Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the resolution I submitted and which was approved by unanimous consent on the Senate floor this week, in support of the President's position on Internet governance at the U.N. Summit on the Information Society. I thank the cosponsors on this resolution: Senators Stevens, Inouye, Leahy, Smith, Sununu, Bill Nelson, Hutchison, Inhofe and Craig. And I also acknowledge Senator Coleman for all his good work on this issue. No one can really control the Internet. It is not supposed to be controlled. It is an architecture, literally and figuratively, of freedom--freedom of information, of speech, of interconnection, of religion. Because the Internet was developed and commercialized in the United States, it reflects those core American values, and boosts them all around the world. And the United States should be proud of the way it has handled the growth of the Internet--particularly in the way it has kept the private sector experts in charge, and government bureaucrats out. I have been particularly concerned the status of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, the private, expert body that oversees and manages the Internet's Domam Name System. This is the ``plumbing'' that makes each Internet site unique and keeps the Internet a global unitary network. The United States created ICANN and its unique model of oversight, with the input of international stakeholders. And U.S. Government oversight of ICANN has been critical in making ICANN more responsive and more capable of carrying out its important technical mission. ICANN is not perfect. I have been critical of its shortcomings in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. But I strongly support its model of governance that leaves the private-sector experts in charge. The preliminary news from the U.N. conference seems to be good. Some of the worst ideas, such as creating a new U.N. bureaucracy instead of ICANN, or to direct ICANN, seem to have been avoided. But I will look closely at the final results and make sure that nothing has been agreed to that could damage the Internet. I hope to hold a hearing in the Commerce Committee early next year about this, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the key stakeholders at that time.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Forests for Future Generations Act, because it addresses a very serious problem in our National Forests. I am not sure how many people in this body have witnessed the devastation of a catastrophic wildfire, but I recommend that everyone tour a burned over forest. It is a sobering reality, often resembling a moonscape. The worst fire year in recent Montana history was the summer of 2000, when we burned 945,000 acres of productive Montana land. After months of smoke-filled air, we were left with decimated wildlife habitat, charred hillsides, sediment-filled streams, and millions of board feet of dead, standing timber. Active forest management would require that restoration of these fragile soils and ecosystems begin as soon as possible, but that is almost never the case on national forest land. Instead, we spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours writing a plan to restore the burned area, which is inevitably appealed, challenged, and litigated by an environmental group. We end up arguing in the courtroom when we should be working in the forest. I have seen side-by-side sections of land where private landowners or even the State of Montana has taken quick action and removed some dead or dying timber then replanted the forest. News are growing on the private land before any of the Federal timber is even harvested. It is amazing to me, and it makes absolutely no sense. For that reason I am happy to cosponsor this bill, because it is time to reintroduce some common sense into a system that has gone far off the tracks.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Forests for Future Generations Act, because it addresses a very serious problem in our National Forests. I am not sure how many people in this body have witnessed the devastation of a catastrophic wildfire, but I recommend that everyone tour a burned over forest. It is a sobering reality, often resembling a moonscape. The worst fire year in recent Montana history was the summer of 2000, when we burned 945,000 acres of productive Montana land. After months of smoke-filled air, we were left with decimated wildlife habitat, charred hillsides, sediment-filled streams, and millions of board feet of dead, standing timber. Active forest management would require that restoration of these fragile soils and ecosystems begin as soon as possible, but that is almost never the case on national forest land. Instead, we spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours writing a plan to restore the burned area, which is inevitably appealed, challenged, and litigated by an environmental group. We end up arguing in the courtroom when we should be working in the forest. I have seen side-by-side sections of land where private landowners or even the State of Montana has taken quick action and removed some dead or dying timber then replanted the forest. News are growing on the private land before any of the Federal timber is even harvested. It is amazing to me, and it makes absolutely no sense. For that reason I am happy to cosponsor this bill, because it is time to reintroduce some common sense into a system that has gone far off the tracks.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to honor Steve Pilcher, a leader in the Montana livestock industry. At the end of this year, Steve will retire from his years of service as executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. His service will be missed, but the values and leadership Steve brought to the organization will continue on. Many American children grew up with the Saturday Western matinee as the high point of their week. The ideals shared by those men in their white Stetsons were strong, moral, and enduring. There were some great rules to live by that were shared by the cowboys on the Silver Screen. Steve took every one of those lessons to heart. He not only believes in the ``Code of the West'' those cowboys shared with us, he continues to live it, both in his personal life and his professional life. Hopalong Cassidy had a Creed for American Girls and Boys. The first rule in his creed was, ``The highest badge of honor a person can wear is honesty, be mindful at all times.'' Regardless of the fallout, Steve does not believe in bandying the truth. He is always a square shooter. He has taken the heat many times for standing by the truth, but Steve is a man of honor. He knows the truth is worth whatever adversity it brings from others who do not feel the same way. Gene Autry offered the Ten Commandments of the Cowboy. The first commandment said, ``A cowboy never takes unfair advantage.'' Steve has always worked hard to prove that the ranchers in Montana expect only what they earn. He knows that you have to work those extra hours to make sure things are fair. Nothing is given to you. Also, there was the Lone Rangers Creed. Perhaps the part Steve took to heart the most was, ``God put the firewood here but every man must gather and light it himself.'' There is no doubt Steve Pilcher has been gathering the firewood for the Montana Stock-growers. He has worked tirelessly for this industry and I know he will continue to light that fire. As we recognize Steve Pilcher for his major contributions to not only Montana's livestock community but the Nation's, there is one more thing that I must add: Happy Trails my friend, until we meet again.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Bryant Elementary School, Chief Joseph Elementary School, and Huntley Project Elementary School. Montana is proud and I am honored to recognize these three schools identified as blue ribbon schools under No Child Left Behind. As the spouse of a schoolteacher, I understand the many difficulties our schools face. Each and every day, parents send their children off to school to be educated, cared for, and disciplined. These three Montana schools have received this important award, and were honored last week at the Department of Education. I thank the staff, teachers, and parents for their hard work to make such success possible. The Blue Ribbon Award is no small achievement--students from these schools are in the top 10 percent of students across the State. I am honored to acknowledge them for their work. Principals Howard Corey, Rick Knisely, and Russell Van Hook all understand the importance an education can have on the life of a child, as well as the significant role parents and the community play in the development of these future leaders. They should be commended for their leadership and vision which produced such meaningful results. I would be remiss if I did not recognize the students at each of these institutions. While the adults have provided the foundation for a positive and educational classroom experience, ultimately the students decide to succeed for themselves, meeting and exceeding the high standards set for them. I am confident that we are raising the next generation of successful Americans to be productive and educated members of society. I am especially proud of the progress that these Montana students have made, and I urge them to keep up the good work. I am proud of each and every one of you. To the students, educators, and parents, thanks for all the good work you do.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is undertaking a significant effort to reduce Federal spending and return fiscal responsibility to the Congress. Not since 1997 has Congress attempted a budget reconciliation bill. But the fiscal situation facing the American people today demands a serious commitment from the Federal Government to reduce deficit spending. This reconciliation package is an important part of that process. I recommend the chairman of the Budget Committee for his efforts on reconciliation. He has been an outstanding advocate for fiscal restraint, while trying to respond fairly to the competing demands for increased spending. While I do have some concerns about certain cuts included in this bill, on the whole I think it is a balanced package that accomplishes meaningful restraints on Government spending. One of the positives of this bill is the provisions relating to energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is time to open ANWR for oil production to increase our domestic supply of petroleum. We need to look no further than the gas pump to see what happens when U.S. oil production lulls. High gas prices hurt Montanans and dependence on foreign oil hurts our national security. The Energy Information Administration states that the coastal plain region harboring the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area is ``the largest unexplored, potential productive onshore basin in the United States.'' Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, estimate that drilling in ANWR could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil--an amount roughly equal to 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. Most people don't understand that the 1002 Area is only 1.5 million acres within the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This budget allows for development of only 2000 of those 19 million acres in ANWR. That means 99.99 percent of ANWR will be untouched. If this tragedy-filled hurricane season has taught us anything, we should realize that by concentrating our production and refinery capability in the Gulf of Mexico, we are risking supply disruption. We need to do more offshore, and more onshore across this country. Last week, I held a hearing on onshore oil and gas development. The backlog we face in processing permits for reasonable onshore production contributes to the energy crisis we are facing now. All segments of the economy are directly impacted by the costs of fuel to produce and move our output. From keeping warm in our homes to moving food to the market, the American taxpayer faces a tighter budget as a result of skyrocketing energy costs. We simply must consider all options when it comes to increasing production, and ANWR are an important part of that. The United States has some of the strictest environmental laws in the entire world. We can safely and carefully produce oil within our own shores, or we can ignore our responsibility to domestically produce this resource. Royalty revenues from oil production in ANWR is expected to produce $2.5 billion for the Federal Government over the next 5 years alone, plus provide valuable jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is time for this body to do the right thing and increase our domestic production of energy, and ANWR is a good place to start. So I applaud the work of the chairman of the Energy Committee for including ANWR in this budget. I am also pleased with the provisions to address digital television transition. Setting a firm date of April 7, 2009, allows the FCC to make critical spectrum available for the emergency workers who protect our communities. Our first responders need access to this spectrum to ensure communications in times of national emergencies. In a rural State like Montana, this spectrum can also be used to expand broadband access, linking rural communities not just for emergency needs, but for education, telehealth, and economic development. The revenues generated by this spectrum auction generate billions toward paying down the national debt, but also give us the flexibility to address some other priorities, including essential air service. I was pleased to be able to include language in this bill that will provide an additional $75 million for essential air. Thirty-seven States rely on essential air, but skyrocketing fuel prices are placing that service in jeopardy. The provision I included will increase EAS funding over the next 5 years, and ensure that communities relying on essential air will continue to have transportation options. Also important to Montana is ensuring that Federal incentives for higher education remain intact. Though significant cost savings have been achieved in the reconciliation package adopted by the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, many positive changes have been made to benefit the students who most need assistance. The higher education reforms save $9.8 billion over 5 years, while still preserving critical benefits for students across the country. For first- and second-year college students, the loan limits will be increased to $3,500 for the first year and $4,500 for the second year. This is especially important in a State like Montana, which ranks third-from-last in retention of first-year college students who continue on to their second year. Not only are we increasing the overall aid available, but are also emphasizing the various types of education needed from the current workforce. This bill provides for additional funding for grants for Pell-eligible students who major in math, science, technology, engineering, and some foreign languages. All too often, employers comment that they have skilled jobs available, but are unable to find the kind of specialization they need from students, and by providing incentives for students to study in these under-utilized areas, they are able to obtain an affordable education and fill a much-needed place in the workforce. I am especially proud of the provision in this bill which provides for deferment on loan payment for borrowers serving in active duty or in the National Guard. This provision sends a strong message of support to our men and women in uniform, and I am pleased to support its inclusion. While there is plenty to praise in this reconciliation package, I have very strong concerns about the proposals to cut $4 billion out of agriculture programs. When this Senate debated the spending cuts and reconciliation instructions earlier this year, this body agreed to $3 billion in agriculture cuts. While I would prefer no cuts to farm bill programs, I understand that everyone must do his or her part to reduce Government spending. The House of Representatives wanted to cut more out of farm programs, as did the President. I think the Senate settled on a fair amount, and I applaud the chairman of the Budget Committee for retaining that level in conference. But we are not talking about $3 billion in cuts, the $3 billion that we all agreed to. Instead, farm programs are taking a massively disproportionate cut. Commodity and conservation programs are being reduced by nearly $4 billion. The extra money is not being returned to the Government to pay down the debt. It is going to a select group of interests, to subsidize small dairies. These budget cuts pit one producer against another. My Montana wheat growers are being asked to pay for dairy subsidies. That is simply unreasonable. In these times of high energy and fertilizer costs, we are asking farmers to bear much more than their fair share of program cuts. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this proposal. Cuts to agriculture spending need to be fair and shared across the board. Giving one sector of one industry a billion dollars for 2 years, at the expense of farmers all over the country sends a terrible message to the hardworking families that feed this Nation. Lastly, I want to turn to the issue of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. While I believe the proposals to reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid included in this reconciliation package are generally good, there are some issues I want to highlight. I remain concerned about our community and independent pharmacists. In Montana, they are small business men and women, and, all too often, they are the only place in small towns where folks can get the medication they need. I remain concerned about how this package may affect them and will do what I can to make sure they are not adversely affected by provisions in this bill. However, this bill also provides funding to states that face shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP, and expands outreach and enrollment activities to cover more children. The SCHIP program has been incredibly important in Montana, in ensuring children have the health care they need to lead healthy, fruitful lives. I am glad to see that this bill also establishes a new grant program to finance innovative outreach and enrollment efforts designed to increase enrollment and promote an understanding of the value of health insurance coverage. I expect this outreach to be helpful in Montana, where reaching those in need is often difficult because of the vastness of our state. This bill will also extend the Medicare Dependent Hospital program, which provides financial protections to rural hospitals with less than 100 beds that have a greater than 60 percent share of Medicare patients. Many of Montana's hospitals fall into this category, as our Medicare population, especially in the most rural areas continues to grow rapidly. Medicaid options are expanded through the Family Opportunity Act, so that parents of severely disabled children can go to work, without risking Medicaid benefits. New incentives are provided to purchase long-term care, and new resources are provided to help states combat fraud and abuse that steal money away from low-income families that need it the most. These are good reforms, and they will greatly benefit Montanans. Undertaking spending cuts on any scale is a difficult task. But Congress must do its duty to rein in the growth of the Federal Government, provide incentives to economic growth, and ensure that the safety nets we have in place are truly benefiting those who need assistance most. Although there are certainly things I would change about this package, I urge my colleagues to support it. The American public must know that Congress is willing to make difficult choices to reduce runaway Government spending and use tax dollars wisely. This budget is a good start, and I look forward to supporting its passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BURNS. If all of the money is not used for the set-top box and there is money left over, yes, it does go to debt reduction, but isn't it also earmarked in there for first responders and spectrum? Did we not talk about them? Basically that is why we are trying to free up a lot of the 700-megahertz block of spectrum. I understood that was the case. The Senator said it all goes to deficit reduction, but I thought some of it was held in reserve for emergency responders?

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BURNS. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate passed the Transportation appropriations bill, which included $1.45 billion in Amtrak funding. This amendment today represents the next step in continuing the fight to reform Amtrak in a way that preserves passenger rail as a necessary component in our Nation's transportation system. The Empire Builder, which runs through Montana, serves an important public need, and I appreciate the work of Senators Lott, Inouye, and Lautenberg on developing this reauthorization bill. This bill provides needed reforms to help Amtrak operate more efficiently but does so in a way that enhances, rather than harms, existing service. Amtrak is a key component of Montana's infrastructure, and folks feel pretty strongly about keeping the Empire Builder operational. Conservative estimates indicate that the Empire Builder brings roughly $13 million annually into Montana. Recently, Amtrak announced record ridership numbers for the past fiscal year--a trend we saw in Montana as well. Given the high fuel prices folks are facing these days, preserving alternate forms of transportation is even more critical. Amtrak continues to have widespread support throughout the country, and Congress needs to ensure that Amtrak remains a part of our Nation's infrastructure. Part of Congress's duty is to make sure that Amtrak is responsible with the Federal dollars it receives. This legislation provides important reforms for Amtrak, including audits on amenities like food and beverage service, and sleeper cars. On a train like the Empire Builder, those amenities are critical. On other trains, maybe some changes can be made. Each route needs to be evaluated for potential reforms. Amtrak must work to reduce its reliance on Federal spending and improve performance across the board. This amendment today moves Amtrak in that direction, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I recognize that attaching authorizing language to the budget reconciliation is not the preferred method to move this bill. However, Amtrak needs to be reauthorized, and Congress must do its duty to direct passenger rail reform. So I hope that the Senate can agree to include this amendment today and take action on the important reforms that Amtrak needs.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I will assume I was next in the queue. I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture for bringing this conference report up. You know, I just want to point out to the American people that even though the total of this bill is $100 billion--That's--I rounded that off a little bit--only $25 billion gets to production agriculture. We could add in some conservation programs and watershed and this type of thing and probably get that up a little higher but not a lot. What I am trying to say, better than half of this bill does not go to the farm and ranch producing community in this country, and yet the bill is $100 billion. I have been on the Appropriations Committee since 1993. For 12 years, I have served with my colleagues in this body and have gone through a lot of conferences. I have chaired some. I have been ranking in some. There are a lot of good things in this bill that help my State of Montana and agriculture across this Nation, but if there is one shortcoming--I say, not very much of it gets to the farmers and ranchers out of this $100 billion. I was a county commissioner. I understand WIC. I understand nutrition programs. I understand food stamps for those folks who really need help. I'll tell you what, it is born in every one of us who comes out of the farm and ranch community: we do not like to see people hungry. We have always been like that. With regard to this conference, we had four or five items that were very important that we have to address in this body, and we were closed down. Categorical exemptions, which my friend from Idaho just spoke on a few minutes ago, in forest rehabilitation, forest legacy, forest health--all of those programs are designed to help our timber communities take advantage of the great resource that is around them, and also it does a lot for fire prevention. Another thing about this amendment we had on the prevention of the slaughter of horses for human consumption, we did not get that resolved. I invite any of my friends who voted for that amendment to come to my office and answer the phones because I'll tell you what, last Saturday there was a horse sale in Billings. If anything prompts some calls, just let somebody go to the next horse sale. Then we got down to the country of origin labeling that was put into law and signed by the President of the United States in the 2002 farm bill. It is the law of the land, and an overwhelming majority of both this body and the House of Representatives voted to put it there. Yet we are denied the money to write the rules and regulations and implement the law and put it into effect. This year, they just said: We are going to go voluntary for 2 more years. I am going to tell you something, that has not worked. Now, there is nothing done here that is done in the dark of night. It is the law. Did we accomplish getting it implemented in this bill? No, we are delayed for two more years. What is even worse, there was no debate and no vote in the conference committee while the conference was going on. Just like I said, I have chaired conference committees on appropriations, and we did not leave that room until all of the issues that were still on the table were dealt with, folks got to debate them, we listened to them, and we got an up-or-down vote. I am not really concerned about the results of a vote; I am concerned about a vote. So this was something that was done that absolutely was beyond my belief. We know that our cattle producers are pretty proud of their product. They produce a good product. We do not feed a lot of cattle in Montana, but we raise a lot of feeder cattle. They go to Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska to be finished out. They produce a great product for America's dinner tables, the greatest source of protein we have in our diet. They also want to know where it comes from, and that is being denied our producers today. I heard from my colleagues who say they should delay COOL until the farm bill. They say the law will not work and we need to rewrite it. I agree with some of that, but there are provisions right now that are in the current labeling law that need to be implemented. So I seriously doubt that any of my cattle producers can be convinced at this point that Congress intends to make a good-faith effort to improve the law as it stands today. We have had three years to work on that law, and the only thing Congress has delivered to the hard-working ranchers in my country is one delay after another, and that is unacceptable. We have given the meat packers years to volunteer and voluntarily label the meat. Not one packer has done that. Now, we have labeling on that. We have certified Angus beef, and we have a lot of house brands and house labels and some breeds of cattle promote their production, but nothing says ``USA.'' These delays are not designed to help us improve this important law; they are just a way that the packers get their way. In all likelihood, this evening the Senate will debate this issue, and tomorrow we will pass this conference report. I did not sign the report, and I shall vote against it tomorrow even though there are some very good things in here, but enough is enough. Given the hysteria of the meat packers, one would think that COOL assistance would destroy the whole industry, and one would think origin labeling is some outlandish, unheard of concept when it has been around for the last four years. Packers whine about labeling products in the United States, and the packers are engaged in country-of-origin labeling in foreign markets. I do not see what the difference is? It feels to me like you have been discriminated against for your product? And those who do not want labeling, are you not proud of your product? Are you afraid to put your brand on it? Afraid to put a label on it? What is the problem? Most of our major trading partners require country-of-origin labeling on imported beef and beef products. I could go all night about the situation in which we find ourselves in regarding to beef trade with Japan. We took a pretty tough stand. I believe that it is time that markets be opened. New Zealand passed a COOL law just last week at the very same time that this conference was shirking its duty to the American cattle producers. By the way, New Zealand is not afraid to put a label on their lamb. One can go to any grocery store, and the package says, ``New Zealand lamb.'' They are proud of that product. Yet we do not want to do that. Consumers in the United States do not deserve to know where their beef comes from, but foreign consumers do. That is the message we are sending on this conference report tonight. We know that foreign consumers demand U.S. beef. It is pretty plain. I have talked to the consumers in Japan. They are getting ready to serve these beef bowls. It is the most desired product we ship there. Yet by their standards, they have decided to keep our product off of their market. They have nerve enough to come here and expect us to accept theirs when they have a larger problem than we do in that arena. So Congress is telling the producers that they lose out again in this conference report with a delay provision put in at conference with no debate and no vote. I will cast a vote against the conference report when it comes up tomorrow. This is a terrible way to do business in the Senate. We can do better in this body. We can respect everyone's opinion and everybody's amendment and everybody's bill, but give them a vote. We are going to talk about a judge one of these days, and we are going to say he deserves an up-or-down vote. This issue does, too. There is no difference. And we were denied it. So I am disappointed, but yet we move along and there will be another day when again we will saddle up and try to get this legislation implemented, which basically is the law of the land. Make no mistake about it, this hurts our credibility. We better start taking our job very seriously. Instead, we are taking ourselves too seriously. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the introduction of my bill, the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005. Now, not all of us live in the big city--like New York City or Chicago--but that should not mean that all of us cannot receive the same quality health care. Since I have been in office, I have spent a lot of time making sure that folks who live out in the hinterland--like the small towns of Scobey or Jordan or Wolf Point across Montana--still get quality health care, like everyone else. I do not want distance to be a barrier to care. One of the ways we have bridged these divides is through telehealth-- actually using technology to draw people together and deliver care. Now, across the great State of Montana, we have doctors consulting with patients who may be 200 or 300 miles away. That means those folks who live in the middle of nowhere do not have to drive 400 miles roundtrip, just to get a medical opinion on symptoms they may have or minor changes which may need to be made to their diabetes equipment, or feedback from an x-ray at a local clinic, from a specialist. That is a big deal, especially when roads are icy and the temperature is below zero. I have sponsored the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005, which is a bill to improve the provisions of telehealth services under the Medicare Program and provide grants for the development of telehealth networks. Specifically, my bill will: facilitate the provision of telehealth services across State lines, Licensure, as it affects providers who consult diagnose across State lines, remains a significant barrier to accessing such services, and call for Medicare reimbursement for remote medical and health services for all remaining institutions eligible to participate in Medicare but not currently eligible to be reimbursed for telemedicine/telehealth services. Include an expansion of Medicare-covered originating telehealth sites, prioritizing eligibility for nursing homes, dialysis centers, and community-based mental health centers. Revise ``originating site'' language to ensure telehealth service providers are reimbursement-eligible when patients are located at sites with telehealth capabilities, regardless of originating site designation. Expand Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services to all geographical areas, recognizing eligibility for telehealth sites among urban populations as well as rural and underserved populations. Allow for ``eligible practitioners'' furnishing telehealth services to include physical and occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, and other certified providers, as well as those the Secretary of Health and Human Services approves. Amend Medicare coverage to all remaining medical services currently covered under the CPT procedure codes but not eligible to be reimbursed when provided via telemedicine/telehealth, and medical services that are provided using store-and-forward technology. Authorize a grant program through the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth of HRSA for the development of telehealth networks and defines nonprofit and for-profit alliances as grant-eligible provided the grant recipient is a nonprofit. Reauthorize the Telehealth Network and Telehealth Resource Centers grant programs through 2012. Shortages of health care workers across the spectrum are nothing new. We have all witnessed this disturbing trend of shortages in nursing, radiology, mental health professions, and many other health professionals for quite some time. While the ultimate solution to this problem lies in a variety of actions, telehealth has proven a solution to this mounting crisis. I have long supported efforts in technology to improve the efficiency and quality of health care, and make it easier for folks in rural areas to get the health services they need. Telehealth is one answer to the access and affordability problems facing health care today, and I hope my bill will increase the ease with which folks obtain their critical health services. Telehealth applications have a record of cutting costs, increasing choice and reducing medical errors in facilities and communities across the country. Telehealth also provides services to elderly who may not otherwise be able to get to a health care facility for care. This is growing increasingly important in rural America--especially in my State of Montana. Montana's demographics have been changing over the past few years, and our health care providers continue to see more and more patients over the age of 65. We now have more elderly people per capita than most States in the union, and by 2025, Montana is predicted to rank third in the Nation in the number of people over the age of 65. We must charge forward to modernize and improve healthcare through the application of information technology. Healthcare expenditures in 2003 totaled $1.7 trillion--a number that is growing faster than the overall economy. Increased adoption of health information technology has the potential to save this country billions of dollars and thousands of lives. I want to do what I can to bring more money to the State of Montana for telehealth services and expand the availability of these services to more patients in more areas than ever before. I will continue my efforts, both through bringing money to Montana to make this happen and by passing meaningful, common-sense legislation to get rid of the over-burdensome red-tape that often gets in the way of good care. I think it is essential to bring quality health care to all comers of Montana and other rural States. It is high time we bring back the dynamic days of these frontier areas by creating and maintaining vibrant and thriving communities, which have so much to offer their residents, including one of the most important basic needs--health care.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the introduction of my bill, the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005. Now, not all of us live in the big city--like New York City or Chicago--but that should not mean that all of us cannot receive the same quality health care. Since I have been in office, I have spent a lot of time making sure that folks who live out in the hinterland--like the small towns of Scobey or Jordan or Wolf Point across Montana--still get quality health care, like everyone else. I do not want distance to be a barrier to care. One of the ways we have bridged these divides is through telehealth-- actually using technology to draw people together and deliver care. Now, across the great State of Montana, we have doctors consulting with patients who may be 200 or 300 miles away. That means those folks who live in the middle of nowhere do not have to drive 400 miles roundtrip, just to get a medical opinion on symptoms they may have or minor changes which may need to be made to their diabetes equipment, or feedback from an x-ray at a local clinic, from a specialist. That is a big deal, especially when roads are icy and the temperature is below zero. I have sponsored the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2005, which is a bill to improve the provisions of telehealth services under the Medicare Program and provide grants for the development of telehealth networks. Specifically, my bill will: facilitate the provision of telehealth services across State lines, Licensure, as it affects providers who consult diagnose across State lines, remains a significant barrier to accessing such services, and call for Medicare reimbursement for remote medical and health services for all remaining institutions eligible to participate in Medicare but not currently eligible to be reimbursed for telemedicine/telehealth services. Include an expansion of Medicare-covered originating telehealth sites, prioritizing eligibility for nursing homes, dialysis centers, and community-based mental health centers. Revise ``originating site'' language to ensure telehealth service providers are reimbursement-eligible when patients are located at sites with telehealth capabilities, regardless of originating site designation. Expand Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services to all geographical areas, recognizing eligibility for telehealth sites among urban populations as well as rural and underserved populations. Allow for ``eligible practitioners'' furnishing telehealth services to include physical and occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, and other certified providers, as well as those the Secretary of Health and Human Services approves. Amend Medicare coverage to all remaining medical services currently covered under the CPT procedure codes but not eligible to be reimbursed when provided via telemedicine/telehealth, and medical services that are provided using store-and-forward technology. Authorize a grant program through the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth of HRSA for the development of telehealth networks and defines nonprofit and for-profit alliances as grant-eligible provided the grant recipient is a nonprofit. Reauthorize the Telehealth Network and Telehealth Resource Centers grant programs through 2012. Shortages of health care workers across the spectrum are nothing new. We have all witnessed this disturbing trend of shortages in nursing, radiology, mental health professions, and many other health professionals for quite some time. While the ultimate solution to this problem lies in a variety of actions, telehealth has proven a solution to this mounting crisis. I have long supported efforts in technology to improve the efficiency and quality of health care, and make it easier for folks in rural areas to get the health services they need. Telehealth is one answer to the access and affordability problems facing health care today, and I hope my bill will increase the ease with which folks obtain their critical health services. Telehealth applications have a record of cutting costs, increasing choice and reducing medical errors in facilities and communities across the country. Telehealth also provides services to elderly who may not otherwise be able to get to a health care facility for care. This is growing increasingly important in rural America--especially in my State of Montana. Montana's demographics have been changing over the past few years, and our health care providers continue to see more and more patients over the age of 65. We now have more elderly people per capita than most States in the union, and by 2025, Montana is predicted to rank third in the Nation in the number of people over the age of 65. We must charge forward to modernize and improve healthcare through the application of information technology. Healthcare expenditures in 2003 totaled $1.7 trillion--a number that is growing faster than the overall economy. Increased adoption of health information technology has the potential to save this country billions of dollars and thousands of lives. I want to do what I can to bring more money to the State of Montana for telehealth services and expand the availability of these services to more patients in more areas than ever before. I will continue my efforts, both through bringing money to Montana to make this happen and by passing meaningful, common-sense legislation to get rid of the over-burdensome red-tape that often gets in the way of good care. I think it is essential to bring quality health care to all comers of Montana and other rural States. It is high time we bring back the dynamic days of these frontier areas by creating and maintaining vibrant and thriving communities, which have so much to offer their residents, including one of the most important basic needs--health care.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, because I support innovation and continued economic growth, I am pleased to announce my cosponsorship of S. 627, the Investment in America Act of 2005 sponsored by my colleague Senator Hatch. With a permanent R&D tax credit, companies will no longer have to worry about the potential for expiration and may more accurately gauge long-term investment for research and development. Certainty to the market will help provide much-needed stability and assist U.S. companies in overseas competition. This permanent tax credit will allow companies the flexibility they want, and gives them the time needed to develop new and innovative ideas. In global terms, it is extremely important that the United States remains a leader in a variety of sectors, from technology to manufacturing. Countries such as France, Japan, Australia, Pakistan, Spain, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, United Kingdom, and Canada all have permanent R&D credits. If we want to stay competitive, we must put our country on at least equal footing to that of our foreign competitors. In Montana, over 100 companies engage in research and development and stand to benefit from the R&D tax credit. When Steve Lethert, controller of Wood's Powr-Grip Company from Laurel, MT, visited my office, he expressed that a permanent tax incentive is vital to his company's growth. This bill will not only help the United States economy at large but will benefit those in the Big Sky State. In March 2004 when Senator Hatch proposed to extend the credit for 18 months during debate of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength, JOBS, Act of 2004. I was pleased to support that measure, and hope that the Senate will soon provide permanency to such an advantageous tool for our businesses.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman for his continued efforts to ensure a strong national defense. I am well aware of the tight budget structures the subcommittee faced when marking up the bill. I would like to draw attention to two important programs for future consideration that may have great benefit to our military. The refurbishment of aircraft fuselages and engines, ships, and jet engine turbine blades requires the removal of paint and other coatings, but can be extremely costly if, while removing the coating, the underlying surface is damaged. I am told that laser technology is able to detect, in real time, when coatings have been removed, thus avoiding damage to the item being serviced. Further, I am told the Air Force Research Laboratory has expressed interest in spectroscopy-based technology as it may assist them in developing robotic systems for coatings removal of large off-aircraft components, as well as developing systems in the future for de-coating large on-aircraft components. Providing for a lightweight replacement for Air Field Matting, AM2, is among the Top Ten mission critical technology needs of the Department of Defense. AM2 is an outdated 40-year old system currently used by the Air Force, Marine Corps and Army to establish temporary airport systems in the field. I have learned it may be too heavy to deploy easily and unsuitable for missions where mobility and speed are necessary. Lattice Block Structures may be an option to serve as a stronger, lighter and more portable replacement to the antiquated AM2 matting. Fiscal year 2006 funding for Lattice Block Structures could enable DOD to more rapidly establish temporary airfields in support of critical military missions.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this week, I learned of another young person from Montana who had been killed in Iraq. PFC Andrew Bedard was only 19 and died Monday when the Humvee he was driving hit a roadside bomb. Andrew Bedard was from Missoula and a 2004 graduate of Hellgate High School. He joined the Marine Corps shortly after graduation and had only finished basic training earlier this year in San Diego. He had been in Iraq for close to only one month, when his life ended because of another improvised explosive device, or ``IED'' while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province. The military had recently launched a new offensive against insurgents in western Iraq. Those who knew him best describe Andrew as a personable, positive guy who was friends with most people he ran into and cared a great deal about his family and friends. I actually met Andrew a few years ago when he and I were involved in a fender bender in Missoula. He was courteous and respectful, and I can say that he was a fine young man. Like me, Andrew was in the U.S. Marine Corps. If they can find solace in anything, his loved ones must know that his country is proud of his honorable service in upholding the freedoms and ideals which make this country great. My heart and prayers go out to the Bedard family, as well as the loved ones of all others lost in this War on Terror. Private First Class Bedard, unfortunately, was the 13th man with Montana ties to die in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001. Other Montanans who have been killed in combat in Operation Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom are: SPC Travis Arndt of Great Falls was the 12th man with Montana ties to lose his life in Iraq or Afghanistan. Marine LCpl Nicholas Bloem of Bozeman was killed in Iraq on Aug. 3, the day after his 20th birthday, when a roadside bomb was exploded under his amphibious assault vehicle. He was one of 14 Marines killed from the Ohio-based 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Division. Marine Cpl Raleigh Smith, 21, of Troy was killed two days before Christmas 2004 by enemy fire in Fallujah, Iraq. Marine LCpl Nathan R. Wood, 19, a Great Falls native who has moved to Kirkland, WA. He was killed Nov. 19, 2004, as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Army SSG Aaron N. Holleyman, 26, of Glasgow was killed Aug. 30, 2004, in Khutayiah, Iraq, when his military vehicle hit an improvised explosive device. Marine LCpl Kane M. Funke, 20, who attended high school in Kalispell before moving to Vancouver, WA. He was killed Aug. 13, 2004, as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Marine Cpl Dean P. Pratt, 22, of Stevensville, who died Aug. 2, 2004, also as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. Army PFC Owen D. Witt, 20, of Sand Springs was killed May 24, 2004, in Ad Dawr, Iraq, when his armored high-mobility-multipurpose-wheeled vehicle rolled over. Army Reserve 1 LT Edward M. Saltz, 27, of Bigfork was killed Dec. 22, 2003, in Baghdad when the convoy in which he was riding was hit by an improvised explosive device. Army Ranger PFC Kristofer T. Stonesifer, 28, of Missoula was killed Oct. 21, 2001, in a Blackhawk helicopter crash in Pakistan as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Army 1 LT Josh Hyland, a Missoula soldier who enlisted in ROTC at the University of Montana on Sept. 12, 2001, was one of four Americans killed in Afghanistan when a bomb detonated underneath a wooden bridge they were passing over. This old Marine was lucky to come home from service in Korea. These brave souls for whatever reason were not. I thank them for what they did to protect my family and others across this country and around the world. They did not die in vain and will not be forgotten. We, as a nation, mourn the loss of every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution offered by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici. For many years, I have supported his efforts to identify a week in October as National Character Counts Week. The important aspect of this legislation is its focus on children. Children growing up in these times often face much more difficult experiences and must mature more quickly than when I was young. One of fastest growing problems in Montana is the rate of methamphetamine use and addiction by teens. All it takes is one try--teens get hooked trying to recreate that first rush. It is vitally important to encourage young people to have positive role models in their lives in order to develop a strong, positive character to avoid the temptation to try meth or engage in other dangerous behaviors. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank Senator Domenici for his leadership.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in support of S. 1496, the Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005. The Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Enacted in 1934, the Duck Stamp Act requires every waterfowl hunter to purchase a duck stamp in order to legally hunt migratory waterfowl. Through the purchase of the Federal duck stamp, sportsmen from across the country have contributed billions of dollars annually to the economy. Nearly $2 billion of this revenue has been used for wildlife conservation. Times have changed and I believe it is time to modernize the way sportsmen buy duck stamps. The Electronic Duck Stamp Act will change the way Montana sportsmen and hunters across the country purchase their duck stamp. This concept follows on the heels of other programs used by sportsmen to purchase their hunting licenses, permits, and conservation stamps through means of the Internet. The 24-hour access to purchase these stamps will be especially useful in Montana and other States with rural communities. The e-duck stamp will be more cost effective and hunters will be able to forego a trip to town before heading to the field. The Electronic Duck Stamp Act requires the Secretary of the Interior conduct a 3-year pilot program under which, hopefully, Montana and 14 other States may issue the electronic stamps. The price for the stamp will remain unchanged at $15. Stamps may be purchased over the phone or Internet giving sportsmen additional flexibility. Purchasers will receive immediate access to a verification number which will allow them to legally hunt waterfowl. This number will then eventually be replaced by an actual paper stamp. This will be a very popular program and will benefit many American men and women who enjoy hunting waterfowl. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this piece of legislation for not only my State of Montana but other States as well.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I opposed the Harkin amendment No. 1921, on the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program. Most of us know the important role that the Community Service Block Grant Program plays in addressing the needs of folks on limited incomes in Montana and across this country. The programs it encompasses go a long way toward softening some of the conditions and addressing the causes of poverty. The range of services include everything from low- income energy assistance, nutrition and housing programs, Head Start education, and other vital services offered by community action agencies. I strongly support the CSBG Program--I always have--and I will continue to support full funding of CSBG again in the fiscal year 2006 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. The Senate version of the bill funds CSBG at almost $637 million, while the House of Representatives funded the program only at $320 million. Earlier this year, I signed a letter to my colleagues on the Senate's Appropriations Subcommittee on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, outlining my support for funding CSBG at $650 million fiscal year 2006. All the Senate needs to do now is its work in passing the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill and getting it to conference where this important program and the countless others' funding levels may be reconciled with the House bill. I have no doubt the CSBG Program will be funded sufficiently this year, contrary to the benchmark the House of Representatives has set. Given that this situation will be resolved with the completion of the appropriation process, along with the fact that I do not believe we should hold up this continuing resolution and other important appropriation bills, such as the Defense bill which provides funding for our men and women in harm's way, or shut down the Government because of this amendment--for something I feel confident will be funded anyway. Voting for this amendment would have shut down the Government, thereby completely eliminating any of the funding mechanisms in place to continue helping those most in need. I was not willing to jeopardize their well-being.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, after listening to my friend from Colorado and my good friend from South Carolina, and then to look at the statement that I have, it appears we are all saying about the same thing, but we just all haven't had the opportunity to say it yet. I will try to put a little different slant on it. We know the qualifications of this man, Judge Roberts. He has consistently shown me excellence in all aspects of his previous academic and his professional career. He is widely thought of as one of the best legal minds in the country, is highly respected by his colleagues as a fairminded, brilliant, and temperate jurist. He graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude. He did it in only 3 years. He then graduated from Harvard Law School at the top of his class. Less than 3 years ago, Judge Roberts was confirmed by a unanimous vote to the DC Court of Appeals, which is often referred to, as my friend from Colorado says, as the second highest court in the land. He was also a partner in the prestigious law firm of Hogan & Hartson. He specialized in U.S. Supreme Court litigation, arguing numerous cases before the very Court to which we seek to confirm him today. Further, he had an active practice in appellate law. I guess what we look for in the men and women we like to see on the country's highest Court is pretty much found in all the qualifications of Judge Roberts. He had worked in the private sector. He also worked in the White House under President Ronald Reagan as Associate Counsel. In addition, he earned a highly prestigious clerkship on the Supreme Court for Chief Justice William Rehnquist--that in 1980 and 1981. Then he was nominated by this President and went before the Judiciary Committee. We watched those hearings with a great deal of interest. I speak not as a member of that committee or even as an attorney, but what we heard more than anything else--and this is important to my State of Montana-- is that we will have a qualified, fair, and competent Supreme Court Justice. That is important. When questioned on all of those qualifications, fairness, and competence, no one challenged any part of those elements. In this respect, Judge Roberts earned the ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, which is the highest rating that association offers. There was no challenge there. He continually impressed my colleagues in the Senate by showing his immense knowledge of the law while reflecting his vast understanding of the rule of law and the importance of precedent. There was no challenge there. What becomes important is that we know that our Supreme Court Justices understand their duty is to interpret the law as it is reflected in the cases that come before them and refrain from personal biases and from legislating or putting their biases into those cases. He impressed me when he said that he wanted to be the umpire. He didn't want to be the pitcher or the batter; he just wants to call the balls and the strikes. I appreciate that. I spent a lot of years on a football field, and I was one of those who wore the striped shirt. When I look back on that game, maybe our judiciary should be a little bit like this great American sports feature of football. When you think about it, 4 old referees--some of them overweight whom I could talk about--go out on a field of 22 young men who are hostile, mobile, and bent on hurting each other, and we have very few problems because those striped shirts are the arresting officers, the judges, and the penal officers. They do it in 30 seconds, and they do it without very many complaints. Thus the discipline of the game: 22 young men in armor and dead set on winning the contest. Throughout his hearings before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Roberts proved over and over that he understands the role of the judiciary as an interpreter and not a legislator and why it is important to our governmental system that our judges across America refrain from overstepping their duties. The law is the law. Yes, it can be a subject of interpretation, but look how simple our Constitution is. It doesn't use very many big words. They are very simple. There is a lot of difference between the word ``may'' and the word ``shall,'' and you can interpret them. He explained his judicial style during his hearings by saying: I prefer to be known as a modest judge . . . It means an appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that a judge is to decide the cases before them. . . . They are not to change it or use their biases to execute a judgment. That is pretty important. When you look at his private life, the values of how he has progressed in his professional life, how he has carried himself and what is personally important to him--family, being a good husband, a provider--we see all of those values that we Americans hold in very high esteem. Then we move it over into now what kind of a judge will he be. He was questioned on a lot of social issues that the courts have no business even considering. That falls on us, the elected representatives of America, and our constituency. What their values are should be reflected here. Yet what I heard was questions on human rights. It is a wonderful thing, this Constitution we have. The Constitution was not written for groups, it was written for you as the individual. It is your personal Bill of Rights and how we structure our Government and the role of each one of those equal entities and how they relate and interact with each other--the executive, the judicial, and the legislative. It is important to me and the people I represent that we have judges on the bench who will not prejudge cases. He may have a bias one way or the other, but what does the law say as it pertains to me as an individual citizen? This judge made his own commitment to listening, to hearing both sides of the case, and is committed to a fair and reasonable outcome, whether the judge personally likes or dislikes the eventual results. His approach to the law, simply put, is one of restraint. He is shown not to be an ideologue with an intent of imposing his views or his biases on the law. Will he always rule in a way that would be consistent with my philosophy? I would say no. I have a feeling, though, however he rules will be fair, and he will not compromise any of the principles of the law as written. He explained: As a judge I have no agenda, I have a guide in the Constitution and the laws that are precedents to the court, and those are what I apply with an open mind after fully and fairly considering the arguments and assessing the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. I am not sure if it is the job to really draw a consensus when you have nine men and women who have strong views of the law and the Constitution and maybe would interpret them in many different ways, but what this man has shown us is strong character, integrity, and his immense knowledge of the law. Uphold the Constitution, which protects us all--and we have heard a lot about that lately. People who are maybe short of patience would come up to us and ask, What is taking Iraq so long to get a constitution? I said, You know, it took almost 3 years to put ours together. I still question: If we had had television and news channels, spin meisters, commentators, and reporters who seemed to inject their bias every now and again into the news, I am not real sure we would have a Constitution yet. This man has shown us he has all the qualifications to be a judge, especially a judge on the highest Court in the Nation. On behalf of my constituents in Montana, and from all that I can read and all the information I can gather, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting aye on Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States. When the premise was wrong, he wasn't afraid to challenge the premise. That is unique when coming before any kind of a committee in a legislative body. That is what impressed me. The premise is assumed instead of factual. That is the importance to all of us when making judgments that affect so many of us in our daily lives. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we understand in the House bill there is one section that deals with the country-of-origin labeling. This has been one of the most heated debates we have had in the livestock industry. It seems like it comes up every year. In 2002, a mandatory country-of-origin labeling law was passed in the farm bill. I remind my colleagues it is the law of the land. It was signed into law. USDA was directed to start writing the administrative rules that all meat being imported into the United States have a label on it and also that meat domestically produced would also have a label saying: ``Made in the U.S.A.'' That was in 2002. That was 3 years ago. We have gone through this debate, and I know sometimes it gets carried away and is very emotional. I understand in the House bill there is another delay in putting the rules into effect. Now, whether you agree or do not agree with the mandatory law, it is the law of the land. This old business of delay and delay and delay does not do anything for our beef or pork producers because there is no consistency in the law. They do not know what to expect and what to do. In Montana, my producers are tired of waiting. The USDA published a proposed rule on mandatory country-of-origin labeling on October 27, 2003. The public had a chance to comment. In fact, they even extended the comment period to give folks extra time to weigh in on this important issue. Three years have gone by, and here we are--no progress on labeling. This is unacceptable. The Department needs to publish a final rule, and they need to do it now. It is long past time to implement country-of-origin labeling. It is the law of the land. If you don't like the law, then repeal the law. But let's move on. At a minimum, at least let us take a look at the rule. Congress voted to delay COOL once already, and the anti-COOL forces are at it again. But we don't know what the labeling requirements will look like. So the USDA needs to act and to take a leadership role, and it needs to be published. My producers in Montana will not tolerate another day of delay in this important program. We need to get it done, and it needs to be done right. And it needs to be mandatory. If Congress votes to make COOL voluntary, they may just as well repeal the law because voluntary COOL, or country-of-origin labeling, will not work. In October of 2002, the Secretary did publish guidelines for a voluntary labeling program. Any retailer who chose could begin labeling their products. There is a lot of misconception and misinformation. Some would contend that if we have a mandatory labeling law, that would take precedence over a marketing label. In other words, if you wanted to label beef as certified Angus beef, they couldn't do that. Sure, they can do that. They can do it as long as it is domestically produced, and the vast majority of it is, or any other marketing tool that a State should have or that a product should have can still be published, but we have to have a label USA. Since we put it off and the voluntary rule has been in effect, I wonder if anybody knows how many people took advantage of that voluntary program. It doesn't take long to count them: zero, none, zilch. Some of my friends say before we mandate a program, let's try making it voluntary. Well, we tried that. It has been a 3-year period. Nobody has used it. Nobody participated in a voluntary labeling program. Now it is time to shift the balance of power to the world of agricultural marketing. Overwhelmingly, the folks who support country-of-origin labeling are small cow/calf producers. These are the people who work hard every day to raise healthy calves, produce a product, highest quality beef in the world. They take a lot of pride in their products. They want consumers to know that their beef was made in America, made in the good old USA. But they don't have a whole lot to say about this decision, though, because after they sell their calves, they go to a feedlot, and from the feedlot they go into processing. From processing they go into the retail channels. Somebody doesn't want to say this is a product of the USA. Costly, have to trace, herd ID--all of those things, yes, there will probably be a little work to it. But labeling is no more than putting the label on of their own logo. It is time we did it. Cow/calf people right now have not had much luck in sharing our pride with our product. That is why Congress must act. Congress has acted. We have passed mandatory COOL 2002. It is the law of the land. That is the way it should be. Yet every year when Congress takes up Agriculture appropriations, we face another attempt on the part of some to prevent cattle producers from marketing their products as U.S. origin. What I am saying today is; enough is enough. Congress passed the law. Let's implement it. Producers are tired of waiting around. If you don't like the law, then repeal the law. But don't keep us in this limbo of standing here and waiting for something to happen, knowing that it never will. I know we will try and deal with this, whether it be on the Senate floor--I would probably prefer not because the chairman of the Agriculture appropriations said maybe this is a time that we should have a little scrap in conference, and that is where I think it should be done. I trust his judgment on that. But, nonetheless, I want everybody to know--and I want the House of Representatives to know-- that this is irresponsible. You passed that law just like we did. If you didn't like the law, then for goodness' sake, stand up and have nerve enough to repeal it. But if it is not repealed, let's implement it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I congratulate Thomas A. Grau, CPCU, who is near the end of his term as the 100th president of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. He was elected to IIABA's executive committee in September 1999, and was installed as the organization's president last October. Tom is an executive with the Cogswell Agency in Great Falls, MT. During Tom's year as president, IIABA accomplished a number of milestone achievements. It sought--and earned--the honor of a major policy address to its members by President Bush in April. The association met its goal of having 5,000 agencies on board as members of its Trusted Choice' branding initiative, and did so 6 months ahead of schedule. It continued its momentum in the area of agency technology and paid off the mortgage on its headquarters in Alexandria, VA. Tom has been active on all levels of the insurance industry throughout his career. From his service as the Independent Insurance Agents of Montana representative, to the chairman of the national IIABA finance committee, Tom has exhibited great vision and direction for this organization. On the local level, he twice served as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Great Falls. Tom's experience has not been limited to leadership roles alone. He also has proven instrumental in various insurance industry education efforts throughout his career, and taught many professional accreditation classes. I also value Tom's commitment to his community. He is active in church and professional organizations, from Optimist International, to the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the Boy Scouts. I sincerely thank Tom for his efforts on behalf of IIABA and the positive impact his efforts have had on this organization and his community back home in Great Falls, MT. I wish him and his wife Cheryl all the best in their future endeavors.