Conrad Burns

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.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a dedicated member of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, FWP, as he concludes over 30 years of service to his State and Nation. We are proud that much of this Montanan's working life has been dedicated to serving the citizens of and visitors to our great State. Mr. Doug Denler deserves this honor. We owe our gratitude for his contributions to the conservation of Montana's wildlife and natural resources, as well as preserving the outdoor heritage in the Rocky Mountain west. Doug Denler's personal and professional career accomplishments truly reflect the values of rural life under the big sky. His loyal service with our military forces, followed by public service in several Montana State agencies are a testament to all who find value in outdoor experiences. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon Doug's career as he embarks on a new phase of life beyond government service. Doug was born and raised in Boise, ID and attended college at Montana State University in Bozeman. Following graduation he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army and shortly thereafter received orders to join a unit deployed to South Viet Nam. During that assignment Doug was highly decorated for service in combat, receiving the Air Medal and Bronze Star. Subsequently he continued uniformed service, and having completed 10 years on active duty he then elected to resign his commission and move his family to Montana. Doug's first job in State government was as human resource manager with the Department of Administration where he was instrumental in crafting legislation to enable hiring temporary workers in State government. His approach for quickly and efficiently engaging short- term workers continues today as a foundation for many State agencies whose missions include part-time and seasonal tasks. He then spent two years at the Department of Highways before being selected in 1989 to be the Human Resource Bureau Chief at FWP. Bringing diverse experience and unbounded enthusiasm to his assignment Doug embarked on innovative ventures in pay plans, safety, training, labor relations, recruitment, and retention. Among his first achievements was crafting a comprehensive Policy Manual that is now widely used by FWP managers and is an essential component of new employee orientation. Turning his attention toward safe operating practices, he created an FWP statewide safety program that incorporated management oversight, documentation of mishap statistics and costs, and funding generated by savings from lowered accident rates. Demonstrating leadership ability and dedication, Doug volunteered to chair the new safety committee. A measure of his success is reflected in the fact that during the past three years FWP has twice received Governor's Award recognition for surpassing accident prevention goals. In 1999 Doug took the lead to initiate an Alternative Pay Plan for the Department's employees. This effort required his team to analyze market data, establish performance standards, initiate agency wide competencies, and obtain funding. Among the first of such plans approved by the Legislature and implemented the next year, the pay plan in use at FWP today typifies Doug's tireless efforts to find common ground and craft sensible solutions for both management and rank and file employees. Over the past year Doug stepped up yet again when asked to take on additional duties following the unexpected retirement of an executive manager. For eight months Doug served as the acting Chief of Administration and Finance. Along with performing his normal duties he provided oversight for a troubled $8 million computer development project, assisted with the preparations for a special session of the Legislature, and finalized a $62 million biennium budget. Doug Denler is highly regarded among his peers and the public for his devotion to resource conservation and his unmatched appreciation for Montana's hunting and fishing lifestyle. Embracing the FWP mission both in and outside the office makes Doug a consummate professional, and his retirement will leave a gap in knowledge and ability that FWP will find difficult to replace. It is a great honor for me to present these credentials of Doug Denler before the Senate today. It is clear through his many accomplishments that Doug has dedicated himself to public service, in and out of uniform, and to further the many benefits we enjoy as Americans. His actions consistently reflect a true leader who has served with courage and commitment. As Doug departs from public service I ask my colleagues to join with me in delivering an appreciative tribute from a grateful State and Nation, along with our best wishes for a rewarding retirement.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last year our Nation's economy was briefly held hostage by an attack on American soil. We have overcome that challenge and are now charging ahead in the right direction. It is this kind of American resolve that has built this Nation into the thriving world power it is today. However, recent developments on the West Coast have created a different kind of crisis but no less damaging to America's economy. On Sunday, September 29, the Pacific Maritime Association, PMA, locked out workers in twenty-nine West Coast ports for more than a week in response to a reported work-slow down by members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, ILWU. Last week, President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act that ended the lock out allowing workers to go back to work and negotiators to work through these problems over the course of an 80-day cooling-off period. I applaud the President's action. However, I am concerned about conflicting messages being sent by the ILWU and the PMA. More importantly, I am concerned about the lack of interest either party, management or labor, has regarding the economic fate of America's workers and America's agricultural economy. The economic impact of this labor dispute has temporarily crippled our Nation's economy. This dispute has threatened America's national health and safety. In many economic sectors, jobs were lost, workers were sent home and Americans will temporarily pay higher prices for consumer goods. However, once the President made his intention known to invoke Taft- Hartley, the AFL-CIO issued an Oct. 7 press release charging the President's action: ``preempts the collective bargaining process and undermines the rights of workers with union representation to negotiate on equal footing with their employers''. Neither side in a collective bargaining negotiating process should be able to leverage the nation's economy in an attempt to control the debate. Doing so is a very selfish act. And criticizing the President for his action is a very shortsighted approach to these negotiations. The ILWU claims they want to go back to work. Due to the only recourse available on behalf of the American economy, they are, today, back at work. I question the AFL-CIO's interest in the American economy. Does the AFL-CIO not recognize the impact this labor disruption has on the nation's economy? At stake are thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in commerce. Let me clarify that impact and put a Montana stamp on it. Exports are critical to the American economy. American exporters ship their products overseas, including agricultural exports such as wheat, corn, soybeans, and pork products, and manufactured goods of all shapes and sizes. West Coast ports are crucial to U.S. trade, handling over $300 billion in trade each year. These ports handle more than half of all containerized imports and exports. West Coast ports handle 25 percent of all U.S. grain exports, 40 percent of all wheat, 14 percent of all corn, and seven percent of all soybeans exports. Sixty-five percent of all U.S. containerized food trade moved through these ports in 2001. During the lockout, the dispute was estimated to have cost the America's economy $2 billion a day. Trade with Asia is particularly affected. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, India, and Malaysia are the top 10 destinations for containerized U.S. agriculture products. Together, these nations receive 85 percent of all agricultural shipments from the West Coast. If these countries cannot count on U.S. exports, they will turn to our competitors. Our farmers and ranchers spend precious resources on market development activities. It's very frustrating to lose shares of those markets solely because a small group of labor and management representatives cannot agree on a resolution. Again, I applaud President Bush's decision last week. I encouraged his action and stand by him now. Invoking Taft-Hartley was the only short-term remedy for the dispute that temporarily closed the West Coast ports. Furthermore, during the cooling off period, I urge the President to use his powers to judicially enforce productivity is not purposely restricted. I do not stand here today in support of the PMA's position, nor do I stand here today in support of the ILWU's position. Rather, I stand here today in support of the Nation's economy, the American worker, the Montana farmer, the retailer, the food distributor, the truck and rail operators, the consumer, and every other American that is being harmed by this action. I believe collective bargaining can and has worked more often than not. However, it is arrogant for any management or labor group to paralyze commerce in our nation. Reopening the ports, even if only for 80 days, will benefit the economy. The parties will be given time to settle the dispute. Manufacturers and retailers will be given additional time to adjust and prepare. Invoking Taft-Hartley was the right thing to do. It was the appropriate action to take to protect our economy, to protect American workers, to ensure we have a healthy and happy holiday season. The 80-day cooling-off period will allow both parties to re-evaluate their respective positions. Furthermore, it will give the ports an opportunity to clear up a mounting backlog that has paralyzed much of our West Coast export and import commerce. And finally, it will allow the ILWU workers to go back to work earning a living for their families. Today, I would like to introduce a bill that would extend the cooling-off period thirty days until the end of January. At present the 80 day cooling off period will end between Christmas Day and New Years Day. This is a move that will not impact the negotiations between the two parties. However, it will allow the cooling-off period to end at the end of January rather than the end of December and between Christmas and New Years. Extending the deadline beyond the Holiday season will help to unsnarl the mess created by this dispute; give the ports another thirty days to clear up the backlog. Finally, it will give Congress and the American people an ability to approach the end of this cooling-off period fully aware of the importance of this negotiation and uninterrupted by the holiday season. If negotiators are able to work out a resolution, we have lost nothing. However, if in the case, there is no resolution by the end of the cooling-off period, this extension could save thousands of American jobs and millions of dollars in economic losses. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last year our Nation's economy was briefly held hostage by an attack on American soil. We have overcome that challenge and are now charging ahead in the right direction. It is this kind of American resolve that has built this Nation into the thriving world power it is today. However, recent developments on the West Coast have created a different kind of crisis but no less damaging to America's economy. On Sunday, September 29, the Pacific Maritime Association, PMA, locked out workers in twenty-nine West Coast ports for more than a week in response to a reported work-slow down by members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, ILWU. Last week, President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act that ended the lock out allowing workers to go back to work and negotiators to work through these problems over the course of an 80-day cooling-off period. I applaud the President's action. However, I am concerned about conflicting messages being sent by the ILWU and the PMA. More importantly, I am concerned about the lack of interest either party, management or labor, has regarding the economic fate of America's workers and America's agricultural economy. The economic impact of this labor dispute has temporarily crippled our Nation's economy. This dispute has threatened America's national health and safety. In many economic sectors, jobs were lost, workers were sent home and Americans will temporarily pay higher prices for consumer goods. However, once the President made his intention known to invoke Taft- Hartley, the AFL-CIO issued an Oct. 7 press release charging the President's action: ``preempts the collective bargaining process and undermines the rights of workers with union representation to negotiate on equal footing with their employers''. Neither side in a collective bargaining negotiating process should be able to leverage the nation's economy in an attempt to control the debate. Doing so is a very selfish act. And criticizing the President for his action is a very shortsighted approach to these negotiations. The ILWU claims they want to go back to work. Due to the only recourse available on behalf of the American economy, they are, today, back at work. I question the AFL-CIO's interest in the American economy. Does the AFL-CIO not recognize the impact this labor disruption has on the nation's economy? At stake are thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in commerce. Let me clarify that impact and put a Montana stamp on it. Exports are critical to the American economy. American exporters ship their products overseas, including agricultural exports such as wheat, corn, soybeans, and pork products, and manufactured goods of all shapes and sizes. West Coast ports are crucial to U.S. trade, handling over $300 billion in trade each year. These ports handle more than half of all containerized imports and exports. West Coast ports handle 25 percent of all U.S. grain exports, 40 percent of all wheat, 14 percent of all corn, and seven percent of all soybeans exports. Sixty-five percent of all U.S. containerized food trade moved through these ports in 2001. During the lockout, the dispute was estimated to have cost the America's economy $2 billion a day. Trade with Asia is particularly affected. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, India, and Malaysia are the top 10 destinations for containerized U.S. agriculture products. Together, these nations receive 85 percent of all agricultural shipments from the West Coast. If these countries cannot count on U.S. exports, they will turn to our competitors. Our farmers and ranchers spend precious resources on market development activities. It's very frustrating to lose shares of those markets solely because a small group of labor and management representatives cannot agree on a resolution. Again, I applaud President Bush's decision last week. I encouraged his action and stand by him now. Invoking Taft-Hartley was the only short-term remedy for the dispute that temporarily closed the West Coast ports. Furthermore, during the cooling off period, I urge the President to use his powers to judicially enforce productivity is not purposely restricted. I do not stand here today in support of the PMA's position, nor do I stand here today in support of the ILWU's position. Rather, I stand here today in support of the Nation's economy, the American worker, the Montana farmer, the retailer, the food distributor, the truck and rail operators, the consumer, and every other American that is being harmed by this action. I believe collective bargaining can and has worked more often than not. However, it is arrogant for any management or labor group to paralyze commerce in our nation. Reopening the ports, even if only for 80 days, will benefit the economy. The parties will be given time to settle the dispute. Manufacturers and retailers will be given additional time to adjust and prepare. Invoking Taft-Hartley was the right thing to do. It was the appropriate action to take to protect our economy, to protect American workers, to ensure we have a healthy and happy holiday season. The 80-day cooling-off period will allow both parties to re-evaluate their respective positions. Furthermore, it will give the ports an opportunity to clear up a mounting backlog that has paralyzed much of our West Coast export and import commerce. And finally, it will allow the ILWU workers to go back to work earning a living for their families. Today, I would like to introduce a bill that would extend the cooling-off period thirty days until the end of January. At present the 80 day cooling off period will end between Christmas Day and New Years Day. This is a move that will not impact the negotiations between the two parties. However, it will allow the cooling-off period to end at the end of January rather than the end of December and between Christmas and New Years. Extending the deadline beyond the Holiday season will help to unsnarl the mess created by this dispute; give the ports another thirty days to clear up the backlog. Finally, it will give Congress and the American people an ability to approach the end of this cooling-off period fully aware of the importance of this negotiation and uninterrupted by the holiday season. If negotiators are able to work out a resolution, we have lost nothing. However, if in the case, there is no resolution by the end of the cooling-off period, this extension could save thousands of American jobs and millions of dollars in economic losses. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the hard work of the conferees on the election reform conference report. I did not hesitate to vote against S. 565 because it unfairly disadvantaged rural States and did not fix the most grievous flaws with the current system. I am pleased to report that significant improvements have been made from the original bill, and I support this attempt to give greater integrity to the electoral process. We can now ensure that the ballots from our servicemen and women overseas are properly handled. Their ballots cannot be refused based on early submission, and each will bear a postmark in order to avoid recent election debacles from occurring again. All States will receive a minimum grant award, with the potential to apply for additional funds, an improvement over the Senate-passed version, which would have disadvantaged rural States with a solely competitive grant program. Most importantly, this report identifies remedies for election fraud. States may purge any individuals who do not vote in two consecutive Federal elections and are unresponsive to follow-up by State officials. We must clean up our voter rolls, and this provision gives States the vehicle to do so, should they choose to use it. This is by no means a perfect report, but I am sufficiently convinced that we have taken great strides to better our voting process.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. I thank my good friend from Delaware, whose kindness and generosity is as good as the size of his State is small, in allowing me to speak now. And I understand the Presiding Officer may get some relief in a little bit and will be able to make his statement. As we get into a debate such as this, every time we spend a lot of time going over and saying about the same thing. We know who Mr. Hussein is. I congratulate the President for an excellent speech on Monday night. Not only did it complement his words before the United Nations, some would construe the speech as a statement of war. I think that is not the case. I had an opportunity to hear our Secretary of State, General Powell, put it very well when he said it was ``a statement of what we intend to do.'' We know and we have seen this man operate who claims the Presidency of Iraq, going way back to the time he attacked Iran, then his actions against a neighbor, Kuwait. And since then, Saddam Hussein has deceived the world for over a decade. He has violated 16 U.N. resolutions without consequence. He has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and has a clear intention of obtaining nuclear weapons. His brutal regime has used these weapons on his own people. On one occasion this dictator used sarin, VX, and mustard gas agents to kill 5,000 innocent civilians in a single day. He has abused the U.N.-established Oil-for-Food Program, weaponizing his oil to finance his fanaticism. All this time he has bankrupted his own country. Saddam has amassed black market revenues of $6.6 billion since 1996. I tell the American people this is not an Oil-for-Food Program. It is oil for terror. Peace in our time, how long have we been kicking that phrase around? And it is still with us. It is in peril again and will be so long as Saddam Hussein is in power with the most destructive weapons in history in his hands. Evidence of Saddam Hussein's complicity in and sponsorship of international terrorism is ample. He praised the September 11 attacks, calling them ``God's punishment'' in his government-controlled press. Al-Qaida terrorists are known to be hiding and harbored in Iraq. He continues to play host to networks and has ordered acts of terror on foreign soil. And the worst of all worlds, though, is that he paid Palestinian families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 as a reward for mass murder. We know he violated U.N. sanctions and resolutions for inspections in that country, and now we are going back to the U.N. again for another resolution. There is one pitfall that we do not want to fall in again. By allowing new weapons inspections with conditions makes a mockery of our capacity for trust. He will exploit every opportunity to conceal and lie about what he has and where he has it--not only from us here in this country, but from the rest of the world. And the rest of the world should be outraged. What else is new? He has a known record. Rather than playing the role of appeasers with a terrorist regime, the world community must vigorously pursue enforcement and compliance of those United Nations resolutions. If the United Nations Security Council cannot enforce its own authority and prove itself relevant and effective, then President Bush has no choice but to take whatever action he deems necessary to protect America from avowed enemies. I understand fully the seriousness of committing our military, our men and women, in harm's way. I also understand the seriousness of the situation, not only just for Americans but for those freedom-loving and those freedom-desiring nations and societies around the world. I see a threat that overrides my fears and most of my concerns. We must act to depose a brutal regime and religious extremist who hates our freedoms and would do us harm. I know America's intent is never to dominate other nations but to liberate them. We have a strong historical track record there. Our intent today with Iraq should be no different--to bring liberty and democracy to the Iraqi people who suffer arbitrary imprisonment, execution, torture, starvation, gang rape, and mutilation at the hands of this tyrant. It is a changed world. It is a different time. Let me tell you that September 11 did not make it this way. September 11 gave us a horrible and graphic picture of the dangers of a changed and smaller world. No longer can we look the other way when the bully on the other side of the world pushes us and others around. By today's standards, Saddam Hussein has been the bully on the block, right here at home. No longer can the international community simply do nothing. How can we idly stand by and allow this monster to hide behind the veil of sovereign nation status? My conscience cannot allow it. There are no national boundaries when it comes to ferreting out and ending human injustice and suffering. We do have a responsibility to our fellow man. We always have. We also have an absolute right to defend ourselves. Monsters are not going to be given a free hand to inflict unending suffering and death upon their own people and others, nor shall they be allowed to export terrorism or provide solace for terrorists. As Americans, we have a moral and ethical obligation to assure that each global member conducts themselves in an acceptable manner. Depending upon the magnitude of the offense, the remedy is different. Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime has committed such severe atrocities that the world community can no longer stand idly by and do nothing. We cannot turn a blind eye. A new world requires a new philosophy regarding defense. This new philosophy has been evolving for over a decade, ever since the end of the cold war. Deterrence and containment no longer suffice. In this new age, this smaller world, we can no longer look the other way because a conflict is on the other side of the world. It is just like a conflict in our own neighborhood. There is no other side of the world anymore. It is just down the street. So not only do we have a right, but a duty to protect ourselves and freedom-loving people around the world. The world community needs to be involved in making sure our partners in the world community treat their citizens and other nations fairly and with respect. If nations fail to do this and rise to a certain level of threat, just like kids at home, these nations must be dealt with. This is an evolving sense of conscience, and mine cannot sit back and wait until there is another strike. Three-thousand people died on September 11, 2001. I do not want to see the tragic loss of American life again because of our inaction. It cannot happen to me, my children, or their children, or any innocent life. So what do we do with a leader who has so blatantly violated 16 U.N. resolutions over the last decade, has invaded neighboring countries, and has tortured and killed his own people? Do we sit idly by and watch? That has never been the American way. America has never stood paralyzed by inaction when its citizens are threatened. Does Saddam pose a threat to this country's livelihood and to the American people? I believe he does. September 11 also taught us another lesson--how fragile our freedoms are, especially when you inject fear. Also, we found out how fragile our economy was. He clearly has growing and increasingly sophisticated biological and chemical weapons capabilities, which strikes fear into the heart of every citizen on this planet. He has used them in the past and has the intent to use them again. He also actively continues his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. To those who still do not see the link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks on America and American interests, I say look again. The absence of an obvious link does not mean that one link does not exist. To those of us who study and learn from history, there should be no question what we need and should do. Hussein is a monster and a threat to the United States as we know it. Congress must speak with one united voice. The Nation must speak with a united voice. The world community must speak with one united voice. Those who resist speaking with a strong, united voice have a very short memory. The security of this country is the responsibility of each and every one of us who live here. If this great Nation wants to stand by and pacify, I tell you we will get hit again. We have heard lots of speeches and seemingly a lot of logic that would say this is a wrong thing to do. I can remember when another President by the name of Theodore Roosevelt said, ``Speak softly, but carry a big stick.'' With Saddam Hussein, we have tried to speak softly and, so far, it has not worked. He has not responded to any U.N. resolution, sanctions, or even oil for food. So people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who hate Americans, hate our system, hate what free people have built here, will find a soft spot somewhere else at a later time--another vulnerability--and they will seize upon this opportunity to attack us once again. That is what a blind eye creates. So I will vote for this resolution. I would even like to see it stronger because I think it strengthens the hands of our Secretary of State as he maneuvers his way through developing a new resolution in the world community called the United Nations. It also sends a very strong message to the rest of the world that all of us have a responsibility when a cancer falls upon the face of our planet. I will vote for this one and even a stronger one if I could get it. Once again, speak softly, but carry a big stick. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support a bipartisan bill to end the longstanding and pervasive problem of elder abuse, the Elder Justice Act of 2002. To care for the aging population in this Nation has been pushed aside for too long. This comprehensive measure centralizes the oversight of elder justice in one Federal office; all while listening to the differing needs of States and localities. To take proactive steps to prevent abuse from occurring, this bill calls for widespread training and maintenance of a national clearinghouse of information. This includes studies, statistics, and a broad review of State practices to ensure adequate protection of our aging population. This bill also deals with abuse after it has occurred, and significantly reforms the security, prosecution, and safe-havens available for seniors. Most importantly, this bill sets an important precedent: the unspeakable and innumerable accounts of violence against seniors will finally have a long-overdue response from the U.S. Senate. Once again, I appreciate the work and leadership of Senators Breaux and Hatch, and I am proud to join as a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Missouri for his words today because they echo mine. Today I sent a letter to the White House and the President asking him to intervene in this slowdown and lockout, however you want to interpret it, of west coast ports. Today, 29 west coast ports, representing about half of our Nation's seaborne commerce, remain closed. Furthermore, we have another situation that complicates it. Weather conditions have temporarily limited the seaborne and other modes of commerce on the gulf coast due to Hurricane Lili. Our ability to export our goods or import our goods is quickly becoming paralyzed. The latest attempt at renegotiation between the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Unions has stalled, and they have stalled based on protocol and the presence of security personnel. Isn't that something? While they are arguing that in those negotiations, we are just coming through a crop year in my State of Montana, and already that is having an effect on us. I am also a little bit disturbed about the negotiations on salaries of $110,000 to $140,000 a year; they are on the table also. I want to give you a little comparison on why we are a little out of kilter here. According to the USDA, the average farm operator household income is $65,000 a year. I don't like averages. That is on-farm and off-farm income. I don't like to deal in averages because I know there are exceptions to the rule. Averages are like: If you have one foot in a bucket of ice and the other foot in the oven, on average, you ought to feel pretty good. That doesn't always work. The average farmer in my State makes around $30,000 to $40,000 a year. That is net. And they are forced--after we make the investment, put in our labors--they are forced to watch their yearly harvest sit while the longshoremen and management squabble about salaries that are sometimes two to three times the amount of their gross. So I think it is about time that President Bush intervene. If the parties are unable to negotiate a compromise by the end of this week, it is time to take action before they do too much damage to our national economy, and particularly those people who are impacted by a stalemate at our ports. The President can invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to resolve this matter. According to law, a Taft-Hartley injunction can be invoked if ``a threatened or actual strike or lockout affecting an entire industry, or a substantial part thereof, engaged in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communications among the several States, or with foreign nations, or engaged in the production of goods for commerce will, if permitted to occur or to continue, imperil the Nation's health and safety.'' What it does, basically, is allow for a cooling-off period while workers go back to the ports and commerce is allowed to continue. It gives the negotiators this time to work out a compromise. An agreement is necessary, and the President does have the power to impose that agreement. Economic consequences have the potential to injure workers, employers, and consumers alike. The crisis is costing the U.S. economy up to $1 billion a day and will affect the economy that is struggling to grow. If you can imagine, fruits and vegetables and other perishables rotting at the ports--those coming in, and those to be exported. My good independent trucker friends are sitting around just letting their trucks idle, waiting for work. The alternative, such as air freight, is limited due to capacity and also security issues. Auto manufacturers are waiting on parts and components. One manufacturer has announced closure of its California plant. Of course, the retail impact is immeasurable, considering that right now all the goods and services are moving for the upcoming holiday season. The west coast labor crisis is no longer about ``the rights of workers'' or ``management negotiating philosophy.'' It is about American prosperity and protecting the principles of commerce for this Nation. If this shutdown is allowed to go on at the west coast ports, there is no doubt about the impact it will have on my State of Montana. It could not come at a worse time. Because of drought, and droughts in other countries, and a little bit of a shortage, wheat prices have gone up approximately $2 higher than we have had in the last 5 years. In 5 years, this is the first time we have had a market--any kind of a market. And 90 percent of what we produce in my State is marketed in huge volumes, and it goes for export. The timing of this price advance is particularly fortuitous in light of the economic effects of a 4-year drought along with it. However, the labor crisis has already led to an 8-cent to 12-cent drop in that market just since Sunday. We are feeling the effects in another way. What about my railroaders? Earlier this week, Burlington Northern and Union Pacific Railroads announced an embargo on all grain movements to the west coast of the United States, citing overcapacity and lack of storage. The net effect of those embargoes, again, will lead to overcapacity in grain storage facilities in my State of Montana. It is harvest time, folks, and this is the first time we have had a market, whenever the grain is ready. In other words, it is harvested and ready to roll, and it is ready to be shipped. Furthermore, right behind it, we are less than 30 days away from the corn harvest season; that will be in its peak. Grain car shortages will force farmers to find alternative storage capacity or leave their wheat on the ground exposed to the elements. We have seen that before. Even if the lockout concludes this week, the residual impact will lead to several weeks, possibly months, of delay in the movement of those products to our major ports. Even those who have sold their grain will not be able to deliver against their contracts and, more importantly, the income from that delivery is needed at this time of the year. This is the time we make our land payments. This is the time we pay our taxes. There is another aspect involved. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing the Asian and other Pacific markets, on which we have to compete with our friends in Canada and Australia. We can do that for the simple reason that we have always been a reliable source. They can count on us not only for volume but also quality. We are jeopardizing that market development. So this is our opportunity, in normal times, to recapture some of those major exports that we lost over the last 2 or 3 years. We can do it. The only thing that is holding us back is this squabbling over salaries of $90,000 to $140,000, which are triple that of my average farmer in Montana. We are able to take advantage and recoup from years of drought, and it all could be lost with our inability to export. An extended work stoppage or slowdown by the west coast port workers, who enjoy some of the highest pay rates in the country, is already having its effect. Our shoes are getting a little tight. Grain millers of the world are coming to the United States for their supply, and they are denied delivery. In my letter to the President, I laid out that this is no longer a standard labor-management negotiation. It has become the groundwork for a potentially grave economic slowdown that will jeopardize consumer confidence and our national commercial infrastructure. Who says one little group cannot impact an economy that is suffering and trying to dig itself out of a 5-year hole? I hope the President takes note of the letter. I know Senator Bond has sent a letter to the White House asking the President to intervene and use the Taft-Hartley law with which to do it. I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper) The Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I congratulate my friends from Nebraska and Connecticut who were just talking. It seems like yesterday we came to this body. You didn't get my goat, either. We have all been involved in conferences. Anytime we pass legislation in this body and then it is passed in the House, we go to conference. In conference is where we settle our differences. It usually comes down to one or two items where there starts to be an impasse. Basically, those one or two items were not dealt with in the amendment of my friend from Nebraska. It is still there and even adds another layer or hurdle for the President to jump in the management of this Department before a final decision can be made on the movement of money or personnel and their responsibilities in this particular national security Department. We have not dealt with the two very important ones, and nobody puts it better than the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. So I caution Senators this is a bold attempt to find a compromise, but even though you pass their amendment, it does not deal with the heart of this debate. So whenever Senators start looking at this, they should look into it deeply, and they will find a compromise was attempted, but it did not get us to where we should be if they think the President should have the flexibility to manage money and personnel in this very important new Department we are creating. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. That is right. No preconditions. No either/or. If we are really serious about it, give us a vote. That is what we are fighting for, the privilege of voting. That is all. Defeat us if your conscience allows. But give us a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BURNS. That is correct.

Mr. BURNS. And move on. That is correct.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to address this third vote on cloture on the Byrd amendment directing the replenishing of firefighting funds for the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. This vote really hinges on our desire to get drought relief to the West. In my opinion, that is not what this debate is about. Drought relief has already been agreed to almost unanimously by this body. In other words, there were 69 votes for it. There is strong support in the Senate. I am a strong supporter for that relief. What is happening here is the majority is saying it is our way, or the highway. America's farmers and ranchers know that is not the way we do business, or get business done. Solving problems takes compromise. I worked with the majority to get the ball rolling. I worked with the administration to get the ball rolling. We worked with the administration and the other side--not only the other side--for release last week of money for livestock producers in drought-stricken areas. But now we see no compromise for realistic solutions. Every American has watched our forests burning every night on television. Yet the other side is reluctant to do anything about it--they have no conscience. It does not change any law. It allows us to manage forest lands for the prevention of the disasters that we have had since 1998. Come to my State and talk to the farmers and ranchers who have had drought for 4 years. Then, turn around and talk with people who love those forests. They have seen the forests burn for the last 4 years. And then tell me we should not have a vote in order to clean them up. Have people lost their senses? They do not understand what happens in this biological world when we grow a renewable product--a renewable product. Have we had nothing in our schools that teach us? I am like the old preacher who walked by a ranch one day. It was a nice Sunday morning. He said: Nice looking ranch you have got here. The old rancher says: Yes, it is. You should have seen it while the Lord had it to himself. We have people in this ecosystem. These little groups, I might add, that have very little dirt under their fingernails--very little--are telling us to leave it alone, and Mother Nature will take care of it. The American people have seen that kind of management for the last 25 years. They have seen the results of it. It burned. What is being denied here is a vote. We are being denied a vote on an issue that, sort of tongue in cheek, burns in the hearts of Americans. They don't like this. They do not want to see their forests go up in flames and have a renewable resource wasted when it can be prevented. That is what it is about. We will reject cloture until the majority is willing to work on a compromise that will actually make a difference to Americans. I want to associate myself with the words of our assistant leader on our side. Cloture is a terrible arrow in the quiver during these times on appropriations bills. It seems as though when we struck the deal for South Dakota less than 3 or 4 months ago, it was the right thing to do. It exempted all the laws. Do we have a double standard here? Should those of us in other States who represent public lands which produce a renewable product not be afforded the same standard? We are not even asking for that much change. We are not exempting any law. We are not exempting anything. What we are saying is make your case. Invoke a double standard, and then premise the argument that this is a vote against drought aid for American agriculture? It is absolutely absurd. Any clear-thinking American who has watched the deterioration of our forests and who has seen the results can stand there, and who in this body can look them in the eye and say, well, that is the way it is? I will tell you how many votes they will get against their proposal. I have heard maybe three or four will come down and give the reasons they are opposed to it to justify their vote, and to answer some of the questions we have. It is not right. It is not only not right, but it is not fair. I have real people living in my State, too, just like everywhere else. But the unwillingness to give us a vote, which is our right and a constitutional need to get the House of Representatives and the President a vote to actually pass laws, has brought us to a standstill in this body. It is not right. It is not fair.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate two outstanding Montanans, whose enthusiasm and work ethic exhibit the true spirit of our Nation. Each year the Experience Works program salutes our nations senior workforce. This non-profit organization selects an Outstanding Older Worker from each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico to pay tribute to the contributions that our older individuals are making in the workforce as well as in their communities. This Year Montana will be saluting the 2001 Outstanding Worker, Dr. Robert P. Maggard and the 2002 Outstanding Worker, Mr. Charles E. Milburn. Dr. Maggard, originally from Omaha, Nebraska, served in World War II, and then graduated from Creighton University where he studied dentistry. Dr. Maggard, moved to Yellowstone Valley, Montana and began his practice in the 1950's. He sold his practice in 1987 and began working with the Elite Denture center, which allows dentistry service at a reasonable price to thousands who would not otherwise be able to afford it. Charles Milburn retired from his long career in retail in New York City, to return home to his native state of Montana. After one year of retirement he began volunteering with the Computerized Books for the Blind. He quickly became the organizations most productive volunteer. He currently works at the Disability Services for Students and is now the president of Roxie M. Anderson Memorial fund which gives help to young teenage mothers. These two men are truly worthy of the Outstanding Older Worker award. This award represents the dedication these men have exhibited throughout their lives, and both the state of Montana and I are proud of their hard work.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I yield myself 5 minutes. I know there are other Senators on the floor wanting to speak. I will just speak common sense. Legalese is not my expertise. I leave it to those trained in the discipline, as most of my expertise was on the farm. This is a very troubling issue for one simple reason: What if anybody were allowed to put in a garden and at the same time were prohibited from doing any weeding or watering or doing anything to make it produce--prevented from fundamental attention? I am wondering if they would enjoy the fruits of their labor when harvest time comes. They say history is the greatest blueprint to the future. Throughout history, all creation on this earth, in order to ensure its internal survival, it must have some kind of economic worth. Now, that sounds hard and cold, doesn't it? But it happens to be a very true fact. There are those who somehow choose to look at our natural resources, or a natural landscape, and put it over into the column called ``spiritual''--not logical, not economic. Our forests cannot survive the ages with that approach. Under that philosophy, what will survive longer than the forests is the pine bark beetle. Fires will continue to exist--hotter--taking from the soil what cannot be replaced by anything but old growth. So as we approach this problem, I ask for common sense. What we are trying to do here is a commonsense approach to settle our disagreements on how we manage the forests. We hire the U.S. Forest Service to do that. When their management practices are questioned, the burden of proof falls on them to prove why that management practice will work, but I see no proof offered by those making the appeal that the Forest Service plan doesn't work. That is what we are trying to do--get it to an impartial environment to settle those differences. That is all we are asking. We are not changing any law, no environmental law, not the Environmental Protection Act, not the Clean Water Act, not the Clean Air Act, not the Forest Management Act. We are not changing any law. We are not denying anybody's right to appeal or to have their day either on an administrative appeal or a judicial appeal. We are not changing that. That was changed, however, with regard to South Dakota. So we are not going that far. What we are saying is we are going to put the ball on the 50-yard line, which requires the burden of proof both from the land managers and by those who would disagree with them. That is all we are asking. And then the third thing we are asking is that we get a vote, a commonsense vote. The American people, every night this summer, watched their forests burn--every night. Such a waste. There was not only the loss of the resource, but the loss of the wildlife and the habitat and the water quality because the rains will come and the snows will come and the mud will slide. Now, I don't know any other way to put that other than it has been my experience in my years of working and living in an environment of sun, water, and soil, and what it produces. So I am sorry that we have to educate and remind people that what we see outside in our natural environment does change. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. BURNS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Norma Eudora Cronk Dickson. On October 16th, 2002 she will celebrate her 100th birthday. Norma is a resident of Chinook, MT. Norma Dickson was born October 16, 1902. She was the eldest of four children born to John Colburn Cronk and Anna Rogers Cronk. John and Anna Cronk moved to Montana in 1898, and settled in the Milk River Valley in Coburg, MT. Her parents were ranchers and prominent members of the community. Her father John was elected State representative in Montana in 1923. Her parents raised cattle and prize winning Percheron horses. The livestock pavilion at the Blaine County Fairgrounds was dedicated to her father's memory. Norma attended college and taught for a few years prior to her marriage in 1928 to Dr. Joseph Robert Dickson, another Montana native who practiced dentistry in Chinook, MT. Norma and Dr. Dickson had four children, Joseph Robert Dickson Jr., Marilyn Dickson Gregg, James Cronk Dickson, and George William Hunt Dickson. They also have thirteen grandchildren and ten great- grandchildren. In addition to Norma's dedication to her family, she has been very active in her community of Chinook, MT. Her involvements include the Eastern Star, Chinook Presbyterian Church, and High School Girl's State. She has also worked at the Chinook Senior Center as a volunteer from its inception until she was 97 years old. Finally, she was named Senior of the Year in Chinook. She is a treasure to her community, her State, and of course, to her family.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, this amendment provides that nothing in section 134 of the fiscal year 2002 Interior bill shall impact ongoing litigation involving the Department of the Interior and the Sac and Fox Nation. This language has previously been passed by the Senate and addresses the inadvertent impact of language adopted in conference on the fiscal year 2002 bill. I recommend its adoption.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on completion of morning business, the Craig amendment be the pending business when we reopen discussions on the appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS. I move to reconsider the vote.