Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for third reading of the bill. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelly Hartline, an Appropriations Committee staff member, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this bill.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the amendment that is now under consideration has been cleared on the Democratic side, and I ask that it be accepted at this time.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this amendment will clarify the availability of what specific funding sources are available for activities under the lease of facilities at Lexington, Blue Grass Station, KY. I believe this amendment has been cleared.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I watched the news last night with a great deal of distress. Our Nation is in a situation that is intolerable with our long and faithful friend to our North. I don't quite understand the crux of the situation but I will become familiar with it and the history that has brought us to this inexcusable and terrible confrontation, that now exists on the west coast of British Columbia. I have been occupied with the death of my mother and have been somewhat out of the loop of events and the deterioration of the relationship on our west coast. I knew there were circumstances which was causing friction among the fishing fleets of both the United States and Canada. The salmon runs have been of historic proportions in our Alaskan waters but as one works to the south toward the coast of Canada and the lower west coast of the United States, the runs are not as good. A year ago, when the American-Canadian Inner-Parliamentary Meeting was held on the Alaskan coast while traveling from Prince Rupert, British Columbia, to Skagway, Alaska, there were discussions of the situation but there was no resolution. Both the Members of the Canadian Parliament and the Members of the American Congress were reluctant to dig deeper into the situation. Now we have a full-fledged crisis on our hands and it is separated from this Nation or Canada by an ocean. It is here and it is serious. Canadian subjects held an American flag ship by barricading it. That is a vessel that sails a regular schedule from Seattle to the coastal ports of Canada and Alaska. It was held along with all passengers, cargo, and United States mail aboard. I am outraged any action of this kind was allowed to exist in this hemisphere. If it were any other place on this planet, this Government and all Americans would have been outraged. No other place would this Nation allow this kind of action to happen. I was outraged when I saw the American flag burned by one, I assume, barricading the vessel. I, for one in this body, demand the Government of Canada deal with this situation and with those who would have a complete disrespect for the flag of this Nation. It is the single most powerful symbol of the free world. I would hope no citizen in this country would ever do any repulsive act to the national colors of our friends in Canada. We should not nor shall not retaliate in such fashion. We should, however, focus on this situation and get it settled as honorable nations do. I cannot believe this administration has not taken action earlier to defuse this confrontation. I live in Montana and the relationship between Alberta and Montana has been one of great respect and friendship. Yes, that relationship is strained from time to time. But, that is to be expected among neighbors. But, never has our respect for each other ever been reduced to the actions now being displayed at Port Rupert, British Columbia, as we speak. I plead with the President to get personally involved with the leaders of Canada and work it out and not let this wound fester and become uncontrollable. Our long and deep friendship with Canada is at stake and it is serious. I plan to appeal to the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate to look into this and would hope there is resolve within this body to deal with it and find a solution acceptable to Canada and the United States. I appeal to both the Foreign Relations Committee and the President. Please do not stand idly by while someone burns my flag and barricades my ship. I do not plan to take this lightly and I also appeal strongly to the leaders of Canada to take actions that would defuse the confrontation and deal harshly with those who show no respect for either their own country or the United States of America.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, due to a time commitment made by one of the speakers on the military construction bill, I ask unanimous consent at this time to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to offer may support for nomination of Joel Klein to assume the position of Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. There has been much debate here this evening over my letter to Mr. Klein dated May 15, 1997, and his subsequent letter in response dated May 20, 1997. I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my two cents. When Mr. Klein's nomination was first reported out of the Judiciary Committee, I was concerned for three primary reasons. First, I had recently read Mr. Klein's paper entitled ``Preparing for Competition in a Deregulated Telecommunications Market,'' which he presented at the Willard Inter-Continental Hotel in Washington, DC, on March 11, 1997, and his interpretation in that paper of Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 troubled me. Because I chair the Subcommittee on Communications, I felt that I could not, in good conscience, allow his nomination to move forward; consequently, I placed a hold upon his nomination and sent a letter to him asking him to explain his statements concerning 271 applications. He promptly responded with a comprehensive explanation of his statements, and, while I did not at that time nor do I now, necessarily agree with his assessment of the DoJ's role in the 271 application process, I understood the basis of his convictions. Second, in addition to the questions raised in my letter, I also telephoned him and expressed concern over what had been reported to me--both by press accounts and by a wide range of industry representatives--as a total failure on the part of the Antitrust Division to investigate allegations that Microsoft Corporation was in violation of the Consent Decree entered into with the Department of Justice on August 21, 1995. I have here one of several newspaper articles detailing these allegations and seek unanimous consent for its introduction into the Record. Subsequently, I met with Mr. Klein and he assured me that he would investigate these allegations. Finally, I had been contacted by a number of radio broadcasters who had complained that the Antitrust Division was misinterpreting the radio ownership provisions of the Telecommunications Act, but, after meeting with Mr. Klein, and discussing the issue at length, I was satisfied with his approach in this matter. Consequently, based upon both his written and verbal responses to my concerns. I am satisfied that he will be a fine Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, and I support his nomination.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee began his hearings on the alleged political campaign finance irregularities of 1996. After all that has been written and reported in the press and elsewhere, it is time. Even before these hearings, a lot of facts are already known and how much more these hearings will reveal yet has to be seen. Knowing all the roadblocks that could be posed in these hearings and these investigations, they may reveal very little, or we may be surprised at some of the findings. Nonetheless, the hearings must move forward. This body and the other body, the House of Representatives, has the unsavory duty to investigate, reveal and inform the American people. I know no one in either Chamber relishes this assignment. To some it tends to polarize, and to some it confirms what they have already known. John Quincy Adams, who returned to the House of Representatives after serving as President of the United States, in a heated debate over slavery, of which he was an ardent opponent, said, ``Duty is ours; results are God's.'' The nature of these hearings is different, especially when we talk about campaign financing. This one involves foreign entities attempting to politically infiltrate the American system. That is the concern of all Americans and in particular those of us who have taken the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States in face of foreign and domestic assault. To do otherwise is just not accepting our sworn duty and our obligation to the American people. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of ``Democracy in America,'' way back in the early 1800's, wrote that America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great. That is as true today as it was then. The alleged violations of the 1996 campaign did not start just in 1997. One must remember, back in the fall of 1996, about mid-October, when the Democratic National Committee failed to file its campaign report with the Federal Election Commission--some excuse that the accountants did not have it ready or it was not ready to go. In fact, I don't recall whether it was filed at all until the elections were over in 1996. The point is, could full disclosure be working if there were obvious irregularities? If there were, did they take the attitude, ``Why should we file?'' Were there campaign activities that could prove embarrassing right before the election? And I would ask, is that not the main purpose of the present laws, full disclosure--full and timely disclosure of campaign activities? Maybe the present law is working. Maybe, under the present law, we know what we know today. We must ponder that. The China connection has lots of us concerned. In fact, Americans should be outraged at such an allegation, let alone proof. What was going on when John Huang received top security clearance without even a background check, 5 months before he began working at the Commerce Department? Why did this person still have a security clearance when he began working at the DNC? Why did John Huang attend over 100 classified briefings, hold 95 meetings at the White House, have frequent access to the President of the United States? I want to know that. I want to know why it was allowed to happen. The American people deserve to know. And we have the duty to inform them. It is apparent that inquiry is necessary because it seems to me that this administration was willing to do whatever it took to win an election. The facts that we know now--not allegations but facts--tell us that they broke current and existing laws. Are they above the law? I don't believe so--as none of us are. They inadvertently allowed our national security to be compromised? One has to question that. So, the Governmental Affairs Committee is fulfilling a constitutional responsibility by conducting oversight to find out whether the current laws have been adhered to, of which we know some of them were not. It is their duty to discover what laws were broken, and then we can decide what can be done to improve enforcement of those laws. This is about money laundering, illegal foreign contributions and unlawful receipts of campaign funds within Federal buildings. There is credible evidence out there that indicates this administration was engaged in all of these violations. It is my hope, Mr. President, that these hearings will get all the facts out in the open for the American people. I commend Senator Thompson and committee members for assuming that responsibility. It is an awesome responsibility and one that is not taken lightly by any Member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives. It is time that we proceed to get this out in the open and let the American people judge what is right and what is wrong.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I recently added my name to the list of cosponsors of S. 224, introduced by Senator Warner, which will allow Medicare-eligible military retirees to join the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. After hearing from military retirees in Montana, I am convinced that this is a necessary step to help ensure that military retirees have access to quality health care. When military retirees turn 65, they no longer have guaranteed access to military health care. The lucky ones can get services from military treatment facilities [MTF's] on a space-available basis, but the rest do not have access to MTF's. They must rely on Medicare, which has less generous benefits, despite the commitment they received for lifetime health benefits by virtue of their service to this country. They are the only group of Federal employees to have their health benefits cut off at age 65. That's just not right. This bill offers a simple solution by allowing military retirees who are eligible for Medicare to join the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. This is a popular program which provides good benefits at a reasonable cost. It will serve military retirees well and uphold the Government's commitment to provide quality health benefits. Our military retirees deserve no less.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. As the chairman is aware, the 1990 and 1993 Budget Reconciliation Acts imposed a 2.5-cent-per-gallon and a 4.3-cent-per- gallon diesel fuel tax for deficit reduction on railroads and highway users. Beginning October 1995, 2.5 cents of the trucking industry's deficit reduction tax was directed to the Highway Trust Fund. The remaining highway 4.3 cents remained in place for deficit reduction purposes, while the rail rate was set at 5.55 cents per gallon, also effective October 1995. As a result of these acts, the freight rail industry currently pays 1.25 cents per gallon more for deficit reduction than its primary competitors.

Mr. BURNS. I greatly appreciate the time and consideration given to me by the chairman of the Finance Committee.

Mr. BURNS. Understanding the demands on the chairman, I would merely like to encourage him to address this situation in conference. If a solution can not be reached in this bill, I would encourage the chairman to give careful consideration to and to work toward a remedy of this situation in the tax title to the upcoming ISTEA reauthorization.

Mr. BURNS. While the Highway Trust Fund provides the financing for construction and maintenance of public roads and bridges used by trucks and automobiles, the railroad industry realizes no similar return on its tax payments. Railroads currently expend more than $7 billion annually in capital to build and maintain their own ``roads.'' These private rights-of-ways are subject to more than $400 million annually in local property taxes. While few Senators are more dedicated to the goal of deficit reduction than I, it seems that the burden of reducing the Federal deficit must be shared equally among competing modes of transportation. The Senate Finance Committee adopted an amendment to the chairman's Mark which would transfer the 4.3-cent-per-gallon deficit reduction tax paid by highway users to the Highway Trust Fund--minus the new half- cent tax for the Intercity Rail Trust Fund--Amtrak. Additionally, the House Ways and Means Committee transferred the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax paid by aviation users to the Aviation Trust Fund. Assuming that these amendments remain in the bills, the rail industry will be paying 5.05 cents per gallon for deficit reduction while those in competing industries will be paying nothing for deficit reduction.

Mr. BURNS. Would the esteemed chairman of the Finance Committee be willing to enter a colloquy on the rail deficit reduction fuel tax?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the majority leader. I too was opposed to the legislation approved by the committee last week, but know that we still have the opportunity to pass a meaningful bill that will allow American industry to compete with the rest of the world in the global information marketplace. I believe that we can pass a bill that will not compromise our national security or law enforcement interests. As I sat through the markup last week, it occurred to me that we had allowed the issue of encryption to be framed as the issue of child pornography or gambling. I want to be sure that all parties understand that the reform of encryption security standards is not related to these issues. I have often said that encryption is simply like putting a stamp on an envelope rather than sending a postcard because you don't want others to read your mail. Encryption is simply about people protecting their private information, about companies and governments protecting their information, from medical records to tax returns to intellectual property from unauthorized access. Hackers, espionage agents, and those just wanting to cause mischief must be restrained from access to private information over the Internet. When used correctly, encryption can enable citizens in remote locations to have access to the same information, the same technology, the same quality of health care, that citizens of our largest cities have. Perhaps most importantly, it is about ensuring that American companies have the tools they need to continue to develop and provide the leading technology in the global marketplace. Without this leadership, our national security and sovereignty will surely be threatened.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will not take long. There are some folks I would like to extend my appreciation to. In the Senate today, when we passed the income averaging for our farmers and ranchers in Montana, we fulfilled a commitment that we made to those farmers and ranchers when we passed Freedom to Farm. We are in a transition; subsidies are going away, and now we are providing a vehicle, a tool with which we can maybe ride out the good years and prepare for the bad years without too much trouble. I express my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee for their help, also the efforts made by Senator Roberts of Kansas and Senator Bumpers of Arkansas, Senator Conrad of North Dakota and Senator Bond of Missouri and Senator Hagel of Nebraska and my friend and colleague, Senator Baucus from Montana. Without help from those Senators on this issue, I am afraid we would not have been as successful as we were in justifying and trying to pass income averaging. It is very important. Who is it important to? It is important to the young farmers and ranchers just starting. We know they will have good years and we know they will have bad years right behind them due to the elements of Mother Nature, to prices of commodities raised on our farms and ranches. This allows a way to hang on and spread that income out and survive in agriculture. After all, we produce the best food, the most of it, the cheapest of any country in the world. So this is a winner for all of America, not just American agriculture. I thank you and I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Probably no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Delaware. Mr. President, no one on this floor makes his case with such passion as my friend from West Virginia. We have a couple of things in common that we will not go into here. But I also know from where he comes. And when you start talking about this issue of singling out something, then we have to look at probably the real facts. First, there is the presumption in this amendment that somehow the advertising is evil or bad, or that it wreaks health problems on the American people. There is no question in anybody's mind across this land that the abuse of alcohol is one of our greatest problems--no doubt. Yet, there is no scientific evidence that would even suggest the casual relationship between advertising and abuse. In order to get to the root of the problem of alcoholism and all of the problems that it brings, study after study after study has been made in the relationship of advertising. In fact, during the 1980's, when the advertising for alcohol products was increasing, actual consumption per capita actually was decreasing. So not only does advertising not impact abuse, it doesn't even impact the overall consumption. Singling out a product is not, I don't think, what fair tax law is about. So let's be upfront about it, because I am familiar with the broadcast industry. It has economic impacts on small business. It has economic impacts. And once we start singling out products, do we start talking about red meat, eggs, or sugar? Where do we draw the line? The impact it might have on the national pastime? We could say, ``OK, we don't need it in the broadcasting industry. We can all pay for pay-per- view''--the impact on an industry within itself. And the list goes on and on trying to explain to our constituents why different things happen and cost more, because there is a decrease in advertising support in free television. That also brings us our weather, our farm reports, our news, our emergency conditions. All of these things that are supported by free over-the-air broadcasts will be impacted if this amendment is successful. The industry has taken steps to limit or try to curb the abuse that alcohol has on a person or individual. There is no doubt about it. And in some areas some would say it is even working. I know that all of us want a tax cut. All of us want a balanced budget. But to single out and start limiting an ad tax or deductibility for legal products is not the right approach. It is not the right approach--not on a legal product. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this. It is unwarranted. I think it is unwise. And I am not real sure, it might have some constitutional overtones because advertising is still freedom of speech. It cannot be treated differently than any other form. The Senator from West Virginia makes a point. It is the abuse of the product. The advertising has very little to do with the abuse of the product. Thank you, and I urge the defeat of this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair. Earlier this evening an amendment was offered to do away with the depletion allowance on mining. It seems every year we have to go through this process really explaining what the National Mining Act is all about. Yes, we have been awfully close to coming up with some kind of agreement for reform of the act. We have been so close that everybody agreed, but one would get the feeling--although it seemed like it fell apart, I get the distinct feeling that those who would reform the act or be the reformers want the issue rather than the results. I am always reminded of John Adams when he come back to the Congress and was asked about an issue. He said duty is ours; results are reserved to God. Let us look at the intent of the Mining Act. It is as true today as it was in the days it was written. This act has been around about 120 or 125 years. I would say to anybody who lives in this country and owns property, even though it may be his private home in an urban area, the ownership of his own home, which means land ownership or property ownership, which has been one of the cornerstones of America, the building of America and the freedom of us as a people, has been the result of a land tenure act. It was a way that we moved all the lands in this United States of America into private ownership. That is what the Mining Act was all about. We have had only two, I think, maybe three, major land tenure acts. One of them was the Homestead Act, and that was a result of the Louisiana Purchase, where you were deeded 160 acres of land, and if you proved it up to be viable, then they gave you ownership of that land. And ever since then, it has changed hands many times, but it has allowed us to own property, land, and real estate. It has been the cornerstone of our economy. In mining, it was a little bit different, but yet it was a land tenure act. It was a deal struck by this Government that owned millions of acres of land telling a miner that if you go out and you find a mineral, whether it be precious metals or trace minerals or whatever, and it has value and you prove it up to be a viable enterprise, we will guarantee you the surface of that land and access to that deposit. You invest your money, and if there is nothing there, we do not as a government owe you anything and you can go merrily on the way, and the land belongs and stays in the ownership of the Government of the United States of America. I think I would be laughed out of this building if I went down to appropriations and said I have a government agency that wants to explore for silver or gold or platinum or palladium or anything else and asked for an appropriation of $20 million to explore and to prove up a claim. That is risking a lot of taxpayers' money. I would be told, why, this is the craziest thing we have ever heard. Taxpayers didn't give us the money for such a cockamamy idea of going out and exploring for that mineral. So what did we do? We struck a deal. You invest, Mr. Miner, your money, your time, your equipment. If you find it, that's good. If you do not, then the Government is not out anything. But we guaranteed access and we guaranteed surface rights if a mineral or precious metal was found. The National Mining Act was never an environmental act. It does not exempt mining companies from the environmental laws that are in place both by the State and the Federal Government. They are not exempt of that--clean air, clean water. They are required to reclaim it after the mine has been mined out. All it was, was to guarantee Americans access to a precious metal or mineral. Yet, those who would want to change it say that is no longer important. We could have settled on royalties, could have settled on land price, could have settled on all of that. But the reformers refused to accept it. So I say, before we do too much changing, let's really understand what the law is all about, because it works today as it did whenever the law was made the law of the land. It seems like there are a lot of folks who do not understand that. They did not understand the Homestead Act either. This country eats, provides food for its families, cheaper than any other society in the world as a percentage of your paycheck going solely for food for your family. That was done because American agriculture owns the land. It is their farm. They make it produce. It is as competitive as selling shoes or watermelons. It does not make any difference. But all of that was the result of a land tenure act called the Homestead Act. Why do we have to turn around and explain this every time this issue comes up? Yet, there are those who would like to twist and turn and not really represent the act for what it really is and why it was designed that way. They say gold miners get rich on gold. Where is it used, for jewelry? No, not really. We wouldn't even have a space program if we didn't have gold and silver, because there is as much of it used in electronics as there is in jewelry. The only platinum or palladium mine is found in Montana. It is the only one in this country. It is one of three in the whole world. If you didn't have palladium, you wouldn't have catalytic converters to protect our air. Yet, there would be those who would say maybe it is not a necessity--until we look at the manufacturing and our science and our technologies, of what these trace minerals and these other minerals are really worth to this country. Do we want to get as dependent on our precious metals and minerals as we are on oil? We are almost 51 percent dependent on oil from offshore. Is that energy policy? Does that give us energy security? I don't think so. So we have to be very, very cautious whenever we start talking about a subject and a law that a lot of people say, ``Well, they're ripping off the Government.'' What's just the opposite is true. Because that mine provides jobs; it provides a tax base in many counties. In the West, that is the only thing they have. It provides public safety and roads and schools. It is the backbone of that county's economy. Yet, there are those who say tourism is growing and it is taking over and we don't need mining anymore. I don't know of anybody who wants to stand around and flip hamburgers for $4.25 an hour, or whatever it is, when you could probably get a better job producing something, producing wealth for this country. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Those of us who come out of, let's say, natural resources or agriculture, I guess we look at it a little bit different. But you look at it different when you come up through those ranks, as some of us in this room have done, including the Presiding Officer who is in the chair tonight. It doesn't hurt to have a little dirt under your fingernails so you understand what makes things go in this country. All new wealth, all new wealth produced in this country comes from either the renewable resource of the Earth and, sometimes, some of it from the finite resources that are found in this Earth. That is where new wealth is produced. It is produced nowhere else. Every one of us chase the dollar around. But, especially in the renewables, that is the real worth of a nation. And those renewables were produced on private land ownership where people took care of it, managed their resources and made a community and a State and a nation grow. So, when we start talking about the national mining act and how it should be changed, let's be very cautious and remember why it was passed in the first place. Why it was passed in the first place--mining is very, very risky. I can't go to Appropriations and appropriate money just to go out and scratch around the hills and try to find a gold nugget, because it just will not happen. So I will oppose the Bumpers amendment tomorrow. I think there will be a point of order raised on it anyway. But, nonetheless, let's not forget just exactly the reason the mining act was passed and why it works today, just like it did when it was passed 120 years ago. Mr. President, I yield the floor. electric utility industry

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That is exactly right.

Mr. BURNS. I want to do it tonight.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer, but I am not going to require any time. I can do mine in the morning, and after you look at it, it may be acceptable.