Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, May 16. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski of Alaska or his designee, 45 minutes; Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, 35 minutes; and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I further ask consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. tomorrow. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the military construction appropriations bill. Any amendments prior to 2:15 p.m. must be cleared by both bill managers. However, those Senators who have general statements on the bill are encouraged to come to the floor during tomorrow morning's session. Votes are possible throughout tomorrow's session, and Senators will be notified as those votes are scheduled.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts.

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

Mr. BURNS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 2001. This bill reflects the bipartisan approach that the ranking member, Senator Murray of Washington, and I have tried to maintain regarding military construction on this subcommittee. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Murray and her staff. They have been very cooperative throughout this whole process. That is very important because we take our jobs here very seriously and this appropriations bill very seriously. This bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee on May 9. The bill recommended by the Committee on Appropriations is for $8,634,000,000. The bill is $600 million over the budget request and approximately $292 million over last year's enacted level. However, there are some considerations we must make. More importantly, the legislation reflects a reduction of $1.2 billion from just 4 years ago--a decrease of almost 12 percent. We sought to recommend to the Senate a balanced bill, and we believe it addresses the key military construction requirements for readiness, for family housing, barracks, quality of life, and the Guard and Reserve components. As my colleagues well know, we take into strong consideration the Guard and Reserve components because we have seen a shift in our force structure. Our force structure has shifted from Regular Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines to Reserve and Guard components. When we started to do that, we found that around this country our infrastructure was lacking for training of these personnel. This bill honors a commitment we have to our armed forces. It helps ensure that housing and infrastructure needs of the military are given proper recognition. Also, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the bill is within the committee's 302(b) budget allocation for both budget authority and outlays. This bill has some points I want to mention. It includes $3.5 billion to provide better and more modern family housing for our service personnel and their families. On another quality-of-life measure, we have added substantially to the budget request for barracks construction projects. The bill provides $712 million for 43 projects throughout the United States and overseas. This funding will provide single service members a more favorable living environment wherever they are stationed. The committee also provides $101 million for 14 environmental compliance projects. We also address the shortfalls that continue to plague our Reserve components. As our active force grows smaller, we are more dependent than ever on our Guard and Reserve for the maintenance of our national security. I continue to be greatly alarmed that the Department of Defense takes no responsibility for ensuring that our Reserve components have adequate facilities. For the members of the Guard and Reserve, quality of life, too, is very important. It is all about buildings and it is all about facilities from which they work and perform their mission. Their lack of regard for the total force concept very much concerns me and many of my colleagues. In Montana, we have the greatest example of a unified Red Horse Division at Malmstrom Air Force Base. It is made up of Regular Air Force and Reserves and is working very well. This comes at a time when our country is so heavily dependent on the Guard and Reserve to maintain our presence around the world. For example, the President's budget request was for only $222 million for all of the Reserve components and the National Guard. That was just not enough. Recognizing this chronic shortfall, we have again lent support by adding $359 million to these accounts. In each case, the funds will help satisfy the essential mission; quality of life, and, of course, our readiness requirements. We fully fund the budget request for the base realignment and closure account by funding $1.17 billion to continue the ongoing BRAC process and consumate the remaining closures and realignments. As you know, in this line particularly, it has been very troubling to this committee that environmental cleanup has really soaked up a lot of our funding that should have been used for quality of life. We will work very closely with the Senate Armed Services Committee as we put together a conference package for military construction. This bill also includes year 2000 supplemental funding for the Department of Defense in peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and other requirements. The chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, will speak to these issues as we move along. I urge the Members of the Senate to support this bill and to move it forward as quickly and as expeditiously as we possibly can. Now I yield to my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.

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 Senate go into a period of morning business for the Senator from New Jersey to speak.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Daly, a fellow in the office of Senator Abraham, be granted floor privileges for the period of the consideration of S. 2521, military construction fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following Appropriations Committee detailees during floor consideration of the Senate appropriations bills and appropriations conference reports: Brian Wilson and Leslie Kalan.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Universal Service Support Act, a bill that will spur increased access to communications services for rural America. Just a few short years ago, we took the dramatic step of reshaping our nation's communications policy by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A significant element of that initiative was the codification of a reconstituted policy of universal service, which guarantees all Americans with the ability to access to quality communications services. Nevertheless, a significant impediment to the fulfillment of this national policy exists. There currently exist two regulatory caps that are limiting the amount of support that can be directed to high-cost infrastructure deployment initiatives that are covered under the 1996 Act. The regulatory caps were first instituted in 1994 at a time when a significant number of communications infrastructure acquisitions were taking place. This was in the days prior to the 1996 Act, which initiated competition and deregulation into the communications industry. Many of the acquisitions of that time involved the rural exchanges of large incumbent local exchange carriers that were divesting themselves of properties deemed to be unprofitable or otherwise undesirable. The entities purchasing such exchanges were generally the small rural cooperative and commercial systems that have served large portions of the nation's rural areas for years. The Federal Communications Commission instituted these caps because the acquiring carriers were seeking support for these newly acquired exchanges in order to upgrade them to the standards of the day. Generally this meant that universal service support was being sought and approved for areas which had never before received such support. The FCC was concerned that the level of support might escalate and in response it imposed both a cap on individual areas and also on the overall support channeling through the system. While waivers to the caps were occasionally granted, for all intents and purposes growth of universal service support other than for the addition of new lines was effectively halted. However, shortly thereafter the 1996 Act was enacted, which radically changed this nation's telecommunications landscape. The Act envisioned an evolving universal service support system which would help ensure the deployment of advanced services. The regulatory caps are at odds with this policy and must be repealed. We cannot permit regulatory policies that are so clearly inconsistent with statutory policy to stand unchallenged. A national, statutory policy dedicated to universal communications service exists, and we can no longer allow inappropriate regulatory actions to undermine its intent. I urge my colleagues to join me in moving this initiative forward to passage prior to the end of this Congress.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Universal Service Support Act, a bill that will spur increased access to communications services for rural America. Just a few short years ago, we took the dramatic step of reshaping our nation's communications policy by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A significant element of that initiative was the codification of a reconstituted policy of universal service, which guarantees all Americans with the ability to access to quality communications services. Nevertheless, a significant impediment to the fulfillment of this national policy exists. There currently exist two regulatory caps that are limiting the amount of support that can be directed to high-cost infrastructure deployment initiatives that are covered under the 1996 Act. The regulatory caps were first instituted in 1994 at a time when a significant number of communications infrastructure acquisitions were taking place. This was in the days prior to the 1996 Act, which initiated competition and deregulation into the communications industry. Many of the acquisitions of that time involved the rural exchanges of large incumbent local exchange carriers that were divesting themselves of properties deemed to be unprofitable or otherwise undesirable. The entities purchasing such exchanges were generally the small rural cooperative and commercial systems that have served large portions of the nation's rural areas for years. The Federal Communications Commission instituted these caps because the acquiring carriers were seeking support for these newly acquired exchanges in order to upgrade them to the standards of the day. Generally this meant that universal service support was being sought and approved for areas which had never before received such support. The FCC was concerned that the level of support might escalate and in response it imposed both a cap on individual areas and also on the overall support channeling through the system. While waivers to the caps were occasionally granted, for all intents and purposes growth of universal service support other than for the addition of new lines was effectively halted. However, shortly thereafter the 1996 Act was enacted, which radically changed this nation's telecommunications landscape. The Act envisioned an evolving universal service support system which would help ensure the deployment of advanced services. The regulatory caps are at odds with this policy and must be repealed. We cannot permit regulatory policies that are so clearly inconsistent with statutory policy to stand unchallenged. A national, statutory policy dedicated to universal communications service exists, and we can no longer allow inappropriate regulatory actions to undermine its intent. I urge my colleagues to join me in moving this initiative forward to passage prior to the end of this Congress.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa. This has been an interesting debate on this part of the Tax Code, and I have been listening to this debate with a lot of interest. If there ever was something that needed fixing, it is unfairness in the tax code. I am not going to talk about a disincentive for folks to get married. I look at it from a standpoint of fairness. Young couples who are starting out and trying to save a little money for the education of their children, or trying to pay for a home, these couples are penalized. They have dreams of participating in American opportunities, and they are kept from this by an unfair tax code. In Montana, 90,000 couples are penalized to the tune of $51.5 million every year in extra taxes simply because they are Mr. and Mrs. We made it pretty clear on this side of the aisle that tax reform is needed. If we have to do it one step at a time or one inch at a time, then that is the way we will do it. That makes it very slow and very painful. Yet it has to be done. According to the Congressional Budget Office, almost half of married couples pay higher taxes due to their married status. The marriage tax penalty increases taxes on affected couples $29 billion per year. Currently, this marriage tax penalty imposes an average additional tax of $1,400 a year on 21 million married couples nationwide. I, along with my Republican colleagues, have made it clear that continued tax reform and tax relief is necessary, and I can think of no other tax that has such a dramatic impact on so many people. To some people, $1,400 may not sound like a lot of money, but to a lot of Americans $1,400 does mean a lot of money. Especially when it can be used for things like saving for education, or supporting young families, or a long list of things that need to be fixed around the house. The marriage tax penalty can have significant negative economic implications for the country as a whole since the tax code can discourage some people from entering the workforce altogether. Additionally, this is a good time for us to restore fairness for married people. No. 1, I think what we have seen this week in the stock market, what we have seen in the high-tech stocks, shows that we may not be in the real booming economy now that everybody thinks we are. No. 2, if you live in farm country, we know we are not in a booming economy. Look at our small towns around my State of Montana and all through farm country. We know what tough times are. And then to be penalized in your taxes just because you are married seems a little unfair. I support this particular piece of legislation. I want the American people to know that we will take this one step at a time. After all, we did not get into this situation overnight. Maybe it will take one step just to get us out of this kind of a situation. Mr. President, as I said, I rise in support of legislation currently on the floor that will put an end to the marriage tax penalty. We have been fighting this tax inequity for several years now. The people of Montana have spoken to me either through letters or conversation--they think this tax is unfair. Last year, I met with a couple in Billings, MT, to determine the impact of this tax on them. Joshua and Jody Hayes paid $971 more in taxes because they were married than they would have paid if they remained single. In Montana, it is estimated that nearly 90,000 couples are penalized by this tax to the tune of $51.5 million--solely for being married. I along with my Republican colleagues have made it clear that continued tax reform and tax relief is necessary, but I can think of no other tax that has such a dramatic impact on so many people. If ever there was a disincentive to be married, this penalty would be it. I believe this, along with the estate tax, is one of the most unfair taxes on Americans. It is not right for people to be penalized with higher taxes simply because they choose to get married. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), almost half of all married couples pay higher taxes due to their marital status. Cumulatively, the marriage penalty increases taxes on affected couples by $29 billion per year. Currently, this tax penalty imposes an average additional tax of $1400 on 21 million married couples nationwide. The marriage penalty can have significantly negative economic implications for the country as a whole as well. Not only does this penalty within the tax system stand as a likely obstacle to marriage, it can actually discourage a spouse from entering the workforce. By adding together husband and wife under the rate schedule, tax laws both encourage families to identify a primary and secondary worker and then place an extra burden on the secondary worker because his or her wages come on top of the primary earner's wages. As the American family realizes lower income levels, the Nation realizes lower economic output. From a strictly economic perspective, the fact that potential workers would avoid the labor force as a result of a tax penalty is a clear sign of a failure to maximize true economic output. As a result, the nation as a whole fails to reach its economic potential, which is demonstrated by decreased earnings and international competitiveness. I am very disappointed the President has indicated he will veto this bill as he has in the past. That is not just the veto of a bill--that is another signal the administration does not support the union of two people and their impending family. Congress has the momentum to correct this inequity and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to repeal the marriage penalty. I ask unanimous consent to have an example of the marriage tax penalty printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring recognition to a very special group of people in our Nation, our public safety communicators. These people are the ones who, hour after hour, stand by ready to dispatch emergency assistance to Americans in times of crisis and often tragedy. In 1992, President George Bush set aside the week of April 9th through the 15th to bring special recognition to all of those who dispatch emergency aid across this great country. Everyday Americans reach for the telephone to dial the numbers 9-1-1, seeking a voice that will bring them the help they so desperately require. A parent holding a child who has suffered a life threatening injury, an elderly person who has no one else to turn to, or a family who has awakened to a home filled with smoke; they are all calling this number just waiting for the voice that will bring them much needed assistance. The men and women who answer the 9-1-1 call are the ones who often make the difference between life and death for thousands of people in this country every single day. Our 9-1-1 dispatchers are on call 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, always there with that calm reassuring voice that puts hope back in the hearts of those in need. It is a great honor for me to bring recognition to these unsung heroes of our country and I hope that you will join me in offering your praise and thanks.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my name as a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 1810, ``Veterans Claims and Appeals Procedures Clarification and Improvement Act.'' Recent court decisions have made it more difficult for veterans to get their rightful assistance from the Veterans Administration, VA, and to develop their claims. This bill will clearly lay out the rules of how the VA will assist veterans with these claims. This bill will remove many of the barriers now standing in the way of veterans gathering information from many different sources to make their claim ``well-grounded.'' Right now, many veterans who have filed claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs must wait for months and, in some cases, even years for the claims to be decided. This creates a hardship on our veterans who have served our country with pride. In my state of Montana, I have seen veterans wait five to 10 years for their claim and the necessary appeals to make it through this bureaucratic system. Over the past few years, I have seen my veterans' casework increase due to veterans having problems in obtaining information that the VA previously provided. My President, can you imagine a homeless veteran finding out that they must call this federal agency or write to this private hospital to obtain his or her own information for a claim? Often, many veterans just give up when they face these many bureaucratic obstacles. They fall though the cracks of a system that is fast becoming a legal nightmare and a system that was supposed to be there for them when they came home. Why? It is because the Department of Veterans Affairs has ceased being helpful to the veterans in the development of their claims. We must honor our commitment to our veterans and ensure the VA is being as helpful as possible to all veterans. This bill will do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and bring an end to the nightmare that America's veterans are having with the present system.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Texas, chairman of the Banking Committee, and also the ranking member of the Banking Committee, my good friend from South Dakota, for his work on this bill. We offered in the Satellite Home Viewers Act last year, an amendment in conference that would enable us to help people in smaller markets around the country. This would help people to receive their local television signal on satellite by facilitating the delivery of these local stations in the gray areas--the B contour and the C contour where reception is poor --in the station's area of dominant influence. I chair the Communications Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. In Montana, we have great distances to cover with few people in between. Other States share this difficulty and also the geographical challenge posed by the mountains. Since the television signal is line of sight, mountains can make the problem of providing local coverage for people in hard to reach places even harder to solve. So, how do we do that? How do we level the playing field and still provide the compulsory licensing for cable, and for satellite television users and, of course, for those local programmers? I think we now have before us a better bill than the one we offered last year. This bill is more complete, because it takes into account both the agencies that are going to make the loans, and also those who will be borrowing the money. It puts some responsibility on each of the parties to make sure, No. 1, that it works and, second, that they assume some of the risk so taxpayers' money is not in jeopardy. I thank the Senate Banking Committee for their commitment in bringing this issue to the Senate floor as fast as they possibly could. Their word has been good, and by working with the Agriculture Committee and also a lot of us individually, the Banking Committee has helped us build a better bill than we had last year. Providing access to local television signals is crucial to rural States. With over-the-air broadcast signals and cable delivery limited by geography in my own State, satellite television has been a staple of the so-called video marketplace for many years. Montana has the highest penetration level of satellite television of any State, at over 35 percent. When I initially proposed the legislation in this area, I was concerned that, without it, only the largest television markets in America would receive local-to-local service as authorized by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. These are the profitable cities such as New York and Los Angeles with millions of television households. But it is not so profitable a venture in areas where we have quite a lot of dirt between light bulbs. The issue we will be debating, of course, will be the amendment offered by my good friend from South Dakota and the cosponsors. Let's talk about the other 140 TV markets in this country. There are 16 States, including my own, that do not have a single city in the top 70 markets. It is time we help those 16 States gain equal footing with the ones with more urban populations. Just because they are small doesn't mean they should be left out of the mix when we talk about local to local, because people enjoy their local sports, they enjoy their local weather, they enjoy their local news. It doesn't do any good for anybody who lives in rural Kentucky to watch a station that is based out of Charlotte, NC. We have to find ways of delivering their signal off the satellite. The ability to receive local television signals is much more than just having access to local sports or entertainment programming. It is a critical and an immediate way to receive local news, weather, and community information. Access to local signals is particularly critical in rural areas, such as Montana, when we experience flooding and other weather situations, including blizzards. This is very important. The LOCAL TV Act reflects the belief that the loan guarantee program should not favor one technology, it should be technology neutral. It is a win-win for consumers. It is also a win-win for the taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to support this. I don't think we have received more mail on any other subject since I have been here. Whenever they start turning our networks off the satellite, we get immediate responses. I look at this the way I looked at REA when I was a lad on a farm in northwest Missouri. I have made this speech many times. Had it not been for the Rural Electrification Administration, we would be watching television by candlelight. That is fact. We were in rural areas. We would never have seen the build-out of electricity or power to our farms and ranches. We have to take the same look at smaller markets in television because the only support they get is through advertising. That advertising is based on viewership, and the profitability of that station is at stake and, with that, the services they provide. I think it is pretty important. This bill is set up with a three-member board. It offers access. The administration is very tight, and it also protects the taxpayer. Remember, the taxpayers' dollars are at stake. We will move through the debate on different amendments that will come up and should be debated. The concept of the bill, if passed right now as it is, is darn good. There are a couple of amendments that I think will improve this piece of legislation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a couple thank-yous, because this has been an issue that has been worked out mostly because of the cooperation of a lot of folks. Last year, as my colleagues know, we ran into that brick wall called Texas Gramm. Nonetheless, he has just been a champion of getting this piece of legislation to the floor and getting it worked out. We have a better bill. Under his guidance, under his recommendations, I think we have a better bill. We have a better bill for the taxpayers. We have a better bill for the people who want to receive their local-into-local via satellite. I also thank Senator Johnson and the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Paul Sarbanes, and my colleague from Montana, who made it stronger because they understand the infrastructure is going to be broadband services in our rural areas. This is a giant step forward. Also, I thank the leader, Senator Lott, who put this on the calendar and said it had to be one of the important things we pass this year in this Congress. I appreciate his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I can make my statement following the vote.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2003, Keep our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act of 2000. This is an important step in providing the men and women who serve our nation with a benefit our government promised them when they entered the military and, a promise that our government broke. It is our duty to restore these benefits. There are still a few of us who serve in the Senate that wore our country's uniform in time of war and in time of peace that know of the hardships placed on the military people and their families. We also know, first-hand, of the promises made by our government to our service men and women. This bill is just a small step in restoring one of those most important promises--health care for military retirees. There are military retirees in my State of Montana that drive hundreds of miles to get their health care. There are some living a few miles from Malmstrom AFB, who cannot get an appointment on base. Mr. President, these are the folks that we promised to take care of it they spent 20 years of their lives defending our freedom. We have a long way to go and much more to be done for our military personnel, active duty, retired, as well as our veterans. As chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on Military Construction, I place a high priority on providing the active duty men and women and their families with adequate homes and facilities to work and live in. Mr. President, we have the best trained and the most highly educated military in the world--we must make a commitment to provide them with the tools necessary to do their jobs, with the salaries and benefits to recruit and retain them and with adequate homes and facilities to live and work. Just as these people honor their country with their commitment, this country must honor our commitment to them. With anything less, we lose these valuable people. I encourage my colleagues to support S. 2003.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President I rise today as one of the proud co-sponsors of S. 2251, ``The Risk Management for the 21st Century Act.'' This bill offers much-needed changes in the area of risk management for farmers and ranchers. Managing risk in agriculture has become perhaps the most important aspect of the business. Agricultural producers who are able to effectively manage their risk are able to sustain and increase profit. An effective crop insurance program will provide farmers and ranchers possibilities for economic sustainability in the future and help them out of the current financial crisis. The federal government can help facilitate a program to unite the producer and the private insurance company. The control must be put ultimately in the hands of the agricultural producer. Although he cannot control risk, an effective management plan will help him to manage the effects of risks, such as weather, prices and natural disasters. This bill addresses the inadequacies of the current crop insurance program. The problems and inconsistencies with the current program make it both unaffordable and confusing to agricultural producers. Costly premiums are the biggest problem. In years of depressed market prices, crop insurance, though badly needed, is simply unaffordable for farmers. This bill inverts the current subsidy formula, in order to provide the highest levels of subsidies to producers at the highest levels of buy-up coverage, and thus alleviate the unaffordable premiums. It also allows for the revenue policies to be fully subsidized. Another important provision in this bill is a pilot program to reward producers for risk management activities. It will allow producers to elect to receive a risk management payment or a crop insurance subsidy. The risk management payments will be given to those producers that utilize any two of several activities, including using futures or options, utilizing cash forwards, attending a risk management class, using Agricultural Trade Options or FFARRM accounts or reducing farm financial risk. This bill also takes into account lack of production histories for beginning farmers or those who have added land or use crop rotation. This will make it possible for those producers to get a foot in the door and receive affordable crop insurance. Many times, especially in Montana, multi-year disasters occur. This bill helps producers that take a blow several years in a row, which reduces their Annual Production History (APH). If a producer has suffered a natural disaster during at least 3 of the preceding 5 years and their APH was reduced by at least 25 percent they may exclude one year of APH for every five years experience. During this time, the producer's APH may increase without limit back up to the level before the multi-year disaster began. Specialty crops such as canola or dry beans, are another important addition to this bill. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) is now authorized to spend up to $20 million each fiscal year to create partnerships for developing and implementing specialty crop risk management options. Additionally, the Non-Insured Assistance Program (NAP) area trigger has been removed. The Secretary now has the authority to provide assistance for specialty crops without any requirement of an area loss. Before, producers were penalized in the case of a disaster for planting alternative crops if their neighbors continued to plant traditional commodities. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Baucus, for his hard work on getting the provisions for specialty crops in this bill. This bill will ultimately put more control in the hands of active producers by including four active producers on the Federal Crop Insurance Commission (FCIC) Board. The board would also include nine private insurance industry experts the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Under Secretary for Rural Development, and the Chief Economist of USDA. In addition, it mandates that the Board Chairperson be one of the non-governmental members. These are important steps to ensure that the new program is run for the producers by the producers. This bill is an important tool to reform the current crop insurance program into a risk management program, designed to help the producer in the long-term. It is vital to find a solution to provide a way for farmers to stay in agriculture. They must be able to continue to produce and distribute the world's safest food supply at a profitable margin. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senators Roberts and Kerrey, as well as Senator Lugar on this important piece of legislation. I believe this bill will pave the way for massive crop insurance reform and help agricultural producers out of this economic crisis. Thank you, Mr. President.