Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair very much, and I thank the leader on this. Here we go again, talking about health of the forests, talking about the elimination of jobs in research, when more research is needed, and talking about a situation that existed in damaged forests before this salvage bill was passed a year ago. It was simply management by committee at that time, and that did not work very well. It was not successful. Professional land and resource managers could not have or they could not have been allowed to apply good conservation measures when dealing with renewable resources. We are talking about renewable resources here. And the salvage program gave some hope, hope of predictability in the communities across the Northwest that depend upon that healthy, viable forest. A diseased forest supports nobody, not this Federal Government, not people who want to own houses, not people who use wood products, nor the people who live in those communities that are dependent on the conservation or the wise use of a renewable resource. The salvage program was passed by this Congress, with bipartisan support, as a tool to deal with forest health. The fires of 1988, 1994, and 1995 were devastating, so this Congress did exactly what it should have done in light of what the President and Vice President had promised the folks in the Northwest. Now, are we seeing the rug pulled out from underneath them again? I just want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a couple things that I think are very, very important whenever we start considering this issue. This is where we want to get to: healthy, growing, young forests. The subject of the fire, now with a lot of things cleaned out, a lot of the undertow cleaned out, this forest is well on its way to recovery. That is where we want to get to. I think that is very important. I want to draw your attention to this photograph. Here is a diseased forest as we find some of our forests in the State of Montana, dead and dying, with a green tree every now and again, basically a forest that has matured. If we are to regain any kind of value from this resource, we should take these forests, take the dead and dying trees, because if we do not--if we do not--as the years of 1988 and 1994 proved, this will be the scene across the great landscape of my favorite State of Montana. This is up in the Yaak--a very dry year, lightning fires. You want to talk about air quality. Let us talk about air quality while we are talking about an environmentally impacted area. That is what it looks like when you get up a little closer, as it takes everything, the dead and dying and, yes, even the green trees. It takes it all. Devastating, dangerous. Again we can talk air quality. Want to get up a little closer? Anybody ever look down the throat of a forest fire? I have. In 1953, Edith Peek, Tango--I can name a lot of fires, most of them caused by a very natural thing called lightning. But with all the fuel that is on the forest floor, once it starts there is no stopping it. Again, it burns the diseased, the dying, and the healthy trees. Now, after this little episode is over, this is what you have. This is what we are talking about as far as salvage is concerned. Some of these logs that are on the floor of the forest are actually usable, but as a year or 2 years goes by, they lose their value. There is no value there at all. So the salvage is not taken care of. Another picture, same way, the subject of fire. Only take the ones that are on the floor of the forest. It makes a resource for us and everybody in this country. A while ago we talked about water quality. This is in a forest that is subject to disease. A stream, drainage--that was not caused by man, but it can be healed by man--to protect this water quality, and nobody--nobody--is better at it than the State of Montana, or is more aware of it and more sensitive to it than my State of Montana. When the provision was signed into law a year ago, it was a sound land management decision then. It still is. Instead of keeping an active forest salvage program in place, this amendment does a couple of things. It adds back new layers of bureaucracy while it takes away from other areas, areas where we could put more research and technology-- this also promotes brandnew litigation. You know who wins in litigation. It is not the forest, and it is usually not the resource producers or the resource managers. The salvage bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. It provided a speedy process of processing and preparing. It called for environmental assessment and biological evaluation to be completed upon each sale. Let me tell you something that has happened as a result of this: Knowing that it may not end up in the courts, the different groups--both the logging industry, both the Forest Service who has responsibility of taking care of and managing that forest, and groups outside that were concerned about the environmental impact on that forest--all came together and they went into the forest and looked at some proposed sales. Everybody signed off on them. What it is, it brought them closer together because they knew that this problem was not going to be taken to court, that we had to participate in the dialog. Everybody signed off. Everybody was happy. I think that was through the leadership of some people who worked for the Forest Service in the State of Montana that understood that if we are going to make the salvage law work, and protect the integrity of that law, we had to include a lot of people. They did that. Really, all the groups concerned fundamentally agree to the same thing. They want a healthy forest. They want a renewable forest. They want one that is growing. Not only does it make good sense for the amenities of the area, it also makes good economic sense for the communities that depend upon the harvest of timber, and the harvest in an environmentally sensitive way--to involve people. That is what we did in Montana. The courts are a terrible place to resolve our disputes. What happened in our case as a result of the salvage rider is this: When two sides or three sides are forced to settle their differences on the ground, knowing that the only way they will attain resolutions on the ground, they try to because reasonable people find ways to solve reasonable problems. There was a copy of a letter sent to me from the commissioners up in Lincoln County, MT, testifying, ``We are here to personally testify that these salvage sales on the Kootenai National Forest are being done responsibly and in compliance with environmental laws, improving forest health conditions damaged by fires, creating jobs and generating a return''--a return--``of funds to the general Treasury of the United States of America,'' where those funds will dry up if this amendment is approved. It is a testimony of people who live in the area who are concerned about their forest and who testify that, yes, the salvage rider is working. What criticism it may have, we must not lose the sight that our only goal is really for a healthy forest. Our communities cannot live without a healthy forest. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, allow us to proceed in a way where there is balance, where the balance is responsible and where we can find answers by talking to people and not yelling at them in a courtroom. That is where we solve problems--when it comes to our natural resource management, in the areas that are totally dependent on that natural resource. Mr. President, the timber salvage provision enacted last summer is doing what it was intended to do. But the amendment offered by Senator Murray turns the clock back on sound land management policy and job security. The lack of management over the years has left our communities at risk. Not only are Montana's communities which depend on the wood products industry on economic shaky ground, we have placed them at risk of serious fires. We must not lose site of the fact that the timber salvage provision signed into law last year was in reaction to the serious fire load on the ground in the West. The fires of 1994 and 1995 were damaging. Human safety, community stability, and jobs were at stake. The work that is being done on the ground today under the salvage provision will help alleviate the potential threats during the 1996 fire season and beyond. The provision signed into law last summer is a sound land management plan. But, with this amendment we have turned away from reason. Instead of keeping an active forest salvage program in place, the amendment would repeal sales which have been prepared, add new layers of bureaucracy, and promote new litigation. The proposal we have before us should be called the ``No Logging, No Logic, and Lots of Litigation Amendment''. It is important to remember what the timber salvage provision supported earlier by this Congress and signed by President Clinton accomplishes. The provision speeds up the process in which a sale is prepared and offered. It calls for an environmental assessment and a biological evaluation to be completed on each sale. The land management agencies are required to implement a reforestation plan for each parcel of land. Also, the enacted provision excludes wilderness areas, roadless areas recommended for wilderness by the land managers, and any other Federal land where timber harvesting is prohibited by law. These sales must be completed quickly because we are talking about dead and dying trees. The longer the diseased or dead trees stay in the woods, the more rapidly their value deteriorates. For instance, after fire damage a Douglas-fir will lose 20 percent of its value over 1 year. This rate of deterioration increases more rapidly with time. We need to move quickly. If we do not, the potential for jobs are lost and fire hazard increases. Also, the funds acquired through these sales is being used on restoration activities in the woods. If we stop these sales, or decrease the value of the sales by waiting, we lose revenues for restoration activities. The timber salvage provision has resulted in 62 million board feet of timber being sold in Montana and there is 233 million board feet in the pipeline; 143 million of this is salvage from the 1994 fires on the Kootenai National Forest. There has been criticism that this salvage program has resulted in the sale of green trees. This simply is not true. If it were true, I would be the first in line telling the Forest Service they are not following the intent of the law and would support legislative changes. But the fact is, 90 percent of the salvage program in Montana is dead or immediately dead timber. The remaining 10 percent harvested fits the intent of forest health definition under the law. This is the same definition the Forest Service has used. Sometimes the harvesting of green trees is necessary to implement salvage activities. But, in Montana, only 10 percent of the timber harvested under the salvage provision was green. The amendment offered by Senator Murray moves us backward. It guts a fair and balanced provision and replaces it with legal bells and whistles, stopping aggressive management practices, and placing jobs at risk. Appeals are a lawyer's heaven and a timber man's nightmare. Yet, this amendment encourages appeals. The snowballing effect of stopping these sales is large. Due to similarities in all salvage sales, if one appeal is filed it has the potential of stopping all salvage sales. In addition, not only would this affect future sales, it would affect sales which have already been prepared. For folks on the ground in Montana, this means that they could be working today, but sent home tomorrow if this amendment were enacted. Senator Murray's amendment also sacrifices Montana's interests for the President's Northwest forest initiative. The amendment directs the management agency to pay for the trade or buy out of the 318 sales in Oregon and Washington in a 1-year timeframe. These sales were sold and then canceled by the Clinton administration. The cost is around $300 million. In order to pay for these cancellations, financial resources from other States could be diverted. This means new visitors construction, preparation of new salvage and green sales, and other activities in Montana could be diverted to pay for the President's Pacific Northwest forest initiative. In order to address concerns raised by the White House over the 318 sales, Senators Hatfield and Gorton included language in the bill which gives the Forest Service and BLM the opportunity to find alternative timber or funds to meet these contracts. The Murray language, however, has a 1-year period to trade or buy out these contracts. That certainly does not seem fair or balanced for the rest of the Nation, including Montana. One last point I would like to make is that the timber salvage provision enacted last year is temporary. It sunsets at the end of this calendar year. I am hopeful that this year the Congress will send, and President Clinton will sign, a comprehensive forest health bill. In fact, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has placed Senate bill 391 on its calendar for consideration. Mr. President, the timber salvage provision enacted last year is working. It is providing jobs to Montanans. It is helping to lessen the fire load on the ground in our forests. It is helping to minimize the risks of forest fires around communities. Yet, the amendment offered by Senator Murray takes us backward. It adds new bureaucracy, litigation, and not much common sense. The days of not managing our woods has to end. Our national forest need management. I strongly oppose the amendment offered by Senator Murray because it will block effective land management decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from Governor Racicot, dated March 8, 1996, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until the hour of 9:15 on Wednesday, March 13; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 9:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exception, and that is Senator Bond for 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to the Whitewater Special Committee occur at 2 p.m. on Wednesday and at 1 p.m. there be 1 hour for debate prior to the cloture vote to be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I further ask that at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the Senate resume consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 3019, and as under the previous order, resume consideration of the pending Hutchison amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m., the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and Senator Dole be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Senate Resolution 227, the Whitewater legislation, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on Thursday, March 14, at a time to be determined by the two leaders and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on S. 1494, a bill to provide an extension for fiscal year 1996 for certain programs administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1494) entitled ``An Act to provide an extension for fiscal year 1996 for certain programs administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, March 14, at 10 a.m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 342, S. 942, the small business regulatory reform bill, to be considered under the following limitation: 90 minutes of total debate equally divided between the two managers; that the only amendments in order to the bill be the following: the managers' amendment to be offered by Senators Bond and Bumpers, an amendment to be offered by Senator Nickles regarding congressional review, one additional amendment, if agreed to by both leaders after consultation with the two managers; further, that following the disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time, the Senate then proceed to vote on final passage of the bill, all without any intervening debate or action. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. No question about it. The Senator from Nevada is exactly correct.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. We will hope for better times in the cattle business. The Senator from Nebraska knows that we have been through these times before, and we will go through this one. I will be honest with you. I have a hard time, I say to the Senator from Nebraska, of going down the aisle in the grocery store. And these people are setting up here tonight. They buy a box of Wheaties. Wheaties is $3.46 cents a pound. It is not $3.46 cents a box, but a pound. Until this year we had a hard time getting $3.50 cents a bushel for a bushel of wheat, and there are 60 pounds in that bushel. I have a hard time dealing with that. So I appreciate the comments of my friend from Nebraska.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I inquire of my friend from Nebraska who probably knows more about football than the average Senator. I once heard Darrell Royal, who was head football coach at the University of Texas. They always asked him why he never passed the ball very much. He had a great running team, and had a couple of national championships. He said, ``You know, when you pass the football, three things happen. And two of them are bad.'' That is kind of like the way we are running the farm program now. When you are in the grain business because the grain companies can buy the grain cheap, if you take out a market loan on your grain you can forfeit the grain, if it is not market price. And that goes into the pockets of the taxpayer. Then the grain companies buy that after that happens probably at a lower price. Or they can go ahead and buy the grain, and the taxpayers pick up the difference between the grain and the target price. Three things happen. Two of them are bad for the taxpayer, and I think for agriculture. The reason we have high prices right now is because we had a crop failure. How can you pay a deficiency payment when you do not have any wheat? We had a great crop in Montana. We had a big crop and got a big price, and everybody is wealthy without the luxury of the deficiency payments. So I think what we are doing is so that a majority of agriculture would like to get their dollars at the marketplace, and I hope that this will work. If it does not then I will be the first Senator on the door of the Senator from Nebraska after he has retired in Lincoln, NE, and we might enjoy a football game and watch Big Red roll. And then we will talk about all the mistakes that we made together.

Mr. BURNS. I propound that same unanimous-consent request.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 338, H.R. 2584; further, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1541, as passed the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; further, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, provided that the total number of Democratic conferees signing the conference report does not exceed five.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the debate Senate Reid has started regarding the Endangered Species Act is a good one. We need to reexamine this act and where we have succeeded and where we have failed. However, the amendment by my friend from Nevada moves a step away from reforming a well-intended law. Therefore, I must oppose Senator Reid's amendment. The Endangered Species Act [ESA] was well intended. But, like many good ideas, its original intent has been twisted and misused. It has been turned away from an act designed to protect species, and instead is being used to close down thousands, if not millions, of acres of land throughout our country. In Montana, we have wolves being placed in Yellowstone as an experimental population under the Endangered Species Act. We have miles and miles of roads being closed in order to protect grizzly bears. And, we face the threat of listing of the Bull Trout even though our State is taking an incredibly active role in managing this specie. While Montanans are proud of our wildlife, we are equally proud of the lifestyle we cherish. This is based on the balance and wise-use of our lands. Senator Reid's amendment would repeal a moratorium on the listing of new species on the endangered list. Under the moratorium, prelisting work and recovery activities are still under way. The moratorium does not effect these activities. But, the moratorium on listing is important because it gives the Congress and the administration an opportunity to reexamine the Endangered Species Act. We need to allow the Environment and Public Works Committee an opportunity to do their job. The committee held a number of hearings last year throughout the United States on the act. Now, we need to allow the committee to report a bill which will address the inadequacies of the act. While most Americans agree we need to protect and recover endangered species, there are a wide range of beliefs on the extent and costs which should be incurred. The process is out of control. For every dollar we spend on recovery, we spend another on process. This includes consultation, law enforcement, listing, and permits. That ratio needs to change. We need more recover for our money. One example for Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is the salmon. Should we spend $1 billion each year and increase electric rates in the name of the salmon in the Columbia River? Yet we have not recovered one fish in the process. We can do a better job at protecting species at a lesser cost to the Federal treasury, local communities dependent on natural resources and landowners. I hope the Reid amendment will be rejected and that we can continue to consider a complete reauthorization of the act in the near future. Mr. President, the work that has been going on now for the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act has been going on ever since I walked through these doors. I would like to have a nickel for every word that has been spoken about the good intentions of reauthorizing the act. It has not been done yet. Given that track record, it just goes to prove that the way Washington works and the way we regulate have to be looked at. I would rather this amendment not come up. I do not think this is the time or place to consider this issue, as an amendment on this bill. The Committee on Environment and Public Works has the reauthorization now under consideration and should come forth with legislation for this body to vote on. We should let that process move forward. The law, in its present form, is not working in the manner in which it was intended or in a way it can be successful. If we who serve here in the Senate are to pursue sensible environmental policy that preserves the gains that we have made in the last two decades, then this law will have to be changed to make it user friendly, and also to approach the problem of endangered species in a plain, everyday, commonsense way. If there is anything we are short of here, it is common sense. However, that not being the case in this instance, let us look and see the merits of this amendment and, of course, the second-degree amendment. The moratorium now in effect is just on listings. Until a couple of weeks ago, we had 2,500 to 3,000 candidates on the list to be considered for listing. Under the moratorium, we now have 184. The Secretary of the Interior using a model in which to cut those way back so it does not sound like they are not working to make it work. And recovery plans on those who are actually on the endangered list continue. Now, I suggest to this body that for as much money as it has cost, the recovery record has not been very good. If the sponsor of this amendment wants to take credit for delaying this bill, thus leaving the employees for the respective departments not knowing--we should give them some predictability and planning for which they are responsible with regard to this Endangered Species Act. Recovery plans must move on. It cannot move on as long as the appropriation is hung up here in the U.S. Senate. It is not fair to the employees, nor is it fair to the taxpayers of this country, nor is it fair to what we are trying to do, which is to preserve a base of biological diversity that we all know is very, very important. The sponsors of this amendment must understand that the very people who are administering this law are the ones that are funded by this legislation. But sometimes I do not understand the motives on such predictability. I do not think we have an endangered species crisis or an environmental crisis here. I do not feel there is any great urgency or a great care for the maintenance or restoration of a healthy biological base or diversity--not in this particular exercise, not on this day. I have a feeling there is a little bit of politics in this. But, after all, that should not surprise any of us. It is like I said, the work goes on. Right now, there are around 900 domestic species that are listed on the threatened or endangered list. There are another 900 on the foreign endangered species list. There were 3,500 to 4,000 a couple of weeks ago on the candidate list, which is now down to 182. So the work continues. So it is not that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have enough work to do without this moratorium, because they do. This has been a very, very expensive law. And, at times, it has defied common sense. In most areas, the law has not worked. It is being used for a purpose that it was not intended for. I would like to look at a couple of species that have been listed. We have spent over $2 billion in recovery, both in taxpayers' money and ratepayers' money, on the Columbia River trying to recover the sockeye and the chinook salmon. You can buy salmon in any grocery store fresh, frozen, or canned. As you know, we had the terrible accident in Prince William Sound in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ship hit a rock and spilled the crude. Everybody said the fishing would be gone forever. The other day in that particular part of the world--I noticed that the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, went to Alaska, and the harvest of salmon was so big that the Department of Agriculture has decided to buy an extra amount of salmon for the school lunch programs around this country. The market is depressed because of an oversupply. Mr. President, I am sure not opposed to the School Lunch Program. In fact, I am a great supporter of it. I even like the idea that salmon should be a part of the diet. But it does seem strange to me that we have chinook and sockeye salmon on the endangered species list where we will be able to buy it anywhere in the world, and yet, we have spent all that money with the possibility of endangering hydro power production on the Columbia River. I think we can cite a lot of those kinds of instances where common sense has absolutely been laid aside to make it work. I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment and allow the committee of jurisdiction to complete its work in reforming the law. Let us involve local government; let us involve local citizens when we start talking about listing; and let us separate this business of listing from the business of recovery. Right now, the way the law is written, if a species is put on the endangered list, it is head-over- heels costs. It means nothing. We start the recovery program and, as we have found out, that becomes very expensive. Let us not knee-jerk this around because it is a highly charged issue, just to appease some folks who want an environmental record. When one has to answer and solve a problem or policy, or enable problem solving to go forward, and we do it by just throwing taxpayer money at it, I do not think that is the correct approach. And if we are to pass on to the next generation a world where clean water and clean air is the hallmark, and a broad-based biological diversity is intact, then we must approach it and we have to make sure that this law survives. As it is right now, it may not--the total law--because of people and the actions that they take to prevent it being applied to my property or my neighbors' property. So, Mr. President, the moratorium should stay intact. And there are those who are dedicated. I know that my friend from Nevada--I worked with him on another committee--when he commits himself to something, he does it wholeheartedly and with a great deal of integrity. They should keep working on this law. They should bring it forward. But I am kind of like the Nike commercial: ``Let's do it.'' Let us quit talking about it and do it. Let us quit dealing with people that might be like a featherbed because the last one that sits on it leaves the biggest impression. Let us do it because the law needs to be reformed. My friend from Nevada understands that, and also my friend from Idaho does. We want to see it survive, and we want to see it work in the best interest of mankind and also for the species that are involved. Let us look at fairness. Let us look at balance. But let us make sure that it works. Let us involve local government from the county commissioners to the city council. Let us work with Governors and State government. Let us work with the fish and game people and the wildlife biologists that are found in each and every State, because each and every State is unique and they have a very unique biological base. So let us reject the Reid amendment totally, and let us bring forth a new bill. Let us dedicate ourselves to it because I think we owe it to the taxpayers of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 3473, to make technical changes that I will send to the desk. Further, I ask unanimous consent to restore text at the end of amendment No. 3473. Language that appears on pages 778, line 1 through 781, line 4 of amendment No. 3466 was inadvertently deleted. I send the technical changes to the desk.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill at 9:30 a.m. Additional amendments are expected to be offered, and it is still hoped that we may complete action on the appropriations bill during tomorrow's session. Under a previous order, there will be a cloture vote at 2 p.m. on Wednesday to be immediately followed by at least one additional vote in relation to the endangered species amendment to the continuing resolution. Additional votes can be expected throughout Wednesday's session of the Senate, and a late session can be anticipated in order to complete action on the omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be immediately discharged of the nomination of Thomas Fink to be a Member of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; further, that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration of the nomination; that the nomination be confirmed; that any statement appear in the Record as if read; that upon confirmation the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution appear in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Senate Concurrent Resolution 45, submitted earlier by Senators Dole and Helms.