Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Yes or no, and I have a followup question.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleagues in supporting the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. We have heard more information on this man than anyone I can remember in recent times. There is not much about this gentleman or this situation that has not been said thus far on the floor of the Senate. The history of this man I can relate to. I kind of started out on my own about that age, but I will never attain the level of society and dedication he has. He did it the hard way, by his own bootstraps. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, near the top of his class. We also know he is a very successful appellate lawyer who argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court. We know he has been rated well qualified by his own colleagues in the American Bar Association. I find it interesting, as the case is trying to be made, that somebody is being denied their constitutional rights, the constitutional right of advice and consent. I tell the American people, no Senator is being denied access to this floor. No Senator is being denied the ability to come to this floor and make his or her case either in support or opposition to the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. Everyone is free to do so and is afforded the opportunity to discuss the merits of one side or the other. Nobody is being denied that. It is pretty simple, and I think the American people understand that. Come down and make your case. If you did not make it the first time, come back the second time, come back as many times as you like to respond. No one has been denied anything dealing with the merits of this man Miguel Estrada. Come down and make your case. Then vote. It is very simple. There is nothing hard to understand about that. If a good case is made, there may be 51 votes. Folks will vote for you and you have won, and we will say congratulations. Nobody is being denied that. We see quite a lot of dust being kicked up to fuzz up and confuse the issue. The issue is Miguel Estrada. That is what it is about. He has been nominated to occupy a seat on the DC Court of Appeals. I am not an attorney, never been hinged with that title, but I too get to vote. I too get to look at information, both positive and sometimes negative, about this man. He will be the first Hispanic to serve on the DC Court of Appeals, and I applaud President Bush for nominating a candidate of this quality and this integrity. He is a living example of an American attaining what he terms as his American dream. Right now he is being denied a vote. That seems sort of strange to me. He deserves an up-or-down vote, and at the end of that we will count them up and we will move on. Why should I, a Senator from Montana, be interested in a nominee to the DC Court of Appeals? Well, so many cases are argued before this court that have to do with the management of public lands and the management of our national parks. Because I am from a public lands State, it matters a great deal that the laws of the land are properly judged and adjudicated. Every piece of information that I have been able to read or listen to or watch tells me he understands one little word in the English language that is very important to each and every one of us. The word is ``fair,'' dedicated to the study of both sides of any issue and then relating that to the law or the Constitution of the United States and making judgments. That is pretty simple. We make things a lot more difficult than they should be. I have seen the big thick book that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee had, all the questions he was asked, the responses. What else is there to know about this man that has not been revealed? Instead, we hear ``deny,'' when not one person in the United States as a Member has been denied access to this floor. Cases that have to do with public lands have great ramifications for Montana. Therefore, not only will I think he will be fair, judicial, and constitutional, but I believe it is also important to fill this vacancy. Right now, we see declarations of emergencies in so many of our appellate courts that we are seeing justice delayed, justice denied. So what do we see happening today? It is written in the Constitution about our rights not being denied, but we sure see a little bit of obstructing and delaying in the confirmation process. We will not even be denied a vote. Every Senator will come down and cast his vote. He was rated the highest rating of the American Bar Association. Yet we have heard it argued that he does not have the right qualifications to serve the court and therefore make a decision that we are going to talk the nomination to death. The Senate is a better body than that. Being around politicians a lot, being talked to death happens to be the worst death in the world. So, is he qualified? You bet he is. Does he meet the limits on some folks? Maybe not. Does he meet their litmus test, maybe a personal litmus test? Maybe not. But there were people who disagreed with us when we ran for office and no one was denied the vote. If we had to go through this process just to get elected to the Senate by our constituency, we might not ever get here; we would be talked to death at home. We are not going to talk about his background. We are going to talk about this American. No, he did not start here, but this American has applied his talents and his intellect to become an appellate judge. I am proud of this man. Nowhere else do we see an example of who we are and why we are Americans.

Mr. BURNS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BURNS. That is the way I understand it.

Mr. BURNS. You are asking a man who is not trained in the legal disciplines.

Mr. BURNS. That is my interpretation.

Mr. BURNS. I say that the majority, 50 plus 1, would be all it takes.

Mr. BURNS. That is something else that sort of confused me the way you put your argument, but I am wondering why we are raising the bar for this nominee. Is that what we are doing here? Are we saying he has to stand a more difficult test than all others in the past or all others will be asked in the future? I go back to that other old word, I say to my friend from Alabama: ``Fair.'' I guess that is all we ask, fairness. Everything I have read and everything I have heard tells me that this man is qualified to sit at any other man's fire. And I would tell you they don't come with a higher recommendation than that. But let's not ask this man to be subjected to a higher bar than has been asked of every other American-- not this American. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. You are correct Senator. Four million dollars is in the report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee in the form of a Dear Colleague letter dated April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, which contains 22 bipartisan signatures.

Mr. BURNS. I understand the importance of this item to the Senator from North Dakota, and I will work with him on this item when this bill moves to conference.

Mr. BURNS. I concur. The National Park Service should give careful consideration to the Charles Towne Landing application as well as the others.

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate Senator Crapo's interest in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. I understand this is an important issue to the Senator and would be happy to work with him so that the acquisition of these easements will be considered in conference.

Mr. BURNS. You are correct, Senator. Four million dollars is in the report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in the form of a dear colleague letter dated April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, which contains 22 bipartisan signatures.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from Virginia and Arkansas for their support of this important program to assist States in implementing effective programs to ensure conservation and sustainable use of game and non-game species. As this program is considered in conference, I will give every consideration to the request of the Senators from Virginia and Arkansas, and keep their views in mind as we negotiate a final omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS. I agree with the Senator that the service should make every effort to address these recreation infrastructure needs, including boat ramp extensions and intermediate pump stations, using resources in the repair and rehabilitation account or other appropriate funding sources.

Mr. BURNS. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator to discuss this important issue.

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Michigan. The Senate did include funding in the amount of $3 million for the Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program. The legislation also authorizes the Department of Interior to continue administering the program from fiscal year 2003 to 2007. Future years funding will be subject to appropriations. In addition, the authorizing language provides that the Secretary of Interior shall ensure that a tribe that agrees to fund all future operations and maintenance costs receives the highest priority for a grant under the program. The program was first authorized and funded in fiscal year 2001. The Program was reauthorized in fiscal year 2002, but the subcommittee did not provide funds to the Department of Interior because there were no eligible tribes capably of sharing the construction costs. The subcommittee was pleased to learn that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan is eligible, willing, and capable to take advantage of this innovative program during the fiscal year 2003 funding cycle. The subcommittee believes that the Tribal Construction Demonstration Program will continue to prove to be one of the most beneficial and successful programs of its kind for the improvement of Native American education facilities.

Mr. BURNS. My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and I hope this is of aid to the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in the upcoming year. clean water partnership for the americas

Mr. BURNS. My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of the next generation lighting initiative, and I hope this is of aid to the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in the upcoming year.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his kind words as a member of the Interior subcommittee. The Senator is correct. The House has recommended $3 million for ``applications integration.'' I say to the Senator that he is always a strong and compelling advocate and that I will endeavor to give his request every favorable consideration within the limitations that will confront the conferees on this bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my friend from Mississippi. And I thank my friend from South Dakota for his work. I want to make a couple of points because I guess we are all trying to say the same thing; it is just that everybody has not had an opportunity to say it. The farming business is just as competitive as any other business. But let's go back and think a little bit. You have 2 years here: 2001 and 2002. You also have a section in this bill that deals with CRP. But I am going to make sure that something gets to the President of the United States. That is what I am going to do. I may end up supporting both of them. Somewhere in the middle we will come up with a disaster package that provides the right kind of assistance to the people who have had actual losses. That is what is important. It is not one or the other. We were operating under a different bill the last 2 or 3 years that the Senator from North Dakota was referring to, completely different. There is no question in my mind that we are looking at a year now or a Congress now where we are going to have to take a look at risk management and how we manage our risk. I am pragmatic. I do not want to mislead my people in the State of Montana who are going into their 6th year of drought. We know what it is all about. So I will probably support both amendments. But I want to make sure we get one to conference so we can deal with some of those specific areas in order to get the money to the people who have actually experienced the impact of this drought. I thank the chairman of the committee. I also appreciate the leadership of the Democratic leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this morning we are continuing to negotiate the reorganization of the responsibilities in this Senate. Those folks who observe the Senate and the goings on on the floor probably think there is not a whole lot going on, but it is kind of like a duck. He looks pretty calm and serene on top of the water, but under the water there is a lot of paddling going on. As we work our way through this, it is hopeful we will come up with some kind of an agreement in the near future. That being said, this morning we announced our agenda for the upcoming session as far as the Subcommittee on Telecommunications. I will share with my colleagues how these issues will rank and their importance. Last year, we passed a ``can spam'' bill out of committee. The bill came to the floor at the tail end of the session and was up for consideration in a package with a lot of other legislation, but it did not make it. It is broadly supported by this body. There is a similar bill in the House of Representatives which has to do with spam. Spam is the unwanted mail that one gets in e-mail. Whenever one clicks on their e-mail, they see a lot of unwanted messages that are selling everything from shoelaces to whatever. This unwanted mail continues not only to plague our system and clog it, but in rural areas, especially like my State of Montana where some Internet users actually have to pay long distance fees to their server, it becomes quite expensive. In fact, American business is reporting that the cost of spam right now is going out of sight. Before Christmas of last year, it was thought that around 8 percent of the mail a person received in their Internet was unwanted mail or spam. By December of 2002, just before Christmas, that figure grew to 40 percent of the mail a person found in their mailbox was unwanted. Another figure that sort of astounds all of us, it was estimated the average user of the Internet receives 2,300 pieces of unwanted mail in their mailbox. Spam messages sent increased nearly 300 percent between the years of 2001 and 2002. This tells me it is time we pass this legislation and get it to the desk of the President. Junk mail sent will outpace other e-mail by at least the middle of this year, and 80 percent of the people online now say they find spamming very annoying. That being said, we must pass this legislation. It is the first agenda item on my priority list, and we can do it. I also remind Members, there are a couple of important meetings coming up this month and next that have to do with the Internet. February 12 is the Internet caucus. It is probably the most active caucus we have in the Senate. I am being told now some folks want to set up demonstrating units and vendors have to be turned away. That will be held in 902 of the Hart Building on February 12, starting at 5 p.m. It will be highly attended. I think we had a larger number of people at the planning meeting the other day than was anticipated, so there is quite a lot of interest in that. The U.S. Asian Network kickoff will be January 27. Of course, that is just prior to the President's State of the Union Message that will be on January 28. The head of the ruling party, Mr. Hyun of South Korea, will be there. He is part of that network. This was founded about a year ago to bring together the countries in the Pacific Rim and the Far East, because we feel the free flow of communications and technologies is a key to stability in the Far East. We are in this situation now with North Korea, and we feel the free flow of information and those technologies will somewhat diffuse that if people are informed. It will also address key areas such as privacy and copyright. All of those issues are very important to the communications industry. A new caucus that was formed last year was the E-911 caucus. E-911 is enhanced 911, which is legislation that passed 2 or 3 years ago and was signed by President Clinton. I sponsored that bill, which was probably one of the better public safety bills we passed in Congress. When a person has an emergency and dials 911 from their home, from a wired line, the one who fields that call has an immediate trace on that call and they know exactly where the person is when they report an emergency. In the early days--and when I say early days, let's say around 1996 or so--if someone was a cellular phone user, using wireless communications, they could dial 911 and the person at 911 who received the call really did not know where to go. A person was liable to get the 600 Cafe in Miles City, MT, and they might be in southern California. It just did not know where to take someone who called 911. We have dealt with that issue, making 911 the national emergency number, No. 1. No. 2, we want to put in place those technologies that when a person dials 911 from their cellular phone, they have the ability to be located. In my State of Montana, under certain emergency conditions, we lose lives because we have to deal with distances, and also we do not know where a person is located. To give an example of that, there was a man involved in an automobile accident. He was south of Missoula, MT, which is over in the western part of the State, in the Bitterroot Valley. When he dialed 911, his call came into a communications center. When they asked him where he was, he said he was south of town. The operator, we are happy to say, said: What town? He says, Missoula. Well, he had the operator in Miles City, and those two cities are 400 miles apart. So working with Senator Clinton of New York, the cochair of the E-911 caucus, we will have our first meeting on February 24. Any Member wanting to join that caucus because of their interest in 911, please join us to get this technology in place because it is superb legislation that helps us in our public safety. This year, Members can also look for the debate to start on spectrum reform: How we handle our spectrum, how we allocate it, how we regulate it. It has been a long time since we have looked at spectrum allocation and management. There has been an agreement now between the Consumer Electronics Association and the television people that will advance or accelerate the deployment of high-definition television, or digital television, in the home. It was an industry problem they had to face. They faced it. The standards are now set in the private sector. The ``plug in and play,'' as they call it, of buying a digital television, plugging into the cable, and it works, and the customer will have digital television or high-definition television immediately should bring down the cost to the consumers as more and more digital televisions are offered. We will have spectrum returned to the Government for reallocation. How we handle that spectrum, how we manage it, will be very important. There are a couple of studies completed and one more to complete. Mark my word, this will be an issue of high debate, although it will not be a front-page issue. Yesterday, Senator Baucus, my colleague from Montana, and I introduced a new broadband bill. Last year, I was privileged to work with Senator Rockefeller on the Commerce Committee as he had written a bill giving tax credit to those entities wanting to build out broadband technology, even in rural areas. In that bill, we used tax credit as an incentive. This differs a bit. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Montana in his position on the Finance Committee. This allows 50 percent expensing on the buildout expenses the first year and then would be spread over the full years of depreciation the 50 percent balance. In other words, all investments in the buildout of broadband technology can be expensed. I urge my colleagues to look at this piece of legislation as it moves through the Congress. It is the key of the deployment of broadband technologies to every corner of the United States and availability to all consumers. In rural areas, we are doing things differently in two different categories. One of them is rural health. Broadband technology becomes very important. In fact, it is the cornerstone of telemedicine and how we serve our aging population in rural areas. I have 13 or 14 counties that have no doctors at all. They are being administered to by physician assistants and nurses. The ability of telemedicine to diagnose and to serve those people in rural areas becomes very important. Also, in the area of education is distance learning. A small school located on the prairies of eastern Montana should have the same learning opportunities as young people attending schools in a more urbanized area. Also, in the inner city where tax bases have been eroded, the quality of school has slipped, those young people attending school should be afforded the same learning opportunities. We must look at ICANN, the organization that assigns names and areas of the Internet. That has to be reformed. I heard when I was home over the holidays about wireless privacy. By 2005, it is estimated there will be over 250 million users of cellular telephones. Not only does this cause a backbreaking demand for spectrum, but it cries for privacy. Now there are scanners being developed with which people can eavesdrop on your telephone conversation from a wireless phone. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people and to me. Regarding online privacy, we worked closely with Senator Hollings in his privacy bill which we passed out of committee. It should be passed by this body. Last but not least, we should look at universal service and reform. Universal service is that pot of money that allows companies to put telephones and communication devices into areas where they have very high expenses. It should be known to the consumer and also to the ratepayer how this is done. We also know that the fund is going down because of collections. I support strongly universal service. Of course it needs reforming. That will be on our agenda as we move through the year. That should bring my colleagues up on our agenda in the Commerce Committee. I am happy to say the Presiding Officer has been instrumental in moving good communications legislation in the House. We welcome him to the Senate. We also welcome him to the Commerce Committee. I hope he will take a look at the Subcommittee on Communications. His talents will be beneficial to that committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 1:30 p.m., with the time equally divided, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague from Montana to introduce legislation to provide tax incentives to accelerate the deployment of ``broadband'' high-speed Internet access across the country. Broadband is an issue about which I feel very strongly, and upon which I will be very focused this year as chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Although many urban and suburban areas now have access to a broadband connection, many rural areas still do not. And that places rural areas at a disadvantage in a number of ways in terms of economic development, educational opportunities, health care and numerous other applications. By creating a financial incentive to encourage broadband providers to extend their networks into rural and other underserved areas, we can help overcome that disadvantage. The bill will 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 ``current generation'' broadband investments in rural and underserved areas, the bill will allow 50 percent expensing of the investment, with the rest to be depreciated according to normal depreciation schedules. And where providers build out ``next generation'' broadband networks, which are typically more expensive, the bill will provide for 100 percent expensing. This legislation generally mirrors the broadband tax credit legislation introduced by my friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in the last Congress. I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue. The only difference in that bill and the one we are introducing today is the form of the incentive, expensing rather than tax credits. I am proud to tell you that the first broadband tax incentive in the Nation occurred in great State of Montana. In 1999, Montana enacted a broadband tax credit, which was in effect for 2 years. In those 2 years it had very positive results. Here is a quote from one of our public utility commissioners, Bob Rowe, in one of our State newspapers, The Missoulian, in June 2001, describing the effect of the Montana broadband credit: The results are impressive. Dozens of projects were awarded tax credits, most of them in rural Montana, places like Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber. Projects included DSL, cable modems, and wireless. They also included projects to provide ``redundant'' access that is critical to many technology businesses in case service goes out. That is the kind of effect which a broadband tax incentive can have. Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber are not large metropolitan areas. They are small communities of a few hundred people. If a broadband incentive can have that kind of effect in those places, it can have that kind of effect anywhere. Now, what has happened to the Montana broadband credit? Like many other State tax breaks all across the Nation, it has been suspended, not repealed, but suspended, because of the current budget shortfall which the state is facing, which is exactly why we should consider a Federal broadband incentive at this time, when we are beginning the process of crafting a package of growth measures to put our economy back on a solid footing. And I firmly believe that broadband can have a positive effect on our economy. A number of very solid studies lead me to this conclusion. A study conducted by economists at the Federal Reserve Board concluded that information technology accounted for over 60 percent of the productivity growth occurring from 1995 to 1999. During the first half of the 1990s, the average productivity increase was only 1.5 percent per year. Then, when the Internet began to be widely used, average annual productivity jumped to 2.8 percent in the second half of the decade. That is a very significant increase, and it occurred largely from the ``network effect'' of linking our computers. Now, what broadband will do is allow us to use those linked computers for much more advanced applications, video conferencing, real-time collaboration on large computer files, telemedicine, distance learning, etc. And, for those of us from agricultural States, we should be aware of the applications that our farmers and ranchers might use: Remote livestock sales, remote monitoring of irrigation facilities, tele- veterinary, etc. Anyone who thinks farmers don't care about technology should spend some time on today's modern farm, and they will learn that American agriculture is one of the most innovative industries in the world. Let me give you an example. Deere and Company, the farm equipment maker, has supported legislation of this type. Others may dismiss this company as they just make tractors. However, if you were to talk to them, you would learn that the tractor of tomorrow, indeed of today, has a lot of high-tech equipment on board that, as it drives through the fields, gathers information on plant conditions and soil conditions and moisture content and so forth. And that is incredibly valuable information to a farming operation. But to really use that information, you need a broadband connection to send it from the tractor to, say, a plant specialist a hundred miles away. Without that broadband connection, it will take a very long time to transmit the data, which makes it a lot less useful. One economist, Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institute, has estimated that accelerated deployment of broadband will generate up to $500 billion in economic growth annually. Talk about an economic stimulus. I think we would all be delighted to have that happen, and I believe we should take steps to allow it to do so. This legislation is an important step in that direction. And one important reason for us to encourage more broadband investment is international competitiveness. A number of other countries, like Japan and China, are now making much greater investments than the United States in optical fiber and other advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Japan is now the world's largest purchaser of fiber, much of which is going to deploy fiber-to-the-home. In 1 month last year, they wired more homes with fiber than we did in the entire year. And although China has been playing catch up on building out their Internet backbone, they are doing so at a very fast pace and could soon overtake Japan as the world's biggest fiber market. It is also happening in Europe. The Government of Sweden has dedicated $800 million for broadband deployment in rural areas of the country, while they have already wired much of Stockholm with fiber-to-the-home. Last year, France announced that it would invest $1.5 billion on broadband infrastructure over the next 5 years. I believe it is extremely important that the United States not fall behind in telecom and Internet technology, and a financial incentive of the type provided by this legislation will help ensure that we do not. Let me briefly describe the specifics of the bill. As I said earlier, it provides 50 percent expensing for investments in rural and underserved areas of ``current generation'' broadband technologies, which are defined as those delivering at least 1.0 megabits per second of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 128 kilobits per second upstream from the subscriber. It provides 100 percent expensing for investments in ``next generation'' broadband technologies, which are defined as those delivering at least 22 megabits per second of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 5 megabits per second upstream from the subscriber. It is technology neutral, it makes no difference if you are using as your 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 in 5 years. The intent is not to provide a permanent benefit to the telecom sector, but rather to provide incentive to build out new infrastructure within a short time period. And so that my colleagues and the public can read the specifics themselves, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. Let me just conclude by saying that I believe this is important legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will join in supporting it. I look forward to working with my home State colleague, Senator Baucus, and also Senator Rockefeller and others to ensure that we push it through the Congress this year and send it to the President for signature.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, hafa adai and happy new year from our Nation's capital. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Governor Felix Camacho and Lt. Governor Kaleo Moylan on their inauguration day as the seventh elected governor and lieutenant governor of Guam. Guam's people have shown their patriotism to America time and time again Indeed, it is this allegiance, coupled with a rich island culture, that make Guam so unique in our American family and an integral and indispensable part of our nation. As incoming Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, I look forward to working with both the governor and lieutenant governor, as we tackle Guam's present challenges. As they embark on rebuilding their community, some progress will be swift and dramatic. At other times, improvements may be slower and only with perseverance and diligent hard work will they be finally achieved. Together, Guam and Washington will overcome these challenges. I join the people of Guam in congratulating Governor Felix Camacho and Lt. Governor Kaleo Moylan, once again, and I look forward to meeting and working with them to address their island's needs. For this reason and in order to memorialize this moment, I have submitted this letter to be published in the Congressional Record on January 7, 2003.