Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the leadership on both sides of the aisle for consideration of the amendments. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BURNS. By the way, it has been cleared by both sides.

Mr. BURNS. I ask the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. I submitted two amendments. One has to do with general aviation and reimbursement to organizations that suffered losses due to September 11. We took care of the airlines and a lot of service industries in and around airports, but we forgot and left out one very important part of the American aviation scene, very important to my State of Montana, those people involved in general aviation, in other words, the charter business, as they were impacted, too, and received no reimbursement in any way to recover the damages or the losses they may have incurred. We have talked about this. I ask the amendment which is at the desk to be considered. It has been amended and worked on by both sides of the aisle. There is agreement on this amendment.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our military personnel on the occasion of Armed Forces Day. As a veteran of the Marine Corps, I believe one of the most important things a person can do is serve this great country through the military. Our nation must honor those who take up the call to defend our freedoms and never take for granted those freedoms that all of us enjoy. These freedoms are only because of our veterans and military personnel. Our active military forces have seen a lot of action as of late. The Guard and Reserve components have seen an increase in their operations as well. The performance of our military men and women has been outstanding. In my home State of Montana, as many as 750 men and women, Active Duty, Reservists and National Guard Personnel are supporting our ongoing operations, both in the United States and overseas. I am especially proud of these folks that have stepped up to the plate and have gone above and beyond the call to duty during these trying times. Our military has performed honorably in the latest missions with which they have been tasked--the Global War on Terrorism, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have seen Americans coming together to support these men and women and their families at home. The men and women who wear our country's uniform are the keepers of the flame that has been passed down through generations. They are the bearers of our national memory. Each and every veteran and military member understands that the cost of freedom is steep. They were willing to accept that cost, so that we may live in peace. Arlington National Cemetery and veterans' cemeteries across this great land are full of those who understand that ``freedom is not free.'' My thoughts and prayers go out to their loved ones for their loss. I will continue to do my best to ensure that the United States military has the tools, skills and support needed to maintain its position as the finest fighting force in the world. I will also work to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits that they so richly deserve. It is because of their sacrifices each and every one of us are able to be here today. God Bless our Military Personnel and God Bless America.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by Senator Bunning be laid aside.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with an amendment that is offered by Senator Rockefeller and myself that provides some incentives to accelerate the deployment of broadband high-speed Internet access across the country. There are other cosponsors of the amendment. My colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, is a cosponsor. Senators Clinton, Kennedy, and Johnson of South Dakota also are cosponsors. Broadband has always been of interest to both Senator Rockefeller and myself. Both of us serve on the Commerce Committee. We have worked on this a lot. We both represent States that have quite a lot of rural outdoors. What this amendment does is affords tax incentives for the buildout of broadband. Although many urban and suburban areas now have access to broadband connections, many rural areas across the country and, of course, in Montana do not. That places rural areas at a disadvantage in a number of ways. Just for economics, why should folks in rural areas be denied access to the Internet, or the Internet economy as some would say, just because they live where they do to merchandise and to exchange ideas in this economy and find some way to supplement their primary income? We have people who market their grain and livestock every day through the commodity markets around the world. In terms of educational opportunities in rural areas, why should a young person, just because he is born in Garfield County, MT, be denied the same educational opportunities as those who were born and raised in the more urban areas where their curriculum is broadly taught. These young folks deserve the same opportunity. Distance learning is an important part of the education system in rural areas. Broadband is the technology that takes them those distances. In the area of health care, I have 14 counties in Montana that do not have a doctor. People receive their health care from physician assistants and in other ways. We know from rural demographics that the folks are getting older, so our health care for the elderly is very important, and part of that is supplied by broadband technologies. Our amendment would create a temporary tax incentive for providers in the form of expensing, allowing an immediate deduction of a capital expenditure in the first year of service rather than depreciating that investment over time. In the case of the current generation broadband investments in rural and underserved areas, the bill would allow a 50 percent expensing on the investment, with the rest to be depreciated according to the normal depreciation schedules. And where the providers build out next generation broadband networks, which are typically more expensive, the bill would provide for 100 percent expensing in that year. Our amendment would have a tremendous impact on the economy. In fact, we know it would. For instance, Robert Crandall, an economist at the Brookings Institute, has estimated that accelerated deployment of broadband would generate $500 billion in economic growth annually. I think we would all be delighted to have that happen. I believe we should take the steps to allow it to do so. This amendment is a very important step in that direction. This is an opportune time to take advantage of such a provision. Currently South Korea and Japan are ahead of the United States in broadband deployment. I believe it is extremely important that the United States avoid falling behind in telecom and Internet technology, and the financial incentive of the type provided by this legislation will help us ensure that we will not. As we take a look at this issue, this means new technologies on the wired system but also on the wireless system. It says technology neutral, which means it allows the new technologies that are being offered and the R&D work going on with new technologies, it allows those technologies to be deployed and taken advantage of. Just remember, 50 percent expensing for investments in rural and underserved areas of current generation broadband technologies. It provides 100 percent expensing for the investments in the next generation of broadband technologies in rural areas. It is technology neutral. It makes no difference if you are using a medium copper wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber terrestrial wireless, satellite or something else. If you deliver the threshold speeds, you are eligible for the benefit. And it sunsets after 1 year. The intent is not to provide a permanent benefit to the telecom sector but, rather, an incentive to build out new infrastructure within a short period of time. Think of the generation of business and our economic setup and the jobs and the job climate in that area in the first year of deployment. It is a very important amendment. Not only do we deliver better and quicker services to rural America, but we put a lot of people to work. I hope more of our colleagues will join with Senator Rockefeller and me in supporting it, and I hope we can work with Senator Grassley to include this in the jobs and growth package. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors of the amendment Senators Baucus, Clinton, Kennedy, and Johnson.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to this bill, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the dedication and service that the American Legion Auxiliary Unit No. 70 has provided to Montana's veterans and their communities. The American Legion Auxiliary was formally founded in 1919 by a group of concerned women who stepped in to fill the role of the men who left home for the battlefields of World War I. These women were driven to service by their compassion, by their sense of civic duty, but, most of all, they were driven by their love of country. In the more than eight decades since its founding, the American Legion Auxiliary has expanded to include hundreds of chapters in every state and territory. Likewise, their original mission expanded as well to include helping many others in need. The women of American Legion Auxiliary Unit No. 70 have been particularly active in their community. They have donated funds to veteran's facilities and programs in Fort Harrison, Miles City, Glendive and Columbia Falls, MT. They are distributing more than 900 poppies in recognition of the service and sacrifice our veterans have given their country. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, they tied hundreds of yellow ribbons across Judith Gap to show their support for our troops and their family members. Mr. President, I thank the women of American Legion Auxiliary Unit No. 70 and all the American Legion Auxiliaries for their service to our Nation's veterans and communities. These women have not only given their time and money in service to our Nation, they have given their hearts as well, and that is the best thing anyone can give.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act with my good friend and colleague, Senator Dorgan, from North Dakota. Many predominately rural States, such as my home State of Montana, face difficult challenges in the health care arena. Funding, staffing shortages, and inadequate reimbursement levels have plagued many hospitals and health care providers in the most rural areas of our country since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I have been a strong supporter of improving access to health care in these areas through education and telemedicine, but many rural communities in particular still face dangerous health care-related shortages. The Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act seeks to make Medicare reimbursement more fair and equitable for rural and small urban hospitals and physicians by correcting the unintended inequities in the Medicare system put in place by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with five components. First, this act would provide a single standardized amount under the Medicare inpatient Provider Payment System, PPS, by permanently raising the standardized amount for rural and other hospitals to the same standardized amount level as large urban area hospitals. My colleagues in the Senate and I recognized the importance of doing this in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations package, which made this change for the remaining months of fiscal year 2003. We should now standardize hospital levels by making this change permanent, and this bill does just that. Second, this bill would change the hospital labor market share from its current level of 71.1 percent, to 62 percent, based on a study done by the University of North Carolina Rural Health Research and Policy Analysis Center demonstrating that the current hospital labor market share is too high. Hospitals that would be harmed by this change would be held harmless. Third, this legislation would create a wage index floor of 0.85 for hospitals that would otherwise have a wage index less than the floor. Thirty of my colleagues and I cosponsored legislation in the 107th Congress that included a 0.925 floor, and I am hopeful that by setting the floor at 0.85, this provision will be better targeted toward rural hospitals with negative Medicare inpatient margins, helping our rural health centers to not only keep their doors open, but to continue providing quality, affordable health services to the rural communities they serve. Fourth, this bill would create new, alternative criteria for hospital reclassification. This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a new category of reclassiciation of hospitals for area wage index and standardized amount purposes. I am greatly concerned that the current reclassification process, particularly the proximity and adjacency criteria, has not been helpful to hospitals in States like Montana, with large land bases and lots of distance between communities, even though these hospitals must still compete with one another for nurses and other health care staff. Two-thirds of all hospital reclassification take place in California and in the Northeast, largely because of these proximity and adjacency criteria. This bill would allow hospitals located in sparsely populated States that do not meet these prohibitive criteria to re-classify if they otherwise need reclassification criteria. This bill defines a sparsely populated state to be one in which there are fewer than 20 people per square mile of land, under which eight States, including Montana, qualify. Finally, the Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act would create a physician geographic adjustment floor of 1.0 for the physician work component of the Medicare physician payment system, beginning in 2004. This provision would lessen the geographic disparities in Medicare payment so gravely affecting physicians in the field today. Patients in both rural and urban areas depend on the availability of quality health care providers to offer superior, affordable health services to people across the Nation. Medicare physician payments are intended to correspond to the costs that efficient providers incur. Instead, research has shown that the sustainable growth rate, SGR, under which reimbursement rates are supposed to be adjusted annually fails to account for all the relevant factors that affect the cost of physician payments, and maintains further inequities, such as Medicare paying different amounts for the same service, depending on where the service is provided. Cuts in Medicare reimbursement to health care providers have forced health providers to make difficult choices, including becoming a nonparticipating Medicare provider, moving to areas with better reimbursement rates or less Medicare patients, retiring from practice early, limiting or discontinuing charitble care, reducing staff, or leaving Medicare entirely. The impact on these cuts has taken a serious toll on rural communities, such as those in Montana. The most recent cut in physician payment levels was the largest in Medicare history, immediately affecting 1 million health care professionals and the countless millions of elderly and disabled patients they, in turn, serve. Not only does this create a negative health care environment so adverse to the principles of the Medicare system, but the inequities in physician reimbursement rates have created a crisis situation for many patients in rural areas who do not have the luxury of choosing to see a different health care provider who can still afford to take Medicare patients. This bill is extremely important to ensure that America's seniors and low-income have access to high quality physician services. It is imperative that Congress continue it commitment to rural health care quality, accessibility, and affordability, and the Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act is an important step toward this goal.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act with my good friend and colleague, Senator Dorgan, from North Dakota. Many predominately rural States, such as my home State of Montana, face difficult challenges in the health care arena. Funding, staffing shortages, and inadequate reimbursement levels have plagued many hospitals and health care providers in the most rural areas of our country since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I have been a strong supporter of improving access to health care in these areas through education and telemedicine, but many rural communities in particular still face dangerous health care-related shortages. The Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act seeks to make Medicare reimbursement more fair and equitable for rural and small urban hospitals and physicians by correcting the unintended inequities in the Medicare system put in place by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with five components. First, this act would provide a single standardized amount under the Medicare inpatient Provider Payment System, PPS, by permanently raising the standardized amount for rural and other hospitals to the same standardized amount level as large urban area hospitals. My colleagues in the Senate and I recognized the importance of doing this in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations package, which made this change for the remaining months of fiscal year 2003. We should now standardize hospital levels by making this change permanent, and this bill does just that. Second, this bill would change the hospital labor market share from its current level of 71.1 percent, to 62 percent, based on a study done by the University of North Carolina Rural Health Research and Policy Analysis Center demonstrating that the current hospital labor market share is too high. Hospitals that would be harmed by this change would be held harmless. Third, this legislation would create a wage index floor of 0.85 for hospitals that would otherwise have a wage index less than the floor. Thirty of my colleagues and I cosponsored legislation in the 107th Congress that included a 0.925 floor, and I am hopeful that by setting the floor at 0.85, this provision will be better targeted toward rural hospitals with negative Medicare inpatient margins, helping our rural health centers to not only keep their doors open, but to continue providing quality, affordable health services to the rural communities they serve. Fourth, this bill would create new, alternative criteria for hospital reclassification. This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a new category of reclassiciation of hospitals for area wage index and standardized amount purposes. I am greatly concerned that the current reclassification process, particularly the proximity and adjacency criteria, has not been helpful to hospitals in States like Montana, with large land bases and lots of distance between communities, even though these hospitals must still compete with one another for nurses and other health care staff. Two-thirds of all hospital reclassification take place in California and in the Northeast, largely because of these proximity and adjacency criteria. This bill would allow hospitals located in sparsely populated States that do not meet these prohibitive criteria to re-classify if they otherwise need reclassification criteria. This bill defines a sparsely populated state to be one in which there are fewer than 20 people per square mile of land, under which eight States, including Montana, qualify. Finally, the Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act would create a physician geographic adjustment floor of 1.0 for the physician work component of the Medicare physician payment system, beginning in 2004. This provision would lessen the geographic disparities in Medicare payment so gravely affecting physicians in the field today. Patients in both rural and urban areas depend on the availability of quality health care providers to offer superior, affordable health services to people across the Nation. Medicare physician payments are intended to correspond to the costs that efficient providers incur. Instead, research has shown that the sustainable growth rate, SGR, under which reimbursement rates are supposed to be adjusted annually fails to account for all the relevant factors that affect the cost of physician payments, and maintains further inequities, such as Medicare paying different amounts for the same service, depending on where the service is provided. Cuts in Medicare reimbursement to health care providers have forced health providers to make difficult choices, including becoming a nonparticipating Medicare provider, moving to areas with better reimbursement rates or less Medicare patients, retiring from practice early, limiting or discontinuing charitble care, reducing staff, or leaving Medicare entirely. The impact on these cuts has taken a serious toll on rural communities, such as those in Montana. The most recent cut in physician payment levels was the largest in Medicare history, immediately affecting 1 million health care professionals and the countless millions of elderly and disabled patients they, in turn, serve. Not only does this create a negative health care environment so adverse to the principles of the Medicare system, but the inequities in physician reimbursement rates have created a crisis situation for many patients in rural areas who do not have the luxury of choosing to see a different health care provider who can still afford to take Medicare patients. This bill is extremely important to ensure that America's seniors and low-income have access to high quality physician services. It is imperative that Congress continue it commitment to rural health care quality, accessibility, and affordability, and the Rural Health Care Fairness and Medicare Equity Act is an important step toward this goal.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Captain Penn Holsapple's 90th birthday. Captain Holsapple served in the United States Marine Corps during the Second World War and was one of the first Marines to land on the Pacific island of Iwo Jima. Every American knows of the enormous sacrifices thousands of young Marines made on that island to defend our Nation, and Captain Holsapple himself was wounded in action twice. However, always living up to the Marine Corps motto ``first to enter, last to leave,'' Captain Holsapple remained on Iwo Jima with his fellow Marines to the very end. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in wishing Captain Penn Holsapple a happy 90th birthday and to thank him for the service and sacrifice he gave to his country. Happy Birthday good friend.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution designating September 28, 2003 as National Good Neighbor Day. I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Baucus, Hatch, Stevens, Crapo, Clinton, Miller, Levin, Kohl, and Cochran, for their support. I would also like to thank Becky Mattson of Lakeside, Montana, who has taken this cause to heart and championed it for so long. In the aftermath of September 11th, Americans united in an unprecedented way. With the threat of terrorism still very real, it has never been so important to remain unified and conscious of the concerns of our neighbors. This resolution has a long history. This resolution was first proposed by a fellow Montanan, Senator Mike Mansfield, in 1971. National Good Neighbor Day was then proclaimed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter because, as President Nixon explained, ``the responsibility for building a happier, livelier, fuller life in each of our communities must rest, in the end, with each of us.'' This bipartisan resolution will set aside a day to promote a better understanding and appreciation of our neighbors. However, in the trying times in which we now live, it will hopefully serve as a catalyst for making every day National Good Neighbor Day.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that helps a large number of family farmers on the border of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from Federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree there is little value in having the Federal Government retain ownership. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and continue to believe it helps us to achieve the long term goals of Montana irrigators, and the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. In the past I asked John W. Keys III, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, his position on title transfers of irrigation projects like the Lower Yellowstone, where local irrigation districts have successfully managed the Federal properties, and where the Bureau has encouraged the transfer of title to the Districts. His response to me was very encouraging. He stated this type of title transfer ``makes sense and is an opportunity to move facilities from Federal ownership to more appropriate control.'' During our discussion Commissioner Keys promised to work with me and the Irrigation District to make this a reality, and I look forward to it. The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. The Savage Unit was added in 1947- 48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the number one industry in the area. The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 family farms rely on these projects for economic subsistence, and the entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a foundation for the businesses in the area. As we all know, the agricultural economy is not as strong as we'd like to it to be, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the ideals that have made this country successful The 500 families impacted are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people to manage their own irrigation projects. Every day, we see an example of where the Federal Government is taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of those efforts on an individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the government gets involved in new projects, there are many that we can safely pass on to State or local control. The Lower Yellowstone Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible. 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 a piece of legislation that helps a large number of family farmers on the border of Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from Federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree there is little value in having the Federal Government retain ownership. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress, and continue to believe it helps us to achieve the long term goals of Montana irrigators, and the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. In the past I asked John W. Keys III, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, his position on title transfers of irrigation projects like the Lower Yellowstone, where local irrigation districts have successfully managed the Federal properties, and where the Bureau has encouraged the transfer of title to the Districts. His response to me was very encouraging. He stated this type of title transfer ``makes sense and is an opportunity to move facilities from Federal ownership to more appropriate control.'' During our discussion Commissioner Keys promised to work with me and the Irrigation District to make this a reality, and I look forward to it. The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. The Savage Unit was added in 1947- 48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to help spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is the number one industry in the area. The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 family farms rely on these projects for economic subsistence, and the entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a foundation for the businesses in the area. As we all know, the agricultural economy is not as strong as we'd like to it to be, but these irrigated lands offer a reasonable return over time and are the foundation for strong communities based upon the ideals that have made this country successful The 500 families impacted are hard working, honest producers, and I can think of no better people to manage their own irrigation projects. Every day, we see an example of where the Federal Government is taking on a new task. We can debate the merits of those efforts on an individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the government gets involved in new projects, there are many that we can safely pass on to State or local control. The Lower Yellowstone Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill which names one of our post offices in Billings, Montana, after one of this Nation's greatest leaders and true patriot: former President Ronald Reagan. His legacy extends far beyond his Presidency. I think it's only fitting that I introduce this legislation today, since President Reagan worked tirelessly to end the Cold War and liberate millions of people, and we see the same dedication today to free the people of Iraq. President Reagan spoke about the threat of Saddam Hussein, and asked, ``will we be ready to respond?'' He went on to answer this question by saying, ``In the end, it all comes down to leadership. This is what this country is looking for now. It was leadership here at home that gave us strong American influence abroad and the collapse of imperial communism. Great nations have responsibilities to lead and we should always be cautious of those who would lower our profile because they might just wind up lowering our flag.'' He made these comments not two weeks ago, and not even two months ago. President Reagan, already sensitive to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, asked this rhetorical question in 1994. This foresight was evident during President Reagan's tenure in the White House. President Reagan played a significant role in framing the modern political landscape, and I am proud to do what I can to commemorate his contribution to America and the world. I can clearly remember President Reagan's visit to Big Sky Country in 1982 for the Centennial celebration for Billings and Yellowstone County. He arrived in the Billings Metra Arena, one of the largest venues in the State, riding in a stagecoach. He embraced the ideals that Montana stood for, and said he was trying to bring a little of it to Washington. I feel much the same way as President Reagan did when he said, ``What we're trying to do in Washington is reawaken the government to the very values that you here in Billings represent-- determination, responsibility, confidence, and common sense--the kind of common sense that says if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We are reintroducing the idea that progress is still an American word and that optimism is still an American trait. I believe if we cling to our hopes and dreams, I believe the future will flower just as it did for the founders of Billings, Montana.'' Now more than ever, we need to remember that ``progress'' and ``optimism'' are part of the American vocabulary. The wisdom of President Reagan helped guide us in the right direction, and I am pleased and honored to introduce this legislation today so that we may dedicate a piece of Montana to a great visionary and statesman.

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the CAN-SPAM bill along with my good friend and colleague Senator Wyden. The CAN-SPAM bill addresses an issue of critical importance to the further development of commerce on the Internet: how to control the explosion of unsolicited commercial e-mail. I also want to thank the additional original cosponsors of the bill, Senator Stevens, Senator Breaux, Senator Thomas, Senator Landrieu and Senator Schumer. While it is obvious to anyone with an e-mail account that the scourge of ``spam'' has continued to worsen, the numbers and the trends they represent paint an even more disturbing picture. According to an article in the Washington Post less than a month ago, spam currently accounts for 40 percent of all e-mail traffic. Spam has become more than just an inconvenience that we have learned to live with; it has now become a fundamental part of any e-mail inbox with serious economic consequences. According to one study done by a consulting group, spam will cost U.S. businesses more than $10 billion this year alone. Spam also makes working on the Internet less efficient, by clogging up servers on one end and inboxes on the other. I want some accountability brought to bear on this issue, and feel that by introducing this legislation today, we have taken an appropriate and meaningful step to tame a horse we can't seem to break just yet. This problem continues to escalate, and experts warn that more than half of e-mail traffic will be spam by this summer. This point bears repeating: within months, you will waste more than half of your time with unsolicited e-mail. The CAN-SPAM bill would require e-mail marketers to comply with a straightforward set of workable, common-sense rules designed to give consumers more control over spam. Specifically, the bill would require a sender of marketing e-mail to include a clear and conspicuous ``opt- out'' mechanism so that they could ``unsubscribe'' from further unwanted e-mail. Also, the bill would prohibit e-mail marketers from using deceptive headers or subject lines, so that consumers will be able to tell who initiated the solicitation. The bill includes strong enforcement provisions to ensure compliance. The Federal Trade Commission would have authority to impose steep civil fines of up to $500,000 on spammers. This fine could be tripled if the violation is found to be intentional. In short, this bill provides broad consumer protection against bad actors, while still allowing Internet advertising a justified means of flourishing. Spamming is a serious economic problem and I believe it is absolutely critical that we address this now, so that the Internet is allowed to reach its full potential. 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 these people to enjoy the experience, and it makes it even harder for them to see how this will help rural America flourish in the 21st century. Also, Internet service providers are bombarded with spam that often corrupts or shuts down their systems. In today's information age where beating the competitor to the next sale is absolutely critical to survival, these shutdowns can cause real economic damage. We may be in a downturn in the American economy and especially in the high technology sector, but the efficiencies created through vast information sharing are here to stay and will help propel our economy to levels beyond our imagination, but in order to reach this potential we must eliminate the bad actors who threaten these efficiencies. The fact that this bill is strongly supported by pillars of the Internet age such as Yahoo, America Online and eBay is a testament to its common-sense approach. I think these companies for their critical expertise in perfecting this bill which would help to address this scourge of the digital age. I also appreciate the numerous valuable suggestions from the many concerned cyber-citizens who want to see this Pandora's box of digital dreck closed once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill which names one of our post offices in Billings, Montana, after one of this Nation's greatest leaders and true patriot: former President Ronald Reagan. His legacy extends far beyond his Presidency. I think it's only fitting that I introduce this legislation today, since President Reagan worked tirelessly to end the Cold War and liberate millions of people, and we see the same dedication today to free the people of Iraq. President Reagan spoke about the threat of Saddam Hussein, and asked, ``will we be ready to respond?'' He went on to answer this question by saying, ``In the end, it all comes down to leadership. This is what this country is looking for now. It was leadership here at home that gave us strong American influence abroad and the collapse of imperial communism. Great nations have responsibilities to lead and we should always be cautious of those who would lower our profile because they might just wind up lowering our flag.'' He made these comments not two weeks ago, and not even two months ago. President Reagan, already sensitive to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, asked this rhetorical question in 1994. This foresight was evident during President Reagan's tenure in the White House. President Reagan played a significant role in framing the modern political landscape, and I am proud to do what I can to commemorate his contribution to America and the world. I can clearly remember President Reagan's visit to Big Sky Country in 1982 for the Centennial celebration for Billings and Yellowstone County. He arrived in the Billings Metra Arena, one of the largest venues in the State, riding in a stagecoach. He embraced the ideals that Montana stood for, and said he was trying to bring a little of it to Washington. I feel much the same way as President Reagan did when he said, ``What we're trying to do in Washington is reawaken the government to the very values that you here in Billings represent-- determination, responsibility, confidence, and common sense--the kind of common sense that says if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We are reintroducing the idea that progress is still an American word and that optimism is still an American trait. I believe if we cling to our hopes and dreams, I believe the future will flower just as it did for the founders of Billings, Montana.'' Now more than ever, we need to remember that ``progress'' and ``optimism'' are part of the American vocabulary. The wisdom of President Reagan helped guide us in the right direction, and I am pleased and honored to introduce this legislation today so that we may dedicate a piece of Montana to a great visionary and statesman.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the CAN-SPAM bill along with my good friend and colleague Senator Wyden. The CAN-SPAM bill addresses an issue of critical importance to the further development of commerce on the Internet: how to control the explosion of unsolicited commercial e-mail. I also want to thank the additional original cosponsors of the bill, Senator Stevens, Senator Breaux, Senator Thomas, Senator Landrieu and Senator Schumer. While it is obvious to anyone with an e-mail account that the scourge of ``spam'' has continued to worsen, the numbers and the trends they represent paint an even more disturbing picture. According to an article in the Washington Post less than a month ago, spam currently accounts for 40 percent of all e-mail traffic. Spam has become more than just an inconvenience that we have learned to live with; it has now become a fundamental part of any e-mail inbox with serious economic consequences. According to one study done by a consulting group, spam will cost U.S. businesses more than $10 billion this year alone. Spam also makes working on the Internet less efficient, by clogging up servers on one end and inboxes on the other. I want some accountability brought to bear on this issue, and feel that by introducing this legislation today, we have taken an appropriate and meaningful step to tame a horse we can't seem to break just yet. This problem continues to escalate, and experts warn that more than half of e-mail traffic will be spam by this summer. This point bears repeating: within months, you will waste more than half of your time with unsolicited e-mail. The CAN-SPAM bill would require e-mail marketers to comply with a straightforward set of workable, common-sense rules designed to give consumers more control over spam. Specifically, the bill would require a sender of marketing e-mail to include a clear and conspicuous ``opt- out'' mechanism so that they could ``unsubscribe'' from further unwanted e-mail. Also, the bill would prohibit e-mail marketers from using deceptive headers or subject lines, so that consumers will be able to tell who initiated the solicitation. The bill includes strong enforcement provisions to ensure compliance. The Federal Trade Commission would have authority to impose steep civil fines of up to $500,000 on spammers. This fine could be tripled if the violation is found to be intentional. In short, this bill provides broad consumer protection against bad actors, while still allowing Internet advertising a justified means of flourishing. Spamming is a serious economic problem and I believe it is absolutely critical that we address this now, so that the Internet is allowed to reach its full potential. 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 these people to enjoy the experience, and it makes it even harder for them to see how this will help rural America flourish in the 21st century. Also, Internet service providers are bombarded with spam that often corrupts or shuts down their systems. In today's information age where beating the competitor to the next sale is absolutely critical to survival, these shutdowns can cause real economic damage. We may be in a downturn in the American economy and especially in the high technology sector, but the efficiencies created through vast information sharing are here to stay and will help propel our economy to levels beyond our imagination, but in order to reach this potential we must eliminate the bad actors who threaten these efficiencies. The fact that this bill is strongly supported by pillars of the Internet age such as Yahoo, America Online and eBay is a testament to its common-sense approach. I think these companies for their critical expertise in perfecting this bill which would help to address this scourge of the digital age. I also appreciate the numerous valuable suggestions from the many concerned cyber-citizens who want to see this Pandora's box of digital dreck closed once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to submit a resolution for consideration by the Senate marking the last week in April as ``Cowboy Poetry Week.'' Many think cowboys are a thing of the past, but I can tell you otherwise. In many western States like Montana, cowboys gather around a campfire and swap stories just as frequently as they did one hundred years ago. This oral tradition is now captured in written form as well, and several websites are dedicated solely to preserving and disseminating cowboy poetry and its history. My resolution will recognize the contribution of cowboy poetry to our history of the West, but also to mark it as a thriving tradition that continues even today. I thank my colleagues Senators Baucus, Brownback, Hatch, and Reid for their support on this issue. The life of cowboys should not be relegated to small weekly radio shows or features done on public television; it is important to understand that cowboys live and breathe a unique culture which few may be exposed to. I would encourage all my colleagues to take a walk in their boots one day, and read a little cowboy poetry.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend from Nevada. I am having a little trouble getting organized today. I will try to pick it up a little bit to the likings of the assistant minority leader. I am glad my good friend from Minnesota, who is newly elected to this body--and, I will tell you right now, he is a contributor, and I think he has a great future here--did bring us back to reality. The city of Washington does have quite a lot of beauty. As the cherry blossoms are out and the blossoms start to open here, I always think: Every spring, no matter what the conditions are in the world, or the problems and trials of serving in a legislative body, or an economy that continues to struggle and is on the minds of all of us as is this situation we find ourselves in, in Iraq--every spring, as we look around this city, I just think it is God's picturesque way of reminding us of the Earth's renewal. It comes every spring just as a reminder that that is one institution that we haven't been able to change. I have a resident of Montana who is at Walter Reed Army Hospital, Army SGT Charles Horgan. I haven't been able to get out and visit him yet. He is from Helena, MT. He is recovering out there from wounds received in Iraq. I am sure the hearts of everybody who shares our concerns about one life, one human, go out to him and his folks today. Back in 1991 I had a chance to visit a Marine unit out in the desert. It was my old Marine outfit in which I served, F-212, 3rd Marine Division. But I served back in the stone age. These are the new warriors with new equipment, new technologies. I did that back in 1991. The mindset and the American institution of the military and their enormous ability to withstand hardships for a principle and a way of life is almost above human imagination. As we were flying out in that desert, the commanding officer, Walt Boomer, General Boomer, called me. He said: Senator, they may complain a little bit that they are not getting mail. I said: We will try and handle that. But if you figure we had 400,000 to 500,000 people in the Middle East, if everybody wrote a letter to every soldier, sailor, marine, coastguardsman, or airman over there, that is a lot of mail to handle per day, to try to get it out to the right people in a timely fashion. But I found out that was not what their complaint was. They were out of tobacco. We finally helped that situation. There is a long tradition of writing letters and sending care packages to the troops stationed away from home, but the general public is urged not to send unsolicited mail, care packages, or donations to the service members now deployed in Iraq. The Department of Defense has set a strict policy of only family members sending mail and packages to their service members. So if you want to write to a person over there and he is not in your immediate family, we ask that not be done. So this leaves many people at a loss when they want to help support the troops, to say thank you, but have no direct point of contact. We see that they are finding ways, through American imagination, to take care of that. Even without those care packages, there are many other efforts that can be made to support our troops in the field and also their families at home. I have put together an information pamphlet, which is available in all my offices in the State of Montana, that includes national programs and local Montana programs set up to allow people to extend a helping hand to our soldiers but, more importantly, I think to provide support for their families at home. I call it Operation: Homefront. It is a program I have set up to easily and efficiently inform people about how they can help or contribute to this operation. There is nothing better for the morale of our troops. We understand the sacrifices they are making. We understand where they find themselves. And they also understand us who are trying to support them and their families any way that we can. It is also comforting for those in the field to know their loved ones back home are being taken care of when push comes to shove. I think Operation: Homefront will be an excellent tool for getting information out to people. Supporting our troops is something we think about every day. We appreciate their risks and the sacrifices they are making. There is also one other reminder to my colleagues. If you are concerned about what the war is going to cost, and you want to participate and help us out in just a little way, there is a way. Back in 1991, we offered a brand new bond on the market. We called it the Patriot Bond. And if you want to buy a bond for your child or your grandchild, or whomever, I think you can go to wherever they sell these bonds--I don't know where they sell them; I have a couple of them--and buy your grandchild a bond and help us out. Just because there is combat today, the mission will not be over until the Iraqi people are liberated and an interim government is set up so freedom can be established to allow the Iraqi people to grow and to taste the fruits of freedom and to improve their quality of life. Every life in the world is deserving of that. So if you are inclined to do so, go inquire about a Patriot Bond. I think it would sure help us out, and it also would, I think, maybe help you out also. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise to share another story that comes from the battlefield of Iraq. There are a thousand of these stories, but I think it is the way we start our day as a reminder of exactly what is going on at ground level--in other words, where the rubber hits the road. In the last 12 or 13 days, we have seen how deeply committed our men and women in uniform are. They fight for a great cause of disarming Saddam Hussein's regime from its weapons of mass destruction, but also at the same time they understand that they are our brother's keeper. What brought this home to me was a picture of this one marine carrying his injured comrade from the battlefield. It is as awe inspiring as any imagine that might come from the field of conflict. One man hurt his leg. His buddy slings him over his back and carries him safely, like a firefighter rescuing somebody from a burning building. Only in this case, it looks as though the enemy was not being cooperative or too helpful. Men serving in battle form iron bonds. They have to because it is for the person next to them and for their country. Those bonds often forge the determination and the will to win. We can see the grim determination etched in the face of the marine who is doing the carrying. He seems to be thinking: It is all right, buddy. We will be out of here. You are in good hands. Then perhaps when they reached the point where they were saved, the guy being carried likely responded: You do it for me, Semper Fi. Some would say these two marines are heroes. But I would not put them in the hero class. They are America. They are the story of America. The marine who was hurt is from Oregon. The marine who saved him is from South Carolina. It does not matter what State one is from; their bond is in the unit in which they serve and in the miniature stars-and- stripe patch sewn on every shoulder of every sleeve. For the marine from Oregon, his bond was his family heritage. His father was a career marine who rose to the top rank of sergeant major. His father was in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983 when terrorists bombed the Marine barracks, losing 241 of his buddies. The father served in combat in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. The day after the son shipped out for Kuwait, that marine's father died. The son returned home to the funeral, returned to the scene, and caught up with his unit. The depth of commitment of our brave Americans is shown on the battlefields not only here but also in our history. It is a cause to them and one that inspires us. May we who are in the policy business learn our lesson to be that inspiring. We, too, should be where most of them are, where the rubber hits the road. This is where it is carried out. I yield the floor.