Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, what is the order of business?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the balanced budget amendment, the constitutional amendment. I think it is properly named Senate Joint Resolution 1 because it is one of the most important acts that this Congress, I think anyway, will achieve. My home State of Montana has had that balanced budget amendment law since its inception when it joined the Union in 1889. So, living with fiscal prudence has always been our way of life. Even though there are times when we strayed from this, and had our ups and downs, we always produced a little bit of a surplus, which we had this last time, and the State returned it to the taxpayers. The Federal Government could learn a lot just looking at the example of the States. For example, according to the Congressional Budget Office, if we do not pass this legislation and we stay with the present trend, it has been pointed out that the deficit will be over 2\1/2\ times in 10 years what it was in the year of 1996. Using CBO's numbers, our national debt will rise from $3.7 trillion to over $6 trillion by the year 2007. Every day that goes by without a balanced budget is another step closer to financial calamity for the United States. Around 40 cents of every tax dollar you send to us goes to pay the interest on the national debt, $344 billion last year alone. That is as much as we have spent on law enforcement, education, environment, energy, transportation, agriculture, and technology combined. I guess in order to understand what we are doing here you have to boil it down to where the average American family can make sense of it and how it relates to them. Over the life of a 30-year mortgage on a $75,000 home, it means a savings of around $71,000; savings of $1,000 on the life of a 4-year loan on an automobile worth $15,000; savings of $1,800 over the life of a 10-year student loan at $11,000. By the way, I am experiencing some of that, and that means quite a lot to this Senator. The grand total of all the savings of these loans will be around $74,000 over the lifetime. I think that is something that we cannot just overlook or ignore as a consumer. A small State like Montana--we are small businesses, ranching, farming--uses these savings to expand our businesses, thus expanding the economy of Montana. That is one thing that we have to do in this country. We have to continually expand the economy. If you want to do something for people to ensure jobs, job opportunity, and work opportunity, we cannot stand at the same trough and at the same side of the pie. We have to grow the pie. In the legislative branch we have to enact this amendment because it seems that we can't rely on the current administration to furnish or enact policies that will provide for further deficit-reduction measures. Sometimes we can't even do it ourselves. The President vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which would have led to a balanced budget by the year 2002. All told, this year the omnibus appropriations for fiscal year 1997 added back $70 billion of Federal spending because of pressure from the White House. Finally, the President has publicly stated that he would like to see the legislation fail. In fact, the President, Secretary Rubin, and Members of this Chamber have been working overtime to ensure that this amendment does not pass. What is wrong with passing an amendment, sending it to the States, and letting the States decide, getting closer to the people? Unfortunately, some of these individuals have been trying to undermine the balanced budget constitutional amendment by suggesting that if we include Social Security in the equation, this would cause future harm to the Social Security trust fund and thereby the next generation of seniors. I would like to state flatly that that is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do here. We are trying to save and strengthen Social Security. The President has even admitted that no one could balance the budget without the Social Security funds. The President said that. This is a false argument. It is a risky gimmick that causes undue anxiety among our people. So my fellow Members believe that Social Security will have to fight it out with other programs if tied to the amendment. This is not the case. Money has already been allocated, and it will remain in these trust funds. We should not be needlessly scaring people into believing that their futures are uncertain. We would never cut Social Security to balance this budget. So it is a risky business whenever you start talking about setting the Social Security trust fund off to the side and not being included in the budget process. If you do not include Social Security in this amendment, our deficit will immediately increase by an additional $465 billion during fiscal year 1998 through the year 2002, and by another $602 billion during fiscal year 2003 to the year 2007, for a total of $l.067 trillion over a 10-year period. Excluding this provision will actually make it more difficult to choose which programs will stay and which will be cut away. So why would anybody suggest anything different? As we know, the balanced budget constitutional amendment will force lawmakers to make some tough decisions. That is the way it should be. We have always lived in a life of priorities. If we are to save our Nation from future heavy debt and uncertainty, hopefully we will follow the course of what the States do every day. We would hope at least to have a surplus. I come out of county government. We maintain surpluses in every line item. We always maintain reserves. There is a reason for that because of the tax collection. It makes you maintain reserves. It is prudent to do it. Nobody knows what the future holds. The American people look to us to provide those funds in the event of emergencies. You cannot do it without maintaining reserves. So I maintain that to keep safe and secure the future programs like those which are meant to protect our senior citizens and our children, that we have to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It just makes good sense. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which would establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Court of Appeals. This commission would study the present division of the United States into the several judicial circuits, study the structure and alignment of the Federal Court of Appeals system, with particular reference to the ninth circuit, and report recommendations to the President and Congress on appropriate changes in circuit boundaries or structure for the expeditious and effective disposition of the caseload of the Federal Court of Appeals, consistent with fundamental conceptions of fairness and due process. As you may know, I have cosponsored legislation in the past that would have split the ninth circuit. I have not altered my opinion of the need for this, however, it seems that some of my colleagues need a little bit more convincing. That is why I believe having a well-formed commission, which examines this issue closely and delivers a nonpolitical response, will dispel the doubts that my colleagues have about a split. I believe that the commission will begin to answer some of the concerns that Montanans have voiced that they are not obtaining the same level of judicial consideration as others in the ninth circuit. Considering the size of the district, I have the same doubts. The ninth circuit is now comprised not only of Montana, but also, Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, the Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. That's nine States and two principalities. The ninth circuit is about twice the size of the next largest circuit, both in population and geography. Its caseload is among the fastest growing in the Nation, and the time to complete an average appeal, more than 14 months, is more than 4 months longer than the national average. Its 28 judges are about twice the recommended number for an appellate circuit. Any objective view of the ninth circuit is a case study in the phrase ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' I am optimistic that a commission that studies the ninth will come to the same conclusion: This body will acknowledge this travesty and finally move for justice for all.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which would establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Court of Appeals. This commission would study the present division of the United States into the several judicial circuits, study the structure and alignment of the Federal Court of Appeals system, with particular reference to the ninth circuit, and report recommendations to the President and Congress on appropriate changes in circuit boundaries or structure for the expeditious and effective disposition of the caseload of the Federal Court of Appeals, consistent with fundamental conceptions of fairness and due process. As you may know, I have cosponsored legislation in the past that would have split the ninth circuit. I have not altered my opinion of the need for this, however, it seems that some of my colleagues need a little bit more convincing. That is why I believe having a well-formed commission, which examines this issue closely and delivers a nonpolitical response, will dispel the doubts that my colleagues have about a split. I believe that the commission will begin to answer some of the concerns that Montanans have voiced that they are not obtaining the same level of judicial consideration as others in the ninth circuit. Considering the size of the district, I have the same doubts. The ninth circuit is now comprised not only of Montana, but also, Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, the Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. That's nine States and two principalities. The ninth circuit is about twice the size of the next largest circuit, both in population and geography. Its caseload is among the fastest growing in the Nation, and the time to complete an average appeal, more than 14 months, is more than 4 months longer than the national average. Its 28 judges are about twice the recommended number for an appellate circuit. Any objective view of the ninth circuit is a case study in the phrase ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' I am optimistic that a commission that studies the ninth will come to the same conclusion: This body will acknowledge this travesty and finally move for justice for all.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. At 12:30 the Senate will recess until 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes after the conferences, the majority leader would expect an additional period for morning business to accommodate a number of Senators who would like to speak this afternoon. As for the schedule for the remainder of the week, the majority leader understands that the Banking Committee will be taking action today on the nomination of Andrew Cuomo to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. It is his hope that the full Senate will consider this nomination either today or tomorrow. The majority leader will notify all colleagues accordingly when that becomes scheduled. It is also the majority leader's hope that this week the Senate will consider the nomination of William Daley to be Secretary of Commerce. It is believed the Commerce Committee will finish their work on that nomination tomorrow, Wednesday. Therefore the Senate may act on Mr. Daley on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Once again, Senators should expect rollcall votes on these important nominations this week. The majority leader thanks all Members in advance for their cooperation. Mr. President, as we go into morning business, I yield to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today there will be a period for morning business until 12:30, with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Lott or his designee 30 minutes; Senator Daschle or his designee, 60 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the time previously allocated to Senator Collins be vitiated and that Senator Bond have 20 minutes under his control during the morning business period.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I rise today in support of the nomination of Madeleine Albright, our Ambassador to the United Nations, to be Secretary of State. As we all know, the Ambassador is a highly intelligent woman with a solid history in foreign affairs. We have just completed visits to countries where we have a very high investment in military, and let me tell my colleagues in the Senate that we still live in a pretty tough world. Our challenges are still there. Not only does she bring to her position experience from academia but also the administrative arm of our Government and the legislative side. So I am certain that she knows how this process works. Based on that knowledge, I think she knows how to work with this Congress and forms a solid foundation of trust and openness that is required of all of us. Considering Secretary Christopher's introduction at the Foreign Relations Committee hearing and Ambassador Albright's testimony in which she stated, ``I can assure you that I am going to tell it like it is here and also when I go abroad,'' I am hopeful that her relationship with the Congress will be an open one and an honest one. By her frankness, however, there are issues which concern those of us who live in the State of Montana. We may disagree with the Ambassador in some areas. Although she has promised that ``one of the major goals of this administration is to make sure that the American economic lifeline is protected,'' the Ambassador has also stated she is supportive of the fast track provision to include Chile into the North American Free Trade Agreement. Treaties like NAFTA have not exactly been a windfall for my State of Montana. And the mere suggestion of expanding it does not sit well when you have been impacted like we have, being a border State. As legislators and leaders, we must ensure that free and fair trade is part of any treaty, and if it is not, then those treaties or agreements should not even be considered. I hope the Ambassador will remember this vital element when negotiating as a U.S. representative around the world. Also, in the past, I have had great concerns about what I have perceived as her overly enthusiastic willingness to use American troops abroad just from some of the statements she has made. I see she did in her testimony give a statement that would raise our comfort level a little more, and I think that statement is good enough for me. I have always believed that the United States should never forget that sending our troops into dangerous situations should only be done when our national security is in jeopardy. Ambassador Albright seems to understand the gravity of this concept, and I am now assured that she will not take such action when policies face that kind of situation. Based on that, and I know we are squeezed for time and there are many statements to be made about this wonderful lady, I hope that my colleagues will support her to be confirmed in this nomination. I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I yield the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, until the leader takes the floor of the U.S. Senate, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am concerned that the FCC's implementation of the Interconnection provision--the FCC's order implementing this provision is 932 pages and contains some 4,062 footnotes--has alienated virtually all of the State regulators, and it has generated a massive appeal to the courts by the local exchange companies--this represents about three-quarters of the entire industry. Thus, the balanced, consensus approach that Congress achieved has, apparently, been set aside, and now, unfortunately, we are seeing these issues before the courts. Mr. President, this situation is not good for anyone. Confusion, industry strife, and massive court filings don't facilitate the construction of the information superhighway. Because I believe that the U.S. competitiveness in the global information economy will be dependent upon how quickly we upgrade our communications networks, it is absolutely essential that the FCC not adopt implementation policies that frustrate the timely deployment of information and communications infrastructure. I encourage the FCC to go back to the legislation that we passed and to follow the roadmap that Congress outlined. That roadmap calls for, first, encouraging private sector negotiations, and, second, relying upon the State commissions to arbitrate solutions to the problems that private parties cannot work out. The FCC is responsible for overseeing this process but should not try to take over the process by rehashing all the issues that Congress resolved in the enactment of this act. It needs to implement Congress' blueprint in a balanced, consensus fashion, so that the communications industry can begin the important job of bringing new services, new options, and new technologies to the American public. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 2, 1996] How Bureaucrats Rewrite Laws (By John J. DiIulio Jr.) As the historic 104th Congress draws to a close, scholars have already begun to debate its legislative record. Some stress that the first Republican Congress in four decades enacted fewer major laws than any Congress since the end of World War II. Others respond that it was only natural that a new conservative Congress committed to restraining the post- New Deal rise of national government activism would pass fewer big-government bills. Likewise, while some interpret President Clinton's bright re-election prospects as a negative referendum on the GOP-led House and Senate, other focus on how Republicans ended up setting the agenda on everything from balancing the budget to welfare reform. For at least two reasons, however, both sides in this early war over the 104th history are firing intellectual blanks. One reason is that it is not yet clear how much of the legislation will stick politically. For example, Mr. Clinton has made plain that, if reelected, he plans to ``fix'' the new welfare law. And should the House fall to the Democrats, ultraliberal committee chairmen will move quickly to undo much of what the Republicans did legislatively on welfare, crime, immigration and more. The other and more fundamental reason is that, no matter what happens in November, it is by no means certain that the laws passed by the Republican Congress over the last two years will survive administratively. bureaucratic wars Victories won on the legislative battlefield are routinely lost in the fog of bureaucratic wars over what the laws mean and how best to implement them. One of many recent examples is how the Federal Communications Commission has already virtually rewritten the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On Feb. 8, President Clinton signed the first major rewrite of telecommunications law in 62 years. To many observers, the act represented the culmination of a series of political and judicial decisions that began in 1974 when the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against AT&T, leading to a breakup of the old telephone monopoly and the creation in 1984 of the seven regional ``Baby Bells.'' The bill- signing ceremony, the first ever held at the Library of Congress, was draped in symbolism. The president signed the bill with a digital pen that put his signature on the Internet. On a TV screen, Comedian Lily Tomlin played her classic telephone company operator Ernestine, opening her skit with ``one gigabyte'' instead of ``one ringle- dinglie.'' During the debate over the bill and for weeks after its enactment, the press played up the law's social-policy side- shows, like the requirement that most new television sets contain a ``V-chip'' enabling parents to lock out programs deemed inappropriate for children. But its true significance lay in removing barriers to competition in the telecommunications industry, and devolving responsibility for remaining regulation to the states. While its language is often technical, you need not be a telecom junkie to understand the letter of the law or the record of floor debates in Congress. For example, Sections 251 and 252 of the law promote competition in local telephone markets, expressly giving state commissions authority to decide, via a strictly localized, case-specific process, what constitutes ``just and reasonable'' rates. It affords the FCC no role whatsoever in setting local exchange prices: ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to . . . charges, classifications, practices, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service.'' The law's devolutionary language and deregulatory intent was so clear that groups such as the National Council of Governors' Advisors quickly produced reports advising key state and local decision makers to prepare for ``telewars in the states.'' Soon, one NCGA report on the law explained, ``governors' offices, state legislatures and state public utility commissioners will be drawn into state debates on how to ensure a `level playing field for competition' among those firms seeking to provide local and intrastate telephone service.'' The major battles, the NCGA predicted, would be over the terms of price and interconnection agreements. Telephone company rivals could be expected to lobby governors, utility commissions and state legislatures in search of allies. But within six months of the law's enactment, the FCC declared a victor in the ``telewars in the states''--namely, itself. The commission produced a 600-page document promulgating presumptive national pricing standards in local telephone markets. The FCC insists that the order is necessary to pry open local markets to long-distance carriers like AT&T, small firms like Teleport, and cable and wireless companies. Otherwise, the commission asserts, incumbent local carriers like the Regional Bell Operating Companies will remain invulnerable to real competition as potential entrants to intrastate markets are forced to contend with 50 different, localized state regulatory regimes. But the FCC's rushed, revanchist rewrite of the telecommunications law is based on a hypothetical pricing scheme that only an armchair economist could love. In its hundreds of pages of national regulatory dictates, the FCC almost completely ignores the actual costs that local companies incurred to create the system, and the regional and other variation in how they operate. On Aug. 28, GTE Corp. and Southern New England Telephone Co. jointly challenged the FCC in court, arguing that the FCC's order constitutes an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment by requiring them to sell their services at below actual costs. The order, they claim, would almost certainly enervate competition by permitting long-distance giants like AT&T to buy up local phone networks at huge discounts--an ironic potential outcome indeed given how all this began in 1974. Moreover, not only giants like AT&T but fly-by-night arbitrage artists could enrich themselves at the expense of consumers on the spread between actual operating costs and the prices set by the FCC. In response to the suit, a federal appeals court ordered a temporary stay of the FCC regulations and will hear oral arguments in the case tomorrow. At a recent press conference, GTE's senior vice president and general counsel, former U.S. Attorney General William F. Barr, demanded to know why the FCC believes that it is better at making decisions ``for 50 states than the state commissions are, who have done this historically, who have all the data that are relevant to the state before them.'' A Mockery But whether or not the FCC is wiser than the states, but regardless of who is right about the economics of the case, the FCC bureaucrats' order mocks key provisions of a democratically enacted law. The FCC's action is at odds not only with the textbook understanding of ``how a bill becomes law,'' but the first principles of limited government and American constitutionalism. The FCC's action should serve to remind us that the devolution and deregulation of federal authority are always in the administrative details. On telecommunications, welfare, and almost every other major issue, big government is the administrative state in which judges and unelected officials, and not the elected representatives who debate and enact the laws, govern us all.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment today to offer some observations on the FCC's recent attempts to implement the important Telecommunications Act that we passed during the 104th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that my comments appear as if presented in morning business. As we all know, prior to the 104th Congress, we had been debating communications issues for almost 20 years with little forward progress. During the 104th, the chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senator Larry Pressler, hammered out a balanced, bipartisan piece of legislation that addressed the extremely technical and controversial issues raised in deregulating the broadcasting and communications industries. When we all gathered in the Library of Congress on February 8, 1996, to witness the signing of this historic legislation into law, I think pretty much all of us were proud of our collective accomplishment. We hoped and expected that our efforts would produce new services, new competitive options, new jobs and investment, and a competitive marketplace. However, recently, I have been watching the highly controversial efforts of the FCC at it has worked to implement this new law. And, as Yogi Berra once said, it's starting to look like deja vu all over again. Congress hammered out a consensus blueprint--one that was fair and balanced, and one that all the various industries signed onto. That process took a lot of work; in fact, the Senate-House conference took over 4 months. However, I am concerned with the manner in which the FCC has gone about implementing this bill. In fact, yesterday's Wall Street Journal contained an article which identified many of the problems arising from the FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. On behalf of some Members on this side of the aisle, we object.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2187, which was introduced earlier today by Senator Brown.

Mr. BURNS. We withdraw it. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Montana's favorite citizens, who died last Friday. Some will remember his name and some will remember his presence in these halls of Congress. Judge James Franklin Battin left a legacy of service to this Nation and to our State of Montana, and to everyone who came in contact with him. He was 71 years old. He died of cancer at his home in Billings, MT. He is survived by his wife Barbara, two daughters, and a son who is now serving as a member of the California State legislature. The judge was born February 13, 1925, in Wichita, KS, and was a personal friend to former Senator and now Presidential candidate Bob Dole, of Kansas. Both of them being born in Kansas, we can see why. But he moved with his family to Billings in 1929. The life story of ``Big'' Jim Battin reads like the life story of this great United States. There are stories like this one all over America, but they are not told or given their proper space in American lore. When this Nation called during its great time of need and peril in World War II, he answered. He served in the U.S. Navy, earned two battle stars at Saipan and Okinawa. He also answered the call to serve the people of eastern Montana, and represented them and America in the House of Representatives from 1961 until President Nixon appointed him Federal district judge in 1970. Everyone who knew him here as a Congressman had great respect for him. He was known for his vision, his wisdom, and a quick wit. More important, he was known for his integrity: His word was his bond. All these great characteristics he carried over in his work on the bench and the important decisions he made every day that affected peoples' lives. To Jim Battin, all people had faces. I know of no one who ever met or dealt with Big Jim who had the feeling that he did not care, this tall Congressman from Montana, who had a heart as big as the sky and as big as the State he represented. From a personal standpoint, I feel a great loss. He was one that I went to when I was confronted with problems arising out of Washington. Who better to go to, than a man who was held in high esteem here? No matter how busy his schedule, he always took the time, and we would visit. So, I have lost a great friend, adviser, and teacher. There is one other thing, though, I will not miss--his great negotiating ability on the first tee. He loved the game of golf, and he played it with great passion. We do not say goodbye very often in our country; we just say, ``So long.'' Even though our trails will part now, they will cross again someday. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Will the chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee yield for question?

Mr. BURNS. I would like to commend the committee for funding the replacement facility at Lame Deer, MT. The Lame Deer health care facility was totally destroyed by fire last May. In these times of fiscal constraint, we were fortunate to be able to fund this much needed replacement facility. Mr. President, I would like to clarify how the $13,500,000 cost was calculated. In order to hold down costs, the Indian Health Service was able to use an existing design that can be used as the basis for construction of the replacement facility. Without this design and without the IHS undertaking the construction of this project, more than $2 million in additional funds would have been required.

Mr. BURNS. As the Chairman knows, I have been pursuing for a number of years funding for the Indians Into Psychology program. This program helps train Native Americans in the field of clinical psychology and has a service requirement that those who receive this training must work on the reservations. As the chairman knows, mental illness problems among native Americans are pervasive and devastating, and there is great need for native Americans trained in the field of psychology to work on the reservations. The chairman included $500,000 for this program, or a $300,000 increase over last year's levels in the Senate bill as reported by the committee. This is a modest increase for a very important program and would permit a second program site to be established. I understand that the full $300,000 increase has been eliminated by the conference action. Is that correct?

Mr. BURNS. I understand that the chairman concurs with me that this is an important program. Would the chairman join me and urge the Department and the Indian Health Service in identifying a reprogramming of funds to provide some level of increase for this program in order to permit the initiation of a second program site to be awarded competitively?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am happy to report today that the Senate is ready to pass legislation, H.R. 2779, designed to protect American businesses, American jobs, and the American taxpayers by providing for the appropriate implementation of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in Federal construction projects. I was pleased both to introduce the Senate version of this measure, S. 1386, last fall along with my colleague Senator Shelby, and to lead the effort in the Senate to obtain bipartisan approval here. This legislation restores a degree of sensibility and sanity to the manner in which this country gradually converts to the metric system. It is good for small business. Bright and forward-thinking people have told me they believe the metric system is the future of this country. I will take them at their word. But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is a right way and a wrong way to bring about metric conversion. The right way is to work cooperatively with everyone who will be affected by metric conversion. The right way is to convert without unduly burdening businesses, without losing markets for U.S. firms, without forcing the taxpayers to pay a metric premium when Federal agencies procure metric products that are specialty items, not off-the shelf commercial items. The wrong way is to do precisely the opposite, which, unfortunately, has been happening. The 1988 Trade bill contained language which established the metric system as the preferred system of measurement for the United States. Why was the language on the trade bill? The rationale was that it would improve the ability of American companies to export goods to metric- based countries if American firms could be moved to produce those goods in metric versions. The principal tool for urging American companies to switch to the metric system is to use Government procurement policy. The trade bill includes language, ``to require that each Federal agency, by a date certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its procurement, grants, and other business-related activities . . .'' This legislation is being passed today because some Federal agencies responsible for implementing the metric policy either forgot to read or are completely ignoring the remainder of the above sentence: ``. . . except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms, such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in non-metric units . . .'' Congress never intended for the switch to metrication to be forced at any cost or without regard to its impact on people, small business, or industry. This legislation insures that the Federal construction procurement policy will no longer ignore this important language which, in turn, can cause staggering problems for some industries. We also need to keep in mind at the outset that metrication policy is rapidly running into conflict with other Government policies calling for the use of commercial products widely available in the private sector. Federal contracting personnel need to closely review procurement law developments such as the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act [FASA] to ensure that, in their fervor to bring about metrication through Federal procurement, they are not inadvertently violating key elements of procurement laws and policies designed to promote the use of widely available commercial products and maximum access to the commercial market place. Let me briefly describe some of the finer points of the legislation, and send a very clear signal to the agencies as to how the law is to be interpreted and applied. Agencies have begun to hide behind metric law to maintain Government unique specifications and the internal support staff needed to maintain the Government unique specifications. At the same time, Government procurement laws and procedures have been streamlined to require agencies to buy commercial items. In addition, some advocates were pushing the use of metrics without consideration of costs and industry impact, as required by the 1988 amendments. This substitution amendment to H.R. 2779 clearly states that procurement laws favoring commercial off-the-shelf items will be applied and certainly will not be overridden or avoided by the application of the metric law and policy. Where there is conflict between the two, procurement laws favoring commercial off-the-shelf items customarily used by the private sector will take precedence. This allows an orderly transition to items built in hard-metric configuration, when those items meet the economic and quality specifications of the commercial marketplace. FASA requires agencies to conduct preliminary market research to make sure they can obtain commercial items. This amendment to H.R. 2779 says the results of that market research must be used to determine which design method is suitable to ensure that the design will accommodate commercial items. It would make no sense whatsoever for an agency to design a building requiring hard-metric components after it has learned that hard-metric construction items that meet the definitional requirements in this amendment for commercial items are not available. Consistent with FASA, my legislation requires that agencies determine early in the process whether hard-metric or soft- metric building materials are available. Even in a metric building, the design must accommodate non-hard-metric items if hard-metric versions of those products are not available as commercial, off-the-shelf, items. Hard-metrication for two classes of construction products has been particularly controversial: concrete masonry units [CMU] and lighting fixtures. The problems these industries are facing are well documented so I will not recount them here. The treatment for both classes is virtually identical, except that there is an extra criterion relating to voluntary industry consensus standards that would be inappropriate to apply with CMU. This legislation allows agencies to use the metric system of measurement but they may not incorporate specifications that can only be satisfied by hard-metric versions of these products in solicitations for design and construction of Federal facilities unless certain criteria are met. One of the chief problems we are remedying in this amendment is that agencies have been using hard-metric specifications for CMU and recessed lighting fixtures to greatly hinder or eliminate offerors of soft-metric versions of these products from the opportunity to win contracts by rendering them nonresponsive because solely hard-metric versions have been specified. To address the problem of these two industries, the amendment specifically requires a determination by an agency head if the agency requires a contractor to design or build to hard metric specifications for CMU and lighting fixtures. In the provisions directly addressing CMU and recessed lighting fixtures, an agency solicitation ``may not incorporate specifications that can only be satisfied by hard-metric versions''. Congress' intent is that an agency can solicit offers in hard-metric, soft-metric or English standards but if it limits offers to hard-metric, the agency head must make a determination using the procedures laid out in sections (b) and (c) of this amendment to H.R. 2779. This language does not allow agencies to incorporate hard-metric specifications in a piecemeal manner to justify and specify hard-metric CMU and lighting fixtures in an entire project. In other words, a partial hard-metric specification may not be used to justify a hard- metric requirement for an entire project. Even in those cases where agencies might be allowed to use a hard- metric design and hard-metric products after the full and appropriate application of this act, we would encourage the agencies to use value- engineering principles, which have the full support of Congress, to use soft-metric products where possible to reduce the costs to the taxpayers and incur all the benefits of the value-engineering concept. Regarding the criterion that the application requires hard-metric CMU or lighting fixtures to coordinate dimensionally into 100-millimeter building modules, I would reiterate that the preliminary market research should decide the design method, and the design method would have a very large impact on whether a 100-millimeter module is necessary or even allowable to comport with soft-metric versions of either of these products. It is quite possible that it might be a rare event that such a module would be required. The term ``required'' in this criterion means that an agency must use the 100-millimeter module to avoid otherwise not resolvable technical problems, and that other reasonable, low-cost or low-effort minor adjustments or solutions are unavailable. In other words, a bona fide requirement for a 100- millimeter module based on technical necessity is implied as a requirement for this criterion to be satisfied. I would call attention to the criterion that states the total installed price of hard-metric CMU and lighting fixtures must cost less than the non-hard-metric versions. Estimates shall be prepared using pricing data or price analyses with data from similar projects as defined in the Truth in Negotiations Act. Estimates should be prepared very carefully with a strong emphasis on using pricing data and price analysis on actual projects in being where actual costs to the taxpayers can be obtained and compared. The most recent data available to provide the most accurate estimate possible should be sought; the emphasis is on the actual pricing that the Government pays. Because the method and information used are the basis for determining what the Government will buy, Congress expects ombudsmen, the GAO, and others to scrutinize these factors carefully if complaints are received relating to price estimates. Agency personnel who conduct estimates for this subsection should retain a detailed record of factors affecting their decisions and be prepared to provide such documentation. The designation of agency ombudsman is a reflection that either no appeals method to review actions of agency metrication decision exists, or if it does exist, it doesn't work. The CMU and lighting fixture industries have been working for years to persuade a change in Federal policy on metrication, to no avail. The key points to make about the ombudsman is that this person should be sufficiently highly placed in an agency so as to have agencywide authority, and sufficient resources to be able to quickly communicate the resolutions of complaints throughout the agency. A suitable ombudsman will be sufficiently insulated from the contracting process to remain objective. In order to effectively analyze complaints, the ombudsmen must maintain knowledge of both metrication and procurement laws, as the top-level business- related activities of the agency. The ombudsmen should act aggressively, quickly and affirmatively to deal with complaints. They should thoroughly examine the documentary record, especially with regard to cost estimates. The CMU and lighting fixtures industries may avail themselves of the ombudsman if necessary at any time prior to the expiration of this act. It is expected that ombudsmen will genuinely review the actions of the contracting personnel which are the subject of complaints. Ombudsmen should endeavor to recommend agency-wide solutions in cases where it is readily apparent that the conditions giving rise to complaints are not localized or could be repeated. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks as to specific provisions in this legislation. I urge agency contracting personnel to understand the spirit as well as the letter of legislation and I hope that they will adhere to both equally. Mr. President, without objection, I would like to submit newspaper articles that further chronicle the details of the problem that brings us to the Senate floor today to be printed in the Record. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to thank my very good friends for their help and very responsive assistance in developing improvements to the bill and moving it quickly for the benefit of many American businesses, workers and taxpayers. Senator Richard Shelby was an original co-sponsor of S.1386. Senator Larry Pressler has always shown tireless leadership in standing up for the concerns of everyday people on this issue, and I thank him for his support. Many thanks go to my Senate colleagues on both the Governmental Affairs and the Commerce Committees, especially Senators Ted Stevens and John Glenn for their indispensable expertise on procurement issues, and Senator Ernest Hollings for his contributions to the bill in time for final passage. Not only have my colleagues contributed their support, but their very fine staffs including Timothy Kyger, Patrick Windham, Mark Forman, John Pettit, Debbie Cohen Lehrich and Sebastian O'Kelley have worked hard in support of this effort and should be acknowledged. Mark Forman with the Governmental Affairs Committee staff proved to be an invaluable source of procurement law and technical knowledge of FASA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we are down to sort of the short rows, I guess, of the 104th Congress. We will be saying farewell to about 14 of our colleagues who have chosen to retire from the U.S. Senate, having given a good many years and a good amount of their talents to this country and to this body and, of course, to their constituencies in their respective States. I have fond memories of every one of them, as I came in 1989 and have been doing business with all of these folks with a great deal of pleasure. But it has not been all pleasure. There has been some bitter with the good. But nonetheless, that is life and that is the legislative process. That is the way it is supposed to be. I can remember my first speech on the floor of the Senate when I was standing in the Senators' lobby right behind the Senate, and I was a little bit nervous about my first time. Senator Simpson of Wyoming, my friend to the south, walked by me and said, ``You don't look very good. In fact, you look a little green around the gills and a little pale.'' I told him, ``You know, I've been in the auction business a long time and the public speaking business a long time, and this is the first time I think I've ever really known a little bit of fear.'' I was apologetic for that. I remember his answer was, ``If you weren't a little bit afraid, we'd be worried about you.'' He has been a great teacher, Senator Simpson. I cannot imagine this U.S. Senate without his presence, without his wit, without his humor, without his approach not only to the legislative process, but his approach to life, because I can remember when we used to have the old off-the-record days and the dialogue between the press and this body, and especially with him and his wife Ann and his family. We will miss them in the Washington scene. Senator Heflin is going back to Alabama--the judge, we call him--who has been a teacher to me on the Energy Committee, facing some of the same kinds of problems in our respective States, even though he comes from the Southeast and I from the West. Senator Kassebaum. Nancy will go home to Kansas. Kind, thoughtful, I did not always agree with everything she espoused, and she with me, but nonetheless I will miss her. Senator Simon from Illinois we will miss, with his voice, very distinctive voice in this body. But I think we will also miss the pragmatic way he confronted life in this body and what he could do. He will go home to southern Illinois, and we will miss him. Senator Pell and his longtime association with foreign policy. I can remember as a young man traveling for the American Polled Hereford Association, and I had the opportunity to travel to the Pacific Northwest, to Washington and Oregon. I can remember when I went to Oregon, Mark Hatfield was Governor of that State. I deemed it a great, high honor to serve with him in his capacity both in Energy and Appropriations here, and I thought he was an outstanding Governor of the State of Oregon. Sam Nunn will be missed. He is the leveling effect on the Armed Services Committee. We have had great shifts ever since the Wall came down in this historic time that he chaired that committee, and also as the ranking member in the last 2 years. But nonetheless, he was the chair when the Wall came down with a tremendous change, a tremendous shift in power, in world politics and in world military might. It happened on his wave. While I was concerned about this Russian situation, can they feed themselves; he was concerned, can they take care of all of the bumps in the road and the landmines that they will encounter while making this great transition from a world power into a market economy and providing more freedom for their people? Senator Bradley, who has roots in Missouri, the same as mine, has done what he thought was right, not what everybody else thought was right. We will miss David Pryor because he will go home to his homeland of Arkansas. Quiet, persuasive, knowledgeable, dedicated. Bennett Johnston, who was the chairman of the Energy Committee when I first went on the Energy Committee. Again, he had a leveling effect because of the many contentious issues and emotional issues that we are confronted with every day when you come from a State that has a high proportion of public lands where the Government is really your neighbor, in fact the Government is the biggest neighbor you have. Thirty-eight percent of the State of Montana is owned by the U.S. Government. For some of you who are not aware what it is like to live next to where the Government owns everything, there are times when they are not very good neighbors. Kind of like the fella who moved into your neighborhood, and they asked, ``How are the neighbors there?'' And he says, ``How were they where you come from?'' You know, they really do not practice that kind of philosophy sometimes. But Senator Johnston is one of those people who tries to level out the bumps, take some of the emotion out of it, to at least look at the public lands policy as far as the right thing to do for the land and the right thing for the people, for the people who lived where those lands existed, and the impact it would have on their lives. I appreciate that. Hank Brown of Colorado will go home, back to Colorado. I think he probably is one of the most intelligent men in this body, whose mind is so curious and his approach to life is so pragmatic that he will be sorely missed in this body. Probably there are not a lot of folks across the Nation who will really appreciate what he contributed to the Senate and what he has contributed to the United States of America, because he quietly goes about his way in doing the right thing, and very intelligently. Jim Exon was the Governor of Nebraska when I was traveling through Nebraska. There again, he is known as one of the outstanding Governors of the State of Nebraska. Nebraska is a diverse State, kind of like Montana, but of course a lot more robust because they have great agriculture across the State with all the different kinds of agriculture, because if you will look at Nebraska, it is pretty long. You have most of the manufacturing, farm manufacturing, which all pertained to agriculture, and the little towns in eastern Nebraska and the great grasslands and the sand hills to the west, and, of course, the North Platte River. I speak of Nebraska with great respect because I happened to have married my wife in Nebraska. I understand those folks. Of course, she comes from ranching people and the livestock industry. So we understand that. Sheila Frahm will not be coming back after we drop the gavel on Congress. She will go back to Kansas, coming from a great part of Kansas, the western part, just about where the next Senator who will speak came from years ago, the able Senator from Pennsylvania. All of these individuals will be missed for their individual talents and the resources they brought to this body. That is what we are, 100 different minds. We are 100 different methods of approaching different problems that this country faces. I deem it a great honor to serve in the U.S. Senate with these men and women who we will not see on this floor again when the gavel falls this week. I say to my special friends, and especially to Alan Simpson, who way back in 1988 was part of me getting into this political arena, we do not say goodbye, we just say so long, because even though our trails fork at this juncture in our lives, that is not to say that our trails will not cross in the future again. I thank them for what they have given this body, for the service to their constituency, but, more importantly, I thank them for their service to the United States of America. It will never be forgotten. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, during consideration of the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill on September 5, 1996, several of my colleagues made statements about language contained in the report accompanying the bill that directs HUD to expend the limited funds available for the Fair Housing Initiative Program [FHIP] only on such forms of discrimination as are explicitly identified under title VIII of the Civil Rights Act. The Fair Housing Act makes no mention of property insurance. A reading of the legislative history of the act will disclose that Congress intentionally left out property insurance because insurance is a State regulated activity. Since the States regulate property insurance and have laws and regulations addressing unfair discrimination in property insurance, it was our conclusion that this is one area where HUD does not need to expend its resources. Moreover, the report language was included in response to testimony from the Department of Housing and Urban Development stating it had limited resources available for the FHIP Program. It was our thought that HUD should use its limited resources to address only those areas specifically mentioned in the law that include the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. Throughout all of its efforts and funding of outside groups to investigate insurance practices, it is interesting that neither HUD nor the private groups it funds with public money have been able to produce one individual who has failed to purchase a home because insurance was denied to that person. So much for ``no insurance, no loan, no house.'' In a statement released September 11, 1995, Max Boozell, the Illinois director of insurance, stated, I am very disturbed by the contention that major homeowner insurance companies are redlining in Chicago. To the contrary, our 1994 study of homeowners insurance not only reflects a healthy, viable urban insurance market in Illinois, but provides no hard evidence of institutional redlining by any Illinois insurer. Nor is this a civil rights debate as many would have us believe. Activities of the Justice Department under the Fair Housing Act have not been curtailed, nor does the inclusion of this report language impact the application to property insurance practices of section 1981 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits racial discrimination in the provision of insurance and other services under contract. Nowhere in the Fair Housing Act is property insurance mentioned. More than 50 years ago, Congress wisely decided that, in the area of insurance regulation, the States should be spared Federal interference. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, Congress explicitly provided that, unless a Federal law ``specifically relates to the business of insurance,'' that law shall not be deemed applicable to insurance practices. By applying the Fair Housing Act to insurance, HUD simply disregards the fact that the law does not ``specifically relate to the business of insurance.'' Mr. President, the courts are divided on this issue. It was disappointing that the Supreme Court failed to grant certiorari in the case of Nationwide Mutual versus Cisneros. The Court could have resolved the conflict that now exists in 2 circuits out of our 13 Federal circuit courts. The two courts that have found that the Fair Housing Act applies to property insurance practices have relied on HUD's regulations, which, without any statutory authority, refer to discrimination in property insurance. In other words, HUD did not have a law, so the bureaucrats got to work and created one through regulations. There is simply no justification for HUD continuing to expend funds for insurance regulatory activities that duplicate comprehensive State regulation at the expense of the American taxpayer. HUD would do better to work within the framework of the law with its limited resources.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we have seen a lot of charts and everything. Here, again, we are scaring people. We are absolutely scaring people about things that, No. 1, President Clinton inherited a trend that was already started; that we know that tax cuts put a spur in the economy and more revenues come into the Treasury. I want to put everybody on notice about these scare things--what is going to happen, what might happen--that Americans don't back up very quickly; we don't scare very easy. We know we have a problem, and it will take America to solve it. And this last illustration is absolutely bogus. So I just want the American people to put them on notice that we don't scare too easy. We didn't build this country to the pinnacle we have today by backing up, going in reverse in this country. We are not prepared to do that. I yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I understand that Senator Heflin has the floor for the next 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business just for 1 minute.