Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I think my friend from Nevada understands the problems small business is going through right now and the margin they have to worry about. This gives them a great deal of flexibility. But it also allows Congress to take a look to see how the rules are really written with regard to legislation that we pass. It is fairly simple for us to pass legislation. We beat ourselves on the chest, and we say what a good thing we have done, but then when the law goes down and the administrative rules are written, sometimes those rules do not even look like the legislation, let alone the intent of the legislation. So I think this addresses that, and I hope we can work out something. Knowing my friend from Nevada, I understand the possibility is very good.

Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I helped craft this legislation, and if there is one thing that we hear going down the road every day from the people who live in my State of Montana it is the way we write our rules and regulations here in Washington. This regulatory reform bill addresses those fears. This bill was reported out of the Small Business Committee with strong bipartisan support for the work that was done by Senator Bumpers, who was chairman of that committee and has worked on this issue for so long, and I am sorry that it will not be allowed to come to the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. If the Senator from Washington will yield.

Mr. BURNS. I congratulate the Senator from Washington, because I know we had to look at Indian schools, we had to look at the Indian Health Service. Those areas suffered cuts last year, and we tried to add some money back and were successful in doing that, and we get this close. I am wondering, though, if we are not sort of lapping over into the political world rather than the world of reality or this world of trying to finance the Government and make it work.

Mr. BURNS. I do not know where he wants to spend the $2 billion. He was not specific about that, I ask?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. The White House Conference on Small Business which was concluded about a month ago took a look at a number of issues that are faced every day in small business, or maybe just the business world faces every day in doing business--the number and scope of Federal regulations and the cost of compliance. They took a look at penalties, the lack of cooperation, and as far as the Government entities are concerned that are charged with compliance or enforcement. We got that report from the President's conference on small business. I know my friend from Missouri spent hour after hour combing through the report after that conference was over. It was pretty comprehensive on what areas we could deal with and what areas maybe that we could not deal with. But it was pretty obvious that we had a lot of work to do in this piece of legislation. It is truly bipartisan. We marked it up the other day, after Senator Bond's work, and then the years that the ranking member, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas, spent in trying to find middle ground or to craft a piece of legislation that could pass this Congress. He has a vital interest in this and he has been a vital part of this, to bring this piece of legislation to the floor. I believe the measure does strike the right balance. It strikes a balance between business and the burdensome regulatory and enforcement nature of the Federal Government. Business owners who deal with these regulations every day are telling us ``give us some flexibility, give us some relief,'' not maybe to change a law but get the regulatory agencies in a position that they can be an advocate for business, put them in a support role, not just to go out and levy fines or find something wrong. There is probably not a business in the world where you cannot go out and find something wrong or some violation of some rule or regulation. The regulatory agencies should be an advocate of that business and help them to put their house in order. Just give us a little help. Tell us what we are doing wrong and then turn around and help us fix it. I think we can find that relationship between the regulators and, of course, people who are trying to make a living in this country. This measure incorporates several provisions that will greatly help entities which are defined as small business, small nonprofits and, of course, that is what we find in our small towns. When you are a 98 percent small business State, as Montana is, this happens to be a very important issue. After all, all the new jobs are being created by the young entrepreneurs who are starting out in business and they are hiring one, two, three, four, five people to get started in hopes of growing to something larger. It even encompasses our people who work on our farms and ranches. I am very concerned about the changing attitude that has been occurring in probably one of the most helpful, the most knowledgeable agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and that is the Soil Conservation Service. They have taken a support group of actually great people and know what they are talking about when it comes to soil science, soil conservation, water management, water conservation, what to do about erosion--the farmers and ranchers across this land really placed a lot of confidence in the know-how of the Soil Conservation Service--and turned them into a regulatory unit which maybe a farmer or rancher does not want to come back on their farm or their ranch anymore. That is a relationship that has been destroyed because of the nature of the bureaucracy in this day and age. I think this law creates a cooperative relationship between regulators and small business entities, one that is less punitive and much more solution oriented. It adds a trigger to the Regulatory Flexibility Act when a rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on the substantial number of small entities, and the agency would then have to show they have taken steps to minimize the impact of the rule on small businesses available within the agency's discretion. The RFA would also be applicable to the IRS rules and substantive interpretive rulemaking, for the first time. I just went down through some of the things that it does. It struck me in the compliance guides, it means, write the rules and regulations in plain English so all of us can understand it, and gets away from these legalees or gets away from the language that, no matter which way you go, you are going to be out of compliance as far as a businessman is concerned. Just keep it simple. That is not asking too much. It asks for more input from the small businesses during the rulemaking process. We had a hearing in my State of Montana on the new rules and regulations on safety in the workplace in the woods, logging, requiring that an employer enforce a rule to make loggers wear a specific kind of logging boot. It is a caulk boot. You know what? The boot is not even out on the market yet. They cannot even buy it at any price. They cannot get it. The logging operation is shut down because the rule called for the boot, and it is not available. There, again, you are asking for some flexibility. Not a bad idea. Weigh first-time penalties for small infractions. Quit going out there and beating up on people. It makes Government more cooperative, and it even makes the businesses more cooperative, also. Those are just some things that happened in this act. I find that if you come forward with a piece of legislation which has strong bipartisan support--and I mean everybody on that Small Business Committee had an opportunity for input in crafting this legislation--and then we bring it to the floor in hopes of giving small business some relief, and it is filibustered by the other side of the aisle--make no doubt about it, they will not let this piece of legislation come up for a vote. They always told me, the price of a filibuster is a few political chips. Somebody better be paying it, and somebody better be kicking some into the pot, because along with everything else, we do not want to get into a situation, especially in a year like 1996, where the only thing we do is get into the business of name-calling and not really looking at this piece of legislation and what it does for us. Small business is where it is at. We do not even pick up the business section in the paper that we do not see large corporations downsizing, spinning off small parts of their own industry. You know what? That is not all bad because some of those little spinoffs, they go out, they hire smaller, they become lean and mean, and you know what? Pretty soon they become very profitable. So when you look at S. 942, it is something that I think the Small Business Committee can be very, very proud of. It has new compliance guidelines, informal small-entity guidance services to small business development centers, even enforcement on ombudsman and regional boards that creates some kind of a relationship between those people who do business with the Small Business Administration in trying to get their businesses off the ground. It levels the playing field. It allows small business to do business on the same level as big business. So I congratulate Senator Bond and Senator Bumpers for working on this, working it out the way it should be done. I mean, we have been part of the criticism, too, that we are too partisan. But this one really was not. This was a bill that was worked on and was worked on, and it was fine-tuned before it was ever allowed to come to a vote in the committee. Everybody had an opportunity to be a part of this Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. We cannot talk one way and act another, because I think the information and the availability of how we act and what we say is too open to the world to then go home and tell the folks that we have done something else. I do not think we are in that kind of a position. So I hope and I suggest that the other side of the aisle--let us get this on the floor. If you have some complaints about it, let us bring them out and let us try to work them out. That is the way legislation moves. I do not think there is anybody on this committee that is not amenable to suggestions as far as this piece of legislation is concerned, because as far as small business is concerned, this could be the biggest piece of legislation that we move this year. So I thank my chairman and the ranking member, and I hope that we can pass this posthaste. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, today I am introducing the Lost Creek Land Exchange Act of 1996. This bill would accomplish two important things. It authorizes the acquisition of the Lost Creek area for the public, and it may help prevent the closure of the Brand-S mill in Livingston MT. I want to emphasize that this bill is a starting point. I fully anticipate major changes will need to be made. Yet, the process needs to move forward. Under this bill, 14,500 acres of blue-ribbon bighorn sheep habitat known as Lost Creek would become a part of the Deerlodge National Forest. For the past few years, local sportsman and conservation groups, the Forest Service, and many others have been interested in the public acquiring this prime habitat. I, too, believe this is a worthwhile endeavor. The bill I am introducing today would transfer the Lost Creek area, and 3,000 additional acres currently owned by R-Y Timber, to the Forest Service. In return R-Y Timber will acquire the deed to 3,600 acres and 46 million board feet of timber. As most people in Park County know, R-Y Timber has an option to purchase the Brand-S mill in Livingston. If R-Y Timber decides to not purchase this mill by the middle of March, it is my understanding that the chances for the mill to remain open will be very slim. While R-Y Timber already has a mill in Townsend, this land exchange could allow R-Y Timber to keep both mills operating, and therefore, prevent the loss of 130 much-needed jobs in the Livingston area. As I stated earlier, R-Y Timber will receive the deed to 46 million board feet of timber in the Deerlodge, Helena, and Lewis and Clark National Forests. However, the areas for harvesting have not been identified. In addition, this timber will be harvested according to the Montana Forestry best management practice, Montana streamside zone management law, and other State laws. Between 20 and 30 percent of the timber will be available each year, and R-Y Timber will have 5 years to complete the harvest. Language has also been included to assure that designation of the timber will not slow down the present limitations on the numbers of trained Forest Service personnel. Under this bill, the Forest Service would be required to use outside contractors to perform whatever field work is necessary for the designation. The Lost Creek area has been valued at about $8 million. And the days of the Federal Government simply paying the price tag are over. This bill provides a way for the public to purchase this prime bighorn sheep habitat while providing some timber jobs in our communities. Madame President, as I stated earlier the bill I am introducing today is a starting point. We have much work ahead of us. Over the next couple months, I hope that the parties involved will continue to work together so this win-win bill can make it to the President's desk.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, today I am introducing the Lost Creek Land Exchange Act of 1996. This bill would accomplish two important things. It authorizes the acquisition of the Lost Creek area for the public, and it may help prevent the closure of the Brand-S mill in Livingston MT. I want to emphasize that this bill is a starting point. I fully anticipate major changes will need to be made. Yet, the process needs to move forward. Under this bill, 14,500 acres of blue-ribbon bighorn sheep habitat known as Lost Creek would become a part of the Deerlodge National Forest. For the past few years, local sportsman and conservation groups, the Forest Service, and many others have been interested in the public acquiring this prime habitat. I, too, believe this is a worthwhile endeavor. The bill I am introducing today would transfer the Lost Creek area, and 3,000 additional acres currently owned by R-Y Timber, to the Forest Service. In return R-Y Timber will acquire the deed to 3,600 acres and 46 million board feet of timber. As most people in Park County know, R-Y Timber has an option to purchase the Brand-S mill in Livingston. If R-Y Timber decides to not purchase this mill by the middle of March, it is my understanding that the chances for the mill to remain open will be very slim. While R-Y Timber already has a mill in Townsend, this land exchange could allow R-Y Timber to keep both mills operating, and therefore, prevent the loss of 130 much-needed jobs in the Livingston area. As I stated earlier, R-Y Timber will receive the deed to 46 million board feet of timber in the Deerlodge, Helena, and Lewis and Clark National Forests. However, the areas for harvesting have not been identified. In addition, this timber will be harvested according to the Montana Forestry best management practice, Montana streamside zone management law, and other State laws. Between 20 and 30 percent of the timber will be available each year, and R-Y Timber will have 5 years to complete the harvest. Language has also been included to assure that designation of the timber will not slow down the present limitations on the numbers of trained Forest Service personnel. Under this bill, the Forest Service would be required to use outside contractors to perform whatever field work is necessary for the designation. The Lost Creek area has been valued at about $8 million. And the days of the Federal Government simply paying the price tag are over. This bill provides a way for the public to purchase this prime bighorn sheep habitat while providing some timber jobs in our communities. Madame President, as I stated earlier the bill I am introducing today is a starting point. We have much work ahead of us. Over the next couple months, I hope that the parties involved will continue to work together so this win-win bill can make it to the President's desk.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2196, as amended, which is a bill to amend the Stevenson-Wylder Technology Innovation Act of 1980. The Senate version of this bill, S. 1164, was reported out of the Commerce Committee in November of last year. Our system of more than 700 Federal laboratories is one of our most precious national assets. These labs conduct important research and development programs to keep the United States on the cutting edge of science and technology. As chairman of the Science Subcommittee, I cosponsored S. 1164 to help accelerate the transfer of technology from our 700 Federal labs to the private industry, where it can be converted into commercial goods and services for the American people. Our cooperative research and development agreements [CRADA's] have proven a very effective way of accomplishing technology transfer without increasing Federal spending. These CRADA's enable Government and industry to conduct research together which hopefully will generate inventions and technological breakthroughs that can be later commercialized. It is the national interest to encourage more of this kind of joint research. With that in mind, this bill seeks to encourage more joint research by clarifying the intellectual property rights that the industry partner may receive in inventions generated by the joint research. In this way, the company knows going into the arrangement that it will have the right to commercialize the results of its joint research. The bill also makes clear that, in exchange for the rights given to the company, the Government is entitled to reasonable compensation, which would typically involve a share of the royalties from any successful commercialization efforts. So, both the Federal labs and their private sector partners in these agreements stand to benefit from this legislation. Equally important, the bill provides greater incentives for the Federal lab scientists to commercialize their inventions by increasing their share of any royalties received from the sale of products arising from the joint research. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this bill, as amended, is supported by industry, the Federal lab directors, and the research community and has broad bipartisan support in Congress. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2196 as amended pass it.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I agree with the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is not often these days that we hear good news. It is not often that we hear about people who some consider heroes. And when we do hear about heroes, they are usually sports figures who make millions or actors who have access to media attention. But I recently heard about a Montanan that is neither an athlete, an actor, or any national figure. He has not saved lives or discovered a new drug. In fact, I would venture to bet that most people inside this beltway have never heard of him. And yet, he is a hero just the same. His name is Roger Arpan, he is 39 years old and he lives in Alzada, MT. And recently he made such an impact on the life of a man in Alaska, that I received a letter commending him. I would like to read a portion of this letter, because it spells out so clearly why Roger is worthy of our attention: I met Roger by accident when my nephew and I were in the area in mid-October for an antelope hunt. We were on Highway 212 just north of Alzada when we spotted a nice herd of animals well off the road in a very large pasture. We knew it was private property and went to find the owner to ask permission to hunt. After a bit of searching, we found a road that led to the ranch house. A man promptly came out of the house; his arms flaying in the air, his head was bobbing around and he was walking with an irregular gait. Soon he addressed us in a halting fashion. We asked if we could get permission to hunt, and he said, ``Yes, but watch out for livestock, and if you are not successful, come back and I'll help you get some.'' He also said he would be working in a distant back field collecting rolls of hay and stacking them in the field. We returned to the pasture and after laying some careful stalking strategy, we collected a fine buck antelope with 15\1/2\ inch horns. As a matter of courtesy, we returned to the ranch house to let the owners know of our success. This time Roger was out in the big hay field, but he drove across to meet us at the gate. There he was operating a large farm truck and trailer hauling hay and driving a tractor with a stacker, putting up the hay for winter feed all by himself. His body motions may have seemed erratic to me, but Roger was in complete control of himself and the equipment. I have farmed nearly all my life and understand the requirement for dexterity and alertness when operating heavy farm machinery. I could not restrain myself and had to express my admiration for Roger for his courage and determination in carrying out these farming activities despite obvious and severe physical limitations. It was then that I learned that Roger Arpan was born with cerebral palsy and has suffered the ravages of this disease all his life. His parents determined early on that if Roger was to have any kind of life, he had to learn to take care of himself. Roger suffers every day, now somewhat less than in past years due to a new treatment, but the disease is chronic and will be with him all his life unless a cure is discovered. He carries on with courage and determination, motivated by the love and support of his family. He is disabled in his physical body but his mind is alert and he is out there working and making a contribution to his family and to society. Many people suffering disabilities far less acute than Roger's fall into despair and become burdens on society, but not this man. Mr. President, I join with Wilson Gay, this man from Alaska, in saluting Roger Arpan. Though I would like to believe Roger is a typical Montanan, I know that he stands out. His strength, his courage, his determination, his strong character, and yes, even his success, make Roger a hero. Keep up the good work, Roger. I tip my hat to you.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to state my support for Senate bill 1519, the Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act of 1996. This bill was introduced by Senator Dole, and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This legislation bars the United States from making any voluntary or assessed payments to the United Nations if Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali imposes any tax or fee on United States citizens or continues to consider any such proposal. I find it outrageous that the United Nations could actually believe it has the sovereignty to raise and collect taxes on the people of this world to increase its coffers. The idea of a tax on any international action, whether it be a plane ticket, a letter mailed, or a currency exchange, is simply beyond my belief. This revenue would then be used by unelected, world bureaucrats to do what they want under the umbrella of the United Nations. This organization has repeatedly attempted to increase its power even as the U.S. Congress tries to limit its scope and authority. There are many questions about the U.N.'s responsibilities and its ever-growing role in international relations ranging from peacekeeping missions to international conferences on everything from children's rights to the environment. Recently, in my home State of Montana, a U.N. delegation visited Yellowstone National Park in order to promote a buffer zone that would prohibit mineral development in the area. It is bad enough that we have allowed the United Nations to set our international role, but now we are allowing it to come into our country and set national policy. I ask that the February 1, 1996 Washington Times article entitled ``U.N. `intrusion' stirs anger at Yellowstone,'' be printed in the Record. There are many cases that exemplify the degree to which to the United Nations is full of waste and uncontrolled spending. I cosponsored an amendment to the 1995 fiscal year State Department authorization bill that would establish the position of inspector general within the United Nations to seriously address the rampant corruption and inefficiency throughout the U.N. system and make it more accountable. While it is true that the United States owes in excess of $1 billion in membership contributions, it is also true that we provide a quarter to a third of the U.N.'s budget. Compare that to other countries who are still assessed membership dues at the same rate as they were when they were developing countries in the sixties. The last thing the United Nations should be given is the ability to raise revenue in order to increase its powers. I am disgusted with the U.N.'s arrogance in believing it can increase its budget by taxing our citizens. This proposal should not be permitted to go any further. S. 1519 concludes that the United Nations has no legal authority to tax American citizens. It prohibits U.S. payments to the United Nations if it attempts to impose any of the taxation schemes. And finally, the bill cuts off funds for any U.N. organization which develop or advocate taxation schemes. Once again, I support this bill to bar U.S. contributions to the United Nations if that organization continues to consider its scheme for taxation without representation. The article follows: [From the Washington Times, Feb. 1, 1996] U.N. `Intrusion' Stirs Anger at Yellowstone--Environmental Alarm Seen as Meddling (By Valerie Richardson) Denver.--A United Nations delegation to Yellowstone National Park has spurred outrage among Westerners who accuse the international body of meddling in domestic policy. After a three-day evaluation by international experts, the World Heritage Committee, a bureau of the United Nations Environmental, scientific and Cultural Organization, declared Yellowstone a World Heritage site ``in danger.'' Chief among the delegation's concerns was the proposed reopening of the New World Mine, a gold mine located near Yellowstone in Montana. But debate about the mine has been all but overshadowed by the uproar over the delegation itself. In areas of the West where the states'-rights movement is flourishing and distrust of centralized government is at an all-time high, the arrival of a U.N. committee has been viewed as nothing less than an attempt to subvert U.S. sovereignty. ``Will the New World Order sabotage the New World Mine?'' the Montana Standard newspaper in Butte asked in an Aug. 27 editorial. ``Clinton administration officials appear to be scheming to bring that about.'' Sen. Alan K. Simpson, Wyoming Republican, called the international delegation's role ``a terrible intrusion.'' He and other Western lawmakers have blasted Interior Assistant Secretary George Frampton for inviting the committee to Yellowstone and urging the panel to lend its voice to those fighting the New World Mine. Mr. Frampton issued the invitation at the request of ``concerned citizens,'' said park spokeswoman Cheryl Matthews. Those citizens include a coalition of 14 environmental groups working to halt the mine, including the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund. ``When we made the request a year ago, we didn't anticipate the black-helicopter arguments,'' said Bob Ekey, spokesman for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Bozeman, Mont. ``Frankly, some of our critics have been putting out misinformation--that the U.N. is going to come out, claim the area and run the park.'' Other Western leaders have accused Mr. Frampton of badly overstepping his authority by trying to kill the proposed mine before the review process is complete. The U.S. Forest Service and Montana Department of Environmental Quality are now preparing an environmental-impact statement on the project. ``It is astonishing that a group of extreme environmentalists can invite a few folks from the United Nations to circumvent laws that Americans and Montanans have worked hard for and lent their voices to,'' said Sen. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican. ``We have an exhaustive procedure in the books in Montana to decide where mines can and cannot be cited. Why should we allow the U.N. to pick and choose when these laws and rules will be allowed to work?'' Rep. Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Republican, noted that Mr. Frampton is ultimately responsible for a ``fair'' review of the project, ``yet he is the very person who requested the United Nations interference within the borders of the United States.'' ``Does he want foreigners to determine our environmental requirements?'' she asked. ``Doesn't he know that the United States has the strictest environmental regulations on the planet?'' Marvin Jensen, Yellowstone National Park assistant superintendent, stressed that the international delegation has ``no legal authority'' to set domestic policy. ``The only thing the World Heritage Committee can do is list and de- list,'' he said. ``To be listed as `in danger' raises questions about the site's continued listing,'' he explained. ``To be de-listed would be embarrassing to any country.'' But some critics worry that the committee may have more power than forest officials acknowledge. By signing the World Heritage Treaty in 1972 and requesting Yellowstone's designation as a World Heritage site in 1978, the United States pledged to manage the park according to treaty requirements, says the committee. The most controversial of those requirements is the establishment of a buffer zone around each World Heritage site. When Yellowstone was listed, officials agreed that the seven national forests surrounding the park would serve as an adequate protection. None of the other 17 listed U.S. sites has a formal buffer zone. Past proposals for a buffer zone called for establishing an 18.2-million-acre perimeter around the park in which many economic and recreational activities would be restricted, including ranching, logging, snowmobiling, even auto traffic. Most locals staunchly oppose such a zone. During the delegation's three-day tour in September, however, committee President Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand fed local fears when he suggested expanding the buffer zone around the 2.3-million-acre park. That recommendation was ultimately dropped from the final report. Those remarks notwithstanding, park officials still insist the committee's role is strictly advisory, and, barring another invitation from the Interior Department, over and done with. Mr. Jensen admitted it's been difficult to convince some local residents of that. ``One local fellow--a gardener-- asked me, `So when's the U.N. coming to take over Yellowstone?' '' said Mr. Jensen. ``I talked to him and talked to him and I could not convince him that that wasn't going to happen.''

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be yielded 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute my colleague from Montana, Congressman Pat Williams. Pat surprised all of us last month when he announced he would not seek his 10th term in the U.S. House of Representatives. Pat says he wants to get back to Montana to do a little fishing and hiking. Well, few people know better than me what it is like to miss Montana, so his annoucement--although unexpected--was understandable. Mr. President, it is no secret that Pat Williams and I come down on opposite sides of just about every issue. He is a New Deal liberal and proud of it. While I may not always like where he stands, at least I know where he stands. I respect him for that and I think the people of Montana do too. Despite the differences between us, I think there is a unique civility in the Montana congressional delegation. Our debates over the years have been passionate and heated, but I believe they have never been personal. Pat has been a worthy adversary during my 7 years in the U.S. Senate, and I will miss that relationship. This does not mean that Pat and I were not able to come together on some issues. In fact, when outsiders tried to impose there will on Montana, I would bet that Pat and I were on the same side more often than not. We both agree that fair trade does not always mean that our neighbors to the north can run roughshod over the Montana farmers and businesses. We both agree that NAFTA and GATT are bad news for Montana. Any State that is on the border feels the effect of that. We both agree that our Nation's job-training programs need to be streamlined and consolidated. We both agree in the need to repeal a federally mandated speed limit, of which my State caught a little criticism. And even though he supported his President, he broke ranks with his Democrat colleagues by opposing the Brady bill and the President's crime bill. So, Mr. President, I commend Pat for his service to my home State of Montana. In addition to his legislative duties, he has been a servant of our constituents. Montanans of all stripes could count on Pat to answer their questions. They might not have liked the answers all of the time, but he always answered them. And when they had problems with the Federal Government, he was there, too. So for 18 years he has traveled one of the largest congressional districts--both the western district when he first came to Congress, and then, of course, the full State in the last two terms. So I think he will be missed by the State of Montana. This kind of public service can take its toll on a person. Pat would show up at countless meetings, and I can remember them. There might be 5 or 500; it did not make any difference, Pat was always there. So I wish him the best as he chooses retirement. If you come across him fishing in one of our prized trout streams in Montana or hiking a scenic trail, I hope you tip your hat and say, ``Thanks, Pat, for a job well done here in the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress.''

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about the problem before us; that is, trying to get a farm bill through this Congress. We are not very far away, even though the snowflakes are flying around us in the northern part of the hemisphere, it will be soon that we will see the combines starting to roll in Texas. We are just finishing planting our spring wheat in Montana when the combines start in Texas. We still do not have a farm bill or a farm policy. A lot more people live in urban areas than farm, but it is pretty important to us in this country because the first obligation of any society is to feed itself. I have always made the speech that the second thing we do every day is eat. I do not know the first thing you do. You have a lot of options the first thing in the morning, but the second thing is you eat. We do a pretty good job of it in this country, but the main challenge for all of us, both in Government and in our commodity groups that represent the livestock industry or the grain industry or the fresh vegetable industry or the nut industry or the fruits and vegetables that are grown in this great and plentiful Nation is to make sure that we get at least a fair share of the consumer dollar back on the land. Would it surprise you to know that only 3 cents out of every consumer dollar spent for food is all that gets back to the farmer? We are to the point where we cannot hardly make it on 3 cents out of every dollar. There is a little imbalance here--$3.46 a pound for Wheaties in the grocery store, and up until this year we were having a hard time getting $3.46 for a bushel of wheat of which there is 60 pounds. I have a hard time relating $5 T-bone steaks to $60 fat cattle. Maybe I am in the wrong business, or I understand the other business, but it is about time our processors, purveyors, our distributors, and our retailers understand that we have to give something back to the man who produces the raw product. There are a lot of automobiles and a lot of boats and a lot of vacations that are paid for because we only expend about 16 percent of our expendable income on food in our homes to feed this society. We are truly a blessed Nation, but we still need policy for food and fiber in this country. And, of course, with 1 farmer feeding 120 other folks both in this country and abroad, it makes it a very large industry. This bill changes the direction and the culture of farm programs. In the Freedom to Farm Act, yes, there are some areas I would like to change. Nobody ever gets a perfect bill. But nonetheless, we have to take a look at it and see what it really does, if it gives our business people who live on our farms and ranches the flexibility to operate their farms and ranches the way they think they should and also at a profitable level. I know if I had to go back to agriculture, where I was raised--on 160 acres of 2 parts rock and and 1 part dirt in northwest Missouri--I probably could not make a living now, but I know some people are trying to and it is a struggle. This particular bill helps out those folks. It moves us into a marketing mode and takes us away from a program that is dependent on the Government. We are not going to take the full step all at once. And to my critics who say this does not go far enough to eliminate guaranteed subsidies to agriculture, I say we have to take it maybe one step at a time. At least let us change the structure. Let us change the structure in which our farmers and ranches can operate and still provide food and fiber for this Nation. Foreign market development is a good investment just like education is a good investment. As for ARS, the Agriculture Research Service, I happen to think we must never stop doing research in food production. Maybe a lot of folks do not know this either, but for the first time in the history of agriculture production in this country yields of wheat are declining just a little bit. Why? Because we do not have the plant breeders and the scientists developing strains that are disease resistant. We have to continue to do that in order to keep our production up. The same thing is true in our corn, soybeans, barley, and some other feedgrains. So we need to make that investment in the Agriculture Research Service. The Export Enhancement Program, I am not a great fan of that, but it is retained in this bill. That is to ward off unfair competition in the international market. I think those dollars ought to go directly to the people who produce the grain, not the people who handle the grain or the big grain companies. It should get back to the farmer some way or other. So, no, it is not a perfect bill. On the conservation end of it, the CRP is very successful, taking marginal land out of production, the development of wetlands. I know in Montana our bird population, our wildlife numbers have increased since CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program, has been put into effect. That is very good in taking some marginal land out of production that should never have been in production in the first place. We have noticed that. It has great support. So here is a program that is supported by agriculture. Farmers are telling me, ``Let's go with it.'' It sends us in a new direction. But we are also talking about a time when agriculture commodities are doing very well with the exception of the cattle business. And there is some room for development here in our part of the country. So I urge a ``yes'' on this cloture vote. Let us proceed with this bill and debate it like it should be debated and pass those programs that can be passed, but let us at least give agriculture a program to which we can pin our future. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Again, I want to congratulate the leadership of Senator Pressler and the many people that it took to put this together, because we know that it was frustrating at times. It was frustrating to all of us at times. But, nonetheless, I think it is a good piece of legislation. I yield the floor. commercial availability of navigation devices

Mr. BURNS. I agree. However, when those services are no longer rate regulated such subsidy cannot be sustained and the prohibition on bundling is no longer necessary. The bill's prohibition on bundling and subsidization no longer applies when cable rates are deregulated. Consumers should have the option of obtaining digital devices through commercial outlets, but this does not mean that network operators must make each type of equipment available through commercial outlets. Network operators should have the flexibility to package and bundle equipment and services.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my chairman and the Chair. First of all, I rise today to join my colleague in pledging my support for this piece of legislation, the Telecommunications Act of 1995. Let me first start out talking about the leadership that Senator Pressler has shown on this particular piece of legislation. As you know, we have gotten the reform of telecommunications further than it has come since I have been in this body. In 1989, we started working on telecommunications in the reform, the deregulation of it, to do one thing, and that was to push new technologies into areas where we desperately needed those new technologies, because all one has to do is to look around and say we are going to do things differently when it comes to educating our kids, we are going to do things differently when we talk about telemedicine. I can remember almost 5 years ago I joined with then-Senator Gore to introduce a series of telecommunications infrastructure bills. I remember that day. I think the ranking member of the Commerce Committee was chairman at that time. I can remember that situation. We both strongly believed at that time in the need to unleash the digital revolution through the substitution of competition for excessive regulation. The bill basically achieves that basic goal, and because of this, it will accelerate by decades the deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. This is not to say, Mr. President, that the conference report is perfect or the best it could possibly be. In some places I would like to change it. But, you know, you do not get everything you want, but at least you want everything that you got. I think basically that is the position we are in. We cannot let the best become the enemy of the good. It is time that we take what we can get now and move forward with this piece of legislation. Under this bill, the nature of regulation will change. Instead of regulating the profits of telephone companies, regulation will now focus on ensuring that competition can take root in all aspects of the telecommunications markets. Once full and effective competition can take root, it will protect the consumer interests and the need for regulation will end. This process of using regulation to embrace and advance the cause of competition toward an ultimate goal of deregulation will require the conscience and the constant vigilance of this Congress and Congresses to come. Cooperation between the FCC and the States will also be mandatory. We all must be vigilant to ensure that competition can take root and that it grow and it prosper. If it does not, then this bill will be a failure. I believe this bill will not be a failure. I am proud of most of the agreements that were made and reached in this conference. I believe that a good deal was struck where both rural and urban interests are well served. My home State of Montana will benefit greatly from the universal services provisions and lower telephone rates, better cable services, and increased competition in all segments of telecommunications across the board. What does it do? It removes almost all State and local government restrictions on competition and local exchange telephone, video services, wireless, and other communications markets. It also reforms the broadcast license renewal process to forestall strike units or other abusive practices by self-styled consumer groups and community activists, removing network cable owner limits and raising current radio and television station ownership caps. It restructures the remaining FCC procedures and requires speedy action on complaints, petitions for forbearance, applications and other requests, and establishes a permanent biennial regulatory review of the process. It also removes and relaxes the restrictions on the ability of public utility holding companies to engage in competitive telecommunications activities. Furthermore, the report's rules on interconnection will empower competitors by ensuring that they can gain access on fair and reasonable terms to existing local telephone facilities without imposing unreasonable burdens on rural telephone companies. The report also protects the continuation of universal service, an essential feature, especially for rural areas where competition will be slow to evolve. And, a backup provision, the so-called advanced telecommunications provision, was included in the report to ensure that competition and, hence, infrastructure deployment evolve in a reasonable and timely manner. If competition is stalled, the report gives the FCC authority to quicken the pace of competition and deregulation to accelerate the deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. These provisions, taken together, will ensure that all Americans--in urban, suburban, rural, and remote areas--gain access to the most advanced telecommunications capability as quickly as market forces will allow. Finally, I also support the radio ownership deregulation provision included in the report. The provision is a good compromise between those who wanted complete deregulation and those who were concerned about concentration in radio ownership in local markets. By deregulating radio ownership rules, we are setting the groundwork for our Nation's radio operators to compete and survive in this new telecommunications environment. For these reasons, I support the conference report and hope that my colleagues will as well in the confidence that its enactment will ensure the rapid deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to the benefit to all Americans.

Mr. BURNS. I agree. Moreover, FCC involvement in the emerging digital market could have the effect of freezing or chilling the development of that market. If private industry groups are able to develop sufficient standards on their own, there is no need for the FCC to intervene. One such example of this policy approach is the so-called Eshoo amendment which leaves the development of ``features, functions, protocols, and other product and service options'' for analog cable equipment to the private sector.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Madam President. I rise today in support of S. 1340, a bill to provide for a commission to study the concentration of packers in the United States. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this bill without prolonged debate, so that the livestock producers of this country will have a few answers to the questions they have about the packers. This bill will provide the hardworking men and women who work on the land raising livestock to have an insight into what is occurring in the market today. The producers in this country have, recently, seen extremely low prices for their livestock. This is related to several different trends in the market. Among these trends is the low number of packing houses left in the country. This concentration of packing houses places a burden on the producer to sell his or her livestock to a select location close to their operation. In my State of Montana, this is a very real burden, since we no longer have a packing house in our State. Another of the concerns that the producers have center around the number of live cattle that the packers own at this time. The terms of contracts let on these cattle are not widely known and those that are known are extremely confusing to all involved. These contracts have placed many of the smaller producers in the peril. The small operation in the country that may run less than a hundred head of cattle feel the pinch the packers have put on them through the major operations in the Midwest. The most easily measured and common aspect of the concentration of packing houses, relates to the consumer cost of meat. Recently I was in a local grocery store, and noticed the cost of a pound of hamburger and was astounded. My astonishment came from the fact that I had just returned from Montana, where I had witnessed the price being paid for live cattle at the sale ring. The difference in the price per pound for live cattle compared to the price we must pay for the final product is way beyond the lines of reason. And $20 cows do not draw the price of $5-a-pound steak. Where is the responsibility to the producers of the livestock in this country? Madam President, it is my hope that this measure will pass today and that the President will quickly sign and nominate the members of the study commission. The time has come that we need to find out the discrepancies in the pricing system for our meat, today. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a young man from my State of Montana. This young man, just last week, won his third consecutive world title in saddle bronc riding at the National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas, NV. Dan Mortensen, I tip my Stetson to you and your dedication. Dan Mortensen will be 27 years old in 3 days and has accomplished a rare feat in his speciality event saddle bronc riding. He is a classic bronc rider, as is apparent by his three consecutive world titles. Saddle bronc riding is considered the classic event in the sport of rodeo. If you have never had the opportunity, I would suggest that you all take the time to see this event. A good saddle bronc ride is like watching a ballet to a cowboy, as it is a fluid movement between man and beast. In this event, the contestant must stay on a bucking horse for 8 seconds using only the timing of their movement and a bronc rein to keep them in the saddle. The classic style of Dan shows the grace and beauty involved in the sport of rodeo. The honors that Dan has to his credit are numerous and speak volumes about his dedication to the true American sport of rodeo. Dan won the regular season title for the Montana High School Rodeo Association in saddle bronc riding. In 1990 Dan was awarded the title of Saddle Bronc Rookie of the Year. Four years later, Dan won his first world title in his speciality event. It was during the finals that year that Dan won not only the average in the saddle bronc event, but set a record in the average. The average, is the total score of 10 rounds of riding wild and wooly bucking horses. Truly a world champion accomplishment. Dan and his wife, Kay, live in the beautiful Gallatin Valley in Manhattan, MT. Residing in this area does take its toll, since it is not the easiest place to make flight arrangements out to the numerous rodeos necessary to win a championship. However, Dan continues to call this home. Mr. President, I join with the citizens of the State of Montana, and with all that hold our tradition of rodeo dear, in saluting this young man. I congratulate him for his dedication to the great Western tradition and sport of rodeo.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in July; I introduced S. 1154, a bill to authorize construction of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System in Valley County, MT. Since the introduction of this bill, my staff has been meeting with the Senate Energy Committee staff concerning the bill and its provisions. In addition, I have had discussions with the other members of the Montana congressional delegation about this urgent situation under which hundreds of people must haul their water supplies for miles because of the contamination of the ground water. Based on all of these discussions, the legislation has been redrafted for reintroduction today to reflect the comments of the Energy Committee staff. I want to thank Chairman Murkowski and his staff for their help in streamlining this bill. I am pleased to be joined in the sponsorship of this bill by my colleague, Senator Baucus. I appreciated his assistance with this measure. An identical bill will also be introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Pat Williams. The Montana delegation is unified in our efforts to obtain congressional authorization for this rural water system to help this depressed area of our State. We look forward to working with Senator Murkowski to move this bill to hearings and a markup. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.