Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I assume this is my amendment. Everybody is looking toward me, so I will make that assumption.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this amendment is a responsible method of addressing the essential needs of veterans health care. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Chafee, Hutchison, and Vitter. Also, Senator Hagel and Senator Sessions are on this amendment. It proposes, we cannot live with a copay and then the additional cost as far as prescription drugs. I realize there is a litmus test that is trying to be imposed into our VA care. I would say that anybody who qualifies for veterans health care has already passed his litmus test; they served. So we should not ask of them who have given so much for this Nation to offer up a copay or any other fees that might come with VA. I urge your support of this amendment. It is fully paid for.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a letter in support of my amendment from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I ask unanimous consent that the letter in support of this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on January 27 and 28, a remarkable group of students from Loyola Sacred Heart High School in Missoula, MT, won the State B-C Title for Speech and Debate. This is the 23rd consecutive State championship for this squad. I rise today to congratulate this team on their hard work and success. Loyola's accomplishment is truly remarkable. Out of 50 schools competing at the State Tournament, Loyola's squad of 26 students scored 167 points. Twenty-one of these twenty six earned medals. And Paul Stergios and Paul Dallapiazza were the State champions in team debate, while Dan Evans took home the gold in extemporaneous speaking. These events, which focus on current events and policy, are a fantastic educational tool for students to learn about their world and their government. In fact, I have several former Montana team debaters on my staff, including a former State champion in team debate. By winning its 23rd straight State championship, the Loyola Sacred Heart speech and debate team extends its State record for the most consecutive titles in any division in any activity. A lot of things have changed since they won their first title in 1984, but the success enjoyed by Loyola Sacred Heart in speech and debate has remained consistent. Since 1981, over 1,000 students have competed for Loyola Sacred Heart and the team has produced 34 individual State champions and over 225 medalists. Students competed in two debate events--team debate and Lincoln- Douglas debate--and seven individual public speaking events-- extemporaneous speaking, impromptu speaking, original oratory, memorized public address, expository speaking, serious oral interpretation of literature, and humorous oral interpretation of literature. I congratulate head coach Matt Stergios and his team for their continued success in attaining their 23rd consecutive State title. Matt has coached the team since 1981. His daughter Sarah won gold last year, and his son Paul won this year. Loyola Sacred Heart Speech and debate 39-person divisional and State team roster: Michael Breuer, Mary Callahan-Baumstark, Nick Corn, Paul Dallapiazza, Jason Dark, Justin Dart, Miles Dauterive, Erin Demerle, Jasen Devoe, Liz Diehl, Ryne Dougherty, Brian Doyle, Kyle Doyle, Matt Eddy, John Eikens, Dan Evans, Andrew Fortunate, Brian Geer, Sarah Giuliani, Megan Hess-Homier, Joe Hurd, Julie Hurd, Erik Kappelman, Tricia Karsky, Ian Kefler, Emilie Loran, Kathleen Lowery, Emily Mihalic, Nick Mihalic, Katie Neher, Alice Phoenix, Charlie Pritchard, Mariah Rys-Sikora, Joe Sanders, Paul Stergios, Will Taylor, Madison Unsworth, James Winegart, and Chris Yoder. Head coach: Matthew Stergios Assistant coaches: Sarah Jennings, Charles Hansberry, Theresa Stergios and Jessica Weinert.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am concerned that the President's Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal year 2007 budget request does not include adequate funding for VA health care. Specifically, this budget request would require certain veterans to pay a $250 enrollment fee in order to access the health care system each year. In addition, the budget proposes to more than double prescription copayments from $7 to $15, further burdening the limited resources of those who have served our country. The VA estimates that these measures will save the Department an estimated $795 million in 2007. This savings estimate is based not only on collections but on increasing the number of veterans who will opt- out of the service due to the higher fees. The VA estimates they will force over 1 million veterans, almost half of the Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans, to drop out of the VA health care system. Do we really want our veterans to be faced with the difficult choice of either dropping out of the VA health care system or bearing these additional costs? Those who do not drop out of the VA health care system will be forced to pay hundreds more for their health care. Veterans who receive prescription drugs from the VA and who fill a typical number of prescriptions a year could face new fees amounting to nearly $600. I realize that agencies such as the VA must look for ways to save dollars, but our Nation's veterans deserve adequate and affordable health care. While I understand the need to reduce Federal spending, I urge my colleagues to reject these proposals to reduce spending for VA health care in the fiscal year 2007 budget. I believe it is absolutely critical that the VA health care system be fully funded. The Congress has rejected these proposals in the past, and I hope it will do so again this year. Our veterans should not be faced with these choices nor forced to bear this burden. We must keep our promise to care for the veterans who made so many sacrifices to ensure the freedom of so many.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to curb meth use in the United States. We have often been told that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but this adage is particularly true with methamphetamine addiction. But the problems associated with meth do not end with a one-time high-they are only just beginning. All too often, we hear horror stories about the change in the brain's chemical composition that results from meth use. There's no guarantee that a meth user's brain will be the same after they use meth just once. The impact of meth, both emotionally and physically, is significant. The individuals that use meth are also not the only ones harmed by this devastating drug--meth problems manifest themselves in family relationships, place strain on treatment facilities and public health needs, and the community. at large must bear the costs associated with meth, such as drug-endangered children and the remediation of meth labs. The most efficient use of Federal dollars should be directed toward prevention--and that is why I have introduced legislation today. With consideration of the PATRIOT Act and the inclusion of the Combat Meth Act provisions which I fully support, I strongly believe that an emphasis on prevention is essential, and the discussion today is a topical one. We must change the attitude of the consumer. So long as there is a demand for meth, there will always be willing sellers. My legislation would allow communities to apply for assistance for any campaign which would have a demonstrated reduction of meth use. A 100 percent match is required of all applicants to ensure that the community organization or local government applying for funds has a stake in the outcome. However, my legislation also recognizes the difficulty this matching requirement may have on rural areas, or Indian reservations, which typically have a high level of meth use, but lack the necessary resources. For these applicants, the match will be cut in half. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to prevent this public health crisis called meth from becoming any worse. I have seen the Senate's Anti-Meth Caucus start with six members when I created it last year, and membership now stands at over 30 members. In the Senate, we realize the serious nature and scope of the problem facing our States-- now it's time to act.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to curb meth use in the United States. We have often been told that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but this adage is particularly true with methamphetamine addiction. But the problems associated with meth do not end with a one-time high-they are only just beginning. All too often, we hear horror stories about the change in the brain's chemical composition that results from meth use. There's no guarantee that a meth user's brain will be the same after they use meth just once. The impact of meth, both emotionally and physically, is significant. The individuals that use meth are also not the only ones harmed by this devastating drug--meth problems manifest themselves in family relationships, place strain on treatment facilities and public health needs, and the community. at large must bear the costs associated with meth, such as drug-endangered children and the remediation of meth labs. The most efficient use of Federal dollars should be directed toward prevention--and that is why I have introduced legislation today. With consideration of the PATRIOT Act and the inclusion of the Combat Meth Act provisions which I fully support, I strongly believe that an emphasis on prevention is essential, and the discussion today is a topical one. We must change the attitude of the consumer. So long as there is a demand for meth, there will always be willing sellers. My legislation would allow communities to apply for assistance for any campaign which would have a demonstrated reduction of meth use. A 100 percent match is required of all applicants to ensure that the community organization or local government applying for funds has a stake in the outcome. However, my legislation also recognizes the difficulty this matching requirement may have on rural areas, or Indian reservations, which typically have a high level of meth use, but lack the necessary resources. For these applicants, the match will be cut in half. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to prevent this public health crisis called meth from becoming any worse. I have seen the Senate's Anti-Meth Caucus start with six members when I created it last year, and membership now stands at over 30 members. In the Senate, we realize the serious nature and scope of the problem facing our States-- now it's time to act.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, and after a discussion over lunch about Libby, MT, and some of the provisions found in this legislation, listening to the distinguished Senator from California, I think we had better answer some of the questions that are being asked about this. As you know, I am here on the floor again, joining Senator Baucus, my colleague, urging our colleagues not to support this budget point of order. We have to deal with this terrible thing. If the point of order on the bill is successful, the bill dies and we will get no bill at all. There will be nothing to go to final passage, nothing to go to the House of Representatives, nothing to be considered in conference. I do not think that serves the interests of the victims of asbestosis or other asbestos-related diseases. I want to talk about Libby, MT, I guess, because I live there--not in Libby, but in Montana. Many of my great friends live in Libby, MT. Families are watching this together in their living rooms today, watching this broadcast on C-SPAN. Televisions are set up in restaurants and dining rooms and hotel lobbies so people can continue to see what happens here as they go about their day. I have been in close contact with the community leaders and people directly affected by health problems on a daily basis. For some of my colleagues, this debate is about technical details of a very complicated bill. For people in Libby, of course, it is life or death. I want to show some pictures that have been sent to us. We want to give you an idea about how important this is. Behind me--I don't know whether the cameras are picking it up; I assume they are from somewhere--is a picture of a baseball field. This field was built in 1959. You have to remember, this vermiculite mine started in 1924. For many years we didn't know anything about asbestos. We didn't know anything about the problems it caused. But we know if you are exposed, these diseases develop over time, and it takes a long time. This baseball field was built in 1959, next to the processing plant. For years, the children of Libby played baseball in asbestos- contaminated fields while their siblings played on actual vermiculite piles of asbestos next to the fields. It is unbelievable. The former Governor of Montana was raised in Libby, MT. They thought it was a lot of fun because it was slick and, boy, you could slide a long way. The high school running track and football field were built on tailings from that mine site. For over 25 years, children have been directly exposed to tremolite-laced tailings which were used to line the track and, of course, the football field. Maybe I can consider myself lucky; I never had to referee a football game up there and I had some 20 years refereeing that game in that State. The saddest of all is it is all now coming home. It is now being identified. This is the photo of 250 crosses at Libby, MT, memorializing those residents who have died from asbestos-related diseases. Mr. President, 250 is 10 percent of the entire population of the town. Gayla Benefield told my office recently about how much this matter affected her life: Slow suffocation from tremolite asbestos is a terrible way to die but worse yet, watching our parents die and then, watching the looks on their grandchildren's faces when we tell them we have the disease is worse than dying. To watch one person die from the effects of our fiber is horrific. But to know that your own fate is no better, and that you cannot even protect your children or assure them that help will be there is even worse. Earlier this week I read a letter I received from Jim Davidson who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma. He is one of many cases in the small town of Libby. His pleas were to get this legislation passed and to do the right thing--get something to conference and get something to the House, because a lot of these folks will not live long enough to ever hear their case pleaded in court. Jim has been watching these debates with his family. Yesterday, Jim's son, Dr. Steve Davidson, wrote me a letter about some of the statements that have been made here on the floor. He said: As a past board member of our local hospital and as a past board member of our federally funded community health center, I have seen firsthand the impact of asbestos exposure on my hometown. As a health care provider, I am reminded daily of the price that has to be paid by my community. And as a son who is helping his father cope with mesothelioma, I must watch him struggle with his mortality. My father worked at the Grace facility for several months in the 1950s. This is way back in the 1950s. Now, later, this terrible disease surfaces. We rely on Congress to do the will of the people. Since the Grace bankruptcy was ignored by Congress, we must now seek a reasonable remedy. There exists no empirical medical data to support the assertion on the Senate floor that ``Libby is like East Hampton. . . .'' I and my community would appreciate access to any facts to support such a statement. In their absence, we would appreciate an apology from the Senate floor. These remarks seek to minimize the humanity of the crisis in Libby and my Father's struggle. It is something when it touches your life. We are uncertain if your remarks were made from ignorance or malice. Please help us to understand your position. He is asking the Senate to clarify some of the statements that were made that seem unfair to some of the folks who are victims of the situation around Libby. This is a photograph of Vernon Riley putting flowers on his wife's grave. Darlene Riley never worked at the mine or had anything to do with it. She died of the most severe type of asbestosis in 1995. The fact is, no other asbestos location in the United States created as widespread a catastrophe as is in Libby, MT. To suggest that enclosed asbestos treatment facilities are the same as an open-pit mine that blew dust and the winds took it for miles and miles into the air since 1924, and it rained down on a town--to say that is not different than any other situation in this country is not true. I think it is important that we pass a bill. That is why I urge my colleagues not to support this point of order because it will kill this piece of legislation. How many hours have all of us put in, trying to pass something that would give justice to people who right now stand to collect nothing for their injuries? I urge my colleagues to support the motion to waive the budget point of order. It is necessary that we get a bill out of this Senate, send it to the House of Representatives. Let them deliberate. Let them carry on this argument. Let's get to conference and let's do what is right for the people who have been impacted by asbestos and asbestosis and the diseases related to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I completed. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I don't think we have ever seen anything as complicated as the issue before us. We have a vested interest in this issue in Libby, MT. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes, not thinking I will use all the 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from New Mexico to add me as a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. BURNS. As I listened to the statement of my good friend from Texas, I thought I would clear up a few things as the debate on this asbestos bill moves forward. I know that Members have some very real concerns with the size of this trust fund and who may make claim to it. I think the Libby language that we have in the bill now is fair, and I will make the case for that because we think it is perceived to be inequitable in its treatment. The only inequity for Libby residents will occur if their recovery in this bill is removed. The medical criteria as it currently stands are actually insufficient for Libby victims. So members of this body, in particular, my good friend from Texas, is mistaken to conclude that they confer such enormous benefits on Libby's residents. That is not really the case as I illustrated yesterday. The bill as it is currently drafted will exclude 40 percent of the folks that live in Libby, MT. Now, to remedy that problem, I filed an amendment to strengthen the Libby provisions rather than remove them entirely. I felt I had to do that. While I understand that my colleagues will take issue with specific medical criterion in Libby, I fail to see how the exposure in Libby is equal to the suffering in any other cities. The exposure to asbestos was limited in some of those cities into confined areas. If any community exposures existed, they were the result of a factory worker exposing his family through his clothing. As I explained yesterday the circumstances in Libby are much worse. The main thing in Libby, MT, is that the community was exposed. The entire community was exposed by the wind from an open pit mine as opposed to communities that had enclosed facilities that processed the ore from the Libby mines. So we are talking about an entire valley, an entire city that was exposed by the wind from an open-pit mine. Not only did family members of the mine workers fall ill, but the entire town was contaminated. Yesterday I showed a picture of a baseball field of little-guy baseball, and it was contaminated. In fact, the amounts of asbestos meant the asbestos in the playing field were as high as 15 percent in some areas. So it has been reported that concentrations as low as .001 percent in asbestos contamination generates dangerous exposures. So the children that were playing on that baseball field in 1978 are now experiencing health problems, and we believe they were caused by that exposure. This is a unique incident. It is a unique area. And we are not talking about a structure. And we are not talking about a factory. We are talking about an entire community that was exposed to asbestos. I think I read yesterday where this Memorial Day they will put up over 200 crosses for people who died from asbestos. They have added 20. Twenty crosses due to asbestos diseases in the last year. So I think we have a unique situation. And also, the disease is a little bit different, we are finding now from talking to medical people who understand, and pulmonary doctors who under stand this asbestos and the related diseases around it. So I would ask my colleagues to study this very closely. I thank my friend from Alabama, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a special day to those of us who serve on the Commerce Committee and have served on the Commerce Committee ever since we have been in the Senate because today is the 10th anniversary of the Telecom Act of 1996. I want to talk about a bill I am introducing today as the Internet and Universal Service Act of 1996, or the NetUSA, if you will. When I first came here and went to work, I was very much interested in telecommunications. The big reason is in my State of Montana we have only 900,000 people but we have 148,000 square miles. I remind my colleagues, if you drew a straight line from Yaak, MT, to Alzada, MT, it is farther than it is from Chicago to Washington, DC. So we went to work in telecommunications for the simple reason we had to do something about distances, and we did. But it took almost 6 or 7 years before we came up with a bill that overhauled the old Telco Act of 1935. What we were trying to do is deal with the 1990s technology with a 1930 law and we found it almost impossible to do, so the whole act had to be rewritten. Since the Telecom Act, the only thing that is certain is change. With change, several trends have emerged, including the development of new technologies, industry consolidation and convergence, and product bundling. The pace of technological change has been astounding. We have a plethora of new technologies including WiFi and WiMAX, and all new words in telecommunications--wireless Internet access, voice over Internet protocol, which we refer to now as VOIP, the telephone service using the Internet and broadband over powerline-- BPL--for Internet access via electrical lines. While the Telecom Act promised industry and technology convergence, only recently is it materializing--with telephone, cable, and wireless companies invading one another's turf. Cable companies are offering television service over the Internet, telephone companies are offering video services over their facilities. New technologies have brought consumers a variety of choices for local, long distance, video, wireless, and Internet services, and many companies are offering bundled services. The radical transformation of the industry has led some to call for a complete rewrite to the Telecom Act. Central issues in the debate today are the reform of the Universal Service Fund--the USF, reform of intercarrier compensation, franchising issues for video providers, and net neutrality are some among a whole host of other challenges. As Congress begins working to rewrite the telecom laws, my central focus will be encouraging broadband deployment in every corner of the U.S. and preserving and improving universal service. Broadband deployment is more vital now than ever before, and it is a key to our future. In the 21st century, how do we compete against workers who work in economies of scale and their salaries are a little bit less than ours? We ensure that U.S. workers can obtain broadband services at affordable prices no matter where they live in this great country. The GAO recently agreed, recommending the Government make more broadband infrastructure investments to improve the U.S. workforce's human capital and skill level. I think the President talked much about this in his State of the Union. Technology provides a greater chance to live where you want and hold a good job. If a community does not have broadband, it is at a huge competitive disadvantage. It is just that simple. Even though the technologies were developed in the United States, we still lag behind other countries in the deployment of broadband. We need to provide incentives for companies to continue to expand their broadband facilities and to ensure all Americans have access to the Internet, regardless of where they live--particularly since, although Internet penetration has grown in rural communities, a gap still exists between them and the suburban and urban communities. One way I will provide such incentive is to continue my support of universal service, although it may take a little bit different direction in the distribution. The nearly 100-year commitment Congress and this Nation have had to USF has been indispensable in providing the same opportunities for rural America to participate in the Nation's education and health care systems that exist for Americans in urban areas, and for every American to participate fully in the Internet economy. Just as rural electrification in the 1930s led to the surge in economic growth and raised the living standards across rural America, universal service plays the same role in the Internet era. We didn't get electricity on my farm until early in the 1950s. I can remember when you used to go to town and that electricity seemed like a pretty special thing. Had not the Government created the REC, or the rural electrics, I contend that out on the farm we would still be watching television by candlelight. Without universal service support, phone bills in rural areas across the country, such as Montana, would increase dramatically. Universal service also helps to ensure that schools and libraries receive access to the Internet at rates they can afford. Because of universal service, the Internet now reaches almost all school-age children, no matter where they live. Universal service helped link rural health facilities to urban medical centers, promoting telemedicine. My State of Montana is on the cutting edge of that. Many people in remote communities would not have access to health care just using the Internet. The all- important issue in Montana is where these counties do not even have a doctor. I have 13 counties that have no physician. For those who say universal service no longer makes sense, or that it should be repealed or scaled back, I encourage them to visit my State and see the fund in action. As one official from a carrier serving a remote corner of Alaska recently commented, universal service is ``more than a line item on a bill. . . . [It] provides a link to the outside world.'' That is not to say that changes do not need to be made in universal service. They do need to be made. It is a different world. Technologies are different and we must respond. As the length of time that new technologies emerge shortens, we must be able to deal with them. As consumers switch to new technologies such as wireless service, e-mail, voice over IP, universal service is slowly taking in less money every year. Therein lies the problem. At the same time, the amount of money we disburse is increasing. This situation is obviously not sustainable, nor is it acceptable to Congress. Additionally, we need to ensure the universal service is distributed where it is needed. The Senator from Alabama understands universal service and the impact it has on rural Alabama. In revising universal service to adapt to the changing technology landscape, it is essential to maintain the commitment levels to universal service programs to foster the continued availability of telecom and advanced services in rural communities, and to strengthen and improve the overall fund. My proposed legislation will speed up deployment of broadband in rural areas and preserve and improve universal service. Some things my bill seeks to do are to ensure that companies that receive universal service funds will invest in deployed broadband services; to ensure that universal service support contributions are assessed in a fair and competitively neutral manner; ensuring the integrity of the Schools and Libraries Program to deter waste, fraud, and abuse by strengthening the FCC's management and oversight, including imposing sanctions on applicants or vendors who repeatedly and knowingly violate the rules. That is what my bill does, in part. Lastly, improving the effectiveness of rural health care programs. It is unbelievable what we can do for rural health care when we can move massive amounts of information. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft creative solutions to these issues that are so vital to our Nation's future. It is the 10th anniversary. It took us almost 50 years--in fact, a little over 50 years, to change the act in 1996. This time, we had to act a little bit quicker because emerging technologies wait for no man. They are there, they are being used, and we must deal with them as they emerge. I thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me this little time and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the passage of the universal bill in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is a special day to those of us who serve on the Commerce Committee and have served on the Commerce Committee ever since we have been in the Senate because today is the 10th anniversary of the Telecom Act of 1996. I want to talk about a bill I am introducing today as the Internet and Universal Service Act of 1996, or the NetUSA, if you will. When I first came here and went to work, I was very much interested in telecommunications. The big reason is in my State of Montana we have only 900,000 people but we have 148,000 square miles. I remind my colleagues, if you drew a straight line from Yaak, MT, to Alzada, MT, it is farther than it is from Chicago to Washington, DC. So we went to work in telecommunications for the simple reason we had to do something about distances, and we did. But it took almost 6 or 7 years before we came up with a bill that overhauled the old Telco Act of 1935. What we were trying to do is deal with the 1990s technology with a 1930 law and we found it almost impossible to do, so the whole act had to be rewritten. Since the Telecom Act, the only thing that is certain is change. With change, several trends have emerged, including the development of new technologies, industry consolidation and convergence, and product bundling. The pace of technological change has been astounding. We have a plethora of new technologies including WiFi and WiMAX, and all new words in telecommunications--wireless Internet access, voice over Internet protocol, which we refer to now as VOIP, the telephone service using the Internet and broadband over powerline-- BPL--for Internet access via electrical lines. While the Telecom Act promised industry and technology convergence, only recently is it materializing--with telephone, cable, and wireless companies invading one another's turf. Cable companies are offering television service over the Internet, telephone companies are offering video services over their facilities. New technologies have brought consumers a variety of choices for local, long distance, video, wireless, and Internet services, and many companies are offering bundled services. The radical transformation of the industry has led some to call for a complete rewrite to the Telecom Act. Central issues in the debate today are the reform of the Universal Service Fund--the USF, reform of intercarrier compensation, franchising issues for video providers, and net neutrality are some among a whole host of other challenges. As Congress begins working to rewrite the telecom laws, my central focus will be encouraging broadband deployment in every corner of the U.S. and preserving and improving universal service. Broadband deployment is more vital now than ever before, and it is a key to our future. In the 21st century, how do we compete against workers who work in economies of scale and their salaries are a little bit less than ours? We ensure that U.S. workers can obtain broadband services at affordable prices no matter where they live in this great country. The GAO recently agreed, recommending the Government make more broadband infrastructure investments to improve the U.S. workforce's human capital and skill level. I think the President talked much about this in his State of the Union. Technology provides a greater chance to live where you want and hold a good job. If a community does not have broadband, it is at a huge competitive disadvantage. It is just that simple. Even though the technologies were developed in the United States, we still lag behind other countries in the deployment of broadband. We need to provide incentives for companies to continue to expand their broadband facilities and to ensure all Americans have access to the Internet, regardless of where they live--particularly since, although Internet penetration has grown in rural communities, a gap still exists between them and the suburban and urban communities. One way I will provide such incentive is to continue my support of universal service, although it may take a little bit different direction in the distribution. The nearly 100-year commitment Congress and this Nation have had to USF has been indispensable in providing the same opportunities for rural America to participate in the Nation's education and health care systems that exist for Americans in urban areas, and for every American to participate fully in the Internet economy. Just as rural electrification in the 1930s led to the surge in economic growth and raised the living standards across rural America, universal service plays the same role in the Internet era. We didn't get electricity on my farm until early in the 1950s. I can remember when you used to go to town and that electricity seemed like a pretty special thing. Had not the Government created the REC, or the rural electrics, I contend that out on the farm we would still be watching television by candlelight. Without universal service support, phone bills in rural areas across the country, such as Montana, would increase dramatically. Universal service also helps to ensure that schools and libraries receive access to the Internet at rates they can afford. Because of universal service, the Internet now reaches almost all school-age children, no matter where they live. Universal service helped link rural health facilities to urban medical centers, promoting telemedicine. My State of Montana is on the cutting edge of that. Many people in remote communities would not have access to health care just using the Internet. The all- important issue in Montana is where these counties do not even have a doctor. I have 13 counties that have no physician. For those who say universal service no longer makes sense, or that it should be repealed or scaled back, I encourage them to visit my State and see the fund in action. As one official from a carrier serving a remote corner of Alaska recently commented, universal service is ``more than a line item on a bill. . . . [It] provides a link to the outside world.'' That is not to say that changes do not need to be made in universal service. They do need to be made. It is a different world. Technologies are different and we must respond. As the length of time that new technologies emerge shortens, we must be able to deal with them. As consumers switch to new technologies such as wireless service, e-mail, voice over IP, universal service is slowly taking in less money every year. Therein lies the problem. At the same time, the amount of money we disburse is increasing. This situation is obviously not sustainable, nor is it acceptable to Congress. Additionally, we need to ensure the universal service is distributed where it is needed. The Senator from Alabama understands universal service and the impact it has on rural Alabama. In revising universal service to adapt to the changing technology landscape, it is essential to maintain the commitment levels to universal service programs to foster the continued availability of telecom and advanced services in rural communities, and to strengthen and improve the overall fund. My proposed legislation will speed up deployment of broadband in rural areas and preserve and improve universal service. Some things my bill seeks to do are to ensure that companies that receive universal service funds will invest in deployed broadband services; to ensure that universal service support contributions are assessed in a fair and competitively neutral manner; ensuring the integrity of the Schools and Libraries Program to deter waste, fraud, and abuse by strengthening the FCC's management and oversight, including imposing sanctions on applicants or vendors who repeatedly and knowingly violate the rules. That is what my bill does, in part. Lastly, improving the effectiveness of rural health care programs. It is unbelievable what we can do for rural health care when we can move massive amounts of information. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft creative solutions to these issues that are so vital to our Nation's future. It is the 10th anniversary. It took us almost 50 years--in fact, a little over 50 years, to change the act in 1996. This time, we had to act a little bit quicker because emerging technologies wait for no man. They are there, they are being used, and we must deal with them as they emerge. I thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me this little time and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the passage of the universal bill in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I join Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Talent and Dorgan in sponsorship of legislation instructing the Secretary of the Interior to develop an oil and gas leasing program for Lease Area 181, located 100 miles off the coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. As oil and natural gas prices continuously increase, many Americans, especially Montanans, are feeling the strain of increased prices for energy use in their homes and businesses. Montana ag producers are particularly hard hit because the costs of fuel and fertilizer have skyrocketed. While I strongly support the idea of renewable energies, it will take years of research and development before there are practicable and affordable alternatives to oil and natural gas. Development of the American-owned offshore Lease Area 181 would provide nearly 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas as a near term solution for our country's growing energy needs. That amount would be enough to heat 5 million homes for 15 years. In order to strengthen American energy security, it is our obligation to use our own domestic resources whenever we can. Offshore drilling has proven to be a safe, reliable, and valuable technology for oil and gas production. Lease Area 181 is a phenomenal resource, and time after time in energy committee hearings when we ask expert witnesses for their opinions on how to best stabilize and lower natural gas prices, the answer is, ``Open Lease Area 181.'' It is not the entire answer to our energy challenges, but it is an important step forward. I applaud the leadership of the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for acting on this important issue. Next, I hope we examine the potential for additional onshore resource development. I come from an energy producing state, and I can tell you, without reservation, that Montana stands ready to serve the energy needs of this country. We have oil, natural gas, more coal than any other state, and a great potential for wind energy. I am confident that my fellow Senators will see the value in providing a supply of affordable energy from our domestic resources, and hope the Senate acts quickly on this important legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise on this subject and first of all I want to congratulate--maybe that is not the word--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for tackling this important problem. I can't think of a time or a piece of legislation that has been so complicated and so important to my State of Montana. So I want to tell the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that the statement he made is right on target. Some of us that have been impacted by asbestos and asbestos- related diseases take this very seriously. We need to vote to proceed. I want to tell you why I am involved in this and there are a couple of other issues that are also burning in our office right now that need my personal attention. When you go to Libby, MT, it is a little town in northwest Montana on the Kootenai River, and the W.R. Grace Company had a mine up there. And if you are not torn on this issue, both sides of it, the statement of Eva Thomson from up there I will just read her statement. That is why I am giving my statement with regard to Libby, because it is an isolated case. Eva Thomson said: I have two sons, both them and I have asbestos-related disease. But they are not eligible by the standards in the existing bill as it is today. If the bill cannot be done right to protect us victims, please don't pass it at all. We place 225 crosses in the cemetery this Memorial Day in remembrance of asbestos victims. There are more than 20 new crosses this year. We need help, real help, and she thanks me. Yet I have another one from Charlotte Wade, who says: Please don't forget us. I watched my Dad Jack die in 2002 and my mother Margaret die and suffocate from asbestos in 2004. I'm next. I've been on oxygen since the year 2000. My three grown children, no doubt, will follow. Jim Davidson, long time resident of Libby, MT. He has been diagnosed with mesothelioma: Because of the short time I have left, I'm vitally interested in seeing that a compromise is reached to allow passage of some type of relief to me and all others affected by asbestos and worse. As you know, there's no other avenue left to those of us in Libby, Montana, because of the bankruptcy of W.R. Grace. So I urge to you work for some type of help for us. Those are just three of hundreds in Libby, MT, that makes it a special place and harbors a special place in this piece of legislation. So I rise today to ask the Members of the Senate to remember the plight of the residents of this small town as this debate over the asbestos bill continues. I know a lot of folks have taken issue with the assertion that the Libby residents deserve special consideration. Well, I am here today to reiterate why this consideration is needed. The asbestos contamination in Libby is as widespread as any area in the country. Though a sparsely populated town, the residents of that city have been profoundly affected by this spread of asbestos-related diseases. The asbestos exposure in Libby is unlike any other place in the United States. While I know my colleagues lament that they have similar situations in their own States, I ask them to simply listen. The scope of asbestos exposure in Libby, MT, may never be known, but let me assure, you, Mr. President, that it is significant. When Governor Martz of Montana executed the so-called silver bullet under CERCLA, she triggered a fast track listing of Libby on the National Priorities List. There has only been one other time when the silver bullet has been triggered due to asbestos. But that case in Arizona was limited to 17 square acres, not the contamination of an entire town. And unlike the case in Globe, AZ, the asbestos in Libby, MT, can't simply be covered in a filter fabric and soil and rock, fenced to keep everyone out. Unfortunately we can't control the exposure in that way. And the people in Montana--in Libby--don't want that. So I challenge anyone--anyone--from any State to identify a town anywhere else in the country that has these kind of situations. I just want to show you right behind me is the vermiculite mine that was opened in 1924. By the 1950, cases of previously diagnosed as tuberculosis were instead cases of asbestos exposure. The town of Libby is located in a valley where the W.R. Grace processed ore from the contaminated mine, more than a half million pounds of asbestos a day was processed. The Libby case is not an isolated case to the exposure within the confines of a factory. Instead, asbestos was everywhere. Community exposure was rampant. Contaminated properties including everything from the Libby community boat dock to the high school--the high school track. I want to put up this next picture. This is important. This is more than just a family hugging a mine worker after coming home and complaining of exposure. This is about asbestos exposure so significant that asbestos fibers fell like snow from the sky. This is not very far from the mine. It is not very far from their loading and processing areas. This is the baseball field in Libby, MT. Children played on piles of vermiculite and all around town finding humor in taking a match to a fiber which would ignite. Houses all over town were insulated with asbestos-contaminated in insulation. So my point is this morning, I invite anybody to visit this small town in northwest Montana, though I doubt my colleagues will take me up on the offer. In the summer, maybe when fishing is pretty good I could probably lure some of you out there but this is extremely important that other Senators understand the vast difference between this town of Montana and various processing plants that were located around the country. They were in isolated and enclosed areas. This was free to the wind, to the winds of the vermiculite and one cannot just sit here and try to draw a mental picture of the impact that it had. It is extremely important that Senators during this debate understand this is a special place, a special circumstance, and special people who still live there. I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Specter has done marvelous work on this. And to tackle this issue, as big as it is, and though we may have some disagreements on the size of the trust fund, who pays into the trust fund, how much they pay, the formulas, all of this, but I am sort of on the other side of this. Mine is the protection of people who have seriously been impacted by this thing we call asbestos since 1924. Walk through the cemeteries and see those families, and to have people come to your town hall meeting short of breath, being suffocated by this disease, or any disease related to asbestos. I only hope we can continue to work together not only to safeguard these Libby provisions, but to improve them as well. And again I want to thank the chairman. He is a man of great bravery to take this issue on. And it is troubling. It is complex. But I will tell you, it is important. And I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators Nelson, Mikulski, Landrieu, Murkowski, Boxer, Snowe, Reed, Roberts, Lautenberg, DeWine, Smith, Jeffords, Corzine, Stevens, Sarbanes, Kerry, Lincoln, Murray, Durbin, Coleman, Feinstein, Johnson, Collins, Schumer, Baucus, Cochran, Brownback, Cantwell, Clinton, Dodd, Lieberman, and Stabenow in cosponsoring S. 1272, Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2005. The contribution Merchant Mariners made during WWII have gone unheralded for far too long. The Merchant Marine is the forgotten service of World War II. Although their numbers were small, they suffered the highest casualties of any service in World War II. Merchant mariners were responsible for transporting troops, tanks, food, fuel, airplanes and other supplies and, as a result, their likelihood of combat was extremely high. In fact, enemy forces sank over 800 of their ships between 1941 and 1944. For more than 40 years, Merchant Mariners were denied any G.I. bill of rights benefits. In 1988, they were granted a ``watered down'' version of the G.I. bill of rights, but some portions of those benefits were never made available to them. In addition, they still have not received proper recognition as veterans for Social Security purposes. This legislation would rectify that inequity by recognizing these American heroes with the status of ``veteran,'' and it would grant a small monthly stipend to these veterans or their widows in order to offset their lost benefits. As a veteran, I will always seek to protect the honored place of our military heroes. I cherish their service, and I will do everything in my power to support their interests. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the best NAIA football team in the Nation. The Carroll College Fighting Saints of Helena, MT, defeated the St. Francis University Cougars in Savannah, TN, earlier today. The Saints beat the Cougars by a final score of 27-10 for their fourth straight NAIA National Championship. Today's ``Rumble on the River'' was also a historic victory marking the first NAIA team to win four straight national titles. Only one other team on any level of modern college football has won four straight titles. The Saints' defense entered today's game as the best in the Nation allowing an average of only nine points per game this season. We have some very talented football players in Montana at all levels of play. But today belongs to the Fighting Saints. As on any football team, each player has a role in the success or failure of the team. However, it is important to recognize those players who were individually awarded for their efforts. All Americans like Kyle Baker, Casey Crites, and Tyler Emmert contribute to the team's success. Saints' quarterback Tyler Emmert had thrown this season for 3,039 yards and 32 touchdowns prior to entering today's game, becoming the NAIA career leader in total offense. He has accounted for 13,681 yards in his entire career and owns a record of 50-3 as a starter for the Saints. Now that record is 51-3. Congratulations as well to Coach Mike Van Diest and his staff as well as to Dr. Thomas Trebon, president of Carroll College. What an impressive team. What an impressive run of seasons.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes--and I don't think it will be that much--as if in morning business.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I heard the words of our assistant leader on the majority side and wanted to come to the Senate. These words may get lost in the swirl of the times with the holidays, but yesterday was truly a historic time not only for the people of Iraq, but a historic time for the peace process in the Middle East. There was not a doubt in anyone's mind around the world what that was about yesterday. They not only elected permanent representation in their government that will move on and try to finish their constitution, but it was a symbol of a people who voted for peace, security, and a new economic future. That is what that was all about yesterday. I congratulate the people of Iraq who, with a great deal of courage, turned out and stood in lines and voted their will. This is what this whole exercise has been about. I leave a message with not only this Congress but to some who fail to see how much hope was on display yesterday: there is hope for the future. Now we have little girls going to school in Iraq. Hope for families, that they can participate in a republican form of democracy, and to change the economic culture of those people who live in Iraq. Think of the possibilities. The success in Iraq also has done another thing that will change not only Iraq, but it will change the whole area. For the first time since World War I there will be a transportation and communication corridor that will change the economic culture from Tel Aviv to Kuwait City. Think of what that does. It puts Amman back on the trade route, so to speak. King Abdullah, the leader of Jordan, understands this. And as he looks at that, it puts Amman back on the trade route. But what about the future? Anyone who has visited Iraq has seen this, probably in Baghdad, or wherever. But I will tell you what this farm kid has seen on his visit to Iraq. When we were in Mosul we saw dry land, farming, good soil. There are two great rivers with irrigation systems from both of them. I saw the kind of dirt it takes in which to build an economy. Let's don't talk about gas or oil. Let's talk about the very industry that contributes more to the GDP of any country in the world, and that is agriculture. They have the ability to be the breadbasket of the Middle East. As you know, most of the Middle East is desert. Most of it has soil that is very thin, and there are not many nutrients in it. And even where you find those areas where they have it, it is in need of water. Water isn't there. I looked at the north of Israel one time, and I understood the problem there. The problem there has to do with water, the ability to irrigate out of the Jordan River. You have two great river systems in Iraq. The next step in this budding new freedom is the cornerstone of freedom, and that is land ownership, making people productive, growing renewable resources, providing for your family, but also providing a great export out of Iraq and becoming a trading partner with their neighbors. We cannot change the ethnic culture, nor can we change the Islamic culture, but we can change the economic culture to where more people of that society participate in the economic well- being of their country. Just think of the possibilities and the hope it brings to the next generations of those folks. If you can find something to export--and I will tell you, I look at Jordan. There is a country that is not very wealthy. The only thing they have to export is potash, and the world can only use so much potash. But they understand communications and transportation. So there is great hope there now. There is the hope of land ownership, the hope of participation in supplying food and fiber not only for their own people, but to export to other neighboring countries. That corridor is now established with the free movement not only of people, but also goods and services. That corridor will widen. It will effect the way people do business in Syria and the way they do business in Iran. It will change even how they do business in Egypt. The Nile Delta, a very fertile delta, now will have some competition in the food business. Also, it will have possibilities for our country when those economics take hold. And it is not going to happen by next week, or next year, or maybe not even for the next 5 years. But you are going to see it happen because of this taste of freedom, land ownership, independence, and to be able to participate in their own government, and, yes, even in their own provincial governments. So the possibilities of peace and stability and economic advancement have never been greater than at any time in history since World War I. Yet there will be those who say we should not be there helping freedom- loving people achieve the same dream, having the same hopes we have for our next generation, our children, and our grandchildren. Hope is eternal. Now they have a future, a future they have never had since almost 100 years ago. And the impact of that will spread throughout the Middle East. It will happen. The Presiding Officer comes from an agricultural State with land ownership, productivity, and exports. My good friend from Iowa, my goodness; they are the breadbasket of the world. They can grow more in Iowa with what falls out of their pocket accidentally than we can, on purpose, in Montana, I will tell you. What a great and blessed State, and the same for the State of my friend from Texas, who is on the floor. But what makes it operate is land ownership and participation in the economy. Then the terrorists have nobody to recruit because there is hope. Our Marines, our Army, and our Air Force paid a heavy price because they, too, believe this legacy of freedom, to be passed on from one generation to another, is worth dying for. I had a lady say: ``If you wanted to take a poll in Iraq, if you polled our military people, that poll would say they don't want to be there.'' I said: Well, if you took a poll in the English Channel on June 6, 1944, they didn't want to be there either. What was that for? Countries had been overrun by a tyrant who brought nothing but tyranny. And they were an enemy of this country and our ideals and our principles. They have those principles already. But what they have too is hope. And we have to nurture that hope because they cannot only feed themselves, with their renewables grown from Mother Earth, they can become a powerhouse in the Middle East for commerce. Just think of that corridor. Just think of the possibilities of changing an economic culture that will run from Tel Aviv to Kuwait City, and then you tell me: Was it worth it? This President understands a vision of hope for freedom-loving people everywhere. And what it offers to their citizens is beyond some folks' comprehension. Freedom is not free. Hope is not free. There must be sacrifice. Yesterday, those folks lined up by the droves to take advantage of changing their lives, sending a strong message to the rest of the world: Terrorists, you are not welcome here anymore. That is the greatest enemy terrorists have, when the fires of freedom burn in the hearts of a people in a line where they stand, where they vote. That is the vision I have for the Middle East. It is very clear. It is clear that with that reform comes land ownership, irrigation systems, dry land farming, and participation in the world of commerce. Not only in that, but in goods and services also. Iraqis are a very talented people, a people who have that fire of freedom in their heart. We wish them well, and we stand beside them as that fledgling democracy, that republican form of government, gets its kick-start. And it really got a kick-start yesterday. We wish them well. We congratulate them for their courage to stand up and be counted. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, are we on the PATRIOT Act or what is the order?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on April 28, 2005 of this year, just hours after the National Academy of Science released its report, I stood before this body and declared the importance of amending this law. On May 9, I introduced S. 977 which places Montana on equal ground with others who have suffered from nuclear testing fallout. Again, on May 10, I stood in this Chamber and talked about the importance of this legislation for the good people of Montana. Today, I am happy to be joined in my efforts by the Senator from Idaho, who introduced similar legislation for the people of Idaho. This bill is an important step forward in securing the justice that the people of Montana deserve. This bill combines my efforts with those of Senator Crapo to extend RECA coverage to both Montana and Idaho in a single, simple bill. Montana, more than any other State, was affected by the downwind radiation that came from the nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s. The statistics are eye-opening. Of the 25 counties in the United States with the highest exposure rates, 15 are in Montana. Meagher County in Montana has a rate of exposure greater than any other county in the United States. Fifty-five out of Montana's 56 counties experienced elevated levels of radiation exposure. And yet, Montana is the only State in the region that receives absolutely no compensation from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act whatsoever. The reported rate of thyroid cancer--which is the health affect most associated with the exposure to Iodine-131 from this testing--is 17.5 times the national rate. Between 1989 and 2003, while the national rate of thyroid cancer increased 38 percent, Montanans saw an increase of 127 percent. When Congress passed RECA in 1990, it was an important step toward setting a grave injustice right. As a cancer survivor myself, I know that no amount of money can heal the wounds suffered by the victims of radiation exposure. Time and time again, I have heard from Montanans who tell me that it is not about the money. The people of Montana aren't coming to their Government with their hands out. They are demanding justice. They are demanding acknowledgement of their suffering. They are demanding that we do the right thing. When RECA was passed in 1990, my colleagues did their best to do the right thing. For that, they should be commended. For the 9,117 Americans who have received compensation for downwind exposure since RECA became law in 1990, justice has been served. Responsibility has been taken, so that wounds can begin to heal. And, it wasn't an easy journey. The first hearings for RECA were held way back in 1979, almost 30 years ago. The questions that needed to be asked took time to answer: Was there downwind radiation? Were people exposed to that radiation? Were there health consequences to that exposure? And while the Senate struggled with these questions, Americans that were affected waited. As my colleagues expressed 20 years ago, time is not on our side in this matter, and all too often justice delayed is quite literally justice denied. When Congress passed RECA in 1990, the extent of the damage done from this radiation was not fully understood. New studies, by the National Cancer Institute and the National Academy of Sciences, decades in the making, have shown that for many Americans, like those in Montana, justice has been denied. They live in the most affected regions of the country, and yet they find the door of justice closed to them by lines on a map. For some of these people, it is too late. The clock is ticking, and many have not survived long enough for their Government to do the right thing. That is why I stand adamant that the time to act is now. We did the right thing in 1990. It is time to do the right thing today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Vitter, Salazar, Nelson, Johnson, Chambliss, Thune, Hagel, Isakson, Lautenberg, Dole, and Stevens, in cosponsoring S. 1998, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. During this Christmas season, our forces are deployed around the world, and many serve in hostile locations. Our service men and women continue to make great sacrifices abroad to ensure our safety here at home. It is our duty to recognize and honor that sacrifice and heroism. Unfortunately, some civilians have created elaborate lies to claim some of this honor as their own. I am disturbed by stories of these despicable frauds who have tried to falsify heroic military records. These people wear medals that they did not earn, and claim honors which they do not deserve. This type of lie strikes at the very heart of the honor of our military and our Nation. We must act now to protect the reputation of our military heroes with the full force of law. Those who seek to steal recognition that they have not earned must be held accountable and brought to justice. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 does just that by enhancing penalties for making false claims in regard to personal medals awarded for combat action and valor, such as the Purple Heart, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, or Congressional Medal of Honor. This law will allow law enforcement officials to prosecute individuals who falsely claim to be recipients of these awards, and perpetrators may receive a sentence of up to 1 year as a result. As a veteran, I will always seek to protect the honored place of our military heroes. I cherish the sacrifices of all veterans, and I will continue to do everything in my power to support and protect their interests. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation.