Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a good day, not only for me personally but many of us who serve in this Senate, especially my friend from Oregon whom I see across the aisle. It has been 4 years, working on this legislation. This is the CAN- SPAM bill--everybody is pretty familiar with it--which we hope will stem the tide of junk mail that is flooding our Nation's inboxes and our e-mail. I specifically thank my colleague Senator Wyden from Oregon who is coauthor of this bill. He has been working tirelessly on this for years--as long as I have. Thanks to the discussions over the past few days, many already strong proconsumer provisions in CAN-SPAM have been enhanced. Those negotiations have been ongoing and, in some cases, have been rather tense. The bill the Senate considers today contains substantial statutory damages for spammers and additional notice requirements on commercial e-mail. The character of the Congress is not always proactive; it is always reactive, it seems. That is the nature of the political landscape in which we find ourselves. We do not get too excited about doing anything until the folks at home get excited, or enough of them, that they form a critical mass for us to take action. I congratulate Senator Wyden. We serve together on the Commerce Committee. We were approached about doing something about the Internet and what is coming down on our computers and is found in our mailboxes on the Internet. We saw, 4 years ago, that this was going to become a problem. It was not just the idea of the Senator who stands before you now to do something about unwanted e-mail 4 years ago. There were more Senators around here who had the same vision, that as this industry grows, a problem will also grow with it. And that is what happened. The extent of bipartisan cooperation on this issue is no surprise, given the deluge of spam consumers face in their inboxes every day. The costs to businesses and individuals is escalating and wide ranging. Businesses lose money when employees take more and more time to wade through their e-mail. Servers all over the country have difficulty blocking spam, clearing their machines so they can operate while spammers work to find more and more ways to circumvent the latest software server or individual blocking systems. In my State of Montana, spam is really horrible, as it is in all rural areas across the United States. We have vast distances in Montana. Many of my constituents are forced to pay long distance charges on their time on the Internet. It is not the only State that has to do that. You will find that in the majority of rural areas, in all our States. Spam makes it nearly impossible for rural America to realize the tremendous economic and educational benefits of the online era. This bill empowers consumers and grants additional enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission to take action against spammers. It also allows the States' attorneys general to do the same. The bill requires the senders of commercial e-mail to include a clear opt-out mechanism to allow consumers to be removed from the mass e-mail lists. This opt- out must also be clearly described in the e-mail itself, so users of e- mail are not forced to sift through pages and pages of legalese to determine where they can stop the unwanted mail. Senders of commercial e-mail must also provide a valid physical postal address, so they are not able to hide their identities. Finally, e-mail marketers must include a notice that the e-mail is advertising. 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 very severe. For this part of the bill we have many people to thank. Spammers are actually on the hook for damages up to $250 per spam e-mail with a cap of $2 million. That gets my attention right there. This already high penalty can be tripled if particularly unethical methods are used, such as a computer hijacking to send spam by taking control of computers of legitimate users without their knowledge, and 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. In other words, they can go as high, those damages can go as high as the market would stand. It also includes enhanced enforcement authority of the FCC to close possible loopholes for spammers and to keep up with the technological developments. Let's face it, technology moves at the speed of light. Granting the Commission the ability to keep pace with new techniques of spammers is essential because it has become clear, in recent years anyway, that these criminals are growing increasingly sophisticated in their methods. So the passage of this bill today will help stem the tide of the toxic sea of spam. Clearly, consumers have been demanding control over their e-mail inboxes, and the passage of the CAN-SPAM today will give those consumers a key victory in the battle against criminal spammers. Again, I thank my good friend with whom I served on the Commerce Committee, Senator Wyden of Oregon, who has absolutely been a knight in shining armor in negotiations and working this through the Congress. Also on the floor is Senator Schumer of New York. Senator Schumer has offered many positive provisions in this bill. We have had a great time debating that. But nonetheless, his contribution is clearly in this bill and we appreciate his work. Of course, when I say it is a bipartisan effort, that is usually the way we get legislation passed around here, legislation that has any kind of future at all. I thank them both. It gives me great pleasure to yield the floor for my friend from the great State of Oregon, Senator Wyden.

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. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from New Mexico for yielding. I want to say one thing, and that is that the general premise of this bill is in the right direction. The emphasis is on renewables and things we can do that are good for the environment and still produce energy. All this other chaff and dust that has been kicked up around it that gives opponents such a move in the right direction can be dealt with later, but the general premise of the bill is good because a balance is there in the areas in which most of us really believe. Let us not take our eye off the ball. Let us move it on down the field under a premise of developing a policy and a way to not only deal with the environment but also produce energy. I tell my colleagues, we can deal with those things that are objectionable at a later time, but we must move in this kind of a direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of the Energy Committee for his leadership on this challenging bill both on the Senate floor and through the conference. This is the first comprehensive energy legislation this country has seen in more than a decade, and it is a huge step forward for America. This energy bill is about looking forward to our future, and creating the energy and the jobs that will keep this country best in the world. This is a large and complicated bill. It addresses everything from energy efficiency and conservation, to research and development for new technologies, and policies to encourage a wide variety of energy sources nationwide. People will always find something to criticize in a sweeping piece of legislation, but we need to focus on the huge accomplishments this bill will achieve. We will advance cutting-edge technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and improve clean technologies already in place like nuclear power, hydropower, wind, and solar energy. At the same time we will shore up our own domestic production of the resources we use most, including clean coal, oil, and natural gas. We will begin to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel annually as a result of this bill, and that is a very good thing for farmers and consumers across America. Real reforms in the electricity title will result in more reliable service and more investment in the backbone of our electricity infrastructure. I would especially like to acknowledge Senator Domenici's wise counsel in regard to an amendment I had intended to propose to enhance the economic growth of western States. My amendment would have provided for the study and creation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors by the Secretary of Energy, based on national security and energy policy grounds. Pursuant to those designations, the permitting and siting of needed electric transmission lines would be provided for. While most of this additional capacity would probably be achieved by broadening existing rights-of-way, there would no doubt be some need for additional rights of way. Upon the advice of the chairman and his assurance that he would pursue these concepts, I declined to offer that amendment on the Senate floor. I am very encouraged that the chairman has been successful in having the concept of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors included in the bill, for any area experiencing electric energy transmission constraints or congestion. Transmission capacity in these western States is one of the significant issues regarding their future economic expansion. Furthermore, if we could unlock the tremendous coal, wind and other resources of these States through mine-mouth electric generation and provide for the transmission of that electricity to load centers it would take significant pressure off our increasing reliance on natural gas as a power source. This is one of the keys to a balanced energy portfolio and lessened reliance on foreign energy sources. My home State of Montana can make a significant contribution to our Nation's energy independence, provided we can develop the needed transmission infrastructure to move electricity to market if we generate it from our coal and wind resources. This is very important for both the generating States and the end-user markets and is simply good national energy policy and good national security policy. This energy bill isn't perfect, but it helps us transition into tomorrow's economy without sacrificing our quality of life today. It is a good balance, and a good compromise between the countless demands that have been made by those with opposing viewpoints. No one can win every battle, but without this energy legislation the entire country loses. I am disappointed there are Members in this body who would rather complain about this bill than enact it. We shouldn't let partisanship get in the way of progress, and this bill is progress. No one got all they wanted, but every State in the Union will benefit, and every American will be better off if we ensure this country's energy security by passing this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2115, which reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act would provide just under $60 billion over the next 4 years for FAA activities. These are much needed funding improvements because we find ourselves in one of the greatest transition periods as a country, and as proponents of the aviation industry, in the history of our nation. With the slow recovery of the industry and the economy since the attacks of 9/11 it is important we pass this legislation immediately. As a member of the conference, my colleagues and I addressed several important issues and challenges. One of the most important achievements is the progress made in funding the Airport Improvement Program, which is funded at $3.4 billion in 2004 and increases $100 million each year ending at $3.7 billion in 2007. This is a necessary increase, as we need to constantly improve our Nations' airport infrastructure especially in rural and underserved areas. Mr. President, as you know, several provisions in or absent from the bill have bogged down its passage. As a member of the conference, even I do not support all provisions in this bill, but I understand the importance of the bill as a whole and the potential pitfalls our infrastructure will take if not enacted. I do not intend to discuss the entire report, but there are several critical provisions I would like to briefly address which greatly affect my State of Montana and my constituents. The first provision is intended to make additional slots available to improve access to the Nation's Capital for cities located beyond the 1,250 mile service perimeter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, DCA. I am particularly concerned that small and midsized communities in the west, especially in Montana and neighboring states, continue to have far fewer service options to reach DCA than communities located in any other area of the country. This is due to the fact that the most important hub airport serving the northern tier and intermountain region, Salt Lake City, is located outside the DCA perimeter. Network benefits are critical to improving this situation, and it is very important that the Department of Transportation consider and award these limited opportunities to western hubs that connect the largest number of cities to the national transportation network. Salt Lake City is a prime example. That airport serves as a primary transportation hub for the intermountain west. I was very disappointed that Salt Lake City received only a single flight from the prior AIR-21 allocation, while other hubs servicing the southwest region received two, or even three daily flights. Increased service at Salt Lake City should be a priority, because of the many critically underserved communities in the northern tier and intermountain west that will receive significant network benefits from additional flights at that hub. The second issue is the Essential Air Service Program, EAS. As you know, the EAS program provides subsidies to carriers for providing service between small communities and hub airports and is, no pun intended, essential to my state. This report authorizes approximately $500 million for EAS, and I am extremely supportive of that level. Unfortunately, the conference report also contains a provision, which directs the DOT to establish a pilot program for up to 10 EAS communities located within 100 miles of a large hub, and those communities will be required to pay 10 percent match of the EAS subsidy. While this provision does not affect my Montana EAS communities, I am still extremely unsupportive of this provision. If any Montana communities were asked to pay this match, there is no way they could come up with the funds. I want this body to know I will fight expansion of this pilot program in future authorizations. While we need to work on possible alternatives to EAS, we cannot ask small communities across the Nation to fork out funds they do not have for a service they deserve and need. Finally, this report contains language based on two amendments I offered on the Senate floor during debate earlier this year. The first asks for a report from the Secretary of Transportation on any actions that should be taken with respect to recommendations made by the National Commission to Ensure Consumer Information and Choice in the Airline Industry. The second amendment authorizes compensation to General aviation businesses for losses incurred after the attacks of 9/ 11. General aviation is an extremely important piece of this country's aviation backbone and we need to keep their perspective in mind whenever any aviation legislation is addressed whether it deals with security or overall aviation policy. In summation, we have crafted a fair and necessary piece of legislation that needs immediate passage. I ask my colleagues to support final passage of this critical piece of legislation that will aide all aviation sectors across this Nation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I object.

Mr. BURNS. I reserved the right to object, and I did object.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, this is mistimed to be considering this rule change on this piece of legislation. On behalf of some Senators on this side of the aisle I will have to object to the Senator's request.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I commend TechLink, a technology transfer center at Montana State University, for its outstanding achievements. TechLink has been highly successful at helping both the Department of Defense and NASA to develop, transfer, and commercialize new technology in partnership with industry. Congress first appropriated funds in 1996 to establish TechLink as a pilot program. Since then, this program has exceeded all expectations. TechLink has established more than 250 partnerships between Federal laboratories and the private sector, including technology licensing agreements, cooperative R&D agreements, and contracts to small businesses for new technology development. These partnerships involve more than 50 different Federal research centers--including over 40 Department of Defense labs and all 10 NASA centers. TechLink has played a key role in linking the high-tech sector in the Northwestern United States with Federal laboratories nationwide. It has assisted more than 150 companies throughout the Northwest. Beginning this last October, TechLink became a permanent part of the Department of Defense's technology transfer, transition, and acquisition activities. It is the only Department of Defense-wide technology transfer center serving the Army, Navy, Air Force, and various defense agencies. TechLink accounts for approximately one- fourth of all Department of Defense technology licensing agreements nationwide. It is playing a key role in transitioning innovative technology from Department of Defense labs and the private sector into commercial products that not only support our Nation's military and homeland security, but also contribute to national economic competitiveness and prosperity. TechLink provides an outstanding return on investment. Partnerships that TechLink has established with industry are returning revenues and in-kind contributions to Department of Defense labs worth more than three times the Federal funds expended to support TechLink's activities. As a result of its many innovations and achievements, the U.S. Department of Commerce recently recognized TechLink as one of 10 ``exemplary models'' nationwide of Federal technology transfer. I am proud to have played a key role in establishing TechLink, and wish this center the best in the years to come.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a special day today. I just want to take note of it now. It is a special day, the birthday of someone Americans all know. He is one of our senior citizens who has his birthday today. When this animated character burst on the scene, it changed our country. That change was bound to happen because of his appeal to the young and the old. He has changed the way we communicate. He has changed the way we travel. He is just a little fellow, but size has meant nothing to this animated character. He has always held that it is not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. He has changed our attitude on how we solve our problems and most times taught us to laugh at ourselves and lighten up on ourselves. He has entered our lives and he has changed us all, from the young to the old. Today is the birthday of Mickey Mouse. It is also shared by our good friend, the President pro tempore now in the chair, Chairman Stevens. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, a lot of questions are being asked about this debate as we roll along. We went late last night and there are probably some folks who have been short of sleep. Let there be no doubt about it, as we close this half hour, this is obstruction. A week ago tomorrow, we argued about definitions. Now we are worried about ideologies and how we appoint our judges. Here is one way you can have an issue and you can be on both sides of it and never worry about the consequences. That is healthy for us. We passed that through this Senate with strong bipartisan support and only 14 folks voting against it. Now we can't name conferees. ``Well, I voted for it.'' But we do not want it to get to conference. I am fighting for two judges, Janice Rogers Brown and Carolyn Kuhl. Both of them are nominated to the Ninth Circuit. Why am I fighting so hard for them? Let me tell you why. I am sponsoring legislation to split up the Ninth. It is too big. It covers California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and my home State of Montana. It covers 14 million square miles--that is a fairly good sized pasture--with 45 million people. The second highest population is the Sixth Circuit with 29 million. It has the highest number of active judges with 28. The average number per judges per circuit, including the Ninth, is 12. Let me tell you another reason why. The decisions that have been handed down by the Ninth lately--from 1996 through 1979--the Supreme Court heard 228 cases from the Ninth Circuit, and 27 of those decisions were overturned, 17 of them by unanimous decision. From 2001 through 2002, 12 of the 17 Ninth Circuit decisions were reversed, and 7 of those were unanimous. How would you like to have that track record? And we live in that circuit. Then you wonder why we get excited about the appointment of judges to that Ninth Circuit. It is absolutely unbelievable. I am an original cosponsor of S. 562. We must get it done. What we are talking about here is people in a circuit who can't handle the work and come up with decisions that can't stand the test in the Supreme Court. That is pretty bad--1 in 27. That is almost as bad as 0 and 1 in a gunfight in judicial terms. I am not an attorney. I don't think I will ever be one. But I will tell you that you can read and you know where the American people are, and those people are denied representation on the Ninth Circuit. Definitions: We have heard it. If we cooperate, things would really get along good here. If we cooperate--we did--that is healthy for us. Now we can't name conferees to finish the job that is in front of us. This is not my first rodeo. I know what is going on here. They should be ashamed--ashamed to contradict their own conscience. Obstructionism: Give these judges a vote up or down. That is the way you got here. They deserve the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research program or EPSCoR. First, I would like to thank the distinguished chair of the subcommittee for including $100 million in the EPSCoR program. This is a very important program in my State of Montana--and very important for the other 22 EPSCoR states that are trying to develop a competitive research program. I would also like to mention that I have talked with the EPSCoR project director and other participants in the program from Montana and that they have told me that the infrastructure improvement components of the program is critical to all other efforts to develop research capacity and to compete successfully for other NSF funding. I would like it to be clear that the research infrastructure component is central to the program and that we have provided funds to ensure that states can be fully funded.

Mr. BURNS. That is very important. Finally, I would just add that I hope NSF will make every effort to include the EPSCoR states in its new cyber infrastructure activities. NSF did a very fine job a few years ago in helping secure high-speed connections for research institutions in EPSCoR states. The new NSF cyberinfrastructure program is evolving and I hope that they will include states like Montana in these efforts since networking and advanced computing are essential to keeping our research universities connected to cutting-edge research and allow them to collaborate and use equipment at remote locations.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. If the Senator will yield on that point, 9 times out of 10, whenever we get in trouble in this body it is in dealing with definitions up front. That is our problem now. I know they are trying to work out some way over there to define certain parts of this, but there has to be something between the amendment pending and where we want to go. We are all in agreement that in this industry, when the moratorium was first put on--to allow this industry, this industry that was a baby industry, to build out--what we did was right. The second time we extended it was the right thing to do. We have seen an explosion in an industry. There are, however, some sections that are discriminatory. There were some loopholes found by the States. So we have an inequitable situation due to definition. I hope the parties can work this out to the satisfaction of the intent of the Commerce Committee when we passed it the first time, when we extended it the second time, and now when we want to extend it another time. Maybe status quo is not exactly right. But nonetheless, it is something we have to work on. The Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina have a point that we have not worked on the definition and how it will be determined or defined in the taxing entities of the States, or even, for that matter, counties and cities. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota allowing me this time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from North Dakota. Mr. President, if anyone in this body said the Government could invest $40 million and, in less than a year, generate commitments to invest or leverage $1.2 billion in job-creating, productivity-enhancing and life-improving infrastructure in some of America's most rural and remote areas, I would suspect the Members of this body and the public at large would judge that to be a successful and exciting economic development strategy. That is exactly what has happened. This broadband loan program is administered by the Rural Utility Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. In 10 short months the RUS broadband loan program has generated about $1 billion in applications, primarily in Treasury rate-of-interest loans that contain at least 20 percent equity leverage. That is a pretty good return. Let me build on what my friend from North Dakota said. I was pretty small when the debate on REA started, the Rural Electrification Administration. There is not one Senator in this body who has not gone to an annual meeting of an REA. My first line is always: If it had not been for REA, in the country areas we would be watching television by candlelight. That is a truism. Now we are in a different era. We are in an era when there is an infrastructure of the deployment of broadband. Broadband expanded services is as important to downtown America as it is to rural areas because of their ability to communicate instantly and to move massive amounts of information instantly. We have heard of the digital divide. This is a just one small step that closes that gap or that divide. It is working. Figures back it up. I was as surprised as anyone when this funding was taken out of the bill because it was not working. That wasn't the reason at all. Broadband technologies, whether delivered by fiber, licensed or unlicensed spectrum, or satellite, have the power to transform communities. High-speed access to the Internet is becoming as important to the rural economic development as good roads or good sewers or even electricity itself. It opens worlds of opportunities for rural businesses, farmers, and ranchers and provides up-to-the-minute market information; and rural schools for distance learning. We still have a boarding school in my State of Montana. You take your high school students to school on Monday morning and you do not see them until Friday night. That is remote. That is frontier. This technology is also a way to expand curriculum and allow those young people to have the same educational opportunities as young people in the more urban areas. Think about what it does to the rural areas as far as telemedicine. We know we have an aging population in rural areas. I have 14 counties that have no doctors at all. The delivery of health care is completely different than it was years ago. We have as much obligation to make sure there is a buildup of broadband as we had with electricity after World War II. I know what was in our house. Our house didn't have electricity until about 1949- 1950. I know that it transformed rural America. This provides the same possibility. With this amendment, we have restored a tool which investors can use to build up this important piece of infrastructure which will become very important to rural America. If the Federal Government could invest $40 million and in less than a year generate commitments to invest about $1.2 billion in job creating, productivity enhancing, life improving infrastructure in some of America's most rural and emote areas, I suspect most members of the body and the public at large would judge that to be a successful and exciting economic development strategy. That is exactly what has happened in the broadband loan program administered by the Rural Utilities Service RUS, of the United States Department of Agriculture. In ten short months, the RUS broadband loan program has generated about a billion in applications primarily for treasury rate of interest loans that contain at least 20 percent equity leverage. Broadband technologies whether delivered by fiber, licensed or unlicensed spectrum or satellite have the power to transform communities. High-speed access to the Internet is becoming as important to rural economic development as good roads and sewers. It opens worlds of opportunity for rural business, offers farmers up to the minute market information, rural schools the chance to offer advanced placement courses and rural health care facilities access to the finest medical advice and services available. While many areas served by companies and cooperatives in the RUS telecommunications program had modern advanced services, too many rural communities were far outside the service territory of these broadband pioneers. The RUS broadband loan program offered an exciting opportunity to close this digital divide. As one of the co-authors of the broadband loan provisions contained in the farm bill, I strongly believe that the Senate must keep faith with the carriers, cooperatives, communities and consumers who have been inspired to launch plans to bring broadband services to hometown America. The broadband loan program builds on a proven sixty-eight year model which has brought modern telephone, electric and water infrastructure to rural areas. The farm bill added a new broadband title to the Rural Electrification Act. It also created a reliable, predictable multi-year stream of mandatory funding to instill confidence that sufficient funds would be available until expended to encourage investment. Unfortunately, the funding for this program which is so vital to the economic health of rural America has been severely cut. We should be doing everything possible to incentivize broadband buildout in rural America rather than targeting this creative program which promises to bring huge benefits to vast areas of the country. I call on my colleagues to support the Dorgan-Burns amendment to restore funding to this critical program. It is very important. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Prabhat Hajela, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 7623.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 added new a new provision of the Rural Electrification Act giving the Rural Utilities Service, (RUS), Administrator the authority to make loans ``to expand or improve 911 access and integrated emergency communications systems in rural areas.'' This new provision was in response to the pressing need in rural America to upgrade and improve the ability to communicate in times of individual and mass emergencies. In the wake of 9/11 there is no higher telecommunications priority than to ensure that communications systems work best when they are needed most. Senator Clinton and I proposed the emergency communications provision in the Agriculture Appropriations bill to give life to that new section of the Rural Electrification Act.

Mr. BURNS. The emergency communications amendment will help ensure that rural America does not fall on the wrong side of a public safety divide. NRCS Clarifications

Mr. BURNS. The Rural Utilities Service, through its talented staff of engineers, operations specialists can play an important role in ensuring that emergency responders can communicate in rural and remote areas. The Burns-Clinton provision in this appropriations bill would not increase or decrease spending, but would give the administrator of the RUS the flexibility to use funding from several sources within the agency to give emergency communications projects in rural areas the high priority they deserve. It also gives the RUS Administrator a source of loan funds which compliment the grant funds available for emergency communications systems in the Community Facilities program.

Mr. BURNS. That is correct. At any given time, there are authorities which are oversubscribed and others which are undersubscribed. This provision gives the Administrator flexibility to use underutilized funds for this high priority purpose. As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, I will seek Conference report language to clarify that funding would be available to current and prospective RUS borrowers and that a wide range of projects be eligible for funding including 911 upgrades, broad emergency communications initiatives, statewide emergency communications projects which include rural areas and projects that provide a dual public safety and commercial uses.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. If the Senator from North Dakota will yield.

Mr. BURNS. It is a good idea to give us time to work it out to the agreement of both sides. This can be done. We are going to have to offset it. We would work with the chairman and the ranking member. I don't need any time prior to Senator Feinstein speaking. We can do that after because she has come, with all good intentions, to offer her amendment, and I think she should be allowed to do so.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northern Border Lease Extension legislation. Currently, and since 1981, Northern Border Pipeline Company has leased tribally owned lands on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for its gas pipeline, which carries gas from Alberta, Canada to consumers in the Midwest. This lease expires in March 2011. Northern Border wishes to have the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. They need to be assured as soon as possible their lease can be extended. If not, they must look for other options that would include constructing a new pipeline to go around the Reservation by 2011. If the lease is not extended, not only will Northern Border be forced to build a new pipeline, but also the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation will lose over $20 million in payments from Northern Border. Additionally, if extended, the lease would provide tens of millions of dollars in additional payments, with the rental payments increasing at an annual rate of three percent per year every five years. These terms came about after negotiations between Northern Border and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. This legislation would allow the Tribes to enter into a lease with Northern Border that would give Northern Border the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. This is one of those great instances when both sides of a situation agree and are of one mind. This provision was included in a bill previously approved by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, but unfortunately for reasons not associated with this provision, is being held up. Therefore, I wish to introduce this important piece of legislation as a stand-alone bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northern Border Lease Extension legislation. Currently, and since 1981, Northern Border Pipeline Company has leased tribally owned lands on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for its gas pipeline, which carries gas from Alberta, Canada to consumers in the Midwest. This lease expires in March 2011. Northern Border wishes to have the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. They need to be assured as soon as possible their lease can be extended. If not, they must look for other options that would include constructing a new pipeline to go around the Reservation by 2011. If the lease is not extended, not only will Northern Border be forced to build a new pipeline, but also the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation will lose over $20 million in payments from Northern Border. Additionally, if extended, the lease would provide tens of millions of dollars in additional payments, with the rental payments increasing at an annual rate of three percent per year every five years. These terms came about after negotiations between Northern Border and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. This legislation would allow the Tribes to enter into a lease with Northern Border that would give Northern Border the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. This is one of those great instances when both sides of a situation agree and are of one mind. This provision was included in a bill previously approved by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, but unfortunately for reasons not associated with this provision, is being held up. Therefore, I wish to introduce this important piece of legislation as a stand-alone bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.