Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my fellow Senator from Montana in sponsoring this agricultural disaster amendment. Agriculture is Montana's largest industry, and these persistent weather-related losses are devastating to our economy. Farmers and ranchers across the country are struggling to cope with weather-related disasters, and this amendment will deliver needed relief to those producers. Whether we are talking about hurricanes, floods, or the prolonged devastation caused by drought, some of our producers are barely hanging on. I am particularly happy that this amendment responsibly targets assistance to those individuals who need it most. It provides crop disaster assistance, livestock disaster assistance, and funds for the American Indian livestock feed program. It allows producers to choose which year's losses 2003 or 2004 were the worst. In Montana, most folks suffered the biggest losses in 2003. Our crop losses that year were over $70 million. Livestock producers in many counties in 2003 lost a good percentage of their pasture land to drought. For others, 2004 may have been the year that nearly finished them off. Nearly half of our grazing land is in poor or very poor condition. Record low streamflows are still being recorded, and our reservoirs are nearly empty. And even though some of our wheat producers had good yields, topsoil moisture is still well below average. The drought is far from over in Montana, and throughout the West. Some folks need the assistance for 2003 losses, others for severe weather losses incurred this year. This amendment will let farmers and ranchers make the right choice, based on their individual situation. I know some of my colleagues have concerns about the price tag of this bill, and I admit it worries me too. But there are people back home who might not make it another year if they don't get relief from the impacts of a 6-year drought. Drought is a silent killer. It doesn't make headlines, and few television stations report on it. This assistance is essential for those people just like it is critical for farmers with flooded cropland, or producers with unexpected summer frost damage. This bill is targeted to just those who meet certain loss thresholds, to make sure that assistance goes where it is most needed, whether that need be in Florida, Maine, or Montana. We cannot discriminate between producers or disasters. I thank my colleagues for their support of this amendment, and look forward to its adoption.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive with respect to the Byrd amendment occur at 2 p.m. this afternoon; provided further that the amendment be temporarily set aside in order for Senator Dodd to offer the next amendment.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Thomas A. Grau, CPCU, who will be installed as the 100th president of the Nation's largest insurance association--the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA--this October in Orlando. He was elected to IIABA's Executive Committee in September 1999, and was inaugurated as president-elect during the association's convention in Las Vegas last fall. Tom is an executive with the Cogswell Agency in Great Falls, MT. Tom has been active on the local, state, regional and national levels of the insurance industry throughout his career. In 1991, he began his 6-year tenure as the Independent Insurance Agents of Montana representative to the IIABA National Board of Directors. In 1997, he was appointed chairman of IIABA's Finance Committee. Tom also served on IIABA's Audit and Direction, and Resource Coordination Committees. He also was active in the regional Far West Agents Conference, serving as its chairman in 1986. The conference is an annual meeting of industry and independent agent leaders from eight Western States. On the state level, Tom was president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Montana, IIAM, in 1988, 1989 as well as chairman of its Technical Affairs Committee for 5 years and a member of the Board of Directors of IIAM's for-profit subsidiary--Public Risk Insurance Management, PRIM. On the local level, he twice served as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Great Falls. Tom has been an ardent proponent of insurance industry education throughout his career, serving as instructor for numerous professional accreditation classes on the local and State levels, and earning the Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter, CPCU, designation in 1982. Tom also is deeply involved in his community. He is an active member of Holy Spirit Catholic Church and serves on the finance committee of Holy Spirit Catholic School. He is actively engaged in the local chapter of Optimist International, in which he is a past president and has held several offices, as well as the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the Boy Scouts of America. I am proud of Tom's many accomplishments, and I know he will serve his fellow independent agents and brokers with visionary leadership to further their many worthy causes. I wish him and his wife, Cheryl, great success as president and first lady of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I take a few moments to comment on S. 2468, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which will reform the postal laws of the United States to guarantee its success into the 21st century. The United States Postal Service faces several long-term financial challenges unless something is done. In the last 5 years alone, the first-class mail, which accounts for over half of all postal revenue, has dropped dramatically. The continued downward spiral of the Postal Service is linked to the increased use of faxes and e-mails to communicate. As these different ways of communicating and doing business increase, it is important to preserve delivery to every address--making it a universal service--which this bill guarantees. As a rural State, Montana is a primary example of a State that needs this assurance. The Postal Service is the only service provider available in many parts of Montana and allows Montana residents to stay in contact with the rest of the country and the world. Additionally, the Postal Service faces such problems as reacting to needed price changes. Currently, the Postal Service takes 18 months to react to price changes, which makes it impossible to respond to market conditions. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act would allow the Postal Regulatory Commission the power to institute emergency price increases due to unexpected circumstances. An Anthrax attack, that recently occurred, is an example of this circumstance. In addition, this bill would free up $78 billion over a period of 60 years by repealing the provision of the Public Law 108-18, which states that overpayment to the Postal Service must be kept in an escrow account. By releasing these funds, the Postal Service would be able to diminish rate increases, help pay off the debt owed to the U.S. Treasury and help fund health care liabilities for their employees. These funds are also need to be put toward employee salaries and benefits, which make up 76 percent of the Postal Service costs. One Montanan wrote me recently saying, ``Postal Reform is critical to the nearly 3000 Postal Employees in Montana and the thousands of others who rely on the USPS as a foundation for their occupation.'' I could not agree more. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2004.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I honor a great public servant, Roy Snyder. Roy Snyder is retiring after 27 years of providing exemplary service to America. His career began in 1962, with the Bureau of Land Management. He then served our Country for over 10 years in the United States Army where he attained the rank of Captain. He then turned his abilities to Corps of Engineers. For the last 15 years, it has been Montana's fortune to have Roy as Operations Manager at Fort Peck Lake. He assumed this position with the determination to make changes that would benefit the public. He accomplished that mission. Fort Peck Lake saw many positive changes under Mr. Snyder's oversight. Without his support and encouragement, Fort Peck would still be a little known and little used recreation site. It has been my honor and privilege to work with him on significant projects that have benefited not just Montanans, but all recreational users of Fort Peck. With Roy's help the roads around Fort Peck have been improved, the campgrounds have been improved, there is a breakwater, Lewis and Clark sites, fishing access sites, a fish hatchery, the Interpretive Center. All of these are due in large part, to Roy's tenacious ability to make things happen. Even more important, he has created relationships between users that never existed before. People who didn't realize they had anything in common are now working together. He has worked to turn a lack of communication into an open line that benefits everyone who uses Fort Peck. Even in times of adversity, Roy has been a stalwart supporter of the recreational users. He put the public's need before all others and worked to ensure they had the chance to make the most of Fort Peck Lake. It is my honor to commend Roy Snyder for his 27 years of service. It is even more of an honor for me to refer to Roy as my friend. Roy, thank you for everything you have done to make Fort Peck Lake what it is today. We will all miss you.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I have always said that I support free trade, as long as it is fair trade. The Morocco free-trade agreement before us today is an excellent example of that principle. Once this agreement goes into effect, 95 percent of the tariffs on consumer and industrial goods are eliminated, with the remaining tariffs eliminated in 9 years. This deal represents the best access to a developing country yet. I applaud Ambassador Zoellick for his hard work in achieving a balanced free trade agreement that provides significant benefits to both trade partners. Morocco imports more than $11 billion in goods each year, with $475 million coming from the United States. We have an opportunity to increase the United States presence in this emerging market. Current circumstances are certainly less than ideal for American goods: imports from the United States face a stiff tariff, over 20 percent. In Montana, we have not yet benefited from trade with Morocco, and I can only hope that passage of this agreement today will allow us to begin exploring the advantages that it can offer Montanans and Moroccans alike, without unreasonable tariff barriers for our products. I am especially pleased at the agriculture provisions in this FTA. Too often, free trade agreements represent a losing deal for Montana's farmers and ranchers, but I believe this agreement shows a commitment to fair trade for agriculture. In 2003, the United States exported over $152 million in agricultural products to Morocco. Under this agreement, that number could more than double, and I expect that some of that increase will be Montana beef and grains. According to an analysis by the American Farm Bureau Federation, ``the agreement is expected to result in a 10-to-1 gain for the U.S. agriculture sector, which already enjoys a positive trade balance with Morocco.'' I commend the Trade Representative for the wheat provisions in this FTA. I know that Morocco expressed some serious concerns about negotiating access for U.S. wheat, and Ambassador Zoellick worked hard to keep wheat on the table. Under this agreement, U.S. wheat exports could experience a five-fold increase. At the same time, the Agreement is sensitive to Moroccan domestic wheat producers. While we would always prefer tariffs to be completely eliminated, the expansion of tariff rate quotas, TRQs, in this agreement will allow Montana wheat producers vastly expanded access to Moroccan markets. Currently, wheat tariffs on U.S. exports to Morocco run as high as 135 percent. The commitments to reduce tariffs and expand TRQs are positive changes for our wheat producers. In addition, the agreement includes an important provision that ensures long-term fair access. If Morocco provides other trading partners preferential access that is better than what we have here today, Morocco has agreed to immediately extend that treatment to the same U.S. product. This guarantees a level playing field for our agriculture producers. Finally, Morocco has also agreed to work with us at the WTO negotiations to limit the trade-distorting power of state trading enterprises. This is the same agreement that we secured in the Australia Free Trade Agreement approved last week. I am pleased to see a growing international consensus that state trading enterprises, like the Canadian Wheat Board, must be addressed to provide for real free and fair trade. I urge Ambassador Zoellick to continue focusing on this important issue. Montana cattle producers also stand to benefit from this deal. Access to Moroccan markets for high quality beef--the kind of beef American cattle producers are known for is greatly increased. Tariffs on U.S. beef are often as high as 275 percent. The commitment to reduce these tariffs and to expand TRQs will allow domestic cattle producers to send prime and choice beef into Morocco hotels and restaurants, providing Morocco substantial tourism industry with the quality it demands. In addition, Morocco has agreed to accept U.S. inspection standards for beef, which will allow our products immediate access to Moroccan markets. This is a fair deal for our cattle producers. In addition to the benefits to agriculture, service providers, such as telecommunications and construction, will have enhanced access to Moroccan markets. Telecommunications will be provided with non discriminatory access to the network. Intellectual property protection is provided, as are agreements on labor and environmental standards. The Morocco free-trade agreement represents an important step toward the President's goal of establishing a Middle East Free Trade Area, and I am pleased to offer my support.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today we are considering the United States- Australia Free Trade Agreement. There is a lot to commend in the agreement before us. This deal is expected to add over $490 million annually to the U.S. economy. The benefits of this agreement to the manufacturing sector of America are significant. Tariffs on nearly all U.S. exports of manufactured goods are immediately eliminated. Intellectual property rights protections will be expanded, as will progress towards enhanced trade through e- commerce. I commend Ambassador Zoellick for his hard work on this deal. I have been to Australia many times, and I have met with Prime Minister John Howard. The U.S. and Australia share many interests. We share similar values, similar standards of living, and similar goals. Australia is a close friend and important ally in the war on terror, and I recognize the value of our relationship. Because of the overall benefit to our economy and the close friendship the U.S. shares with Australia, I will be supporting this agreement today. However, I have some reservations about the impact of this deal on Montana farmers, and I want to take a moment to address those. While the beef industry has achieved a generally balanced phase-in of changes, the Australian Wheat Board remains a trade-distorting monopoly that could harm our domestic grain producers. I recognize that Australia has offered to reconsider the role of its Wheat Board in the context of the Doha negotiations, and I applaud that decision. But the Australia Free Trade Agreement provides no immediate benefit for Montana farmers. Provisions relating to cattle are somewhat better than those for grains, but I want to take a moment and address an issue of concern for some in the beef industry. The automatic safeguards provided for in this agreement are subject to waiver, and that is troubling for some of our producers. While the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has been clear that the waiver would be used only in extraordinary circumstances, I want to stress my belief that those safeguards are there for a reason. Should the Senate approve this agreement before us today, I expect USTR to use caution when considering waiving the safeguards. I appreciate the provisions in the implementing language that require USTR to consult with the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and private sector advisory groups prior to taking action. Consultation requirements like these ensure that the best interests of our cattle producers will be protected. The inclusion of price and quantity safeguards represent real progress in achieving a balanced phase-in of free trade agreements, and I want to make sure they are properly used. Despite these issues, I do believe that the Australia agreement is, in general, beneficial to the United States, and to Montana. It could certainly be improved, but Australia comes closer to a balanced deal than most FTAs have. Again, I will vote for this agreement, but I call on Ambassador Zoellick to aggressively defend the interests of our agricultural sector in the Doha talks so that the future of free trade looks brighter for America's farmers and ranchers. Multi-lateral agreements, like the Doha talks, provide real opportunities for farmers and ranchers--and in that context, the United States and Australia will work together to liberalize trade for the benefit of all.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that I have signed on today as a cosponsor to S. 2603, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004. This legislation is vital in preserving a valuable small business tool and empowers consumers by requiring an opt-out option on faxes. Consumers will benefit from this act because of the provision that requires all unsolicited advertisers to provide an opt-out option on the front page of all solicitations. This notice must be clear and conspicuous, and the mechanism for opting out must be at no cost to the consumer. The Junk Fax Prevention Act will also benefit small businesses because they will be able to continue corresponding with customers and business partners who have an established business relationship. This is especially important for businesses, like real estate companies and restaurants, which rely on faxes to do business. Faxes are beneficial because they are a low cost way to stay in touch with customers and clients. When an employee leaves a business, his or her email account is frequently shut down. Faxes allow the information to reach the new person with the correct job. Communication is the key to successful businesses. This bill strikes the right balance between prohibiting unwanted faxes while allowing small businesses to easily stay in touch with customers. I thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for sponsoring this legislation. I look forward to discussing the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004 in committee and urge my colleagues to adopt the necessary pro- small business and pro-consumer legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to make a short statement of congratulations to my good friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, and also congratulate his son on graduating OCS at Quantico, now a fresh new lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps looking for assignment. He is talking recon. I know that is a tough road. So congratulations on your son. We wish him well in his tour in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we all came back from our States after the Fourth of July break knowing that we would be working on a short timeline. Lots of legislation and policy has to be done before we end this Congress and all go home and campaign for election and reelection. We are off to kind of a rocky start. Not only do we not have a budget and the rules that we must abide by within a budget in order to proceed to appropriations and to make any sense out of the appropriations process, but we also do not have our appropriations process as being sort of supplanted, that we may have to take another tack in order to pass them and keep the Nation's Government in business. This week, we have witnessed that we are not really ready to pass any legislation in this body. We, as 100 Senators, are concentrating on votes and issues that lean to doing the business of a political party rather than doing the people's business, which we were sent here to do. This is the people's forum. All people in this country expect us to get our work done. We have issues that are held up, yes, in policy, but the business of financing this Government in a direction that faces the challenges that we do at this time is also being held up. I am sorry we could not move on to the class action legislation. It was not the intent of this Senate to do that, as objections were thrown out that blocked the legislation no matter what the conditions were, let alone amendments--no agreement on them or a timeframe in which to finish the legislation. This is important for small business. Class action is important for a State such as mine, because we are a State of small businesses. We don't have any large corporations in the State of Montana. Lawsuits-- and frivolous lawsuits--are just sapping the life out of the people who perform the services and deliver the goods for the rest of the citizenry in the State of Montana. That is not being allowed to move forward. Under any condition, there is an objection. Are we heading toward the small end of the tunnel whenever we get down to the end of the session, and then everything breaks loose--issues, bills, and articles are moved much faster. Sometimes they move so fast there are some unintended consequences. I am disappointed that we don't finish our business. This is the people's house. Issues are on the line. We are just wasting our time. In fact, we are doing it to the point where we might as well be home, working at home, and whenever we decide we want to do business, then we will come back to town and complete the Nation's work. It is incumbent upon all of us who share the same responsibility, not only to our States but to this country, to complete the work at hand, providing economic opportunities for more people, which we have done. Look at the statistics. More people own homes now in the United States than ever before in the history of this country, and the same is true about Montana. More people are working today than any other time in Montana history. We gained jobs in the last 4 years, when the rest of the country was struggling. We want to keep that trend going, expanding. Yet we are held up here on issues that are very important in order to make sure that the expansion continues. I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is time to move from the frivolous discourse that we have heard in the last couple of weeks and this week, and get on with the business at hand and vote. Let the will of the American people be heard and done. It is our responsibility. It falls on each and every one of our shoulders, and if we are part of an obstructionist move, we must reassess our position and understand what is at stake. I appeal to my colleagues. It is time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased that amendment No. 3457 was accepted by unanimous consent in the Senate today. While I fully support the underlying Brownback legislation, I have offered a second- degree amendment to protect the interests of small broadcasters who should not be punished for events outside of their control. The amendment agreed upon simply calls on the FCC to consider the size of the stations in question as well as whether they had anything to do with producing the offensive content in question. I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, for his leadership on the issue of broadcast decency, and I am fully supportive of his legislation. This legislation gives the Federal Communications Commission the tools they need to go after those responsible for exposing our children to indecent material. With the recent trend of indecent events in the media, it is time to raise the current fine levels in order to prompt stations to more carefully screen their programming. These higher fines are appropriate for most stations. However, if the fines are too high for a local Montana broadcaster, it could well force them to close up shop. In Montana, we have numerous stations that are so marginally profitable that the only reason they remain on the air is because the good citizens of their communities refuse to let them go dark. For example, in Scobey, MT, townspeople regularly buy ``stock'' in KCGM because the community is so small that, in the words of manager Dixie Halvorsen, ``there is no reason for anyone to buy advertising in this station. We have but one local market, one drug store, and one feed store. They buy time with us because they want their local news and their local high school sports and the local legion baseball and the local weather . . . '' Plentywood is much the same. KATQ has a local advisory board that oversees the operation of the station. It is made up of members of the business and non-profit community to ensure that their local stations remain on the air. Nearly two-thirds of the radio stations in Montana are small market ``mom and pops.'' In Libby, MT, Duane and Peggy Williams operate KLCB- AM and KTNY-FM with the help of several part-time stringers and some high school students. Libby has a depressed economy and is a Superfund site. When the EPA held meetings and hearings with all of us in the Congressional delegation, along with the Governor and other State and Federal officials, Duane and Peggy interrupted their entire programming for the day to cover the issue. It is not at all inconceivable that during these hours of live broadcasts, an upset citizen might utter a word or phrase that could be considered indecent under this provision of the law. An excessive fine would mean the end of Duane and Peggy's stations and dreams and the end of local radio in Libby. And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people like Duane and Peggy who do not deserve such treatment for simply trying to do what is best by their communities. Examples such as this are why I introduced the amendment that was agreed to today. This amendment outlines mitigating factors that the Commission shall consider when determining the degree of a fine that will help shield smaller stations from an unnecessarily strong financial blow. I thank Mr. Brownback for taking the lead on this important piece of legislation, and I am pleased that my colleagues have recognized the importance of the small-market station amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a question for the manager of the bill. I will have a second-degree amendment to the Brownback amendment which I will also lay down after his.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment.

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

Mr. BURNS. This is a friendly second-degree amendment. We have talked about and, of course, we know that the bill that has been voted out of the committee and is waiting for floor action moves this along. We were all shocked and dismayed over the spectacle at the Super Bowl this year. Those responsible should be severely punished for such a vulgar display of tastelessness. That being said, this high-profile, well-publicized incident could prompt Congress to go too far. In some areas of this bill, we did go too far. This second-degree amendment fixes that. While I fully support the underlying Brownback legislation, I am offering this second-degree amendment to protect the interests of small broadcasters that should not be punished for the events outside of their control. I am sorry I did not see the halftime show during the Super Bowl. I saw who it was going to be. It was put on by MTV, which I never watch, for very good reason. It ought to be a pay channel. I moved over to the poker tournament on ESPN, so I missed the whole spectacle. But, nonetheless, lots of families did not. In the case of the Super Bowl, for example, many affiliates were furious their viewership was exposed to such a spectacle. The amendment I offer simply calls on the FCC to consider the size and revenues of the stations in question, as well as whether they had anything to do with producing the offensive content in question. In other words, we have small market television stations that have no control on content but may find themselves in a lawsuit for indecent content that might be broadcast. Finally, I believe, as we approach these issues, we must take a hard look at the declining standards across all media. I understand there have been industry efforts to develop indecency guidelines that will apply fairly and evenly across all media platforms that distribute content. I think this approach could prove enormously beneficial in setting unified standards so individual broadcasters understand what is expected of them. Additional clarity in terms of content standards would also eliminate excuses among those who choose to push the envelope, the limits of vulgarity for commercial gain. Nothing in the broadcast industry has been talked about so much as the halftime at this year's Super Bowl. It has absolutely been on the minds of broadcasters across this country. The American people clearly expect Congress to act on the indecency issue. So I call on my colleagues to adopt this second-degree amendment I have offered, which will help to produce real solutions without unduly penalizing small broadcasters. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I come to the floor today after receiving the news over the weekend of the passing of President Reagan. I see today these young folks called pages who work for us on the floor of the U.S. Senate. They will be here this week during a very historic period. Here are young people who never met President Reagan. They have never seen him give a speech live, nor have had conversations with him, and never really will be able to hold the man in their hearts like some of us who were inspired to go into political life by his words and by the example that he set for political life. It is too bad they didn't get to do that. But that is not their fault. This week, we will be celebrating his life. He will come to this town, and there will be a lot of recollections from those who knew him. I did not get to serve with him because he left the Presidency the same year that I was elected to the Senate. I came here under the Presidency of President George Herbert Walker Bush. One of the photographs of which I am most fond, of the President and me, one I shall cherish to the end of my life, was taken in 1982 when he came to Billings, MT. We had a little bit to do with that meeting. I think it was the first personal meeting I ever had with the President. You could tell from the way he carried himself, the way he walked, the way he spoke, the way he treated people, the handshake, that he was not only the Commander in Chief and President of the United States, but he was also a man of the people. He had Midwestern roots--Illinois, the great prairies. He was successful in Hollywood. He was a successful broadcaster. He was of an age, at the time he was called to political life, that basically everyone said he was too old. Yet he went on to serve two terms. You may not have agreed with everything he stood for, but you didn't ever have any problem figuring out where he stood. He never wavered. He was the same the day he left office as the day he came into office. That example probably put into public life a lot of us who never thought of it. I can remember something that happened in 1988, when I ran. In this political life, they said you have to come back to Washington, DC, and you have to have your picture taken with President Reagan. They gave me the date to be here. I said: I am sorry, I can't be there that date. They reminded me and said: This is the White House calling. This is the date. I said that I wasn't concerned about what color their house was, but on that date I happened to have an auction. I am an auctioneer. I had to make a living first, in 1988. So that conversation closed. Then all at once, the political director called up. I explained the same thing to him. I said: It is not that important, no big deal. I am busy, he is busy, we have a date, they didn't jibe, so we will move on. Well, as it turned out, even the President called. He said: I understand about auctions, once you have one advertised. You go ahead and have the auction. That surprised me a lot. He was something. He was one of those who really won the cold war without firing a shot. And the chemistry between him and Prime Minister Thatcher of England was one of an unbelievable partnership. They stood alone against the world on the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the aggression of a country that he called evil. You see, he had come to the Presidency knowing that about communism. He knew it for what it was-- degrading, dehumanizing. There was no upward mobility, no chance of any individual ever attaining any kind of freedom--either economically or politically. There was no opportunity to take their own talents and go into the field of their endeavor. He understood communism for what it was and he said: This cancer has to go. As a result, through his steadfast leadership--and I know there were lonely times with decisions that he made--he brought down the Berlin Wall without a shot being fired. We honor him. This should be a week of celebration of a life--a life in the history of this country that will live as long as the country lives, as long as free men want to breathe. His name will be remembered. He has made his mark. At that first meeting in Billings, I was sitting on a horse, and we were getting ready to take him into a building. There were two others who were supposed to escort the stagecoach. I can remember him saying: You know, the rowels on those spurs aren't very big. And I said: You don't need a big rowel if you have a spirited horse. He said: I understand that. We will celebrate this man's life this week. We named a post office in Billings, MT, 59105, after Ronald Reagan this year. I am proud of that. But what a gifted man he was, the way he could communicate, the way he could touch people, the time he gave to this country for which we should be very thankful. He wasn't a perfect man. I haven't seen one yet who didn't have a few bruises, scars, marks, bumps, warts, and such. But he was an American, and he was an American who took those principles to heart. He lived them every day he drew breath--while he was in the White House and after he left the White House. Mr. President, we welcome you back to Washington this week to celebrate your life and your contribution to this great country. We say, Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Mark Kaniut of my staff during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my good friend from Alabama. Who says that words do not have weight and they are not remembered a long time. I was glad he recited the prayer from President Roosevelt on the eve of D-Day some 60 years ago this weekend. Words do have weight, and they are remembered a long time. When we hear that prayer, maybe we ought to start thinking as a body and as representatives of our constituencies that maybe this might be the better approach to completing the mission in Iraq. Last night, the Senator from Alabama and 32 other Senators visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It is a moving experience whenever one sees warriors come home with limbs gone, but it is also moving to see the miracles of healing, of what modern-day medicine and technology has done to rehabilitate these young people to put them back into the mainstream of American life. It is remarkable to see their spirit because everything around them is negative. Yet they find a way to say this is my country, this one I will die for because I also understand there are generations behind us to which we must pass this great country. Some of us inherited these freedoms. We have not paid for them. They were given to us. Sometimes we use them a little loosely because we did not earn them. That makes a lot of difference. Last night was a remarkable night. I visited a young man from Montana who just within the last week returned. He lost one leg, the whole leg. With a series of surgeries and skin grafts and probably 6 or 8 months of hard rehabilitation, he will be back home again in the central part of Montana. Earlier this week, we also got the word that a soldier, Owen Witt, from Sand Springs, MT--Sand Springs has one grocery store and one post office; that is all that is there--was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. David and Karen, his folks, ranch in that part of the world. Of course, we send them our prayers and our thoughts at this time. When I talked with his mother, she said two of them in that community went into the Army as soulmates. Both of them wanted to go to the same outfit. His good friend, Kevin Rogge, is still over there, and we will be in touch with him, we hope, before the next couple of weeks are out. Again, I go back to that prayer. Maybe it would be a good approach for every representative to go back and read that prayer because we all understand what the mission is. The people on the ground understand what the mission is. They are willing to take the risk. They are willing to see it through to victory: to liberate and do away with a tyrant, to give freedom to people who have never known it in their lifetime. That is a high calling and a calling worth our attention. I was struck also a while ago when the distinguished minority leader was talking about No Child Left Behind. I remind this body that No Child Left Behind, when it went to the States, had enough flexibility in that law that the States could set their rules and regulations on how they wanted this to apply. If there is a little bit of tension or nervousness from our teachers or a little bit of pressure and they are a little uncomfortable because of testing, they are supposed to be a little uncomfortable because, for the first time, we are looking at not only the job they are doing but the job the administration of the school is doing and how we are doing as supporters of public education. We all better be a little bit nervous, and if there is something wrong in my State and I can help it, I will go after it now. Do not come to the floor and make excuses why it isn't working if you have not been involved. There was some nervousness among my teachers. We are slowly getting those worked out. We are finding there is a comfort level whenever we see the progress of young people who are now being taught the basics, and the basics are the Three R's: reading, writing, and arithmetic. That is what it is all about. The funds from the Federal Government are flowing at a level never seen before in the history of this country. Now, is it a perfect law? No. Is it a step in the right direction? It is. I congratulate my friend from Mississippi, who talked about the contingency report. It is very important. My good friend from New Mexico was with us last night, and it was truly a moving event when talking to those young people. Let us comment a little bit about the budget. We are having a tough time. I do not think we as individuals have seen the urgency of having a budget. Having a budget is bigger than any one of us in this Senate. I urge my colleagues this coming week, as we go into the appropriations season, to work doubly hard to come up with a budget. Also, my good friend from New Mexico has worked on an energy bill. That needs passing, too, this next week. Look around us and see what is happening in energy in this country and how it can slow down this economy. This economy is booming. More people own homes now than at any time in the history of the country. More people are working in my State of Montana than ever before. We did not have huge unemployment. Even though our economy nationwide was stagnant, we continued to grow. A lot of things in this country are working to the positive side, and we are not talking about them. More people are working today than at any time in the history of this country. More homes are being bought. There are more first-time home buyers. That is an accomplishment. We are putting more people back to work. That is an accomplishment. I thank my good friend from Alabama this morning for allowing me this 5 or 10 minutes. I wanted to remind people that it is not all doom and gloom. If my colleagues think it is doom and gloom, then it is going to be doom and gloom. If my colleagues think we cannot win in Iraq, we will not win in Iraq. Last night, I heard a young man comment--and my colleagues think words do not have weight? He said: Senator, you can pull us out of Iraq and bring us home, but the people who want to bring us down will follow us. They will be here. I do not think we want that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill introduced last week by my colleague, Senator Ensign. I am pleased that he has taken the helm in addressing the many problems posed by an excessively large and cumbersome Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in his bill S. 2278. I am glad to add my name as a cosponsor of this bill. Montana sits in the Ninth Circuit, whose docket has grown in recent years. In 2003, 12,872 appeals were filed at the court, up almost 1,500 from the previous year. The Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2004 will create two new circuit courts in addition to a restructured Ninth Circuit. The new Ninth Circuit would still contain California, and also Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Marianas Islands. The new Twelfth Circuit would include Montana, as well as Arizona, Nevada, and Idaho. The new Thirteenth Circuit would comprise the remaining states: Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. I know many in the Senate have revisited this issue every year, and I am pleased to support this current bill. Many times the judiciary in this country is bound to make unpopular but correct decisions, but lately, the Ninth Circuit has made decisions which I believe are both unpopular and wrong. Many Montanans who hold far more conservative views than the membership of the Ninth Circuit bench sitting in San Francisco were nonetheless bound to a particularly offensive decision made last year. The court found the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when it is recited in school by our youngsters. The Supreme Court has heard this argument last month, and a decision is expected in July. This case highlights the disconnect between the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit and my State of Montana which it supposedly represents. When I walk around Washington, DC, I see the presence of our forefathers and our tradition everywhere, which includes many references to God in our hallowed halls and on our currency. Many have given their lives in the name of God and country, and this faith has sustained us as a Nation. By limiting the words our children can utter in the classroom in support of this Nation and our faith, the Ninth Circuit has taken yet another step to remove all that is sacred for Americans. Americans know the words to patriotic songs, like ``God Bless America'' or ``America the Beautiful,'' but this may change if our Nation's young people are not permitted to sing them in a classroom. I find this decision extremely upsetting, because now more than ever, we need to teach our children a little more about faith in America and patriotism. There used to be a time when most young people felt compelled to serve their country, whether it be completed through military or volunteer service, but now it seems as though those numbers lessen every year. In America, we pride ourselves on the willingness of individuals to lend a helping hand, and I am saddened that the court has played an instrumental part in gradually eroding our Nation's values. One of the other areas the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly addressed is land management, which usually has a negative effect on my State of Montana. One need only look to some of the court's recent decisions, which all share one commonality: they represent the conclusions of a bench that is thoroughly unfamiliar with land use and its implications on Montana. It is worth noting at the outset that many cases never make their way to the Ninth Circuit docket, simply because the parties know the fate of their cause. This is especially true for the Forest Service, which has lost many battles in front of the Ninth Circuit, and Montana is certainly not better off for it. For example, in Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, the Ninth Circuit found that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, as well as the Endangered Species Act. Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 890, 9th Cir. 2002. In this case, environmental groups challenged the validity of the Darroch- Eagle timber sale by the Forest Service. At the district court level, the Montana judge felt so strongly that the environmental groups did not have a claim that he granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service. This is important given the legal significance of summary judgment. Even if all of the plaintiff's claims are true, there is no legal remedy available. The Ninth Circuit turned this decision on its head, and issued an injunction against the Forest Service so they could not proceed with the sale. In a similar situation, the Montana district court again granted summary judgment for the Forest Service in 2003, and again, the Ninth Circuit reversed. In Sierra Club, Inc. v. Austin, an unreported case, the Ninth Circuit found that the Forest Service's post-burn plan for Lolo National Forest violated NEPA. According to a front-page story carried by the Missoulian in December, 2003, the post-burn project would have permitted salvage logging of 2,322 acres and commercial thinning of 2,470, no small undertaking by any means. Even though the court found that the water-quality assessment done by the Forest Service was not arbitrary and capricious, it nonetheless concluded that the actions by the Forest Service in the environmental impact statement, EIS, did not include analysis of the logging effects on unroaded areas, and therefore violated NEPA in that sense. Also in 2003, the Ninth Circuit found the Forest Service had potentially violated portions of the Montana Wilderness Study Act in Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 314 F.3d 1146, 9th Cir. 2003. This act was passed by Congress in 1977 to allow the study of certain lands, to be called wilderness study areas, so that they could maintain their wilderness character and possibly be included within the National Wilderness Preservation System. Since no final designation of a wilderness area had been given, the Forest Service had been operating under temporary rules for the past 25 years. Apparently, the Ninth Circuit found that there was an issue to be resolved by allowing the trial to proceed, and remanded the case to go ahead to trial. The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court. These three cases highlight recent action of the Ninth Circuit. The last two years have been extremely litigious ones for the Forest Service in Montana, and I regret the time and energy that the Forest Service has had to put forward on this issue, but especially the taxpayers' money involved needed to defend against all of these claims. The Ninth Circuit's sympathy for the claims by various environmental groups has provided an attractive solution to any local Montana court decision they may not like. Unfortunately, the taxpayers end up footing this bill, and the stewards who protect our forests are being second- guessed at every turn. The Ninth Circuit is also rendered ineffective because of the size of its bench as well as its extensive geographic coverage. There are 47 judges on the bench, and as noted legal scholar Richard A. Posner once explained that the circuit is predisposed to ``judicial irresponsibility'' because of its size. One Ninth Circuit judge, Andrew Kleinfeld, said the judges do not even have the time to read one another's opinions, which provides little guidance to other judges or those affected by their decisions. The problems with the Ninth Circuit are due to many factors, whether it be the geographic size of the region, the number of judges, or the impractical decisions issued by those judges. The legislation recently introduced will address this problem, so that Montanans will benefit from a more reasonable bench, which will reflect the opinions of those in our area, rather than those located near San Francisco. In order to best preserve the common sense that Montanans pride themselves in, I am pleased to support this bill. Let's bring a little common sense back to the judicial system. This is certainly a step in the right direction.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this bill adjusts the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in Montana. For the Helena and Lolo National Forests, these adjustments are necessary to continue the community-based Blackfoot Community Project. This community-driven project is a collaborative effort supported by local residents, elected officials, State and Federal agencies, and others who care about the future of the Blackfoot River Valley. The project will eventually result in the future ownership and management of nearly 88,000 acres of land in the Blackfoot River watershed. The project will protect the rural lifestyle of a large, intact landscape that supports agriculture, timber harvesting, recreation, and natural resources that are important both locally and nationally. The project will provide a model for forest management in the west, by creating a private-public partnership to manage a portion of the Blackfoot watershed as a community forest for sustainable timber products and other natural resources benefits. The local community has requested Forest Service acquisition of certain parcels outside the existing National Forest Boundary to ensure continued public uses of these lands including public access for recreation, hunting, livestock grazing, and watershed protection. The end result of this boundary adjustment Forest service will be consolidated ownership and improved forest management. The boundary adjustment on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest reflects changes in the Forest as a result of the Watershed conservation project completed in 2003. About 11,000 acres of the Watershed Property that is currently adjacent to the proclaimed Forest will be more accurately classified as existing within the Forest boundary. The Forest Service purchased the property in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The County Commissioners, local public, and conservation and sportsman's groups supported the project.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this bill adjusts the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in Montana. For the Helena and Lolo National Forests, these adjustments are necessary to continue the community-based Blackfoot Community Project. This community-driven project is a collaborative effort supported by local residents, elected officials, State and Federal agencies, and others who care about the future of the Blackfoot River Valley. The project will eventually result in the future ownership and management of nearly 88,000 acres of land in the Blackfoot River watershed. The project will protect the rural lifestyle of a large, intact landscape that supports agriculture, timber harvesting, recreation, and natural resources that are important both locally and nationally. The project will provide a model for forest management in the west, by creating a private-public partnership to manage a portion of the Blackfoot watershed as a community forest for sustainable timber products and other natural resources benefits. The local community has requested Forest Service acquisition of certain parcels outside the existing National Forest Boundary to ensure continued public uses of these lands including public access for recreation, hunting, livestock grazing, and watershed protection. The end result of this boundary adjustment Forest service will be consolidated ownership and improved forest management. The boundary adjustment on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest reflects changes in the Forest as a result of the Watershed conservation project completed in 2003. About 11,000 acres of the Watershed Property that is currently adjacent to the proclaimed Forest will be more accurately classified as existing within the Forest boundary. The Forest Service purchased the property in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The County Commissioners, local public, and conservation and sportsman's groups supported the project.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one small piece of this legislation which will make a big difference in rural States such as Montana. I am talking about the broadband expensing provision, which would encourage broadband providers to extend their networks to underserved areas, and to upgrade their networks to ``next-generation'' speeds so that they can deliver a full complement of voice, video and data services. We have been working on this legislation since 2000-- Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Clinton. There are a lot of us who feel strongly about this issue. It has passed the Senate twice now, but, unfortunately, we have been unable to persuade our friends on the other side of the Capitol to support it. So I want to thank the Finance Committee for including it again in this bill, and I am going to push my colleagues on the House side to get behind it this time because it is very important. It is important for rural areas, for underserved inner city areas, for education, for health care, for energy savings, for a whole list of reasons. And I want to say this. It is fitting for this broadband incentive to be included in the FSC/ETI bill because this provision will have a big effect on international competitiveness. We are hearing a lot about ``offshore outsourcing'' these days, and broadband is a response to that. If we have a robust high-speed network all over this country, companies will not need to send jobs to India-- we can do them in Montana, and in Iowa, and in West Virginia, and in communities all across the nation where costs are lower. So this is about providing an infrastructure that makes us more productive, just as the Interstate highway system, and rural electrification, and the transcontinental railroad all made the Nation more productive. Broadband is a key infrastructure of the 21st century, and we need to construct it as quickly as possible. I believe this provision will help do that, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its enactment this year.