Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I honor some of the greatest men and women in the Nation--Montana teachers. In my State we are blessed to have educators making a difference each day in the lives of our young people. This week is Teacher Appreciation Week and Montana educators should hold their heads high. Montana 8th graders have the second highest science scores in the world. Eighty-four percent of Montana public school teachers in core academic fields have full certification and a major in their field, ranking Montana as one of the top States-- 2nd out of 50--in teacher qualification. Montana is one of the top 11 States in the percentage of high school graduates going on to college. Yes, our children are truly fortunate. Our highly qualified teachers not only work hard, but they care about each and every student that enters their classroom. I thank you, Montana teachers, for your sense of duty and compassion to our precious future generation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have heard my colleagues come to the Senate today criticizing the President about the handling of Iraq and the war on terrorism. I hate for it just to lie there and somebody not explain to the American people that we are at a war. This is a war that is as big as World War II or World War I. It is global in its size, but it is with a different enemy than we have ever known before in the history of this country or any other country. It is terrorism. It is performed by people who do not wear uniforms, who operate in the shadows and are faceless, are indiscriminate in whose life they take-- whether they be combatants or noncombatants, men or women, young or old--and a respecter of no nationality. That is the enemy. Some would actually question the decision to move against Iraq or Afghanistan. Let me remind my fellow Americans and also my colleagues, we could go back as far as Beirut when a building was bombed there and over 200 marines lost their lives. It was a car bombing. We had never experienced that before. It gave us a pattern of what was to come in later years. We have heard the crying of the Iraqi people. I believe the spirit of freedom lives in their breast as it does in ours. But let's look at the track record, how we got to where we are today. Do you recall the World Trade Center, the first time it was hit, February 26, 1993? Six people died. Cyanide gas and other chemicals were found in that building. Next, we move to June 25, 1996, when 19 Americans were killed and 372 were wounded at a place called Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Nothing was done about either one of those attacks. Then came August 7, 1998. Two embassies were bombed; one in Tanzania, one in Kenya, eastern Africa. Then came October 12, 2000. The USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. Seventeen American sailors died. Then we come to September of 2001--September 11; 9/11--and the World Trade Center, New York City. Two airplanes were flown into the two towers. Over 2,500 people were killed on that fateful day that most of us remember. There was another attack in Washington, DC, at the Pentagon on that same day. On that day some 3,000 people died. We did not even lose that many at Pearl Harbor when Japan attacked our forces, the U.S. Navy. We could go on about Santiago, on September 27, 2001; the U.S. housing compound in Saudi Arabia--all of those terrorist attacks on American citizens. Because we did nothing to answer any of those attacks, was that basically a green light to go ahead? How long do we have to apologize and say, Well, we are trying to find a way to take care of this cancer that has invaded our world? So the decision was to say, after 9/11: Let's go after the cancer. And we did that. And al-Qaida, even though it operates, I will tell you, it does not operate as freely as it did. The American people, have they forgotten we have not been hit by another terrorist act in this country since we made the decision to tear the heart out of the dragon? And then the idea of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, he had them. He used them. He manufactured them. People were even trained. I do not think we need to apologize to anybody anymore for the actions we are taking. Enough is enough, for the protection of our country and for the protection of the people who live here, who work here, and long to be free. Just ask the young men. For everybody who would say, Well, this thing is falling apart, do you realize our recruitments are up? People who are reenlisting in the service--those numbers are up. If you talk to our young people there in Iraq, who are doing those patrols--and I have done that; I have been there--they know what the mission is. They know the risk involved. They willingly accept it because they have a great heritage of generations before them. When called upon to make the sacrifice for national security, Americans have always answered the call--even in light of those who would be apologists. So we as, say, the political arm also have an obligation to make sure they inherit the world they think they are getting. They are willing to die for it. We should support them because they understand the next generation will. If you wanted to take a poll on how many people wanted to be on Normandy Beach on June 6, 1944, I doubt you would get a majority of people who would like to have been there. But we went. We answered the call. That is what is important. We cannot lose our will as a people or a society or as our military forces. That is what I am hearing is our will. They understand what is at stake for the next generation. That is what has made this country great. We always think about the next generation. It is not about our own generation. It is about our kids. That is what this is all about. If we keep backing and shrinking away, then our enemy will take whatever we give them, and we will pay an even higher price than we have already paid--Americans killed, innocently, going about their own business in their own way in a free country. We have men and women who have answered the call and a Commander in Chief who is doing his level best to not only end it in an honorable way but to also secure the freedom and the safety of people in a part of the world where that has been done very few times. He is to be commended for it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for the next 10 minutes.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. It is my understanding we are still in morning business and we have about 5 or 6 minutes remaining on our side?

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed and use that time up.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my friend from Nevada and my good friend from Vermont. Today is Earth Day. Of course, most of us who are involved in agriculture, we don't set aside one specific day. Every day is Earth Day for those of us who use the Earth to produce the wealth of the country. Anyway, every year about this time they always release the index of leading environmental indicators, which gives us an overall measuring stick on how good or how bad we are doing in dealing with the environment. This press release came out of San Francisco. It is released by a group that is a think tank in Bozeman, MT. They brought out some information that we tend to forget when we talk about the environment. Steven Hayward wrote the press release. Of course we are doing better than a lot of people think we are doing. Environmental quality is improving steadily, in some cases dramatically, in key areas with which we try to deal. Vehicle emissions are dropping about 10 percent per year as the fleet turns over to inherently cleaner vehicles, including SUVs. We are making progress. Ninety-four percent of the population is served by water systems that have reported no violation of any health-based standards. We are getting better in trying to provide clean water for our citizens. There has been a 55-percent decline in toxic releases since 1988 even while total output of industries covered by this measurement has increased 40 percent. We are making progress. That is dramatic progress as far as quality is concerned. Despite most popular assumptions, U.S. air quality tends to be found at least equal, if not slightly better, than in Europe. It seems we have a lot of people who distract and criticize us for our environmental policies. This year's index includes a list of the media's best environmental reporting on that, which includes the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New Republic, and the Wall Street Journal. In other words, all of these folks have earned their spurs, so to speak, in keeping the public informed on such matters. There have also been notable improvements in our Government reporting with the EPA's first ever composite on national trends and State-based initiatives to improve water quality reporting and monitoring. Private conservation efforts, such as Ducks Unlimited, and private water trusts have been highly successful as reported this year. The index reports one of the few areas to show a decline in the quality is that of public lands. While funding and land allotments have increased, quality has deteriorated by the most significant measures. The root of the problem is excess of political management, and the answer can be found in innovative solutions such as land trusts and resource leases. This year's index includes a special section comparing quality between the U.S. and Europe. We are winning that also. The other ways: Doomsaying and know-nothingism gets better headlines and work well for direct-mail fundraising . . . but a serious look at the data helps us to appreciate how far we've come, and helps us set priorities for the next generation of environmental activism. Whenever we hear a lot of doomsaying that we are doing very badly, the scorecard reports to us overall a different kind of story. The only place we are not making any improvements at all is on the lands the Federal Government manages, not the land that is managed in the private sector. I ask unanimous consent the entire text of the press release be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would make a technical change to the ORBIT Act's IPO provision. As you may recall, I sponsored the ORBIT Act in 1999 with strong bipartisan support. Since that time, I have worked with Senators McCain, Hollings and others to pass technical amendments to the Act by unanimous consent when needed. And it is my hope and expectation that we can pass this small technical change as quickly as before. Congress passed the ORBIT Act to enhance competition in the global satellite communications market. I am proud to say that ORBIT has achieved all of its objectives. Since its enactment, the FCC has found that positive change has occurred in the satellite services market as a result of the ORBIT Act. The FCC has declared that the pro-competitive objectives of the ORBIT Act have been achieved--including the complete transformation of Intelsat from what used to be a highly bureaucratic, intergovernmental organization into a fully privatized, U.S. licensed company that is headquartered and operates in the U.S., and is now subject to U.S. laws and U.S. regulations. Another important benefit produced by the ORBIT Act has been the infusion of U.S. capital and other private investment into the former intergovernmental organizations. American and other private investors have made significant investments in Intelsat and Inmarsat following enactment of the ORBIT Act. The only piece of unfinished business from the ORBIT Act that remains is the requirement that an IPO occur by a date certain. I have always had serious reservations with the very idea that Congress would impose a date certain for an IPO, rather than letting market forces determine the appropriate time for such an event. If I had my preference, we would get rid of the mandatory IPO requirement altogether. But since the Intelsat IPO deadline is June 30, 2004, we don't have a lot of time to get back into the substance of that issue. The pressing matter at hand is that Intelsat's IPO deadline is fast approaching, and the market is simply not conducive for a successful IPO. This is the same situation we encountered in 2002 when my good friend Senator Hollings and I worked together to provide a time extension for conducting the IPO. I would say to my colleagues that the telecom market isn't much better now than it was in 2002. So we again need to provide Intelsat with an extension on its IPO deadline because market conditions are not favorable at this time. If Congress does not quickly pass legislation extending the June 30, 2004 IPO deadline, several U.S. entities who are major investors in Intelsat stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because the telecom market for IPOs is far from ideal. This will be extremely harmful to U.S. interests and it will damage Intelsat, an important communications asset for the U.S. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues and the leadership to quickly move the passage of this legislation. The bill would simply extend Intelsat's IPO deadline for 12 months and give the FCC discretionary authority to further extend this deadline another 6 months if market conditions warrant. I urge my colleagues to support quick passage of this legislation so that it can be enacted into law well before June 30, 2004. I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would make a technical change to the ORBIT Act's IPO provision. As you may recall, I sponsored the ORBIT Act in 1999 with strong bipartisan support. Since that time, I have worked with Senators McCain, Hollings and others to pass technical amendments to the Act by unanimous consent when needed. And it is my hope and expectation that we can pass this small technical change as quickly as before. Congress passed the ORBIT Act to enhance competition in the global satellite communications market. I am proud to say that ORBIT has achieved all of its objectives. Since its enactment, the FCC has found that positive change has occurred in the satellite services market as a result of the ORBIT Act. The FCC has declared that the pro-competitive objectives of the ORBIT Act have been achieved--including the complete transformation of Intelsat from what used to be a highly bureaucratic, intergovernmental organization into a fully privatized, U.S. licensed company that is headquartered and operates in the U.S., and is now subject to U.S. laws and U.S. regulations. Another important benefit produced by the ORBIT Act has been the infusion of U.S. capital and other private investment into the former intergovernmental organizations. American and other private investors have made significant investments in Intelsat and Inmarsat following enactment of the ORBIT Act. The only piece of unfinished business from the ORBIT Act that remains is the requirement that an IPO occur by a date certain. I have always had serious reservations with the very idea that Congress would impose a date certain for an IPO, rather than letting market forces determine the appropriate time for such an event. If I had my preference, we would get rid of the mandatory IPO requirement altogether. But since the Intelsat IPO deadline is June 30, 2004, we don't have a lot of time to get back into the substance of that issue. The pressing matter at hand is that Intelsat's IPO deadline is fast approaching, and the market is simply not conducive for a successful IPO. This is the same situation we encountered in 2002 when my good friend Senator Hollings and I worked together to provide a time extension for conducting the IPO. I would say to my colleagues that the telecom market isn't much better now than it was in 2002. So we again need to provide Intelsat with an extension on its IPO deadline because market conditions are not favorable at this time. If Congress does not quickly pass legislation extending the June 30, 2004 IPO deadline, several U.S. entities who are major investors in Intelsat stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because the telecom market for IPOs is far from ideal. This will be extremely harmful to U.S. interests and it will damage Intelsat, an important communications asset for the U.S. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues and the leadership to quickly move the passage of this legislation. The bill would simply extend Intelsat's IPO deadline for 12 months and give the FCC discretionary authority to further extend this deadline another 6 months if market conditions warrant. I urge my colleagues to support quick passage of this legislation so that it can be enacted into law well before June 30, 2004. I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my honor to present this bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, MT as the ``Mike Mansfield Post Office.'' I rise today not just as a Republican honoring a Democrat, but rather as a Montanan recognizing the most beloved political figure of our history. Mr. Mansfield holds a special place in the hearts of all Montanans, a man whose wisdom, humility, and decency have been sorely missed. Michael Joseph Mansfield was born in New York City on March 16, 1903. Following the death of his mother at age 7, Mike was sent to Great Falls, MT to live with an aunt and uncle. As World War I developed, the 14-year-old Mansfield saw an opportunity to serve his country, and lied about his age in order to join the U.S. Navy. He eventually enlisted in the Army and Marine Corps as well. During this service he was stationed in the Philippines and China, a time that marked the beginning of a lifelong love for the continent, its people, and their culture. After being honorably discharged from the Marines, Mike Mansfield returned to Montana as a 19-year-old lacking a high school education. He found a job in the Butte mines, shoveling rock as a `mucker.' It was during his time in Butte that Mr. Mansfield met his lifetime partner and companion, Maureen Hayes. It was Maureen who saw in Mike his enormous potential and convinced him to go to college. With her financial support, Mansfield obtained his high school equivalency, B.A., and M.A. from the Montana State University, now the University of Montana. Mr. Mansfield taught Latin American and East Asian history for 8 years at the University, retaining lifelong tenure as Professor of History. Mr. Mansfield began his extraordinary public service career in 1942 when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He served four more terms before being elected to the Senate in 1952. Within 4 years, he was elected majority whip and in 1961 he was chosen as the Senate Majority Leader. Mike would go on to hold this position for 17 years, longer than any other man in the history of this great body. As Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Mansfield is remembered as a truly unique figure, a pragmatist whose sensibility, practicality, and unrelenting pursuit of results almost always transcended ideological concerns. More Senate leader than Majority Leader, Mansfield preferred not to draw a metaphorical line in the sand. Instead, he sought to guide the body as a whole to a fair and agreeable determination. In 1977, upon his retirement from the Senate, Mr. Mansfield was appointed Ambassador to Japan by President Carter; a post he held through 1989. This position offered Mike a chance to utilize his vast experience in Asian affairs, in a region that he truly loved. In the spirit of this admiration, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation continues to encourage dialogue and cooperation between the United States and Asia. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this dedication of a postal facility is but a small token of gratitude for the many years of exceptional service given to this body, this Nation, and Montana by this wonderful man. The ever modest and humble Mansfield would have shied at such a tribute; we might even expect him to offer the names of people more deserving of the honor than he. In truth, I can think of no one more deserving of praise than Mike Mansfield, a true hero of the Senate.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my honor to present this bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, MT as the ``Mike Mansfield Post Office.'' I rise today not just as a Republican honoring a Democrat, but rather as a Montanan recognizing the most beloved political figure of our history. Mr. Mansfield holds a special place in the hearts of all Montanans, a man whose wisdom, humility, and decency have been sorely missed. Michael Joseph Mansfield was born in New York City on March 16, 1903. Following the death of his mother at age 7, Mike was sent to Great Falls, MT to live with an aunt and uncle. As World War I developed, the 14-year-old Mansfield saw an opportunity to serve his country, and lied about his age in order to join the U.S. Navy. He eventually enlisted in the Army and Marine Corps as well. During this service he was stationed in the Philippines and China, a time that marked the beginning of a lifelong love for the continent, its people, and their culture. After being honorably discharged from the Marines, Mike Mansfield returned to Montana as a 19-year-old lacking a high school education. He found a job in the Butte mines, shoveling rock as a `mucker.' It was during his time in Butte that Mr. Mansfield met his lifetime partner and companion, Maureen Hayes. It was Maureen who saw in Mike his enormous potential and convinced him to go to college. With her financial support, Mansfield obtained his high school equivalency, B.A., and M.A. from the Montana State University, now the University of Montana. Mr. Mansfield taught Latin American and East Asian history for 8 years at the University, retaining lifelong tenure as Professor of History. Mr. Mansfield began his extraordinary public service career in 1942 when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He served four more terms before being elected to the Senate in 1952. Within 4 years, he was elected majority whip and in 1961 he was chosen as the Senate Majority Leader. Mike would go on to hold this position for 17 years, longer than any other man in the history of this great body. As Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Mansfield is remembered as a truly unique figure, a pragmatist whose sensibility, practicality, and unrelenting pursuit of results almost always transcended ideological concerns. More Senate leader than Majority Leader, Mansfield preferred not to draw a metaphorical line in the sand. Instead, he sought to guide the body as a whole to a fair and agreeable determination. In 1977, upon his retirement from the Senate, Mr. Mansfield was appointed Ambassador to Japan by President Carter; a post he held through 1989. This position offered Mike a chance to utilize his vast experience in Asian affairs, in a region that he truly loved. In the spirit of this admiration, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation continues to encourage dialogue and cooperation between the United States and Asia. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this dedication of a postal facility is but a small token of gratitude for the many years of exceptional service given to this body, this Nation, and Montana by this wonderful man. The ever modest and humble Mansfield would have shied at such a tribute; we might even expect him to offer the names of people more deserving of the honor than he. In truth, I can think of no one more deserving of praise than Mike Mansfield, a true hero of the Senate.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is my first time on the floor speaking on this particular subject. I wish to thank the ranking member, Senator Conrad, from North Dakota. I agree with my chairman that we should be here solving problems instead of throwing salt on old wounds because we have a great challenge ahead of us. There comes a time when we talk about all kinds of interests, but the national interest is more important right now than at any time in our history. We do have serious problems and challenges. I think every Senator in this body has the capability and the will to solve some of those problems so we can go home and we can couch the argument any way we want on the political stump. I think we better add something to the debate. Last year was my first year on the Budget Committee. Of course, this is my second budget. I compliment the leadership of the committee on both sides of the aisle because in committee we talked about some very contentious issues, different ideas on how we approach the budget and how it affects everyday life in the United States of America, knowing there are circumstances that none of us had any control over and probably will have a limited amount of effect on our country unless the American people understand the circumstances in which we find ourselves. One has to remember the budget is a result of three different entities coming together and producing a document that reflects some of their priorities, some of their do-nots and some of their do-dos, and that is working with the White House and this President and also working with the Senate and the House and both sides of the aisle. That is what this product will reflect. There are provisions in this resolution that probably do not find favor with everybody, and there are some provisions in this resolution that we do favor. Nonetheless, it will be a product of working with each other on this floor and also with the House of Representatives and with this President that will produce this document, a budget resolution. Nobody likes deficit spending. We went through that once before. Some of it was self-inflicted. This one was not self-inflicted, as far as our Government is concerned. It was a result of some circumstances that happened to this country at a very inopportune time. No one could have predicted 9/11. Nobody could have predicted what that would cost or what that circumstance taught us. It taught us one thing: that our economy is very fragile. Catastrophic events tend to shatter all other beliefs about what we do here as far as our economy is concerned. It also taught us that our freedoms are very fragile; that in times of stress and national emergency, some things are done by Government and by people to cope with the stress of the time. Mr. President, 9/11 probably had more to do with putting us in this pickle than anything around because of the normal reaction of Government and Americans to that event. What we have to look at most is that this budget reflects much of the President's proposals, but because of caps that were put in place a year ago, we are looking at some tough choices. This budget takes steps to reduce Federal deficit spending; in other words, slow it down, much slower than first thought when we started into the process or what you have read in the newspapers or heard on television. We just have to slow it down. It is kind of like the fellow who one day got up and said: My day started off bad, and then it just tapered off. Sometimes in the budget process--and my good friend from North Dakota has been in this process much longer than I and knows much more about it, the technical parts of it anyway, but nonetheless there are some days you get nothing for your labor. The resolution cuts the deficit from an estimated, some people say over $500 billion. We had a figure of around $477 billion going into the process. Now looking at the figure, it will be around $477 billion this year, but we are going to get it down much lower than that by the year 2005. The resolution prevents tax increases that would go into effect if Congress does not act. Those taxes and those tax cuts were very important to this country. How much deficit would we have had we not had them to spur this economy and see the growth not only in the New York Stock Exchange but NASDAQ. We have seen growth in agriculture. Agricultural products are doing very well now in most sectors. As I go across my State of Montana, we can talk about marriage penalty relief, we can talk about child tax credits, but I will tell you what has helped my State more than anything else, especially my agricultural producers and my small businesspeople--and Montana is made up of small business; small business provides the vast majority of jobs in my State--was accelerated depreciation because there have been capital expenditures to revamp or redo the way they do business and how they do business. Accelerated depreciation was the shot we needed in the State of Montana. By the way, those recommendations came out of the Small Business Committee of which Senator Kit Bond of Missouri is the chairman. You look for those opportunities when we start talking about small business or business in general. The economy is growing at a steady pace, and I believe this budget will be reflective of that growth and show the importance to the American people to expand jobs. If we take a look at the GDP and our national debt and our deficit spending, right now it is something we can handle, but we cannot allow it to continue. So we moved in that direction. I think the resolution will provide important assistance not only to Government through strong fiscal responsibility but also the American people through improved jobs and job environment, and private growth and opportunity. If we look at the household surveys on unemployment, we are going to find a lot of folks are working out of their homes. We see small businesses perking up everywhere, primarily because of the tax situation. This is a good time to move in and maybe retire from a job and start one's own business. So we have asked the American people to sacrifice because we are facing an enemy we have never had to face before. We have never had to take on terrorism as have other countries that have been putting up with it for a long time. As a result, we have said to the American people that some sacrifice is needed, and I think the American people have responded to that because we know we have a different kind of enemy that wants to take away our freedoms, not only the economic freedoms we enjoy but also our political freedoms. They do it by fear. That is the worst kind of enemy, that operates in the shadows and complete surprise. They have no regard for age or who one is, combatants or noncombatants. In other words, they are completely indiscriminate as far as their targets are concerned. That spreads fear among people, and fear rules us. I made the remark the other day to some visitors in Washington, DC, that I can remember when I first came to Washington, it was a very beautiful place. Right now we are moving into a season where Washington really is very pretty, but we are ugly today because of jersey barriers, security and construction. We are not a very nice place because of what we have to go through in order for this Government and its representatives to operate. So the sacrifices that are made not only here but in the whole country are difficult. We have asked America to sacrifice in these times, and they have responded. Our young men and women who are still in the field face an unusual type of enemy. They are facing it with great professionalism and great courage. I think we ought to demonstrate the same kind of courage on this floor, to do what we have to do in order to balance this budget, in order to present a budget we can live with so the economy continues to grow and we can grow out of this situation. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of a measure that I introduce today, with the support of my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked closely on the CAN SPAM bill together, and after four years of effort finally saw its successful passage last year. I am pleased to work with Senator Wyden again on another critical issue which is potentially of even greater concern than junk email given its invasive nature--that of spyware. I also appreciate the support of another of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Boxer. Together, we have crafted legislation aimed at ending the insidious operation of spyware, the SPYBLOCK Act of 2004. By introducing this legislation today, we take the first step in giving consumers the control to stop this deceitful practice. Spyware refers to software that is downloaded onto users' computers without their knowledge or consent. This sneaky software is then often used to track the movements of consumers online or even to steal passwords. The porous gaps spyware creates in a computer's security may be difficult to close. For example, one popular peer-to-peer file sharing network routinely installs spyware to track users' information and retrieves targeted banner ads and popups. As noted by a recent article in PC Magazine these file-sharing networks may be free, but at the cost of privacy, not money. Of the 60 million users, few know they are being watched. Of those who do discover spyware, uninstalling it may prove more difficult than other software programs. Some spyware includes tricklers, which reinstall the files as you delete them. Users may think they are getting rid of the problem, but the reality of the situation is far different. The creators of spyware have engineered the technology so that once it is installed on a computer, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to remove and in some cases requires the entire hard drive to be erased to get rid of this poisonous product. Such drastic measures must be taken, because often spyware tells the installer what websites a user visits, steals passwords or other sensitive documents on a personal computer, and also redirects Internet traffic through certain web sites. One of the most disturbing aspects about the spyware problem is that so few consumers are even aware of it. Bearing this factor in mind, the SPYBLOCK bill relies on a commonsense approach which prohibits the installation of software on consumers' computers without notice, consent and reasonable ``uninstall'' procedures. The notice and consent approach which SPYBLOCK takes would end the practice of so-called ``drive-by downloads'' which some bad actors use to secretly download programs onto users' computers without their knowledge. Under SPYBLOCK, software providers must give consumers clear and conspicuous notice that a software program will be downloaded to their computers and requires user consent. This simple provision could be fulfilled by clicking ``yes'' on a dialog box, for example. SPYBLOCK also requires notice and consent for other types of software. In the case of ``Adware,'' providers are required to tell consumers what types of ads will pop up on users' screens and with what frequency. Consent is required for software that modifies user settings or uses ``distributed computing'' methods to utilize the processing power of individual computers to create larger networks. Finally, software providers must allow for their programs to be easily ``uninstalled'' by users after they are downloaded. As with the CAN- SPAM law, enforcement authority would be given to the Federal Trade Commission. States attorneys general could take action against the purveyors of spyware. Clearly, it is time to call the bad actors to account. It is impossible to understand how any of the individuals or companies using spyware believe tracking Internet usage, stealing passwords, and hijacking the processors of someone else's computer, all without their knowledge, is justifiable. Working closely with my colleagues Senator Wyden and Senator Boxer, I am confident we can make major progress on this critical legislation, before spyware infects a critical mass of computers and renders them useless. Just trying to keep up with the latest anti-spyware software poses a tremendous cost to businesses, let alone individuals who have to spend their time online worried about the next spyware infestation. Again, I would like to thank Senators Wyden and Boxer for their hard work on this vital issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of a measure that I introduce today, with the support of my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked closely on the CAN SPAM bill together, and after four years of effort finally saw its successful passage last year. I am pleased to work with Senator Wyden again on another critical issue which is potentially of even greater concern than junk email given its invasive nature--that of spyware. I also appreciate the support of another of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Boxer. Together, we have crafted legislation aimed at ending the insidious operation of spyware, the SPYBLOCK Act of 2004. By introducing this legislation today, we take the first step in giving consumers the control to stop this deceitful practice. Spyware refers to software that is downloaded onto users' computers without their knowledge or consent. This sneaky software is then often used to track the movements of consumers online or even to steal passwords. The porous gaps spyware creates in a computer's security may be difficult to close. For example, one popular peer-to-peer file sharing network routinely installs spyware to track users' information and retrieves targeted banner ads and popups. As noted by a recent article in PC Magazine these file-sharing networks may be free, but at the cost of privacy, not money. Of the 60 million users, few know they are being watched. Of those who do discover spyware, uninstalling it may prove more difficult than other software programs. Some spyware includes tricklers, which reinstall the files as you delete them. Users may think they are getting rid of the problem, but the reality of the situation is far different. The creators of spyware have engineered the technology so that once it is installed on a computer, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to remove and in some cases requires the entire hard drive to be erased to get rid of this poisonous product. Such drastic measures must be taken, because often spyware tells the installer what websites a user visits, steals passwords or other sensitive documents on a personal computer, and also redirects Internet traffic through certain web sites. One of the most disturbing aspects about the spyware problem is that so few consumers are even aware of it. Bearing this factor in mind, the SPYBLOCK bill relies on a commonsense approach which prohibits the installation of software on consumers' computers without notice, consent and reasonable ``uninstall'' procedures. The notice and consent approach which SPYBLOCK takes would end the practice of so-called ``drive-by downloads'' which some bad actors use to secretly download programs onto users' computers without their knowledge. Under SPYBLOCK, software providers must give consumers clear and conspicuous notice that a software program will be downloaded to their computers and requires user consent. This simple provision could be fulfilled by clicking ``yes'' on a dialog box, for example. SPYBLOCK also requires notice and consent for other types of software. In the case of ``Adware,'' providers are required to tell consumers what types of ads will pop up on users' screens and with what frequency. Consent is required for software that modifies user settings or uses ``distributed computing'' methods to utilize the processing power of individual computers to create larger networks. Finally, software providers must allow for their programs to be easily ``uninstalled'' by users after they are downloaded. As with the CAN- SPAM law, enforcement authority would be given to the Federal Trade Commission. States attorneys general could take action against the purveyors of spyware. Clearly, it is time to call the bad actors to account. It is impossible to understand how any of the individuals or companies using spyware believe tracking Internet usage, stealing passwords, and hijacking the processors of someone else's computer, all without their knowledge, is justifiable. Working closely with my colleagues Senator Wyden and Senator Boxer, I am confident we can make major progress on this critical legislation, before spyware infects a critical mass of computers and renders them useless. Just trying to keep up with the latest anti-spyware software poses a tremendous cost to businesses, let alone individuals who have to spend their time online worried about the next spyware infestation. Again, I would like to thank Senators Wyden and Boxer for their hard work on this vital issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this difficult bill for the hours and days of work that have gone into this bill. This legislation is the most difficult the Senate will deal with this year. It goes without saying that there are more moving parts of this bill and that's what makes it so difficult. It affects every State in the Union in important ways: infrastructure and jobs. Every Senator in this body knows and understands that. All of us here are in need of both and it affects rural and urban areas alike. If I have learned anything during my tenure here, it is this: It is impossible to out build America's love for the automobile. The Subcommittee on Communications of the Commerce Committee has looked at this along with the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. We have spent hours discussing safety and efficiency. We have passed legislation in telecommunications making it easier to telecommute. The deployment of broadband Internet services is lagging due to several reasons, but it becomes vital to the easing of congestion found in our morning and evening commutes--labor and consulting laws to deal with the one who stays home two of the five working days and uses either the telephone or Internet to correspond and perform his or her office responsibilities. It is being done in Washington, D.C. as we speak. Great strides have been made in telemedicine and distance learning using these new and exciting communications tools. What I am trying to say is simple. It is not just a highway bill to move people but to move people and commerce. It is just one more item that is the infrastructure to do many things. The Internet has allowed Montana to move closer to downtown Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, Seattle, Denver, or San Francisco. For that matter, it has opened up the world and world markets to us in rural areas as never before. Now why do you ask why Montana has a huge interest in our roads and highways? We still depend on our farm-to-market roads. We are at the end of the line for product and the head of the line for the natural resources that are in high demand in every corner of the Nation. Here is the problem. It is a problem that has been dealt with by so many Senators and Congressmen in a fair way. Montana has only 28 people per lane mile on our Federal aid highways when the national average is 124. That is on Federal aid highways. In another area, our per capita income is below the national average. If that is not enough, rural Montana has long stretches, fewer people with smaller incomes. In fact, you have heard me use this expression a lot: ``We have a lot of dirt between light bulbs.'' We also have ways of financing the modern day needs for modern day roads. We have huge holdings of federally owned lands--federally owned national parks, national forest lands, Indian reservations, and public lands. They all have transportation needs that are unique to their areas. That limits our tax base, thus the need for some assistance in fulfilling the transportation needs for the entire country. Overall, I am very supportive of the bill before us today, but I do have some concerns and issues I wish we had more time to deal with. As the bill is written now, Montana would not receive funds under the impaired driving or occupant protection sections of this bill. I have two amendments that create a minimum guarantee to States such as mine that desperately need assistance is these areas. If it is a national program, then everyone should be able to access those funds. I understand the incentive-based approach my colleagues have written but creating programs that exclude some States is not the right direction. Senator Shelby did a great job, and I thank him for his work and assistance on rural transit. Even though Montana receives a 169 percent increase from TEA-21, it translates into modest dollars. Now here is my problem. We have an aging rural population. I have 14 counties that do not have a local physician. So routes taken in Montana must traverse these areas where we have modest ridership and long travel distances. These new transit funds will help us meet those needs. While we are on the subject of mass transit, it is time to face the situation of Amtrak. Let me state at this point that I have been and continue to be a supporter of Amtrak. With all its problems, all the bumps, scars, and warts, Congress has listened to our folks at home, and it is clear they want a national passenger system. It is costly. There are all kinds of studies and reports that one can draw from to deal with Amtrak, and I have yet to see any change in how it does business. We demagog the issue a lot and sometimes we see some attempt to change it but nothing that would change it drastically. We all demagog well, but we have shown no political will to change it. Regional needs and issues come front and center when we try. There are those who think of Amtrak as a light rail commuter system, so the interest and money flows in that direction. It is the only national passenger railway system this country has. Let me repeat--it is the only national passenger system we have. If it takes money from the Federal Treasury to subsidize, then so be it. But if there are areas where it is being used as a local commuter service, then are the taxpayers of the Nation subsidizing a local problem? Amtrak is just one of many important rail issues we should discuss today. When looking at rail policy, I believe it is important to consider the outlook of the rail customers along side that of the railroads, and those views are quite different. In my State and many others across the Nation, we have the issue of captive shippers, and the economic impact to our States is no small item. We have heard from more and more shippers about decreased transportation competitiveness and, as a result, increased transportation rates. Let me give a quick description of what has happened in this country the last 20 or so years. In 1980, there were 40 class I railroads in this country. As a result, Congress passed the Staggers Act that year with the intent that regulation would be eased and competition would endure and drive the marketplace ensuring rail rates would remain reasonable. Through regulatory involvement and a stifling amount of consolidation, we find ourselves with essentially four class I railroads today, two in the east and two in the west. Together with Senators Dorgan and Rockefeller, I introduced S. 919, the Railroad Competition Act of 2003 which is represented in several amendments before us today. Our intent is to correct the model and the economic structure that allows monopolistic behavior in the freight rail industry. Contrary to what you have heard from the railroads, there are no provisions in our amendments that are re-regulatory. The bill restates the original intent of the Staggers Act of 1980 which has been eroded by mergers and regulatory interpretation. Our amendments will not penalize the railroads or create an environment where railroads cannot compete with other transportation modes. In fact, our amendments will create competition among our railroads improving transportation efficiencies in our economy. I am the last Member of Congress who would introduce a measure that would drive a railroad out of a local economy, simply due to the fact that my State of Montana is nearly entirely captive to one railroad. The bottom line is the railroad industry in this country is allowed to legally operate in a business model that breeds monopolistic behavior. Montana is a classic case of what happens to rail customers when you eliminate competitive transportation alternatives. Our rail rates are some the highest in the Nation and my shippers end up subsidizing rail rates in regions where competition is present. Our rail customers pay more for less service. The rail customers in regions with competitive alternative pay less and receive more service. American agricultural shippers are the most vulnerable to predatory marketing by monopolistic practices of railroads. The farm producer, unlike every other industry in America, cannot pass the freight costs onto anyone else. They must simply eat the cost. It has been 24 years since the enactment of the Stagger Act, and neither the marketplace nor the Surface Transportation Board has corrected the obvious monopolistic behavior of our railroads. I ask that my colleagues seriously consider the rail customer issues we have in this country. Finally, I appreciate the hard work of the managers of this bill and their consideration for rural America. It is my hope we begin to move forward on the highway bill and I look forward to its timely passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the final passage of the CAN-SPAM bill, which will help to stem the tide of junk e-mail that is flooding the Nation's inboxes. I want to specifically thank my colleague Senator Wyden, the coauthor of the bill, who has been working tirelessly on this issue for years. Thanks to discussions over the past few days, many of the already-strong proconsumer provisions in CAN-SPAM have been enhanced. The bill the Senate considers today contains substantial statutory damages for spammers and additional notice requirements on commercial e-mail. The extent of bipartisan cooperation on this issue is no surprise given the deluge of spam consumers face in their inboxes everyday. The costs to businesses and individuals are escalating and wide ranging. Businesses lose money when employees take more and more time to wade through their e-mails. Servers all over the country have difficulty blocking spam, all while spammers work to find more and more ways to circumvent the latest software, server, or individual blocking systems. Spam is particularly harmful to rural areas. Because of the vast distances in Montana, many of my constituents are forced to pay long distance charges for their time on the Internet. Spam makes it nearly impossible for those in rural America to realize the tremendous economic and educational benefits of the online era. The CAN-SPAM bill empowers consumers and grants additional enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to take action against spammers. The bill requires the senders of commercial e-mail to include a clear ``opt-out'' mechanism to allow consumers to be removed from mass e-mail lists. This ``opt-out'' must also be clearly described in the e-mail itself, so that users of e-mail are not forced to sift through pages of legalese to determine where they can stop unwanted e- mail. The senders of commercial e-mail must also provide a valid physical postal address so that they are not able to hide their identities. Finally, e-mail marketers must include notice that the e-mail is an advertisement. Simply put, the CAN-SPAM bill finally gives consumers a measure of control over their inboxes. In cases where e-mail marketers don't comply with the CAN-SPAM bill, the penalties are severe. Spammers are on the hook for damages up to $250 per spam e-mail with a cap of $2 million. This already high penalty can be tripled if particularly unethical methods are used, such as ``computer hijacking'' to send spam by taking control of the computers of legitimate users without their knowledge or for harvesting addresses from legitimate Web sites to send spam. For criminal spammers who try to hide their identities by using false header information, damages are not capped. The CAN-SPAM bill also includes enhanced enforcement authority for the FTC to close possible loopholes for spammers and to keep up with technological developments. Granting the Commission the ability to keep pace with the new techniques of spammers is essential because it has become clear in recent years that these criminals are growing increasingly sophisticated in their methods. The passage of CAN-SPAM today will help to stem the tide of the toxic sea of spam. Clearly, consumers have been demanding control over their e-mail inboxes and the passage of CAN-SPAM today will give consumers a key victory in the battle against criminal spammers.

Mr. BURNS. I would like to flag one other aspect of the bill. Under section 6, the FTC can bring enforcement actions against merchants whose products are promoted in spam e-mails, even if the merchant is not the spammer. Isn't that correct?

Mr. BURNS. But isn't it also true that section 5 can be used against merchants whose products are promoted in spam e-mails? Can't the FTC, State A.G.s, and Internet Service Providers bring actions under section 5 against parties who aren't themselves spamming, but rather hire spammers to promote their products or services?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, in a colloquy regarding some details of the anti- spam legislation approved by the Senate. We have worked tirelessly on S. 877, and it is important to ensure that spammers cannot get around the definitions of electronic mail address and electronic mail message that will be regulated under this law. The definitions in the bill require electronic mail addresses to contain a domain part. This requirement is important to make sure we only capture e-mail and do not regulate other communications platforms, such as Instant Messaging. However, I want to be clear that the intent of Congress is to capture e-mail messages as that term is commonly understood. This includes e- mail messages sent within the same domain that may not actually display the domain part of the e-mail address.

Mr. BURNS. That confirms my understanding. So what is different about section 6, as I understand it, is that section 6 does not require any showing that the merchant actually hired or induced the spammer to send the spam. In other words, if the spammer is hard to find and his contractual relationship with the merchant has been obscured by under- the-table dealings, the FTC doesn't have to spend time and effort trying to prove the relationship.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, not on the Senator's time.