Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senators from Missouri and Maryland and appreciate their hard work. I will continue to monitor this issue in the future and look forward to our continued cooperation on this issue. I believe this is a good compromise to expedite the bill yet send a strong message about clean air and a level playing field for our domestic refiners. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. I would be grateful if the gentlemen would yield for one additional point. I received a letter from the U.S. Trade Representative and the Administrator of EPA regarding the foreign refiner baseline issue dated July 25, 1996. I will submit the text of the letter for the Record. The letter provides additional comments regarding enforcement and states, ``EPA will not recognize individual foreign refiner baselines unless we have adequately addressed the issues of auditing, inspection of foreign facilities, and enforcement.'' It is my understanding the letter gives the administration's commitment to seek equivalent levels of enforcement for foreign refiners before allowing the access that these refiners desire to reformulated and conventional gasoline markets.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about this health insurance reform legislation now before us. After months of gridlock on this bill, I am glad that the Senate finally has a chance to once again consider and pass this straightforward legislation. I must confess, however, that I find it puzzling that this bill has been held up for 3 months over the issue of medical savings accounts--particularly in light of what we are trying to accomplish by passing this legislation. I am a strong supporter of medical savings accounts. I truly believe MSA's empower health care consumers by giving them the freedom to choose how they spend their health care dollar. Medical savings accounts provide the competitive choice which not only enables folks to keep pace with inflation, but counters the increases that will result from the guaranteed-issue component of this legislation. Nonetheless, I am pleased that this bill creates at least a full-blown test for the MSA. Though it disturbs me to know that we could have sent this meaningful legislation to the President for his signature months ago, the delay on this bill has given me the opportunity to hear the thoughts of literally thousands of Montanans on this issue, folks who have written to me, folks who have called me, and folks I've seen while traveling in the State. Given all the input I have received on this legislation over these last few months, one thing is certain, the folks in Montana are reaffirming what they have been telling me for years--that they want the commonsense measures contained in this bill passed into law. It is no secret that the health insurance system in this country is in need of some fine tuning. And I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of Congress would agree with that assessment. It is estimated that 43 million Americans went without health insurance in 1995 and roughly 23 million of those are workers. Though we can't guarantee every American health care coverage--nor would I ever support a plan to do so--we can address the barriers that keep health insurance out of the reach of most of these folks; access and affordability. And this health insurance reform legislation does just that. There is little doubt in my mind that the Health Insurance and Portability Act will greatly reduce the barriers to obtaining health insurance coverage for millions of Americans by: one, limiting an insurer's ability to withhold coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions; two, making it easier for workers to get and maintain health coverage; and three, because of its provisions guaranteeing coverage, this legislation will make it easier for workers to change jobs or start their own businesses without fear of losing health care coverage. This bill also contains many other important provisions. I am especially pleased with the significant improvements in coverage for pregnant women, newborns, and adopted children. This bill will also make health care more affordable by providing the government with the means to crack down on health care fraud and abuse in the health care system, specifically in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. What's more, self-employed people will be able to deduct from their taxes 80 percent of their health insurance premiums by the year 2006, up from the 30 percent which current law allows. In addition, this bill increases tax breaks for small companies. Those provisions are especially important for my State, where 98 percent of our businesses are considered small businesses and have fewer than 50 employees. What so personally excites me about this bill is a provision that I introduced to this bill that requires reimbursement for telemedicine services under Medicare. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong advocate of telemedicine since my election to the Senate. I truly believe that establishing a telecommunications infrastructure is a part of the solution to providing affordable and accessible health care. Telemedicine is being used now in Montana, and across the United States, to bring health care services to those who currently don't have access. Getting health care services can be a challenge, especially when folks in my State and in other rural areas face situations where they are 180 miles away from a specialist. But even if specialists are willing and able to visit their patients via telemedicine, the Health Care Financing Administration will not reimburse them for those services. Mr. President, HCFA has been reviewing demonstration projects to analyze the cost effectiveness of providing health care services via telecommunications and how to reimburse the health care providers. The HCFA study has no expected deadline, but the provision contained in this bill will require HCFA to complete its study and report back to Congress by March 1, 1997. If we pass this bill today, that gives HCFA almost 8 months, in addition to the time they have already spent studying the issue, to determine the reimbursement of services provided via telemedicine. I don't feel this proposal is unreasonable. In fact, since this study is already ongoing, there is no cost associated with this. I am simply asking that HCFA finish the study and let rural areas and urban residents access the health care services that are currently out of reach geographically. I realize that there are many Americans, including a number of folks in Montana, who have serious concerns with this legislation. Folks in my State seem to be particularly concerned that this legislation is just a step toward implementing the failed Clinton health care plan and will turn our health care system over to the Government. What's more, I have heard from a number of Montanans who are concerned about health insurance costs going up for all health care consumers. I appreciate and understand these concerns--I don't want to see either of these things take place. In fact, like most Americans, I am completely opposed, and I opposed then, the type of big-government, big- bureaucracy health care agenda that the Clinton administration proposed in 1994. Most people don't want a single-payer, government-controlled health insurance system deciding what is best for them and neither do I. That is why this bill only addresses those aspects of health insurance reform that folks have identified as important and necessary, and want to see passed. Though I realize that this bill will not solve all the problems with our Nation's health care system--and I have concerns with certain aspects of the act as well--this legislation does take a giant step toward eliminating many of the worst abuses that exist in the private insurance market. Most important, it does all this without substantially raising costs for current health insurance policyholders, without meddling with those parts of the system that work, and without taking away the ability of States or the private sector to initiate their own reforms. Mr. President, the Republican-led 104th Congress has once again given us an opportunity to change a system that has consistently failed millions of Americans and American families. I want to take a moment to thank the Republican leadership and all of those who have worked so hard, in both parties, to bring this legislation back to the floor. I also want to commend Senators Domenici and Wellstone for their work on mental health parity. Though this provision has been stripped from the bill, I believe their efforts will help move our country forward in treating the nearly 5 million Americans suffering from severe mental illness. I particularly want to commend the senior Senator from Kansas for leading the way on this issue. I also want to thank Senator Kassebaum for the time and dedication she has given over the years to the citizens of our country. I am truly sorry that Senator Kassebaum will be leaving us at the end of the 104th Congress. Not only will the U.S. Senate lose a fine legislator but a fine person. On that note, because of Senator Kassebaum's efforts, and with the overwhelming bipartisan support this bill received in the House yesterday, it looks as though we are going to see our way clear and bring about these much needed reforms to our health insurance system. In closing, Mr. President, I believe this health insurance reform legislation is the best hope we have to help America's--particularly Montana's--families and small businesses cope with burdensome health care costs. Not only will this legislation end job lock and the misfortune of pre-existing conditions that prevent thousands of Americans from buying coverage but it will also strengthen our health care system for years to come. In short, because this health insurance reform bill contains so many commonsense measures, I was pleased to support this bill when it first came before this body in April. And because the legislation that is again before us today will immediately and measurably improve the lives and protect the health of millions of American workers and families without putting folks out of business, raising taxes or turning the health care system over to the government, I am going to vote to send this bill to the President. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will do the same. This bill's time has come. Let's not squander the opportunity we have today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last night the House of Representatives passed and sent to the Senate the conference report on military construction, and that bill, too, is at the desk to be considered today. We have worked very, very hard with both sides of the aisle to work out our differences--and sometimes on the same side of the aisle. I applaud my good friend from Vermont, with whom I used to serve on D.C. Appropriations, on the work they have done on the D.C. appropriations bill. And the work that Senator Bond has done in his committee as far as VA-HUD. We have worked very hard, too, on the thrust of military construction in this particular year, not only dealing with less dollars but also dealing with some very important items which have always been put on the shelf. One of them is the environment because of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, and the other one is family housing and support services for families that serve this country on our posts around the world. This bill provides the necessary funding for the planning, the design, the construction, the alteration, and the improvement of military facilities around the world, and included in that, of course, is the appropriation that keeps us strong, the NATO Security Investment Program. It also provides the funding to implement base closures and realignment as called for by law. Again, let me emphasize that in this bill there is included child development centers. We worry about children. We hear speeches made about children. Repairs are needed also for the damage that was done by Hurricane Bertha. In this bill is funding for family support centers on our bases and environmental compliance projects. I think one of the most important parts of the funding in this bill is environmental cleanup when these bases are closed and, of course, taking new actions where active bases are still in operation; hospitals, public safety such as fire stations. There is $1.2 billion for the implementation of BRAC, $4 billion for family housing. Out of a $9 billion appropriation, $4 billion will be spent on families and family housing to improve the life of our military people. Just to give you an idea on that: Yuma Marine Air Station in Yuma, AR; Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, 202 units, spending $29 million; Lenmoore Naval Air Station in California; Florida, Mayport Naval Station; in Hawaii, almost $60 million being spent for family support and housing; in Maryland, just outside of Washington here, the Naval Testing Center at Patuxent River; Camp Lejeune, community centers; family centers in Texas, Corpus Christi Naval Complex; Kingsville Naval Air Station; in Virginia, Chesapeake, Wallops Island; State of Washington, at Bangor Naval Submarine Base, and Everett Naval Air Station, Puget Sound. The list goes on of those projects that are started or being planned and started, and all of them in support of families that serve this country. One has to remember that they, too, have to live, and we have started a new project, the Secretary of Defense working with the corporate sector in partnership for private housing off base, which is a new approach. By the way, there is funding in the bill for his program. There is certain types of community impact assistance that has to be provided for our military who face the loss of a sale of private residences due to installation realignments and due to some closures. So, Mr. President, that is what is in limbo here whenever we start talking about gumming up the process. Here is a bill that we have worked very hard to overcome the objections on both sides of the aisle, to make it through not only committee, subcommittee and full committee and, yes, on the floor to pass a bill, send it to the House and then conference and bring it back and it is ready to pass this body because the House passed it last night and it is ready to be sent to the President for his signature to implement what we think is very important in support of our military families around the globe. So, I ask, if we could work out this so-called flap and get the process back on the move again, lay aside some of our emotions and do the right thing and allow us to bring the conference report of the military construction to this floor, pass it, and let us send it to the President. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 1, 1996, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 1, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold an executive business meeting.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 1, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 1, 1996 for purposes of conducting a Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of the oversight hearing is to consider the propriety of a commercial lease by the Bureau of Land Management at Lake Havasu, AZ, including its consistency with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and Department of the Interior land use policies.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, August 1, 1996, in open session, to receive an update on United States participation in implementation force mission in Bosnia.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, August 1, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on aviation security challenges.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 1, 1996, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the implementation of section 2001 of Public Law 104-19, the Emergency Timber Salvage Amendment.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to meet Thursday, August 1, immediately following the first vote in The President's Room, S-216, The Capitol, to consider the nominations of Nils J. Diaz and Edward McGaffigan, Jr., each nominated by the President to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a committee resolution on a GSA public building proposal.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about this important issue before us--perhaps the most important initiative undertaken by the 104th Congress--welfare reform. For the last nineteen months, Congress has been embroiled in an enormous debate over how best to reform our welfare system. There has been a lot of talk about ending welfare ``as we know it'', but for the most part, it has been just talk and no action. Today, however, the Senate stands close to passing legislation that I believe will make the much-needed changes in the way our welfare system operates. I think many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as a majority of my fellow Montanans, would agree that our welfare system needs improving. I am glad we agree that changes need to be made in our welfare system so that our assistance programs are more effective and less costly. Let's face it, however, we don't need this legislation to know that the welfare system has failed miserably. The truth is, the system is not working as it was intended--as a temporary assistance to help people until they can get back to work. Over the last thirty years, the system has become a way of life, not because those receiving assistance don't want to work, but because the system makes it tough, even discourages people, to get off welfare. Although we all know that this bill before us today will not solve all the problems with the current welfare system, it does take a giant step toward reversing years of failed social welfare policy. This bill will end welfare as a way of life for many Americans. By requiring most able-bodied adults to go to work within two years and by putting a five-year limit on welfare assistance, we are making great strides forward in putting people back to work. I have to believe that most people would rather work than be on welfare. And it pleases me to no end that the tough and real work requirements contained in this bill will get folks off the welfare roles and into a productive job, job training program or community service. There is no doubt there will be exceptions, but the goal of welfare reform is independence, not government reliance. This bill also contains provisions to strengthen families and personal responsibility, something I think is essential to getting at the root of our welfare problems. In a scant few decades, we have seen the demise of families and family values in our country. And illegitimacy rates are rising to almost dangerous levels. These are the things that are contributing most to the decline in our society. More and more children are growing up without a father, without a solid family to support them, and crime statistics show that kids who are raised without a father commit more crimes. I think our welfare system, though designed to assist folks and born of good-hearted intentions, has served to fuel some of the social problems we face today. It is clear that our present welfare system encourages young mothers to have children, and many of those children are not being cared for. Though it is impossible to legislate, this bill takes a giant step forward in addressing these problems by encouraging families to stay together, providing more resources for child care and enhancing child support enforcement and domestic violence measures. Perhaps the fact that is most important to me personally, by passing this bill we will give the states flexibility to design programs that will work best for their residents. Currently, the Federal Government has so many rules and regulations that when States want to try something innovative to reform the welfare system, like my home State of Montana, the barriers are often times too great. Over the last 7 years, I have spoken with the folks who administer the welfare programs in my State and time and time again they ask for the opportunity and flexibility to run the welfare system as they see fit. And by block granting funds to the States and letting States set many of their own program rules, this bill will allow the decisionmaking to be done at the state and local level, not by Washington bureaucrats. There is no doubt in my mind this will serve both our Nation and, specifically, the people of my State well. After all, Montanans do know what is best for Montana. The bill does all this and will still succeed in reducing welfare spending by roughly $55 billion over 6 years. Given our Nation's budget problems, that's an important fact. I realize that there are many Americans, including a number of folks in Montana, who have serious concerns with this legislation. Folks seem to be particularly troubled by the possibility that this bill will actually increase poverty and fails to provide a nutritional ``safety net'' for our Nation's needy families. I appreciate and understand these concerns--no one wants to push more children and families into misery. In fact, I have been an ardent supporter of nutrition programs in the past, especially those for children, and I have made every effort to protect them throughout the current welfare reform process. The reality is, however, that the American taxpayer is not getting his money's worth when it comes to many of the current assistance programs and the tragic state of the welfare system makes reforming the system all the more urgent. What's more, there have been those who have suggested that this bill is heartless and out to punish children and immigrants. In response to those who would make such accusations, I would join with many of my colleagues in asking if the current welfare system is not already punishing--even degrading--children and other folks it is supposed to help? Why do we insist on protecting, or at least not reforming, a system that promotes a culture of dependency and poverty? As for the immigration provisions contained in the bill, perhaps Senator Santorum summed it up best when he noted that as we become the retirement home for the rest of the world, the taxpayers of this country are picking up the tab. To that end, the goal of this welfare reform bill is not to punish, favor or discriminate against anyone or any group. Its intent is not to promote and strengthen the system. It is constructed to end the cycle of generational dependency and irresponsibility promoted by the current welfare system. Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to change a system that has consistently failed poor Americans. I want to thank the Governors and all of those who have worked so hard, in both parties, to bring this legislation to this point. I particularly want to commend the Republican leadership for leading the way on this issue. Though Bob Dole may not be with us on the Senate floor today, I also want to thank him for his efforts and dedication in ending welfare as we know it. I also want to congratulate President Clinton on his announcement yesterday. Though the President has resisted real welfare reform by casting two vetoes on similar bills in the past, he has realized that the American people want this bill and that bipartisan cooperation is needed to reform this broken system. And with the overwhelming bipartisan support in the House yesterday, it looks as though we are seeing our way clear to bring about the much needed reforms with what I believe will be the right kinds of results. In closing, Mr. President, it was almost exactly 1 year ago--in fact, it was August 9, 1995--that I stood on the floor of this esteemed chamber and spoke about how much I was looking forward to the upcoming welfare reform debate. I spoke about how excited I was to see some real changes in how Americans perceive welfare, how welfare is paid out, and the direction our country was headed. There were a number of goals then that I was looking for in welfare reform legislation. Would it promote and strengthen the family? Would it give more flexibility to the States, allowing each State to design a system that best suits their needs? Would it include strong work requirements to get folks back into the workplace? Would it address our growing problem with illegitimacy and teenage pregnancy? Mr. President, I think we have addressed these issues with this legislation. It is now a year later. During this time, a number of differing opinions have been offered--suggestions put forth--on how best to achieve these goals. It has been a very slow process indeed--but I think that most of us would agree that welfare reform is still very necessary and this bill does that. Business as usual was not working in August 1995 or even in November 1992, and it is not working now. All Americans deserve the chance to succeed, whether they are poor or not. I think this bill gives all of us the chance to do just that. Let's not squander this opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the importance of the Shiloh Interchange in Billings, MT. ISTEA authorized this project for $11 million. However, since that authorization the cost of the project has increased by an additional $3 million. The Senator from Oregon is aware of the request I have made to include an additional $3 million for this project.

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the Chairman's clarification and consideration. Have any non-authorized levels for highway projects been included in either the FY96 law or the current bill being considered by the Senate?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as we focus upon the Transportation budget for the upcoming fiscal year, I would like to discuss with you a number of points regarding the Surface Transportation Board [STB] in light of the ICC Termination Act. The statutorily mandated time frames have been complied with in the latest merger. The STB should assign a priority to the handling of old cases. For example, those cases pending more than 3 or 4 years before the effective date of the ICC Termination Act. In addition, the STB's own release as to its recent public vote in the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger, it was indicated that considerable weight was given to the managerial judgment of the applicants. Since that application had been pending prior to the effective date of the ICC Termination Act, similar treatment should be given to the other long-pending cases. The STB's policy should be based on the widest perspective as to railroad proposals, be they mergers, constructions, line extensions, or rates, that will benefit area-wide economies in addition to the applicants themselves. Also, the Board should encourage rail proposals compatible with the requirements of appropriate environmental laws and should continue its policy of promoting competition in rail transportation which I believe will benefit the consumer.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chairman. Michigan Transit projects in the Transportation Appropriations bill, fiscal year 1997

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chairman, and I yield the floor. Surface Transportation Board

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, Montana suffered a large loss on Friday afternoon. A plane crash in the northwest corner of our State claimed the life of three men, Seth Diamond, Ken Kohli, and Al Hall. Seth lived in Missoula, MT, and Ken and Al lived in Cour d'Alene, ID. Over the last few years, my staff and I had the pleasure of getting to know Seth Diamond. As a representative of the timber community in the intermountain West, I had many opportunities to work with Seth. Whether we were working on changing the way our Government deals with the Endangered Species Act or working in issues related to forest health and management, Seth was there with fresh ideas on how to solve hotly contested issues. It was Seth's sense of fairplay that gave him such a good standing with groups on both ends of the natural resource management spectrum. I valued and respected his comments and advice. Seth Diamond was born in Philadelphia and grew up on Long Island, NY. He received an undergraduate degree from Duke and a wildlife biology masters from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In 1988, Seth found his way to Montana as a biologist for the U.S. Forest Service. He worked on the Lewis and Clark National Forest out of Choteau, MT. The West is truly an unique area. Most believe you have to grow up in the West to appreciate our way of life and feel a strong commitment to protecting the businesses that have made Montana economically and culturally what it is today. It amazes me that a kid who grew up on the east coast could come to Montana and work to keep the wood products industry a part of Montana's economy, but most importantly believe it is vital to the well-being of Montana. Seth did just that. Montana's resource dependent communities owe a great debt to Seth. He worked to achieve a common goal of providing jobs for families and protecting a renewable resource. In addition to his commitment to Montana, Seth was a proud family man. He is survived by his wife, Carol, and children Kale, Laura, and Jesse Lynn. They and the rest of the Diamond family have Phyllis' and my prayers. Montana is a richer place today because of the work and dedication of Seth Diamond. I feel fortunate to have been given an opportunity to consider him a friend. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. If the chairman will recall, the committee, at its meeting of July 16, included language in the Committee Report offered by the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray]. This language concerned significant costs incurred by the mid-Columbia hydroelectric projects associated with fish and wildlife mitigation due to water releases from upstream Federal facilities and how the impacts of such costs to the mid-Columbia projects could be offset. My question is this: Should no all upstream project owners incurring the same costs, from the same water releases, be treated the same as the mid- Columbia project owners? For example, the Montana Power Co. incurs the same costs at their Kerr project at Flathead Lake and Thompson Falls project on the Clark Fork River due to the large releases from the Federal Hungry Horse project. The Washington Water Power Co. incurs the same costs at their Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge projects on the Clark Fork River due to these same releases from the federally owned Hungry Horse project. Does the committee also urge the BPA to enter into the same equitable energy exchange with the Montana Power Co. and the Washington Water Power Co.? Their problems with these Federal water releases are the same as those of the mid-Columbia project owners.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have an inquiry of the committee chairman, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield].

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Oregon, my constituents will be very pleased. Let us hope that Bonneville will faithfully follow the committee's urging on this matter.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is an adjustment in the barley allocation in the farm bill. It seemed as though when we were making the transition payments on all commodities and program crops, barley and their producers were penalized more than anybody else in making the adjustments. In fact, all other commodities, all other program crops were adjusted just slightly lower, with the exception of rice, and it actually went up. The barley payment was adjusted a good whopping 30 percent lower, 14 cents a bushel. What this amendment does is it moves money from the outyears to the nearby years: $20 million in this fiscal year and then taking from the next 4 years, the outyears, $5 million. In other words, we are going to increase the payment about a nickel this year, and then we will be subtracting about a penny from the outyears in year 2, 3, 4 and 5. So with that, it will make an adjustment this year. I think this is a short-term solution. After talking with my colleague from Montana and my friends from North Dakota, we realize this is a short-term solution, and I think we have to look at a longer term to make the adjustment to make it fair. That is all we are asking for barley producers across America, is fairness. I think there has to be a long-term solution made. Mr. President, I ask for its adoption, and I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I think this has been cleared by both sides.

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