Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I have no objection to that.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. This amendment has the approval of both sides of the aisle. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my chairman. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Mr. Campbell of Colorado and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia makes a good point. We always hear about those who want to come and make their statement regarding any piece of legislation. Then we go at breakneck speed and grind to a halt. That seems to be what we have done. Let me just say a few words on behalf of the drought amendment that is before the Senate. We are concerned about the drought as it happened in this area that has been expanded. We have been in a drought situation in Montana for about 5 years. We have been, not only in a situation of summer drought and no summer moisture, but also in the area of low snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, in the areas that feed the irrigation water and stock water and many other amenities that have been provided by that wonderful element. But this year, that drought expanded. It expanded to our neighbors to the south, Colorado and Wyoming, the western Dakotas, and Kansas. Some would say that is almost the breadbasket of this country. I had an opportunity to drive through those drought areas in western Kansas and Colorado and western Nebraska, and I would say the stories I heard and the history we have studied of the great drought of the dirty thirties--if we were using the same farm way of doing business that we did then, we would probably be back in a dust bowl situation in the Midwest. That is how dry it has been--just no rain at all. So this is needed legislation. It is not just legislation that has come as a whim to anybody who lives in the heart of this country. Was all of Montana affected by drought? No. We are a large State. We are 148,000 square miles--not quite as big as Texas, not quite as big as California or Alaska. Nonetheless, if you measure in air miles from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of my State, it is further than from here to Chicago--from Washington, DC, to Chicago. In the northeastern part of the State, we fared pretty well with crops, grass. But as the rangeland has droughted out in the last 5 years, we have seen a decline, also, in the numbers of livestock. That not only affects our farm income but also our tax base. It affects us in many more ways than just the loss of the numbers of cattle or the loss of a crop. So this is needed legislation. We have tried, now, for better than a year and a half to provide relief for those who have been affected by that weather pattern. We have an opportunity here to pass this legislation. The chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee is right on when he says we should be moving on this piece of legislation. In fact, it should be off from the Senate tonight, to be honest, probably, if we had the full days to work on it. But everyone knows we move to homeland defense, homeland security, later and we are paralleling these two pieces of legislation. This particular appropriations bill always draws a little bit of attention because it deals with sensitive areas: Our national public lands and our parks. As many people as there are in the world, there are that many opinions as to how we should manage those public lands and those parks. So it brings diverse ideas, different ideas, and many of them come to this floor. However, we have been lacking that debate in the last 2 days, and that causes some concern, I suppose. Nonetheless, we should be moving along. I urge my colleagues, especially those on this side of the aisle, that if they have amendments to offer or want to speak on the issue that is before us now, to do it now. It will not be long before we will be to noon, and at that time we go into morning business and then, after that, homeland security. I stand in support of the chairman of the committee in asking our colleagues to please do that. I know we are working feverishly to clear more amendments. We have already done some of those, and the staff has just done wonderful work in narrowing down our work on the amendments that were offered by Members of the Senate. Seeing no other Senator standing with a request to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4475 To Amendment No. 4472

Mr. BURNS. No comment here. We support it.

Mr. BURNS. We have no objection to this amendment, Mr. President. We fully support it.

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4474 To Amendment No. 4472

Mr. BURNS. I will say to my chairman that there will be some discussion. There is no doubt. It is only fair that the leadership be on the Hill whenever we take this up because it has high interest. Many of those funds that were borrowed for fire suppression are impacting other programs within the Department of Interior and the Forest Service. So we think it is a very important amendment. We are supportive and would hope the rest of the Senate would approve of it, too. I think this is an area that warrants debate in the Senate so we know what we are spending the money for and how it impacts those lands where the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior have a high presence. Mr. President, I see no one else seeking the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am very happy this morning to join the Senator from West Virginia in support of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Needless to say, this is a very important piece of legislation, especially for me and my colleagues in the West, particularly those in the intermountain region. This bill funds the agencies that manage the majority of our public lands. It funds health care, education, and other services for Native Americans. It supports research and development and allows us to develop and use our domestic energy resources in a responsible manner. Although Senator Byrd does not hail from a Western State, we are about to adopt him as a westerner. He has done a great job in putting this bill together. The bill accurately reflects the priorities of the Senate as a whole, as it remains within the subcommittee's fairly modest allocation. The bill as a whole is a mere 2 percent above the President's request and it is well below the allocation approved by the House of Representatives. Senator Byrd has worked with me and my staff to see the specific interests of Republican Members have been fairly treated. Did everybody get everything they asked for? No, of course not. I, as ranking member, did not get everything I asked for, but neither did the chairman. I can assure my colleagues that the chairman has taken an evenhanded approach in dealing with more than 2,000 individual requests which we received. Since the chairman of the subcommittee has already outlined the principal features of this bill, I take this opportunity to speak about a few specific items. First, I note that this bill increases funding for payment in lieu of taxes by $10 million over the current level. While the funding provided for PILT still leaves us a long way from the fully authorized amount, it is a dramatic improvement over the $45 million cut proposed by the President's budget request. These funds are vital. They are vital to all the counties where public lands have a presence, especially in the West where most of the public lands are located. Those counties struggle to provide education, law enforcement, and other services without an adequate tax base. I hope the administration will give greater consideration to the importance of this program as it assembles its fiscal year 2004 budget request. I make a footnote, saying as long as the American people have told us as policymakers that they want to retain those Federal lands everywhere across the country, then we must maintain and pay the taxes to support local services. I will highlight the efforts Senator Byrd and I have made to increase funding for the operation of our National Parks. While the Americans for National Parks Campaign has turned a spotlight on the issue over the last several months, those who have served on the subcommittee for years know it is not a new problem. I view the increase of $35 million provided in this bill for park operations, an increase of $20 million over the budget request, as a continuation of this subcommittee's ongoing effort to provide adequate funds for our National Parks. Finally, I will talk about forest fires. It has been odd to see the nightly newscasts and they are not reporting on a wildfire somewhere in the country. By now my colleagues are well aware that the 2002 fire season is on its way to being as costly and as damaging as the record- setting year 2000. The fact this is happening should come as no surprise. We knew the conditions in many areas of the West were the driest in recent memory. We knew that years of misguided forest management have left our forests with intolerably high fuel loads. The inevitable has happened. And it will continue to happen as the fire season progresses and as we meet the years ahead. The question is, what to do about it. This bill fully funds the President's request for fire suppression, which is based on a 10-year average cost of firefighting. Unfortunately, using the 10-year average as a basis for budget requests no longer appears to be adequate. The 10-year average does not reflect the impact of inflation. It does not reflect the recent changes in firefighting practices associated with the national fire plan. And it does not reflect the impact of fire suppression costs of rapidly increasing housing development in the wildland urban interface. We need to be working on a better model for projecting fire suppression budgets. Certainly, we need to do everything possible to control suppression costs through effective management and aggressive oversight, but at the end of the day we are going to have fires and we are going to have to fight them in many cases. If our suppression budgets are consistently below the actual need, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior will continually have to use their borrowing authority to cover fire costs. While this borrowing enables us to get the job done in terms of firefighting, repeated and extensive borrowing makes it difficult to plan and conduct regular programs that are funded from the accounts subject to the borrowing. Such programs include facility construction and maintenance, land acquisition, and research activities. Ironically, repeated borrowing also makes it more difficult for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to execute their salvage and hazardous fuels reduction programs--the very programs that will help reduce fire suppression costs over the long term. The Forest Service has already exhausted its fiscal year 2002 firefighting funds and has commenced borrowing from other programs. Current estimates indicate that the Forest Service may have to borrow more than $1 billion by the end of the fiscal year. The Department of the Interior may have to borrow $220 million. While I appreciate Senator Stevens' and Senator Byrd's efforts to include $50 million for firefighting in the supplemental over OMB's objections--by the way, that amount does very little to address the problem; as such, I expect we will have an amendment to this bill to provide the emergency funds needed to pay for this year's firefighting costs. I certainly hope all my colleagues will support the amendment. On a final note, I wish to echo Senator Byrd's comments regarding the overall funding levels in this bill. Due to the failure of the Senate to take up and pass a budget resolution, as it is supposed to do, we have no formal subcommittee allocation that is enforceable by a supermajority vote. Nevertheless, I concur with my chairman, Senator Byrd, and also with the ranking member of the full committee that we must enforce fiscal discipline as we go through this appropriations process. I will join Senator Byrd in opposing amendments that propose to add nonemergency spending to this bill without being fully offset. And in considering such offsets, I do not believe either of the managers would look favorably on amendments that would duck the question of tradeoffs by using across-the-board cuts, reductions in travel, and other gimmicks. Agencies in this bill are already being asked to reduce their travel costs and absorb a portion of mandated pay increases. I expect Senator Byrd and I will oppose proposals to further squeeze agencies in such an indirect manner. With that, I conclude by once again thanking Senator Byrd, my chairman, for his efforts in putting this bill together. I also thank his staff, led by Peter Kiefhaber, for their hard work and their willingness to work with my staff in assembling this bill. I know they have worked long hours to get the bill to this stage. Even though we were on August break, and most of us in our home States, staff stayed here and worked on this legislation. I want to show that we appreciate their efforts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. It is all clear on this side. We are supporting it.

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. Madam President, I am supportive of this amendment. I thank my chairman for offering this amendment. And nothing could be closer to the truth than the reason he stated for the appropriation of these funds. It is not just that it is over 6 million acres this year; it is where those acres are located, as we have seen more burning this year in the forest and urban interface areas than we have ever seen. And they have been devastating. It has been in areas where it could have and should have taken more management skills to prevent the fires, but, nonetheless, that is the situation in which we find ourselves. So I am very supportive of this amendment. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. As we debate this amendment today, I think the rest of the Senate will, too. Not only is there a shortfall in the funds that they had to borrow from in other programs that do other things that are very important within the Department of the Interior and the BLM, the Park Service, the Forest Service, but other programs suffered because of these devastating fires this year. So I thank my chairman and look forward to working with him as we move this legislation through the Senate. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nancy Perkins, a detailee from the office of Senator Judd Gregg, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, there is no problem which more directly affects the security of our forces in the Middle East and particularly in Afghanistan than our ability to communicate with the local population. To solve this problem we must enhance DoD support on two technologies that are being sorely neglected--digital satellite radios and the solar panels which can permanently power them anywhere. As a result of two satellites launched in the past three years there is now complete 64 channel digital radio satellite coverage of the entire middle east, Asia, and Africa. In parts of the Middle East such as Afghanistan there is double satellite coverage and therefore 128 clear highest fidelity radio broadcast channels are available. Unfortunately until now our government has made little use of this technology which the private sector has already bought and paid for. This means that a superior method of communicating in the Middle East is not being used to support our troops who are or will be serving there. What is virtually needed is a DoD program to jump start the dissemination of these satellite radio receivers to the local population surrounding our troops so that our messages of democracy and freedom can be brought to them in a variety of formats. Our troops vitally need the added security that the resulting increased local support for their mission will bring. Our troops also need periodically the ability to communicate directly with these people. A jump start DoD program of adequate size to buy and disseminate or subsidize the price of receivers would lower their price to the point where the market would complete the job. Failure to start this process now would be tragically shortsighted. A second private sector technology now being inadequately supported or neglected by our government is the solar panel technology which can permanently power these receivers wherever they are located. Both solar panels and widely available kerosene can be used to power these receivers in a region where both batteries and electricity are both critically scare. Afghanistan is a communications wasteland. Barely 30 percent of the population can read. Only 3 people in every 1,000 have a TV set; only 6 in every thousand have a radio. Given these statistics it is little wonder that a central government has so little power and regional warlords are so great a threat. The warlords have the megaphone and the security of our troops is severely imperiled as a result. By contrast in both Iran and Iraq are over 70 TV's and 200 radios for each thousand people--still very low by western standards, but a huge multiple of the mass media now available in Afghanistan. In those countries we face different problems--a hostile state-controlled media and hostile governments which can jam our terrestrial transmissions. These are problems which increased DoD and U.S. government support for satellite radio could also solve. I do not claim that our current efforts are non-existence. They are just hopelessly inadequate to the task at hand. When we first went into Afghanistan we dropped leaflets and relief packages containing single channel short wave radios many of which broke when they hit the ground. In a country where illiteracy rate is so high, the impact of any written material seems questionable. We sent C-130's to fly over areas where our troops were to broadcast to the single channel radios that survived the air drop. Now we are also spending considerable amounts of DoD and other money to build terrestrial transmitters to broadcast to the few radios that do exist in the country. These are laudable efforts but demonstrably inadequate to confront the task before us. The comparative superiority of satellite radio in remote Afghanistan was demonstrated early this year by the enthusiastic response of our troops there who listened to the Superbowl thanks to 1,000 privately donated satellite receivers. I earnestly request my chairman and ranking member to address this urgent matter of support for satellite radio both in the conference and in the conference report. I had planned to offer an amendment to begin to achieve the needed results. However, I realize we are not earmarking money as the House did in its bill. I do know that there is substantial support the House and the administration for satellite radio as an essential weapon in the war to combat terrorism and increase the security of our troops abroad. The investment required is small compared to the additional expense required on arms where we do not have adequate local support. I also know existing programs and special interests will swallow up as much money as they can get. Thus a vital technology and existing capability like satellite radio will very likely suffer from inattention and neglect to the vast impairment of our overall war effort without some specific direction from us. I urge my colleagues in the conference not to let this happen. Please give satellite radio technology the specific and concrete support it needs and deserves.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that is of great importance to me, the retention of key military personnel in our Armed Forces. It has been brought to my attention that in order for us to retain top notch military personnel, we need to, among other things, improve the quality of family life on our military bases. I believe that we need to do everything in our power to improve the morale and welfare of our military personnel and their families. I also commend the President and the managers of this bill, as I believe this year's Department of Defense appropriations bill goes a long way to this end. In working toward this, we should do what we can to provide our Armed Forces with access to training in cutting-edge technologies. We can improve the quality of military family life, while at the same time provide military personnel and their families with valuable lifelong employable technological skill sets. This may even have the ancillary benefit of providing families and service personnel technology training applicable in both military and civilian settings and could help provide service personnel and their family members with the technological currency critical to excelling in today's society as Web designers, 3-D animators, programmers, media artists. The men and women of our Armed Forces, whether they be active duty, Guard or Reserve, stand ready to aid both State and Nation when called upon. They come from all walks of life and all corners of this great country. They sacrifice time with their families, so that when they are called upon, both here and abroad, they honor the call and give their very best to those they serve. I believe that it is our duty to honor their commitment to us by providing them with the tools they need to be their best and the resources they need to compete in today's competitive environment. Unfortunately due to funding constraints and the numerous worthy programs included in this year's bill, funding was not available for a couple of projects which may have value in this regard. I hope Congress gives consideration to these programs next year. I want to make sure that during this time, when we are spending so much funding on equipment, ammunition, etc., and rightly so, that we do not lose sight of the importance of quality of life issues. We can have all of the cutting-edge technology and fancy machinery that money can buy, but it means nothing and is useless without our brave men and women behind it.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2762, a bill which would provide tax relief to livestock producers who are forced to sell off part of their herds due to drought. I would also like to commend my colleague, Senator Thomas, for introducing this legislation. In my home State of Montana, we are currently in our fifth year of drought. Livestock producers are running out of grass for their herds and very few ranchers in Montana have carry over hay. Their choices are limited. If ranchers can find hay, it is expensive and often hundreds of miles away. Their only other option is to sell off part or, in extreme situations, their entire herds. The effect on Montana's economy can be seen in the numbers. In 2000, we had 2.6 million head of cattle in my State. As of today, after two severe years of drought, we have 2.4 million head of cattle. The drought is equally devastating on sheep numbers. In 2000, we had 370,000 head of sheep. Today we have 335,000 head of sheep in Montana. When these cattle and sheep leave the State, the effect on the local, rural economies is great. Ranchers aren't buying as much feed, they are buying fewer veterinary supplies, and worse yet, the ranchers may go out of business all together. These are ranches and herds that have been built up over generations and will be extremely difficult to replace. I have heard from many ranchers these animals won't come back to Montana. They are gone forever. I have been working on getting disaster relief for producers suffering from drought since early last fall. I am currently a co-sponsor of a bill with Senator Baucus that would provide emergency funds to farmers and ranchers suffering crop and livestock loss. I believe Senator Thomas' bill fits in perfectly with my earlier efforts to help our producers. It is a common sense approach to a real problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is my privilege to honor a very special lady for her years of work on behalf of the citizens of this country. Linda Jackson was an employee of the U.S. Government for 39 years. Since she was 18 years old, Linda has been offering a helping hand to Americans. She started her career in civil service with the U.S. Navy. She then moved on to the Air Force, working in Japan during the Vietnam war. After her return stateside, Linda worked for a time for the U.S. Postal Service. For the last 29 years, she has been an employee of the Social Security Administration. I have personal knowledge of Linda's dedication and commitment not only to her profession but more importantly to the citizens she worked for. When Linda retired on June 3, 2002, this Nation lost a very dedicated and caring public servant. Thank you, Linda Jackson, for your service to our country.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues in the Senate in cosponsoring S. 1022, the Federal Employees Health Insurance Premium Conversion Act. This legislation will enable Federal and military retirees to take advantage of premium conversion, which would allow individual retirees to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. In 2000, this tax benefit was extended to current Federal employees under a Presidential directive, and it is a benefit available to many private sector employees, and State and local government employees. It only makes sense to bring equity to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Furthermore, this legislation will allow uniformed services retiree beneficiaries, their family members and survivors to pay the TRICARE Prime enrollment fees and TRICARE Standard supplemental insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. I am happy to join my colleagues by supporting this critical legislation and to show my continued support of these Federal civilian and military retirees for their dedicated service.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to express my support of the Emergency Disaster Assistance Act of 2002. I am proud to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing this legislation. However, more importantly I rise today in support of America's farmers and ranchers. In my home State of Montana, we are looking at our fifth summer of severe drought. Many places in my great State are drying up and blowing away. Dirt fills the ditches alongside the roads and so many tumbleweeds clog the fences. I fear this may be the case for much of the West and Midwest after this summer. This legislation would provide much needed relief to those farmers and ranchers hit the hardest by the drought. Many have argued the Farm Bill adequately met the needs of those earning their living in agriculture. I disagree. The Farm Bill provides economic assistance, but not weather related disaster assistance. In fact, it does not help farmers ``when times are tough,'' and the drought conditions of the past several years indicate that these are indeed very difficult times. The very reason I am requesting drought assistance is precisely because this farm bill does not sufficiently meet the needs of those farmers who have suffered loss due to natural conditions during the past 4 years. I believe the farmers in the most extreme situations are the very ones we should be helping. I am committed to working with my colleagues to get this much-needed assistance out to our rural areas, to the places that need it the most. I am also committed to doing this in the most responsible way possible. I believe we can reach an agreement and find a realistic amount that helps producers, yet is fiscally responsible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to express my support of the Emergency Disaster Assistance Act of 2002. I am proud to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing this legislation. However, more importantly I rise today in support of America's farmers and ranchers. In my home State of Montana, we are looking at our fifth summer of severe drought. Many places in my great State are drying up and blowing away. Dirt fills the ditches alongside the roads and so many tumbleweeds clog the fences. I fear this may be the case for much of the West and Midwest after this summer. This legislation would provide much needed relief to those farmers and ranchers hit the hardest by the drought. Many have argued the Farm Bill adequately met the needs of those earning their living in agriculture. I disagree. The Farm Bill provides economic assistance, but not weather related disaster assistance. In fact, it does not help farmers ``when times are tough,'' and the drought conditions of the past several years indicate that these are indeed very difficult times. The very reason I am requesting drought assistance is precisely because this farm bill does not sufficiently meet the needs of those farmers who have suffered loss due to natural conditions during the past 4 years. I believe the farmers in the most extreme situations are the very ones we should be helping. I am committed to working with my colleagues to get this much-needed assistance out to our rural areas, to the places that need it the most. I am also committed to doing this in the most responsible way possible. I believe we can reach an agreement and find a realistic amount that helps producers, yet is fiscally responsible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the important role that Montana's local broadcast stations play in informing and serving their communities. Local broadcast stations across the country serve their communities in as many different ways as there are communities. A recent study by the National Association of Broadcasters found that American local broadcast stations gave almost 10 billion dollars in community service last year. In Montana, it is estimated that local radio and television stations contributed 78 million dollars. These impressive numbers represented stations' Public Service Announcements, donated airtime, money raised for local and national charities and non-profits, and other community work. Montanans are fortunate to be served by stations that are so dedicated to their communities. Today, I would like to recognize two of those stations for their outstanding service. In Helena, KMTX-FM provided more than $15,000 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ``Project Impact.'' This program works to promote local, grassroots initiatives that make American communities more disaster resistant. KMTX was so supportive that the station's general manager, Kevin Shaalure, was awarded the Outstanding Project Impact Media Individual. The local manager for Project Impact said, and I quote: ``Kevin and KMTX embraced Project Impact from the start, working to give preparedness a high profile.'' Montanans have a long tradition of helping those who are less fortunate and Montana broadcast stations exemplify this effort. KDBM-AM in Dillon, MT, collected 600 coats for area students in 2001 through its annual Coats for Kids drive. With collection boxes placed throughout Dillon and in neighboring Twin Bridges, the station encouraged its listeners to drop off coats, gloves, hats, and anything else to help keep local children warm. The coats were then distributed by school teachers to students and by the local Women's Resource Center, the Pioneer Youth Home and the food pantry. I am proud of my local Montana stations. The United States system of free, over-the-air local broadcasting is the envy of the world and these stations show why. To them I offer my sincere congratulations.