Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as we are rolling along, trying to complete our work on appropriations, it won't be long that we will have the appropriations for the Interior Department on the Senate floor. I would just like to bring my colleagues up to date on some of the challenges we will be facing and how we probably have to come up with some imagination to take care of some of the problems. We watched the weather reports from my State of Montana. Montana has had an unusually hot, dry summer. We have also been plagued with wildfires this year. In fact, the lion's share of the fires has been in my State. I want to speak for a moment on something I think has great importance--the need to provide additional funds to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to pay for the cost of fighting this year's wildfires. Nationwide, the numbers are staggering. Once again, we have suffered a terrible fire season. Little does America know, 27 firefighters lost their lives this year in the line of duty. Over 789 homes and other structures have been destroyed, and 2.8 million acres have burned. During the recent Labor Day weekend, 25,000 firefighters were working on fires in every State in the West. As in 2000, my home State of Montana has been hit by the largest share of the damage. In fact, for much of the summer, half of the total acres burning in the whole Nation were burning in Montana. So far we have lost 600,000 acres, and the fire continues today. Weather conditions, with cooler temperatures and 2.5 inches of rain this week reported in Big Fork, MT, have helped. But there are still 20 fires that have the potential of blowing up unless the moisture continues. During the August break, I saw the devastating impact of these fires on our parks, forests, and communities firsthand. The fires were so bad that portions of Glacier National Park and Yellowstone Park were closed to the public for many days, as were many national forest lands and, this time, wildlife refuge lands. The impact of these fires is catastrophic, not only on the land but also on the people. During July and August, hundreds of residents were evacuated as 80 fires burned out of control throughout Montana. Roughly 125 structures were destroyed, and that included 23 homes. Fighting these fires is expensive. The Forest Service has been spending as much as $20 million a day on firefighting alone. Total expenditures this fiscal year will approach $1 billion. That is taxpayer money. In order to pay for these extraordinary costs, the Forest Service has been forced to borrow $595 million from other nonfire accounts. The Department of the Interior has borrowed $100 million already and is expected to borrow at least $50 million more before the fire season is over. Putting it in a conservative manner, the two agencies together will borrow $850 million from other accounts to fight fires this fiscal year. Prior to the August recess, the President and the administration submitted a supplemental request for $289 million for fire suppression. My colleagues may recall, I was angry when the House ultimately sent us a supplemental that did not include these funds. In my view, it was highly irresponsible since the fire season was well under way and we knew those funds would be needed. At this stage, it may be just as well that the House omitted these funds. The pending supplemental request is now totally inadequate in light of what has transpired over the last month. If we were to approve only the pending administration request, we would leave the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior with a combined shortfall in other programs of between $550 and $600 million. What would be the impact of this? In a word--substantial. The issue is not whether fires will or won't be fought when necessary. Both agencies will continue to protect life, property, and the important natural resources wherever possible. The issue is what won't get done if we fail to repay the accounts that have been raided. Last year, we were in a similar situation. Both the Forest Service and the Interior borrowed heavily from nonfire accounts. This caused both agencies to stop work on certain things until those amounts were repaid and that account replenished. In the end, we only repaid about 60 cents on every dollar borrowed, which was the amount proposed by the administration in its supplemental request. The impacts of this shortfall were very real, but the agencies managed to keep most programs above water by managing carryover, canceling defunct projects, and reducing the scope of projects. But as a result of last year's shortfall, this low-hanging fruit is gone. If we do not act soon to repay in full--and that is my intent, to repay in full the amounts borrowed during the fiscal year 2003--the impacts will be far greater. A wide variety of programs will be deeply affected--from endangered species monitoring to facilities construction, from land acquisition to recreation management, from the processing of grazing permits to the sale of timber. Failing to repay the amounts borrowed will affect all of these things. It amounts to a de facto rescission of funds appropriated by Congress just 6 months ago. To my colleagues from over the Nation, I would say this is not just a western problem simply because that is where most of the fires burn. It is a problem for every State in the Union because the funds are effectively being borrowed from every State. They are being borrowed in many cases from projects and programs that were funded at the specific request of every Member in this body. If the amounts are not repaid, those amounts will permanently be taken from many of those same projects and programs again. Maybe it will come from a National Park Service construction project. Maybe it will be in Massachusetts. Maybe it will come from land acquisition in Arizona. Maybe it will come out of grazing management in Colorado. More than likely, it will come from all that I have mentioned. The use of borrowing authority to fight fires is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a reasonable mechanism when the amounts being borrowed are relatively modest, when sufficient carryover funds are readily available, or when the borrowed amounts are ultimately repaid. But the borrowing has become routine. The amounts involved are massive. We no longer have large carryover amounts in other accounts, and we have habitually not repaid the full amount that was borrowed. It is a terrible, inefficient way to run a program. In the past, both the Congress and the administration have been guilty of playing budgetary games with fire suppression funding, but the current situation is only a faint reflection of that fact. Congress included in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill essentially the same amounts that were requested by the administration for wildlife fire management. That amount, in turn, was determined by using the 10- year average cost of fire suppression. But that 10-year average no longer is reasonable or a reasonable benchmark for a number of reasons. Look at our forests. Fuel loads on the floors of our forests are increasing. Increasing costs of personnel and equipment are fully reflected in the 10-year average, and the wildland-urban interface is expanding, which increases the cost of fire suppression. I think Congress and the administration need to deal with these issues, particularly hazardous fuel loads. But that will not happen overnight, and it does not change the situation we are in today. To be clear, I have no interest in giving the Forest Service or the Department of the Interior a blank check to fight fires. We must continue to seek ways to reduce costs, and that is why the Appropriations Committee has asked the National Academy of Public Administration to study recent trends in firefighting costs. But while that academy did find some areas for improvement, it found no smoking gun, and there is no silver bullet. The system is broken, Mr. President, and the administration must work with us to fix it. It cannot rationally expect to produce cost containment in one program by starving the life out of others. In the short term, we must enact a supplemental that fully repays the amounts they borrowed during fiscal year 2003. I call on the administration to send us another supplemental request for these amounts. For the longer term, we have to have annual budget requests that more adequately reflect the current reality of suppression costs. We also need to take another look at borrowing authority we traditionally have provided these agencies. Unless adequate action has already been taken on the impending supplemental, I expect to offer amendments on this subject when the Interior appropriations bill comes to the floor. I hope these amendments will be widely supported by my colleagues. I appreciate this opportunity to give a little forecast of what is ahead on another appropriations bill because these are tremendous challenges. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. appalachian regional commission

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the resolution. I say this as someone who is unhappy with the core aspects of the FCC's ruling. I disagree with the move to lift the 35 percent national television viewership cap. I believe the 35 percent ceiling has served us well in preserving the goals of competition, localism, and diversity. However, the decision was extremely comprehensive and complicated and included some changes which I do favor. For example, I strongly support the Commission's approach to ease the ill-advised restrictions on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. The empirical data from the newspaper/broadcast station combinations that were grandfathered in shows that this has allowed for a greater diversity of voices. Miles City in my home State of Montana provides a vivid example. KATL-AM and the Miles City Star are one such operation. Each operates autonomously and KATL provides valuable local news coverage to the area. Through the pooling of resources, smaller stations which might not be viable are able to maintain their economic health and continue to serve the local community. Again, I reiterate my strong opposition to the FCC's decision to lift the national broadcast ownership cap to 45 percent from 35 percent. If the major networks are allowed to own even more of their affiliate stations, local concerns will have less of a role in shaping what programming makes it on the air. Affiliate stations that are independently owned may choose, from time to time, to preempt network programming that they believe does not conform to the mores of their local communities. That is localism. I guarantee that the local views of the citizens of Butte, MT differ from those of the citizens in New York City. Independently owned stations are answerable only to local demands. So, if the station owners feel certain programming doesn't reflect their local community values, they keep it off the air. Not only will lifting the cap mean that stations are less likely to preempt programming, but it also means that there will be less local input into the composition of network schedules. As the networks own more and more of their affiliates, the independently owned affiliates will lose negotiating leverage. In short, you'll see programming decisions made more and more in Los Angeles and New York, instead of in local markets. We already raised the national television cap in 1996 from 25 percent to 35 percent. It would be premature to raise it again so soon. I fully understand the sentiment that lead to this resolution. I agree with the concerns of many of my colleagues, particularly on the television cap. However, this is not the way to go about it. The Commerce Committee upon which I serve--has moved to protect the national broadcast cap. I also serve on the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce, Justice, State bill for this year includes a measure to protect the 35 percent cap. I support these moves, which target individual rule changes, rather than the resolution being considered today, which rolls back the entire decision. Again, I emphasize I am not happy with the FCC ruling. But I don't think the answer is to wipe out every aspect of the FCC ruling with one single vote. If we are going to get it right, we need to look at each regulation and each issue individually. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for the time I shall need. If any other pending business comes up, I will gladly step aside.

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to show my support for the autism awareness resolution submitted today by my colleague, Senator Coleman. Autism is a developmental disability which typically appears during the first 3 years of life and impairs the communication and social skills in those affected. The result of a neurological disorder affecting the functioning of the brain, autism and its associated behaviors occur in as many as 1 in 500 individuals, in a rate of 5 boys to every girl. Because autism is difficult to recognize and diagnose, it is important that families seek an evaluation by a medical professional experienced in diagnosing and treating the disorder. This disability is about 10 times more prevalent today than it was in the 1980s, with over 500,000 people in the U.S. today with some form of this pervasive developmental disorder. Its frequency rate makes autism one of the most common developmental disabilities. However, most of the public, including many medical, educational, and vocational professionals, are still unaware of how autism affects people and how they can effectively work with individuals with this diagnosis. I encourage my colleagues to join me in my efforts to increase autism awareness, and support this resolution.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise in honor of Monica Conter Benning and Bernard Floyd Benning, Barney, on the celebration of their 61st wedding anniversary on August 20, 2003. Monica and Barney are the only surviving couple of the Pearl Harbor attack who both were in the immediate Pearl Harbor area at the time of the bombing. As the courtship between these two officers evolved in the setting of World War II, their experiences during the attack on America, December 7, 1941, are an important part of American history. Barney, a college ROTC 2nd Lt. from Niles, MI, was ordered to active duty to Hawaii in May 1941. Barney joined an anti-aircraft battery in Fort Kamehameha at the entrance of the Pearl Harbor channel. Army nurse 2nd Lt. Monica Conter of Apalachicola, FL served at Walter Reed General Hospital in 1940-1941, and was the official model for the Army Nurse Corps Recruiting Program. Monica was later assigned to the new Hickam Field Hospital, adjacent to Pearl Harbor and separate by a lone chain link fence. Monica is the only nurse still living today who was on duty at Hickam Field Hospital at the time of the attack. During the attack on December 7th, a bomb fell on the hospital lawn about 60 feet from the building, leaving a large crater. A banyon tree sapling was planted in the crater several days after the attack. Today, beside the huge tree is a granite monument and plaque, honoring Monica's service as an Army nurse on duty that fateful day. Monica and Barney Benning first met on a prearranged ``blind date'' in September 1941; the beginning of a lifetime together. Their courtship continued with regularity until that ``Day of Infamy,'' December 7, 1941--the first terrorist attack on America. The following Wednesday, when Barney appeared at Hickam Hospital in a dirty, wrinkled uniform, it was quite an emotional moment when they found each other alive. ``Off Duty'' time was infrequent and often they were miles apart and usually on some kind of alert status until the American victory at the Battle of Midway in May. They wed on August 20, 1942, in the temporarily camouflaged Hickam Field Chapel; the original chapel was destroyed on December 7. On August 20, 2003, they will celebrate their 61st wedding anniversary. I congratulate and praise this couple, members of our Greatest Generation, for serving America to protect our precious democracy. I applaud your bravery and dedication to preserving freedom for all Americans. Monica and Barney currently reside in Fort Myers, FL. They have two sons, Phil Benning and Gregory Benning and a daughter, Veronica Benning, as well as two grandchildren, Melanie and Lauren Benning.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Baucus, I will offer an amendment to the pending Energy bill that will make it economically feasible to make improvements to and operate the Flint Creek Hydroelectric Project at Georgetown Lake in Granite County, MT. Specifically, this amendment limits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's, FERC, annual land use fee at the project to $25,000 for so long as Granite County, or the neighboring county, Deer Lodge County, holds the license to the project. This amendment is very similar to legislation which Senator Baucus and I introduced in the 104th Congress and which was reported unanimously from the Senate Energy Committee. The Flint Creek Project does not currently generate electricity, nor will it without a limitation placed on the FERC annual land use fee. Under the status quo, FERC's annual fee for the project would be more than $83,000, an amount that simply makes the project uneconomic. The GAO recently released a report that concluded that the FERC generally sets land use fees too low for non-Federal hydroelectric projects located on Federal lands. In the case of the Flint Creek Project, the opposite is true. The Flint Creek Project is more than 100 years old. It was operated by the Montana Power Company for many years. Since 1992, when it was transferred to Granite County, it has remained idle. In order to become operational again, it will require more than $2.3 million in investment. This includes building a new powerhouse that replicates the architectural style of the historic structure, installing new intake facilities, replacing the old woodstave line with a new low-pressure pipeline, new generation turbines, swiftgear equipment, stream flow control, data logging systems and a new substation and metering equipment to connect the project to the Northwest energy transmission grid. All of this investment is necessary to get the Flint Creek Project up and running in an operationally efficient and environmentally responsible and safe manner. When these investments are made, the project will have an installed generation capacity of 2 megawatts. That translates into anticipated annual power sale revenues of between $300,000 and $350,000. Under the current FERC fee regime, however, the annual fee of $83,000 would amount to nearly 25 percent of the gross revenues of the project. With this kind of bureaucratic overhead, no one with an ounce of business sense would make the $2.3 million investment required to restart the project. My amendment reduces this annual fee to a level that fairly compensates the Federal Government for the use of its property, while at the same time encouraging investment in this project by assuming a modest rate of return. As we sit here debating new mandates to diversify this Nation's energy portfolio and increase the amount of renewable electricity available for the marketplace, it strikes me that this is one small, site-specific yet beneficial way in which we can appropriately encourage new investment in clean, renewable electricity. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on the floor of the House of Representatives this morning, they are debating a supplemental appropriations bill that deals with some serious issues that are happening under the heading of disasters across this country. The appropriations bill does not designate any money for firefighting in the West. I have been told that right now the Forest Service currently has $352 million available for wildfire suppression, but that is only going to last the next 2 weeks. The latest projections, which are conservative, I am told, indicate the expected expenditure for fighting forest fires this year is $775 million. We have a certain amount of money set aside for prevention; that is-- if we didn't have this procedure called appeals--those accounts that are set aside for prevention will now be moved over to fire suppression. We are between a rock and a hard place. It occurs to me that with the support of the White House, a clean supplemental for fire suppression, under emergency conditions, makes a lot of sense. We have to provide some money for fire suppression. The American people are turning on their television sets every night, and every night our forests are afire. To give a rundown, they have evacuated all of Glacier National Park. Even some people they said would not have to evacuate--they are inholders in the park and have homes along Lake McDonald--they had to prepare their homes for fire prevention, and they left the park, for example, to get their groceries. Now they will not let those people back in. That is a local situation, and I am sure that is going to get ironed out. That is how drastic this situation is. I call upon my friends in the House of Representatives: Do what is right to handle the emergencies we now have because, if we don't, when we start running out of money, then--due to this extended drought, with very hot conditions right now in the Rocky Mountain West--we are going to have these fires far into the month of September. It is just not right. These fires are threatening our national treasures. McDonald Valley, Glacier National Park, is now on fire on both ends. Remember the book, ``The Perfect Storm,'' about two storms coming together at the right time, and they are only 10 miles apart, that is the ``perfect storm,'' and we could lose that entire forest. I call upon my colleagues in the House to do the right thing now because we understand they are going to pass this bill and send it to the Senate. The Senate is in a vise. We either take it or we don't. If we don't, it will be zero dollars and the middle of September before any funds will flow into these areas that desperately need the money. I don't know who is giving advice on this issue. I don't know who is doing the thinking on this issue. But I will tell you right now, it is wrong-headed to do it as the apparatus is set up to get it done now. It is just wrong-headed. I feel powerless to do anything, especially for the forests in my State of Montana, and that is not a very good feeling. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. For less than 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I appeal to my good friend from New Mexico who is managing this Energy bill and ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this morning we have been through a series of briefings with regard to Iraq. It amazes me, as we hear some of the rhetoric that is coming out of this town and, of course, across the waves, and I wish to bring to the attention of those who missed it, it was a very good briefing put on by Ambassador Bremer of what is happening in Iraq after the armed conflict is over, but which continues today on a guerrilla basis, and report to the American people that all the press we get is sort of on the negative side, but there are some very positive signs. I hasten back to the start of our country. The path to democracy is a very rocky path. Sometimes it is very slow and sometimes it is very dangerous, but there are things being done now, and the best ambassadors I have found on the ground in Iraq are our uniformed troops. If one can imagine a people who have been under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for the last 25 years being told how evil this great army could be, that they would either cut out their tongues or they would kill them, and then have one of our soldiers or marines in combat gear and helmet, dirty, sandy, and grimy, walk up to a young Iraqi person with a smile and offer a hand of friendship in the form of water or some food, but mostly the hand of friendship, they are making great strides in winning the hearts of the Iraqi people and helping them to establish a free and open government for their own freedom and prosperity. Right now, we are not hearing these kinds of figures: 85 percent of the cities and towns in Iraq now have elected councils in place and working. There was a strategy after the conflict was over, but No. 1 was security. We cannot do a thing in Iraq, and neither can the Iraqi people do for themselves, until it is secure so they will feel safe. The building of central services, electrical power, water, sewer, all of these amenities that make life easy for us, are not in place. Saddam Hussein never paid a lot of attention to that. He rationed electrical power, water, all the services we take for granted in America. He limited them in order to suppress, and he got to pick and choose who were afforded those kinds of amenities or those central services we find so necessary in our own towns, villages, counties, and States. We are making progress. We are now reconfiguring our military presence there. We are also doing something about the economy. How does one move state-owned enterprises into the private sector to provide some economic thrust for job and economic opportunity for the Iraqi people? That framework is in place, and it is being carried out. How do we train a militia or a police force for the Iraqi people, headed by Iraqi people, and an armed forces for Iraq who answer not to a military tyrant but to a civilian government patterned somewhat like our own? That, too, is being put in place, and they are being trained by our forces. We have around 30 to 40 coalition forces from different countries represented in Iraq right now. There are 12 top contributors, of which the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Norway, and others are all participating in this endeavor. I advise the American people to look at the positive side of establishing a civil and free government in Iraq. We are building a new irrigation system and repairing old systems because the infrastructure has dwindled away. It has almost been destroyed--not by war but by use and wear. These folks need to be able to feed themselves. We have agriculturists in the field, nongovernmental organizations in the field working in health care and agriculture and services vital to the Iraqi people to put this country back together and make it a democracy that will be the shining example of the Middle East. We cannot lose our resolve. The Founders of this country did not lose their resolve. They committed to an idea of freedom and self- government. Our path to democracy was not easy either. We have had 200 years of democracy. They have had less than 200 days to establish what they have dreamed of--freedom and the dignity of the individual. That is what this is all about. If they do not lose their resolve, we cannot lose our resolve. Our President has provided that leadership under heavy criticism. He has established a goal and idea that will change the Middle East and how they do business in the Middle East. Peace and freedom can be accomplished. The American people have made a commitment to do that goal. Now we have to maintain our resolve to the completion of that mission. I thank our military forces this morning. They are men and women of great courage who know what the mission is and know how to complete the mission. Congratulations to our leadership, our leadership in Washington, President Bush and his staff. They have provided the resolve it takes to complete the mission. There are many positive things. When the President said: We will hunt down these killers and deal with them--he meant it. The credibility around the world continues to be high with our leader. When he says it, he means it, he does it. It has bolstered Americans and shows what it is like to be the champion of freedom and human dignity around the world. Is it costly? Yes, it is costly. Was it costly back in 1776 and the following years until 1800? Yes, it was costly. But we survived. We never lost our resolve. We cannot lose it now. I thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me this little time. There are a lot of facts and figures we could throw out, but the message today is stand fast. If we believe in the fire of freedom, it is our responsibility to maintain that resolve. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I put a footnote on this. I recommend the Lewis and Clark exhibit. It is wonderful history. Of course, the Louisiana Purchase is of great interest to all of us in the West. I recommend a book I am about two-thirds of the way through. It is called ``The Wilderness So Immense.'' It is the history of how we purchased all that land from France when Jefferson was ambassador to France. It goes back to 1785 and 1786, and also the politics involved with Spain. It involves the navigation of the Mississippi River, the control of New Orleans and, of course, Spain's influence in the great American southwest that led to the Louisiana Purchase. I recommend that book. It is written by Jon Kukla, and it gives a great insight on what happened. I thank the Senator for mentioning this great 200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I recognize and honor a special friend, Mr. Brad Bean. Brad has been involved in the development and planning of the Burns' Telecommunications Center since its inception and has been dedicated to the continued expansion and advancement of the Burns' Center. Brad played an integral role in capturing my vision of using technology to connect all sectors of our rural State to the ``new world'' of electronic transmission and communication which has developed since the late 1980s. My goal to develop a technology training center dedicated to distance learning, telemedicine, classrooms, students and teachers and the business community has been advanced by Brad's belief in that vision. His proven leadership has drawn individuals and companies from around the world to invest in the Burns' Telecommunications Center. Brad and his wife, Jacqueline, have helped to promote the opportunities available at the Burns' Center to people from many places in Montana and beyond its borders. Brad has served on the Burns' Telecommunications National Advisory Board and is retiring this year to my regret. I personally thank Brad and acknowledge and praise his passion for excellence, program development and his loyalty to my mission for the Burns' Center. Brad has gone above and beyond the call of duty and I salute him for his generous support and help. We are fortunate in Montana to have people like Brad and Jacqueline, who are willing to give of themselves to help their community and their State.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of S. 1406, which is pesticide harmonization legislation. I join my colleague, Senator Dorgan, as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I would like to commend Senator Dorgan and his staff, the Montana Grain Growers, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and our Montana Department of Agriculture for their willingness to work out the gritty details of this bill. It has been a long and laborious negotiation process, but I believe we have come up with legislation that is better for the farmers of this country. In my home State of Montana and many other Western and Midwestern States, we have faced a number of trade disputes between Canada and the United States. One of the most glaring discrepancies deals with pesticides. Chemicals that are sold for one price just across the border in Canada are sold at a considerably higher cost to American producers. Why does this happen you may ask? The EPA places strong regulations on chemicals used in the United States and therefore, the chemical companies believe they should hike up the prices to pay for their trouble. The chemicals sold in Canada and the United States, in most cases, have the exact same chemical makeup. The same company manufactures them but often gives them a different name and nearly always prices the American chemicals higher. The crops harvested at a lower production cost in Canada are now competing with American products. I am a strong believer in fair trade, but for free trade to actually occur, this problem must be addressed. Currently, American farmers are facing a serious economic recession. Grain prices are the lowest they have been in a number of years and there does not appear to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Additionally, much of the West is looking at yet another year of drought. Also, fertilizer costs are skyrocketing with the ever-rising cost of natural gas. To top it all off, they are also being forced to pay twice as much for nearly the same chemicals as their foreign neighbors. This bill would eliminate current obstacles and even the playing field for our farmers. The bill operates under a similar concept as the previous bills introduced, but many of the details have changed. The pesticide harmonization bill that is currently introduced, S. 332, had the States, not EPA, in charge of pesticide registrations. This new version has EPA in charge of the process. This eliminated some of the concerns of States, whose budgets would not allow these much-needed registrations to be completed. It also protects confidentiality of ingredients in the chemicals. Our farmers and ranchers have been paying too much for their pesticides and chemicals for too long. From my years as a football referee, I learned everyone needs to follow the same rules to play the game. We need to make sure Canadian farmers and U.S. farmers are playing under the same rules. I believe this bill makes that happen. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this crucial issue to America's farmers and ranchers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Ruth Abbey of Malta, MT on her 99th birthday. Ruth is a pillar of her community and an inspiration to many, including her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren. Ruth was a teacher for many years and subsequently served as County Superintendent of Schools. Ruth is exemplary of our Montana way of life, and I am honored to offer my congratulations on this special occasion.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will protect an existing exemption for farmers and agribusinesses from the Department of Transportation's, DOT, limitations on maximum driving time in transporting agricultural commodities or farm supplies during peak planting and growing seasons. In 1995, Public Law 104-59 passed by Congress granted farmers and retail farm suppliers a limited exemption from DOT limitations on maximum driving time in transporting agricultural commodies or farm supplies within a 100-mile radius of a final distribution point. This legislation recognized the special needs of rural America, understanding that drivers employed by farm retailers generally operate in local areas to farmers' fields delivering and applying crop inputs. Much of their time is spent waiting at the field or the farm store loading and unloading their trucks. In short, farm retail drivers stay in a local area and return to their homes each night to sleep. The work of these crop input suppliers is essential to the Nation's farmers, who often have short windows of time to plant and harvest their crop around changing weather patterns. The agricultural exemption is seasonal, applying only during designated months throughout the year as determined by each State. Every State has now taken this action, and to my knowledge this exemption has not had any impact on public safety. It is important to note that under my clarifying legislation, the farm supply/farm commodity exemption would remain limited in scope. My legislation reiterates original Congressional support for the agricultural exemption. The DOT has no expertise in this area nor, in my opinion, does the definition of agricultural commodity come under the jurisdiction of this agency. In addition, the term ``agricultural commodity'' is already defined by Section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602). Therefore, in my legislation, Section 345 (e) of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 is amended to reflect the definition in the Agricultural Trade Act. A bipartisan group of House Members are also seeking clarifying legislation in this regard with Representative Bereuter of Nebraska taking the lead. I urge all my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation to protect the agricultural exemption to hours of service rules and prevent DOT from diminishing or revoking the exemption.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will protect an existing exemption for farmers and agribusinesses from the Department of Transportation's, DOT, limitations on maximum driving time in transporting agricultural commodities or farm supplies during peak planting and growing seasons. In 1995, Public Law 104-59 passed by Congress granted farmers and retail farm suppliers a limited exemption from DOT limitations on maximum driving time in transporting agricultural commodies or farm supplies within a 100-mile radius of a final distribution point. This legislation recognized the special needs of rural America, understanding that drivers employed by farm retailers generally operate in local areas to farmers' fields delivering and applying crop inputs. Much of their time is spent waiting at the field or the farm store loading and unloading their trucks. In short, farm retail drivers stay in a local area and return to their homes each night to sleep. The work of these crop input suppliers is essential to the Nation's farmers, who often have short windows of time to plant and harvest their crop around changing weather patterns. The agricultural exemption is seasonal, applying only during designated months throughout the year as determined by each State. Every State has now taken this action, and to my knowledge this exemption has not had any impact on public safety. It is important to note that under my clarifying legislation, the farm supply/farm commodity exemption would remain limited in scope. My legislation reiterates original Congressional support for the agricultural exemption. The DOT has no expertise in this area nor, in my opinion, does the definition of agricultural commodity come under the jurisdiction of this agency. In addition, the term ``agricultural commodity'' is already defined by Section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602). Therefore, in my legislation, Section 345 (e) of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 is amended to reflect the definition in the Agricultural Trade Act. A bipartisan group of House Members are also seeking clarifying legislation in this regard with Representative Bereuter of Nebraska taking the lead. I urge all my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation to protect the agricultural exemption to hours of service rules and prevent DOT from diminishing or revoking the exemption.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to comment on H.R. 2312, which allows for some technical corrections to the ORBIT Act. Although neither Inmarsat nor Intelsat has yet conducted the IPO that the ORBIT Act provided for, there is one satellite provider that has fulfilled the ORBIT Act's original requirements in this regard. That provider is New Skies Satellites, which has separated itself from its one-time parent Intelsat, conducted an IPO under challenging market conditions, substantially diluted its shareholder base through both the IPO and a recent 10 percent share buyback, and become a full-fledged competitor in the satellite marketplace. New Skies has asked that we consider some amendments to the Act that would acknowledge and recognize its fully independent status. While the abbreviated process leading to the Senate's consideration of this bill today did not permit full consideration of those issues, I am open to listening to the arguments for such changes in the context of a broader review of the ORBIT Act and its implementation.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 899

Mr. BURNS. The second amendment I have has to do with recommendations concerning air travel agents who have been part of a report requested of the Transportation Department. This is only language that requires the Department of Transportation to recommend the changes they see as a result of this report. I ask it be considered at this time.

Mr. BURNS. It has been worked on by both sides and I ask for its adoption.

Mr. BURNS

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