easier to monitor--full and timely disclosure. Full and timely disclosure should be the core, the core of all finance practices. We always thought we need to enhance public disclosure measures that will allow the voters to know where every single penny comes from and where every single penny is spent, no matter what the organization. You want to do something about soft money? I will tell you how to do away with soft money, just report it. This would give a full picture of the situation and allow the Sun to shine in the dark corners of the current campaign practices. Mr. President, let me end by saying we are getting closer to the reform package. Some of the changes, visions, are true steps in the right direction. I support Senator Lott's amendment. It is a good and necessary addition to this legislation. We should take a look at soft money and where it goes and how it is raised. The only way you do away with soft money is that everybody files, everybody reports, because you have to remember it didn't start just last week. I think there was a little failure to disclose in October of 1996, and before this discussion is all over, I am going to give this Senate an opportunity to vote on a little amendment that may put some teeth in that. They are not going to like the teeth. But I guarantee you they will file. They will file their FEC report, and that is what has to happen. We all look at ourselves here as being part of this reform package. There are other things and other people that are also involved that will be affected by this. So before it is all over, we will see how far they really want to go in campaign finance reform, on what is right and wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the NASA authorization bill for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, introduced by Senator Frist, chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space and Senator Rockefeller, the ranking minority member. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both Senator Frist and Senator Rockefeller for helping to craft a bipartisan bill which balances the goals and missions of our space agency within fiscal responsibility. This bill authorizes the full $1.4 billion requested by NASA for Mission to Planet Earth. As many of you know, I'm a strong supporter of this program because it is about using satellite technology to help average citizens in their everyday activities. The goal of this program is to provide farmers, land planners, foresters, scientists and others with cost-effective tools to help them do their work. This program provides the scientific foundation for weather forecasting on a year- to-year basis, land-use management, and to protect people, property, and the environment from natural disasters. To accomplish this goal, Mission to Planet Earth supports scientists in Montana and in other U.S. States, to carry out the experiments necessary to expand our frontier of understanding Earth. This bill also provides authorization for $10 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] Program. This funding will allow NASA to carry out a new competition to help NASA develop a stronger presence in the vital academic research programs in institutions in rural States like Montana. Finally, I would like to note that the bill contains a new provision, section 317, which provides insurance, indemnification and liability for coverage for the X-33 and X-34 experimental aerospace vehicle tests. It draws upon provisions in the Space Act as well as the commercial Space Launch Act to provide the necessary coverage to continue innovative research and technology development in aerospace. It also provides the infrastructure needed to allow NASA to work with industry to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The X-33 program partners NASA with industry to develop a single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle. The goal is to decrease the cost of getting to space while making it safer and more accessible. I'm proud that Montana is part of this program. Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls has been selected as one of the preferred landing sites for the X-33 prototype. Landing at Malmstrom will be the longest flight for this 136-ton wedge-shaped prototype. Knowledge from these tests will be used to create the next generation launch vehicle. I believe that we have a bill that provides NASA with the funding authorization and policy direction it will need to maintain our world leadership in space and aeronautics.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the NASA authorization bill for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, introduced by Senator Frist, chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space and Senator Rockefeller, the ranking minority member. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both Senator Frist and Senator Rockefeller for helping to craft a bipartisan bill which balances the goals and missions of our space agency within fiscal responsibility. This bill authorizes the full $1.4 billion requested by NASA for Mission to Planet Earth. As many of you know, I'm a strong supporter of this program because it is about using satellite technology to help average citizens in their everyday activities. The goal of this program is to provide farmers, land planners, foresters, scientists and others with cost-effective tools to help them do their work. This program provides the scientific foundation for weather forecasting on a year- to-year basis, land-use management, and to protect people, property, and the environment from natural disasters. To accomplish this goal, Mission to Planet Earth supports scientists in Montana and in other U.S. States, to carry out the experiments necessary to expand our frontier of understanding Earth. This bill also provides authorization for $10 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] Program. This funding will allow NASA to carry out a new competition to help NASA develop a stronger presence in the vital academic research programs in institutions in rural States like Montana. Finally, I would like to note that the bill contains a new provision, section 317, which provides insurance, indemnification and liability for coverage for the X-33 and X-34 experimental aerospace vehicle tests. It draws upon provisions in the Space Act as well as the commercial Space Launch Act to provide the necessary coverage to continue innovative research and technology development in aerospace. It also provides the infrastructure needed to allow NASA to work with industry to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The X-33 program partners NASA with industry to develop a single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle. The goal is to decrease the cost of getting to space while making it safer and more accessible. I'm proud that Montana is part of this program. Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls has been selected as one of the preferred landing sites for the X-33 prototype. Landing at Malmstrom will be the longest flight for this 136-ton wedge-shaped prototype. Knowledge from these tests will be used to create the next generation launch vehicle. I believe that we have a bill that provides NASA with the funding authorization and policy direction it will need to maintain our world leadership in space and aeronautics.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Employee Information Protection Act of 1997. This bill will correct a serious problem with the 1996 welfare reform law that threatens the privacy of every American. I do not know how many of my colleagues are aware of the fact that the new welfare reform law created a national new hire directory, which requires States to collect the name, address, and Social Security number of all newly hired employees and send this information to Washington, DC. This new hire directory will be housed at the Social Security Administration, under agreement with the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and the data will be checked against a registry of child support cases to detect overdue payments. Concerns with this new hire directory nearly killed the welfare reform bill in the Montana Legislature and in several other State legislatures, but folks inside the Beltway do not seem too concerned. But I am concerned, and I will tell you why. I am all for tracking down deadbeat parents and recovering overdue child support. But this new directory covers every new hire in every State and does not distinguish between deadbeats and nondeadbeats. What's more, the new law puts no limits on how long employee data may remain in the national new hire directory, and the Office of Child Support Enforcement has not developed any limits. It is especially alarming to me that in addition to the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Social Security Administration, the Treasury Department has access to the directory and the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the discretion to provide researchers access to the directory. With the revelations this week at the Finance Committee hearings of abuse of taxpayer information at the IRS, it is urgent that we take measures to protect personal information from abuse. The Employee Information Protection Act is simple--in fact it is only one sentence long, not counting the findings. That sentence reads: ``Information entered into such database shall be deleted 6 months after the date of entry.'' That is it. This 6-month limit on retention of new hire data would give the Child Support Office sufficient time to check employee data against the child support case registry and start collection efforts on the deadbeats. At the same time, it will provide some protection for the personal information of the vast majority of Americans who do not owe child support. I urge my colleagues to take a good look at this situation and if you have concerns as I do, join me in sponsoring the Employee Information Protection Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that Monday's New York Times article on the new hire directory be inserted into the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to add my name to the list of cosponsors of S. 1133, the Parent and Student Savings Account PLUS Act, introduced by Senator Coverdell, and ask unanimous consent that my name be added. This bill will allow families to invest in education savings accounts, or A-Plus accounts, for their kids' K through 12 expenses. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provides several education-related tax provisions for students and their families. Yet these provisions are mainly aimed at making higher education more affordable. While I am all for student loan interest deductions and tax credits for 2- and 4-year degrees, K through 12 education is not cheap either, and families could greatly benefit by saving up through A-Plus accounts. But for a last minute veto threat of the entire balanced budget act, families would have the option of savings accounts for their kids' future. Why are education savings accounts a good idea? For the same reason tax credits for college expenses are a good idea: They help families afford a quality education for their kids. These A-Plus accounts can be used for public, private, and home schooling education expenses. Qualified expenses include tuition, fees, tutoring, special needs services, books, supplies, equipment, and transportation. This will mean a lot to hard-working families trying to make ends meet. Opponents like to equate education savings accounts with vouchers, and they consistently use the terms interchangeably as if they are one and the same. This is a red herring. Unlike vouchers, education savings accounts would not redirect State or local funds otherwise available for public education. To the contrary, I believe public school students will greatly benefit by saving money for general school expenses. And from what I'm hearing, families across the country agree with me. Let me reiterate: We are talking here about using one's own hard-earned money for education expenses, not diverting public funds that would otherwise be spent on public schools. Now, I do not support the use of vouchers in Montana because I believe they would disrupt public school financing and the costs to our public schools would outweigh the benefits to our students. But this is a separate issue, and one better left to the Montana Legislature. Opponents have also claimed that education savings accounts would violate the establishment clause of the Constitution because Federal dollars would indirectly benefit religious schools. I'll simply respond by saying that under that reasoning, any federal financial aid to students attending Marquette, Georgetown, or Brigham Young would also violate the Constitution. We all know that is not the case. Although we were blocked from including education savings accounts in the Taxpayer Relief Act, thanks to the efforts of Senator Coverdell we will have another chance to send this bill to the President. At that time we will have the chance to show our support for America's families by making education more affordable.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some oversight hearings that have been going on here in the Senate. Also, I hope that the American people are seeing some things happen now that should have happened a long time ago. It wasn't very long ago that the suggestion was made to the Senate that we should go to a 2-year appropriation and a 2-year budget, because it seems like the time is eaten up here in the first part of the year to deal with budget and budget reconciliation, which is very, very important, and then the next part is taken up with the appropriations process. I have contended all along that our role here is not only to deal with budgets and appropriations, but to also deal with legislation and reform that, in some areas, is needed to stay up with the times, and also in the area of oversight. We have absolutely taken and extended the work day, more or less, to accommodate oversight. I think what the American people are seeing now is the result of that, as there are many hearings going on not only in Energy, but Governmental Affairs and, of course, in the Finance Committee. I want to compliment the chairman of the Finance Committee for this oversight hearing on the IRS. It is something that has been ongoing out there, I think, since probably we started this business of tax collection. Maybe there is no right way to collect taxes. I don't know that for sure. Even some activities and actions taken by the Congress have made their job a little more complicated, and maybe in some cases a little bit tough. But it does not give the IRS the right to do this job in the way that has been enlightened for us through these hearings of oversight of the IRS. It has shown a lack of compassion--exhibited by IRS employees beyond my comprehension, and I think beyond the comprehension of those in this country, and I imagine those people who have been watching those hearings. Yes. It happened to me too. Because we maybe are just talking about the tip of the iceberg. But some abusive IRS employees have expanded their scope of enforcement activities to include business men and women who are just trying to make a living; trying to stay in compliance with all Federal, State, and local revenue collecting and regulating laws. At the source of this evil we can level our sights in on some mismanagement by some IRS employees. IRS management needs to recognize that they have a difficult job promoting customer service as an IRS attribute. It is not an easy task considering the historic attitude toward not the IRS, but taxes. The founding of this great Nation and history tells us that it kind of started with the Boston Tea Party--a revolt against the tyrannical rule of unfair taxation. Taxes are a necessary evil. But if kept in check, it is important at all levels of government. It is a must. Taxes have created the world's greatest highway infrastructure, contributed to the protection of our borders, and has created the most successful democratic government in history. But waste and abuse of those dollars have burdened the American taxpayer with one of the highest levels of taxation in the history of this country. Tax collecting needs to reflect its controversial history. The IRS does not have the right to use harassment, and, yes--as has been brought out in these hearings--even extortion as a method of collecting taxes. Major changes are overdue. The IRS needs to improve its education and services to taxpayers. Taxpayers must have, at least, a comfort level when they approach the IRS for help so that they feel with some degree of reliability that the IRS will be sensitive to their needs and to their questions. We need to modernize the computers. Let's face it, the IRS can't do that. They spent some $5 billion to buy new computers. They don't work. They have never worked. We tried to simplify things. What do we do? We made them more complicated. So the general public loses its confidence to go to the IRS and ask questions that they will get answers for; so that they will try to do the right thing for the right reason. I think this is a very serious wake-up call to the IRS. Customer service will never be considered as one of their great attributes. But that is what IRS needs to pound into their employees: We work for the American public; it does not work for us. We are a service organization. We try to accommodate folks trying to get through a very difficult situation, a situation that some do not understand. Perhaps some of that blame lies with Congress. This is not the first time Congress has held oversight hearings. The IRS has a littered history of abuse, and, yes--I hate to say--even a little corruption. I think these hearings may pave the way for Senator Domenici's 2-year budget appropriations bill. I think that will lend credence to it. And Congress could spend more than 1 year on budgetary and spending matters and another year on tough-minded oversight of Government agencies, and maybe the future of such abuse can be averted. But it just does not happen in the IRS. We have other agencies in this Government that are just as abusive. I have contacted numerous of Montana constituents hearing complaints about the IRS. And I will tell my Senators beware. With these hearings I think our casework is going to go up a little bit. During the length of the bureaucratic process, debts grow fantastically high with interest and penalties. But I have been contacted by a few taxpayers in Montana that have similar stories as those that we heard about this week during these Finance Committee hearings. In one of those cases a Montana constituent had a pending case with the IRS that still today is unresolved. The small business was audited in the 1980's. And every time there was an offer, or attempt to make settlement, the IRS denies the offer, and the interest and the penalties continue to compound. In the meantime, he has been forced to sell all of his assets. He has lost everything that he has worked his whole life for, and is now facing retirement with only his residence and darned little capital. Even if the IRS could accept his recent offer he would be left with a mortgage that he will not be able to pay off in his lifetime. So as a result of these hearings we can certainly expect to hear from more constituents who realize that they are not the problem; that this problem goes way beyond them as individuals, and the problem goes way beyond them as a nation. Prior to the August recess Congress passed the Tax Relief Act of 1997. The 105th Congress has the opportunity not only to reduce the tax burden on the American public but also simplify a system that is badly in need of reform. A far less complicated tax system may help to clear up some of the IRS abuses. But simplifying the tax system, one can only think, would simplify our revenue collection system. I realize that tax collection is a thankless job. There are employees of the IRS that try to do a good job. I happen to know a few of those. They do a good job, and they do it with pride. I commend them for not letting the arrogance, uncaring attitude that we have seen emerge out of the hearings earlier this week pollute their work ethic. I want to compliment those folks who do a good job. Tax collectors have a long history of public persecution. Today my colleagues and I stand here not to tar and feather the tax collector, but to put an end to the abusive culture that has crept into the agency--this business of a situation arising and becoming a personal thing. So when they personalize things then it becomes ``me against you, and I have the power of the U.S. Government to destroy you.'' When they personalize things, that is when they get out of hand. I ask the American public, if we, who are elected, when we debate personalize everything, nobody would speak to anybody around here. Nobody. We have to bring that back into our service organizations. Basically the IRS is a service organization. They must accommodate. They must feel some compassion. And they must try to help people out of this almost bottomless abyss of trying to do the right thing for the right reason. We cannot let this abusive culture spread like a bacteria through an agency and let it live. We just cannot do that. Again, I say to my colleagues, rethink your position on a 2-year budget and 2-year appropriations because with all the hearings, as controversial as they may be in an open and free Government, oversight is still the best way to put problems on the table and deal with them. It is the only way in a free self-government that people can deal with them. I thank our secretary of the conference for setting this time aside to bring this about. And to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for this oversight because I think he has done a great service for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Employee Information Protection Act of 1997. This bill will correct a serious problem with the 1996 welfare reform law that threatens the privacy of every American. I do not know how many of my colleagues are aware of the fact that the new welfare reform law created a national new hire directory, which requires States to collect the name, address, and Social Security number of all newly hired employees and send this information to Washington, DC. This new hire directory will be housed at the Social Security Administration, under agreement with the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and the data will be checked against a registry of child support cases to detect overdue payments. Concerns with this new hire directory nearly killed the welfare reform bill in the Montana Legislature and in several other State legislatures, but folks inside the Beltway do not seem too concerned. But I am concerned, and I will tell you why. I am all for tracking down deadbeat parents and recovering overdue child support. But this new directory covers every new hire in every State and does not distinguish between deadbeats and nondeadbeats. What's more, the new law puts no limits on how long employee data may remain in the national new hire directory, and the Office of Child Support Enforcement has not developed any limits. It is especially alarming to me that in addition to the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Social Security Administration, the Treasury Department has access to the directory and the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the discretion to provide researchers access to the directory. With the revelations this week at the Finance Committee hearings of abuse of taxpayer information at the IRS, it is urgent that we take measures to protect personal information from abuse. The Employee Information Protection Act is simple--in fact it is only one sentence long, not counting the findings. That sentence reads: ``Information entered into such database shall be deleted 6 months after the date of entry.'' That is it. This 6-month limit on retention of new hire data would give the Child Support Office sufficient time to check employee data against the child support case registry and start collection efforts on the deadbeats. At the same time, it will provide some protection for the personal information of the vast majority of Americans who do not owe child support. I urge my colleagues to take a good look at this situation and if you have concerns as I do, join me in sponsoring the Employee Information Protection Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that Monday's New York Times article on the new hire directory be inserted into the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.