Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we find ourselves in a predicament as old friends. Of course, we are this morning talking about our friend Slade Gorton from the State of Washington. In a way, we were classmates. We came here in 1988. Of course, it was not his first time here, since he was defeated in 1986 and then came back and won reelection in 1988. We had a lot of things in common--not only representing the Northwestern part of these 48 contiguous States. We also have great friendship and we served on some of the same committees. I took from him great lessons about this body and how to represent our constituencies. He and Sally have been friends with Phyllis and me for all these many years while he has been serving in his second and third terms. We in Montana have a quality that I think will become more and more admired as this country grows and matures. We are brutally honest with each other in that part of the world. I spent my time in business--in the cattle business and the auction business. People will just tell it like it is. If you like it, that is fine. If you don't like it, well, that's the way it is. Slade Gorton is that kind of a person. He is probably the most pragmatic of all of our Members with whom I have had an opportunity to serve in this body, and he is brutally honest. I have made speeches before graduating classes and a lot of other places, and I am always interested in the way people treat the history of our country. We have revisionists who like to gloss over some of the warts, the bruises, and the bumps this country has encountered in all its history. That is not to say it is not the best country in the world, but we have historians who tend to revise things. As you know, for those who do not study history and have little or no institutional knowledge of our country and the way it was built, one has to remember that we make decisions based on history and it affects all of us in the future. I have often said those folks who tend to revise history also tend to tinker with the compass of our Nation, because our decisions are still based on history. Slade, being the bright and honest man that he is, understands this body and this country so well. He understands our history as it truly is, not as revisionists would have us believe. And I hope historians pay him the same respect and remember him as the great man and great Senator that we know today. As you know, many years ago when his family was young and he was a little younger, Slade took a bicycle trip from Olympia, WA, to Boston, MA. I said, ``That is a long trip, Slade.'' He said, ``It was. We spent all of it in Montana.'' It is a very long State. In fact, from the Yaak to Alzada, MT, it is further than it is from Chicago to Washington, DC, as the crow flies. But that tells you something about the man, and it also tells you something about the family. Nobody in this body has fought harder for property rights, the cornerstone of a free society; fought harder for States' rights; and for what he offered in education to take the money that flows from what I call ``17 square miles of logic-free environment'' to the local communities to let the local communities decide how to use that money. If they need teachers, they could hire teachers. If they need bricks and mortar, they could build. But the decisions on how to use those dollars at the local level should be made at the local level to fill their needs. Nobody fought harder for that. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, a while ago alluded to the fact that in this body there are show horses and workhorses. And all of us know that Slade is a workhorse. I will tell you, you couldn't hook him wrong, and he worked from both sides of the tongue. There will be some folks who will figure that out and some folks who never will. But it is a quality that every Senator should have. I remember his fight to keep Mariners baseball in Seattle. They could have lost that ball team had it not been for his efforts to save professional baseball in Seattle, because it was important to him and it was important to his people. He will be missed here. What he leaves with a lot of us will be used for many years to come. We don't say goodbye to our friends, we just say so long, because our trails will cross later on in our lives. The friendship forged between the Gortons and I will never be forgotten. We will miss him, and we wish him well. But his influence on this body will be felt for years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator for the clarification. grocery slotting fees

Mr. BURNS. I know that there is substantial support for both of these programs. Can you tell me how the conferees intend that the SBA spend the $5 million on the Rural Outreach Program and the FAST program?

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, the conference report for the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill provides that $5 million is appropriated for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Rural Outreach Program at the Small Business Administration, SBA. Given how this legislation evolved, I believe that clarification is needed as to how the Conferees intend that the SBA spend such money. Next year, there will be two programs at the SBA that focus on small high-technology business outreach: The Federal and State Technology Partnership (FAST) program and the SBIR Rural Outreach Program. While the FAST program and the Rural Outreach Program share the similar goal of facilitating the development of small high-technology businesses, they are separate programs and the FAST program is much broader in scope than the Rural Outreach Program. The FAST program is a competitive matching-grant program that provides states with wide latitude to develop strategies to assist in the growth of their small business high-technology sectors. In contrast, the Rural Outreach Program is targeted at only those states that receive the fewest SBIR awards and is limited to funding activities to encourage small firms in those states to participate in the SBIR program. My state of Montana has benefitted greatly from the Rural Outreach Program and it is very important that this program be funded. The FAST program, which has been included in SBIR legislation that has been separately passed by both the Senate and the House and which I anticipate will be enacted prior to Congress adjourning, was initially appropriated $5 million in the bill reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In the conference report, it appears that the funds appropriated for both the FAST program and the Rural Outreach Program were inadvertently combined under the general heading of funding for the Rural Outreach Program. This is apparent because $5 million is targeted in the conference report for the Rural Outreach Program, while the authorization for that program is only $2 million. I am concerned that without clarification about how the SBA is required to spend such funds, that the SBA will use excess amounts for programs other than the FAST program and the Rural Outreach Program. Accordingly, am I correct in my interpretation that funding for the FAST Program was combined with funding for the Rural Outreach Program in the conference report and that the Conferees intend that the $5 million be used to support both programs?

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I support the passage of the Commerce-Justice-State conference report, which includes a bill of critical importance to rural America, the ``Local TV Act.'' The Local TV Act will create a $1.25 billion loan guarantee program that will bring local TV signals to Montana and other rural states, over satellites or other technologies, in a fiscally responsible way. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and the Majority Leaders in both the Senate and the House for helping to reach completion on this issue. I should add that Senator Leahy, Senator Hollings, Senator Thomas and Senator Grams have worked tirelessly on this matter. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the House for their efforts. Representative Goodlatte was involved in every stage of the complex negotiations that took place on this bill, as were House Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley, House Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Tauzin, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Representative Boucher. I thank them all for helping to reach such a positive result, which was only possible through an extraordinary, bipartisan effort. Providing access to local television signals is crucial to rural states. With over-the-air broadcast signals and cable delivery limited by the geography of my own state of Montana, satellite television has been a staple of our so-called ``video marketplace'' for many years. In fact, Montana has the highest penetration level of satellite television in the country at over 35 percent. I initially proposed legislation in this area because I was concerned that without it, only the largest television markets in America would receive local-into-local service authorized by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. These are the profitable cities like New York and Los Angeles with millions of television households. Currently, only the 20 largest television markets are being offered local TV signals via satellite. The two largest direct broadcaster satellite providers have announced plans to offer service to an additional 20 or 30 large markets over the next few years. What about the other TV markets? There are 16 states--including my own--that do not have a single city among the top seventy markets. Because of the ``Local TV Act,'' they will now no longer be left out of the information age just because they are smaller. The ability to receive local television signals is more than just having access to local sports or entertainment programming. It is a critical and immediate way to receive important local news, weather and community information. Access to local signals is particularly critical in Montana, where we experienced severe flooding last fall and sudden blizzards are always a possibility. The ``Local TV Act'' reflects the belief that the loan guarantee program should not favor one technology over another and it should not pose a burden to the taxpayer. The ``Local TV Act'' is a win for consumers and for taxpayers. Earlier this year, the bill passed the Senate 97-0, a similar version passed the House by an overwhelming margin and I again thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for reaching agreement on this critical matter.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Robert A. Ellerd--a great Montanan, a great Marine, and a great man. This year, Bob will be honored as Marine of the Year by the Gallatin Valley Detachment of the Marine Corps League. Every year these Marines get together for the Marine Corps Birthday Ball in Bozeman to honor the tradition of the Marines as well as recognize one of their own. Bob certainly deserves to be the one honored. Bob enlisted in the Marines in December 1941, even though he worked in an essential industry--meat packing--and could have accepted a deferment. After training in San Diego, he left for the South Pacific. There he helped guard the Samoa Islands and took part in the fierce combat in the Allied efforts to take Guadalcanal and the Marshall and Gilbert Islands. Later in the war, Bob used his combat experience to train other infantry before they headed to the front lines. No doubt his work helped save hundreds of lives and contributed to the victory that saved the world from tyranny. There really are no words that I can say to adequately thank Bob Ellerd, but I can express my appreciation from a grateful nation. Bob is one reason we now call it the Greatest Generation, and they couldn't have a picked a better Marine of the Year. Thank you Bob, and Semper Fi.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I would like to join Senator Craig in support of the National Rural Development Partnership. This program is extremely important to states like Montana, where we have a large rural population and long distances between our towns. I would hope that the Secretary of Agriculture will continue to fund the NRDP and provide additional funds for the future expansion of this very important program.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to a disaster facing many Eastern Montanans. As you are aware, Montana has faced wildfires and drought this summer. Another type of disaster has struck the upper Yellowstone Valley. This region grows and processes about one million tons of sugar beets a year. Sugar beets must be harvested before the ground freezes to ensure the quality of the product. On October 4, 2000, temperatures dropped very low and a heavy frost impacted the area. The growers who are under contract to Holly Sugar are now left without a viable crop that, under normal conditions, would bring $40 million to the area. This is the major cash crop for this part of Montana. Without this revenue, futures, jobs, and businesses will be in jeopardy. I bring this important matter to your attention today, so that you will be prepared to assist me in getting the necessary financial help to these producers whose very future may hinge on the help we can provide.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his work on the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation appropriations bill. The conference report we are considering today is a balanced report. The bill meets fully the congressional commitment to highway, transit and aviation spending in TEA-21 and AIR-21. The bill makes transportation in our nation safer and more efficient. Our healthy economy is dependent on this bill. I would like to request one small item of clarification. The report includes a remark in the FHwA's Intelligent Transportation Systems account directing $750,000 to allow the State of Montana to complete the STARS program. This a great new program that I expect will receive national attention in the near future once long haul truck operators are made aware of the efficiencies it will provide them. However, I have been made aware by my staff that the intention of these funds were to allow the State of Montana to use these funds to complete deployment of the STARS programs and also establish a GIS/GPS framework on the State's public roadways which will benefit the safety of the traveling public in Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the passing of an outstanding leader in the agriculture community of Montana. I first met Ed Kuntz and his family in the 1960's. He and his family lived in the small community of Custer, Montana. They farmed small grain, sugar beets and fed cattle. It was a typical diversified farming operation found on the many irrigation projects along the Yellowstone River. Ed was a little different. He was not only of the land but was of the people who lived on the land and called it home. Just another average American of the silent Americans who served this country when asked and served his community when no one else would. Average? Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. His service to his community and neighbors did not stop at the county line. He was an excellent farmer and stockman. His love and respect for the sugar industry took him to national leadership where he was one of their most respected leaders. With the demands on the farm and dedication to a family, he still found time to work for the sugar beet industry not only for himself but his neighbors. I know first hand the impact he had on this town of Washington as he represented the many sugar growers across the country. He was born May 3, 1926 in Billings, Montana. He was educated and graduated from Custer High School in 1944 and enlisted in the Army Air Corps and trained as a gunner on a B-17. While on furlough, he married his high school sweetheart, Peg Qusest. This December they would have been celebrating being married 56 years. Ed became a director on the Mountain States Beet Growers Association and served 35 years on that board. He was treasurer for more years than anybody can count and president for 10 years. He also served on the board of directors of the American Sugar Beet Association in Washington, D.C. and devoted many hours away from the farming operation and family. He is survived by his wife, Peg of Custer, Montana, a daughter, Belva; 2 sons, Rick and Cody. By paying our respect to Ed Kuntz, we acknowledge the unsung leaders across this land who silently build a nation every day. He was just one that has been described as being a part of the greatest generation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the agricultural community across Montana was saddened this month by the passing of Frank Daniels. He was known to all of us as ``Bud''. He was born and raised on the northern high plains in eastern Montana. He gave up to cancer and was 72. His daughter wrote that he left us as quietly and gently as he walked across that newly cut stubble field to be with His Lord. A life long devotion to improving the lives of rural Americans and keeping farmers on the land he loved, which he valued so highly, led him to countless areas of involvement and gained him the admiration of his peers. No man or woman ever gave so much to the Montana Farmers Union than did Bud Daniels. He participated in the three-year Kellogg Extension Program at Montana State University which enabled him to visit far corners of the world and taking him to China in 1976. He believed in the fraternity of agriculture. His interest in farming issues and programs was generated and groomed through the Montana Farmers Union. He was president of Montana Farmers Union and vice president of National Farmers Union. He also served on the Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Companies. During his years of farming and serving, he founded the Rural Policy Institute, established a cooperative curriculum at Montana State University, and developed strong ties with farm groups in foreign countries. He had a passion for travel as it was his education and his way to reach out to the rest of the world that was crying for the technology and ways to feed a hungry world. We in Montana will miss him as he was the inspiration of leadership. Did we always agree? No. That was not important but the dialog and communications that enabled us to help those in need that farm and ranch was important. He would say that we are the providers and there is no higher calling on God's Earth. Bud is survived by 4 daughters, Amy, Becky, Rachel, and Karen. Also by their mother, Laura Daniels of Billings, Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the achievements of two native Montanans, Mrs. Monica Joan Tranel-Michini, and Mrs. Jean Foster. Mrs. Tranel-Michini is a Billings native who competed recently in the Sydney Olympics. She not only qualified for the finals of the women's single sculls, a rowing event, but she also placed sixth in the event. Six is a magic number for Monica, because she is the sixth of ten brothers and sisters. She and her family grew up on a cattle ranch just outside of the city limits of Billings, Montana. Before the age of twenty, this now established U.S. champion and Olympic finalist had not seen a body of water larger than her family's irrigation pond. It was not until this accomplished woman attended law school in Philadelphia that she gained the passion for rowing. I salute this young woman, for her proud representation of the sport of rowing, the country, and the state of Montana. Mrs. Jean Foster is another young woman from Bozeman, Montana whom I want to recognize. Joan's career in shooting was paved a little better than Monica's. Jean is from a family with world championships in shooting under their belt, her mother being a world champion in rifle shooting, and her father a two-time Olympian and a USA hall of famer in shooting. Jean represented our state and our country with distinction in the 3-position rifle event. I congratulate Jean on the effort she put forth and on her and her family's commitment to the sport of shooting.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today to join my colleague from Montana in introducing the Wheat Protein Mismeasurement Compensation Act. In 1993 the Federal Grain Inspection Service changed the technology used to determine the protein content of wheat. As a result a number of producers were harmed. The issue has had our attention for a number of years, and has cumulated in a recent exercise over the past few months to find a resolution. The simple fact is that the USDA has failed to work with the farmers harmed so we can determine the actual financial impact to all producers. However, I am very confident we can address the losses shouldered by Montana's producers with the $465 million cap in this legislation. My number one priority is to ensure that those producers who were harmed by the Federal Government's miscalculation are fully reimbursed for their losses. As we work this bill through the legislative process I believe we may need to readdress the section on the amount of compensation for the attorneys, but only time will tell. I believe this bill is a good step forward, and I welcome a process that will make USDA sit down face to face with these producers and compensate those that were harmed by the mismeasurements.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today to join my colleague from Montana in introducing the Wheat Protein Mismeasurement Compensation Act. In 1993 the Federal Grain Inspection Service changed the technology used to determine the protein content of wheat. As a result a number of producers were harmed. The issue has had our attention for a number of years, and has cumulated in a recent exercise over the past few months to find a resolution. The simple fact is that the USDA has failed to work with the farmers harmed so we can determine the actual financial impact to all producers. However, I am very confident we can address the losses shouldered by Montana's producers with the $465 million cap in this legislation. My number one priority is to ensure that those producers who were harmed by the Federal Government's miscalculation are fully reimbursed for their losses. As we work this bill through the legislative process I believe we may need to readdress the section on the amount of compensation for the attorneys, but only time will tell. I believe this bill is a good step forward, and I welcome a process that will make USDA sit down face to face with these producers and compensate those that were harmed by the mismeasurements.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 2796, The Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I want to thank the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus for working with me to include two provisions in this year's bill. Earlier this year, I introduced the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery Authorization Act of 2000. As you may know, the Fort Peck Reservoir is a very prominent feature of North Eastern Montana. The Fort Peck project was built in the 1930s to dam the Upper Missouri River. The result was a massive reservoir that spans across my great state. The original authorization legislation for the Fort Peck project, and subsequent revisions and additions, left a great many promises unmet. A valley was flooded, but originally Montana was promised increased irrigation, low-cost power, and economic development. Since the original legislation, numerous laws have been enacted promising increased recreational activities on the lake, and also that the federal government would do more to support the fish and wildlife resources in the area. In this day and age, economic development in rural areas is becoming more and more dependent upon recreation and strong fish and wildlife numbers. The Fort Peck area is faced with a number of realities. First, the area is in dire need of a fish hatchery. The only hatchery in the region to support warm water species is found in Miles City, Montana. It is struggling to meet the needs of the fisheries in the area, yet it continues to fall short. Additionally, an outbreak of disease or failure in the infrastructure at the Miles City hatchery would leave the entire region reeling with no secondary source to support the area's fisheries. We are also faced with the reality that despite the promises given, the State of Montana has had to foot the bill for fish hatchery operations in the area. Since about 1950 the State has been funding these operations with little to no support from the Corps of Engineers. A citizens group spanning the State of Montana finally decided to make the federal government keep its promises. Last year the citizens group organized, and state legislation subsequently passed to authorize the sale of a warm water fishing stamp to begin collecting funds for the eventual operation and maintenance of the hatchery. I helped the group work with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that $125,000 in last year's budget was allocated to a feasibility study for the project, and Montanans kept their end of the bargain by finding another $125,000 to match the Corps expenditure. Clearly, we are putting our money, along with our sweat, where our mouth is. Recreation is part of the local economy. But the buzzword today is diversity. Diversify your economy. The Fort Peck area depends almost solely on agriculture. More irrigated acres probably aren't going to help the area pull itself up by its boot straps. But a stronger recreational and tourism industry sure will help speed things up. A lot of effort has already gone into this project. A state bill has been passed. The Corps has dedicated a project manager to the project. Citizens have raised money and jumped over more hurdles than I care to count. But the bottom line is that this is a great project with immense support. It is a good investment in the area, and it helps the federal government fulfill one thing that it ought to--its promises. Unfortunately, everything we wanted wasn't included in this legislation. As I originally drafted the legislation it ensured that the federal government would pick up part of the tab for operation and maintenance. Unfortunately, as Chairman Smith and Senator Baucus worked out the details of the legislation for inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act, they were unable to support this provision. I had hoped that, as in the portion of this bill dealing with the Everglades, they would allow the federal government to pick up a larger portion of the operation and maintenance overhead. Second, the legislation continues to include a section for power delivery that directs the Secretary of the Army to deliver low cost Pick-Sloan project power to the hatchery. This provision in the bill has raised the concerns of the local electric co-operatives and those that use Pick-Sloan power. I have worked with the Corps and the local interests to assure that this provision is not needed as drafted. I have discussed the need for changes with both the Chairman and Senator Baucus. I have secured a commitment from both of them to resolve this issue when the legislation goes to conference committee. Despite this shortcoming with the legislation, I am have worked hard on the hatchery project and feel it is necessary that we must move ahead as it has been included. I thank the Committee for working with me to ensure the hatchery project was included on my behalf. Another Montana specific provision, recently added to the legislation, allows the Corps of Engineers and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to dispose of sites that are currently occupied by cabin leases and use the proceeds to purchase land in, or adjacent to, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge that surrounds Fort Peck Reservoir. This provision is a classic example of a win-win situation that will help support recreation and wildlife habitat in the region. By selling these cabin sites, we are reducing government management considerations, offering stability to the cabin owners, and providing a revenue source to purchase inholdings. Senator Baucus and I have been working on this legislation for a few years, and to see it included in this legislation is a great accomplishment for both of us.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am honored to serve as one of this year's congressional co-chairs for National Bible Week, sponsored by the National Bible Association. This observance occurs during the week of November 19-26, 2000, the week during which Thanksgiving Day occurs. This is appropriate since many Americans will attend houses of worship during that week to give thanksgiving. As we gather to give thanks, let us remember that ``Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'' (Matthew 4:4) When we try to live by bread alone, we nourish the body but starve the mind. Members of Congress are called upon to right wrongs and correct injustice. There is no better way for all of us to satisfy our hunger and thirst for justice than by ``eating'' the life- giving spiritual food found in the Bible. By ``eating'' the food of the Bible, I mean not just reading and studying the lessons found there, but to ponder those messages in our hearts and apply them to our own lives. John Quincy Adams, our sixth President, said, ``For years I have read the Bible through once a year. I read it every morning, as the very best way to begin the day.'' We are all very busy people. Many of us think we do not have time to read the Bible every day. D. L. Moody once answered this common excuse by saying, ``My friend, if you are too busy to read the Bible every day you are busier than Almighty God ever intended any human being should be and you had better let some things go and take time to read the Bible.'' The Bible has always been more than a doctrinal source book or a compendium of theological beliefs. People have turned to it time and time again for comfort, encouragement, guidance and direction. I have my Bible on my desk. Woodrow Wilson, our twenty-eighth President, said, ``I am sorry for the men who do not read the Bible every day. I wonder why they deprive themselves of the strength and of the pleasure.'' Read the Bible. Study the Bible. Ponder the messages contained in the Bible. By doing this you will learn of God's will for your life. Apply those message to your life and you will learn that there is salvation, there is forgiveness of sins and there is the hope of eternal life in the presence of God.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects and to acknowledge our prisoners of war (POW) and those still missing in action (MIA). In the year 2000, fewer and fewer Americans understand the meaning of POW/MIA Day, Memorial Day, or Veterans Day. I feel it is important that I and my fellow veterans help our Nation understand that freedom is not free. It is paid for by the service and sacrifices of those who served our country. The United States of America has been honored and blessed with the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. Our Nation has been kept strong and safe by these great Americans and for this we owe a debt we can never fully repay. Nobody knows this more than the friends and families of those souls who became prisoners of war or are still listed as missing in action. Their anguish and pain is unimaginable. I believe it is important to acknowledge those friends and family members on this day as well. On September 15, 2000, we acknowledge with upmost respect and gratitude those who have given their freedom to preserve ours. Those who have been prisoners of war have demonstrated steadfastly the beliefs of duty, honor, and country. They never gave up on these beliefs and the United States must never give up on them. We must take care of those who have taken care of us and this includes making every effort to account for those patriots who are missing in action. Our Nation must bring them home to their loved ones. To those who paid the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives for our country, we must always be thankful. We must never take for granted the freedoms we have due to the men and women who have faithfully served our country in times of war and peace. May God bless all these American heroes and their families on this and everyday.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Raymond S. Teston. Ray is a great man, and an American hero. Specialist Raymond S. Teston had served close to one full year of field duty and was to leave Vietnam to return home to Georgia. The night before his departure, August 12, 1969, and the following morning, ``C'' troop, First Squadron, 1st Calvary of the American Division was overrun while at Base Camp, Hawk Hill, Hill 29. The first wave of the attack was from rocket propelled grenades and 122 mm rockets killing several soldiers and injuring many more. Ray was critically wounded during the ensuing battle and out of the 86 men assigned, was one of only eleven who survived. On November 5, 1999, the President of the United States of America, the Army Adjutant General and the Secretary of the Army awarded the Purple Heart to Specialist Raymond S. Teston, United States Army, for wounds received in action in the Republic of Vietnam on August 12, 1969. This is Ray's second award of the Purple Heart; his first came on April 2, 1968, just outside of the Tam Key, Vietnam. I commend Ray Teston's courage and bravery. I thank him, and all veterans, for their service and sacrifices to our great country and for defending our freedoms. Each time I salute the flag, I like to think of heroes such as Raymond S. Teston, who symbolize all the things that are good about this country--duty--honor--faith in our democracy. Thank you Raymond S. Teston.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of the Rural America Prosperity Act of 2000. I am pleased to be a cosponsor, along with my colleagues, Senators Lugar, Roberts, and Santorum. I am a cosponsor of this bill because it gives our farmers some of the tools they need to succeed in today's economy and works to finish what was a key tool in our current agriculture policy. In 1996, we passed a new version of the farm bill. This legislation began the process of eliminating government control over farmers. No longer did the government dictate what crops farmers could plant. Farmers could use their own discretion, honed by generations of living on the land, as to how their land and finances would be managed. The farm bill made numerous steps in the right direction, but there is more we can do. This, I believe, is a very important step to make this legislation better and more flexible. This legislation takes us a few steps further down the road to better farming policy. It includes three important tax provisions that I feel are vital to the survival of Montana's and America's farmers. The first is the repeal of the estate tax, which would allow farms to be passed along to the next generation. Without the repeal, sons and daughters are forced to sell the only home they have ever known to pay the estate taxes, when their parents die. Family farms are disappearing fast enough without this added burden. The second vital tax provision is the exclusion of capital gains from the sale of farmland. This simply puts farm owners on an even playing field with homeowners, who already benefit from exclusion of capital gains. The third tax provision lies in the area of health insurance. Farmers, and others who are self-employed, do not have health insurance provided for them. They must cover the full cost themselves. This legislation would give those who are self-employed a tax deduction for the cost of their insurance. Farmers, more than any other sector of our economy are likely to experience substantial fluctuations in income. Market forces in farming are very unique: drought, flooding, infestation and disease all play a vital role in a farmer's bottom line. And it's not often when the elements of mother nature allow for a profitable harvest more than once in several years. I believe that farmers need to be able to smooth out fluctuations in their income in order to offset the effect of the high marginal tax rates that occur in years when both yield and prices are up. Income averaging is an important tool for farmers. Currently, alternative minimum taxes prevent many farmers from receiving the benefits of income averaging. This bill would fix that. Farmers will be able to put up to 20 percent of their annual farm income into a FARRM account that is deducted from their taxes. As many of you know, while the rest of the economy is surging ahead, agriculture has been left behind in the dust. Prices are dropping, and farmers and ranchers are going out of business. We must assist in their survival and the development of new markets is an essential part of that survival. Imposing trade sanctions hurts American farmers and ranchers. Sanctions have effectively shut out American agricultural producers from 11 percent of the world market, with sanctions imposed on various products of over 60 countries. They allow our competitors an open door to those markets where sanctions are imposed by the United States. In times like these our producers need every available marketing option open to them. We cannot afford lost market share. Foreign markets offer a great opportunity for our agricultural products and negotiating trade agreements may put life back into our rural communities. The farm bill took bold steps, but we cannot stop there. This legislation continues to make those steps towards a better situation for our farmers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I would like to take the opportunity to say a few words of praise for an act of heroism displayed by a couple of long haul truckers earlier this month in my home state of Montana. I came to the floor today to not only praise the good deed but to also support a mode of transportation that supports the economy of Montana and the entire nation. As I have said, earlier this month in my home state of Montana a pair of truckers rescued four people from a car that had overturned in a ditch filled with flood water. The car, containing three people, was submerged underwater for at least three minutes after skidding off an eastern Montana highway during a flash flood which left only the car's tires above water. Luckily for the passengers, a truck driver stopped just past the overturned car. The trucker backed his trailer off the road and over the bank risking his own safety and property. After securing a chain around the bumper of his trailer, he waded into the water, secured the other end around the car and pulled it back up onto the road. A second truck driver also stopped to assist. I would like to recognize these unknown individuals for their heroism. Too often we take our nation's truckers for granted. It is continually becoming more and more difficult to make a living as a long haul trucker in this country considering fuel prices and regulatory factors. The high cost of fuel has hit this industry especially hard. A proposal to drastically alter a trucker's drive and rest periods is being considered by the Administration. This proposal threatens not only to increase the costs of long haul truckers, it also threatens to keep them away from their families for longer durations. I think it is about time we take a long hard look at the important role these truckers play in our daily lives. Whether it's a delivery to our local grocery or the transport of petroleum products, these truckers sacrifice time away from their families to make our lives easier and better. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me to ensure any hours of service proposal accomplishes three important goals: Ensure safety on our nation's highways; ensure truckers are not burdened with additional costs; and ensure the final ruling will allow truckers to spend more of their non-driving time at home with their families. The current proposal fails miserably to address these matters. Again, I would like to personally thank and commend the two individual truckers for their heroism, but also commend all truckers for their hard work and dedication to safety on our highways. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in the four years since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, dramatic changes have occurred in our telecommunications markets. We have seen competitive environments in such areas as wireless communication and long distance service. Advanced telecommunications services have great potential for deployment in the near term, if only the Federal Communications Commission would more aggressively promote them. All of this change is occurring in the context of an explosion of information technologies and the Internet. Yet the '96 Act dealt with much more than the high tech changes we read so much about these days. The legislation was designed to transform the entire telecommunications industry under the leadership of the FCC, to the benefit of all consumers. And the Act was designed to ensure that all Americans could have access to the vast array of services the Act will stimulate. Today I would like to briefly address one aspect of the '96 Act that is often overlooked in the glamour of ``high-tech.'' Public payphones are a critical piece of this access. For millions of Americans, public payphones are the only access to the telecom network. And when the batteries or the signal for the wireless device fail, public payphones are a reliable source of inexpensive access, in an emergency or otherwise. Public payphones are emerging as public information portals, true on-ramps to the information highway, available to anyone at anytime. In order to ensure that these instruments of public access would continue serving as gateways of last resort and continue evolving using new technologies, the issue of adequate compensation for pay phone operators was addressed by the '96 Act. This requirement of the '96 Act was designed to promote fair competition and benefit consumers by eliminating distorting subsidies and artificial barriers. However, the law has not been successfully implemented, and I am calling on the FCC to act expeditiously to address this regulatory oversight. Payphones are an important segment of the telecommunications industry, especially in low income neighborhoods and in rural areas like those in my home state of Montana. Local telephone companies operated payphones as a legal monopoly until 1984, when an FCC ruling mandated that competitors' payphones be interconnected to local networks. Still, local telephone companies were able to subsidize their payphone service in competition with independent payphones. The '96 Act was designed to change all of this. It was designed to create a level playing field between all competitors and to encourage the widespread deployment of payphones. It did this by requiring local telephone companies to phase out subsidies; by mandating competitive safeguards to prevent discrimination by the ILECs and ensure fair treatment of competitors when they connect to local systems; and by assuring fair compensation for every call, including so-called ``dial around'' calls which bypass the pay phones' traditional payment mechanism. Yet the basic requirements of the '96 Act are not being implemented by the FCC to assure fair competition. Pay phone operators are not being compensated for an estimated one-third of all dial-around calls, particularly when more than one carrier is involved on long distance connections. An industry proposal to remedy this situation has been pending at the FCC for more than a year without any action being taken. And the FCC also needs to bring to a hasty resolution the issue of the appropriate line rate structure for payphone providers. Today, there are about 2.3 million pay phones nationwide. While all payphones are threatened by the gaps in dial-around payments, 600,000 of them are independently owned and are under particularly intense pressure; many small payphone operators now find themselves being forced to pull payphones or go out of business altogether. They are also in need of certainty regarding the rates they pay the telephone companies. This situation should not exist more than four years after the enactment of the 1996 legislation. I hope the FCC will act quickly to assure adequate compensation for each call. I hope the FCC will take immediate steps to enforce the requirement for non-discriminatory and fair line rates. I hope the FCC will take those basic steps required by the 1996 law. Fair competition--and the resulting benefits to consumers envisioned by Congress--will not occur until these actions are taken. As Chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, I will be carefully monitoring actions taken by the FCC on these important issues in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I guess I have been around this old business of agriculture about as long as anybody. We have seen high commodity prices and we have seen low commodity prices. Years ago, when we would get a high surplus of any type of commodity, the price went down and so did the price in the grocery store. We had to eat our way out of this thing, so to speak. It happened in livestock, pork and beef and chicken products. But that is not the case anymore. I was interested in his chart showing how, even though the price of sugar has gone down, the prices of candy, cookies, other baked goods, cereal, and ice cream has continued to go up. I don't want anybody fiddling with my ice cream. I like it like it is. If it goes up a little bit, that is OK. But don't come back and say if all of the support is taken away from sugar, the prices will go down in the store. It doesn't work with this product. It was about a year and a half ago that live hogs hit an all-time low and got down to around 10 cents a pound. Yet, when I went to my grocery stores out here in Springfield, VA, and back in Billings, MT, guess what? Boned out, double-cut pork chops were still around $5 to $6 a pound. Folks, I don't know how sharp your pencil is. But that ``don't pencil.'' That just ``don't pencil.'' We are looking at a program that has cost the taxpayer virtually nothing. Yet it sustains many small farmers. Sure, there are a couple of big ones down in Florida. But there are a couple of big ones in everything. For the most part, this is support for farmers in the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming and the Yellowstone Valley between Billings and Sidney. It keeps them in business. I ask the American people, when it comes to farm programs or insurance, do you insure your car? Yes. You do. Do you insure your house? Yes. You insure your house. Do you insure your life? Yes. We do that. I look upon this as just a little insurance policy. It doesn't cost us very much money, but it ensures that your grocery stores will be full of the most nutritious and safe food of any grocery store in the world and priced less than the percentage of the disposable income of any other place in the world. That is a pretty good insurance policy. We don't have to garden. We don't have to plant, or seed, or weed, harvest, or process. We can continue to do what we want to do in our profession. It is guaranteed that you are going to have that supply in any amount and fixed in any way and processed in any way. We already talked about the numbers. But we are basically looking at people who have a great deal on the line. They risk a lot. They are subject to the elements. They have no control over that. They have no control over the retail end of the product--none whatsoever. If we are going to keep this very efficient food machine alive, this is the insurance policy that we all have. It serves this country very well. I suggest that you not support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. It is well intentioned. As the Senator from Louisiana said, it is indeed July. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I whole-heartedly support this amendment which is so critical to so many Montana families. The SUA waiver is of particular concern because long winters and high utility costs are something all Montanans face, regardless of income. This waiver allows a credit to a household's income when determining eligibility and amount of food stamp benefits. Because of the unique set of challenges facing Montanans in terms of extreme weather conditions, termination of the Standard Utility Allowance could very well put many needy households at risk of experiencing hunger. The current SUA waiver is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2000. However, the USDA Food Nutrition Service has conditionally approved the extension of the Montana SUA waiver for an additional year to September 30, 2001. A primary condition to that approval is congressional approval of adequate funding. To date, this waiver has been very successful in its goals to provide nutritional assistance to low-income citizens. I strongly support funding this program at $500,000 and will work with my colleagues to make that happen by the end of conference.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.