Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5365, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the

table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, where were you on December 7, 1941? There are some of us who can remember that day. I was around 6 or 7 years old. I remember being on that small farm where I was raised. We were doing the evening chores when my mother--we did not have electricity in those days so you had a battery-operated radio and you did not turn on the radio until the evening. But mom had turned on the radio and the newscast was that Japan had attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. When she told dad about that--I remember dad had two feed buckets in his hands--he said: ``Where in the world is Pearl Harbor?'' We did not even know where it was.

At 6 o'clock in the morning, Pearl Harbor time, 183 Japanese aircraft were launched from six major fleet carriers and flew toward Oahu. At 7:02 a.m. Honolulu time, the Japanese aircraft were spotted on their approach to Oahu, and they were mistaken for a flight of B-17 Flying Fortresses on an approach to the islands. At 7:15 a.m., a second wave of 167 Japanese planes departed the fleet carriers for Pearl Harbor. At 7:55 a.m., the attack on Pearl Harbor began, with the first Japanese dive-bomber appearing over Pearl Harbor. It was followed by a first wave of nearly 200 aircraft, including torpedo planes, bombers, and fighters.

The ships in our fleet were sitting ducks, all gathered up in one place. The anchored ships in the harbor made perfect targets for those bombers, and since it was Sunday morning--a time chosen by the Japanese for maximum surprise--they were not fully manned. In fact, back in those days in the Navy, half of the crew on the ships was on liberty.

Most of the damage to the battleships was inflicted in the first 30 minutes of the assault. The Arizona, which still lies in state, so to speak, at that harbor, sank. The Oklahoma was capsized. The California, Nevada, and West Virginia sank in shallow water. In all, more than 180 aircraft were destroyed. U.S. military casualties totaled about 3,400.

That was a fateful day in 1941. Tied up to the Arizona was a ship, the USS Vestal. A good friend of mine, a member of our church, and his two brothers were on that ship. It was a repair ship. They were working on the Arizona. He said he remembers that day like it was yesterday. Glenn Sahlgren is gone now. I spent many hours on the Big Horn River fishing with him. I told him: When they find our bones one of these days, they will be down here on this river with a fly pole in our hand. He said: Conrad, every day since December 8, 1941, has been a bonus to me. He and his two brothers were raised in Saco, MT. All three of them were in the Navy and on that ship, and it too sank. All three survived that fateful morning.

They were young Americans, hit by surprise. Now we are talking about another intelligence bill on the heels of 9/11. There were 3,581 killed, missing, and wounded. In my State alone, on the USS Arizona, Montana lost seven of its finest: Lloyd Daniel, Jerald Dellum, Joseph Marling, Earl Morrison, Robert Pearson, Harold Scilley, and George Smart.

Of course, that attack launched America into World War II where it suffered even more losses. Thousands of men and women died in World War II, but it changed the face of the world and gave us the freedoms we enjoy today. None of us here earned those; we inherited them. What Tom Brokaw called ``the greatest generation'' is a true statement. For after that attack, this country bound up its wounds and didn't look back. We honored those who were lost, and we built a better peace.

As this holiday season approaches and we gather around friends and family, it is important that we count our blessings. Most of those blessings were inherited and not earned. We remember those who went before us. We turn to this holiday and think about those families who are missing someone either because a family member died for their country or he or she is standing tall on foreign soil around the world.

One characteristic about Americans, we have always thought about the next generation. Those who answered the call in 1941 knew full well it was worth the sacrifice so that their families, their children and grandchildren, would never be vulnerable to anything like that again. We are witnessing today's greatest generation also. They understand the risk and the mission, but they also understand their families and what this great country stands for--we tend to forget that every now and again--because they, too, think it is worth the sacrifice so their children and grandchildren will not live under the pall of terrorism, perpetrated on the world from the shadows by faceless people. Today we have brave military men and women again, just as those who have gone before them, standing on alert, securing our freedoms, guarding the innocent abroad. I salute their bravery and their sacrifice, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

This December 7 is a reminder of where we have been, how we reacted, what we have done, and the challenges to be faced in the future by young folks who are willing to pay the price.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Government of Aruba, a leader in the fight to stop the flow of terrorist funds in the Caribbean and Latin America. There can be no doubt that terrorism is the defining challenge of the Nation since 9- 11. While I have always believed that the United States must boldly and confidently lead the way in this brutal war we find ourselves in, I believe that help from our allies is essential to stop the financial networks that support terrorism.

One of the most important fronts in the war on terror concerns the funding mechanisms that support terrorist activities, including underground financial systems, illicit charities, and corrupt financial service providers. Financiers, fundraisers, or donors who provide financial support to terrorists need to be stopped.

Earlier this year, I had met with the Prime Minister of Aruba, Mr. Nelson Oduber. We discussed the international threat of terrorism and a number of other issues. Prime Minister Oduber stressed his nation's support for stopping terrorism and his determination in stopping money laundering and terrorist financing in his nation.

In fact, Aruba's leadership in this field started in 1990 when it hosted what became known as the Aruba Drug Money Laundering Conference, a regional mirror of the Financial Action Task Force--FATF--launched at the Paris G-7 summit of 1989. This started a process, which eventually led to the creation of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force-- CFATF--an organization that now plays a key role in the War on Terror. On October 30, 2001, the FATF adopted eight special recommendations on terrorist financing and Aruba has moved to implement some of those recommendations.

I pay tribute today to Aruba for joining the United States of America in the War on Terror.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend a great man and his long career of selfless service to our country. On August 31, Major General John E. ``Gene'' Prendergast retired after serving 12 years as Montana's Adjutant General.

His 46-year career in the Montana National Guard began 1958, when he joined the Montana Air National Guard. I had the pleasure of getting to know Gene during his time as Montana's Adjutant General. His leadership, vision, and dedication brought a great deal to the dedicated and professional men and women of the Montana National Guard.

Over the years, he worked to improve the Guard's infrastructure in the State and saw the 1940s vintage buildings at Fort Harrison converted into some of the most state-of-the-art facilities in the country. Top of the line military training sites exist today at Limestone Hills. In addition, new and improved infrastructure exists at the Air National Guard Base at Gore Hill in Great Falls and the Army Aviation Support Facility at the Helena Airport.

Our warfighters need the best equipment and infrastructure possible to do their jobs. Gene understood this and I enjoyed working with him to make some of these improvements a reality. As a result, Montana's Guard is known as one of the best in the Nation.

His work did not just stop there. During General Prendergast's time as Adjutant General, Montana's involvement in the Partnership for Peace Program with the country of Kyrgyzstan became a model for the rest of the United States. Also, the Montana National Guard's Youth Challenge Program has successfully transitioned hundreds of ``at risk' youth to active, involved members of society.

While he had a talented, dedicated, selfless group behind him, General

Prendergast led in an inspiring and intelligent manner which will not be forgotten. I enjoyed my time working with General Prendergast--a man I am proud to call my friend. His presence will be missed, but a new chapter of his life lies ahead, and I wish him well as that chapter unfolds.

Mr. President, I agree with my friend from West Virginia. No man should be put through this on his 87th birthday. Happy birthday, Senator Byrd. We hope you make it home in time for the cake.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about my friend from Georgia, Senator Miller, who preceded my remarks.

I was raised in the Midwest. We both come out of an era of rural America. It was a different life. I remember when we did not have electricity. We did not live on a gravel road. We did not have running water in the house. In fact, the water bucket froze on cold winter nights. We didn't have the best clothes in the world. But they were clean. And I have never gone to bed hungry.

I have an idea my mother was kind of like Mrs. Miller. A home full of love on a badlands farm made up of two rocks and one dirt, trying to hang on to it, coming out of tough times called the Depression of the dirty 1930s. It shaped a lot of character. It put a lot of fiber in a lot of people who went on to love this country and would serve her and our States at any cost.

The highest compliment one could pay to any person we meet in this body, comes from the West in an expression that says: We'll not say goodbye; we'll just say so long because you are welcome to sit at my fire anytime.

That is my feeling toward this old marine. I only have one disappointment, that we never did get a trip to the Pacific to visit Iwo Jima. I have been there but he never got to go. We tried every way in the world. We had a couple trips scrubbed because of business in the Senate. We never did make it, but we are not going to give up.

So we say so long to Zell Miller, a good friend, a good Senator, a great representative of Georgia, and a great representative of this country.

I came down here today to talk about other men who will be leaving this Senate, including Senator Hollings from South Carolina. He was chairman of the Commerce Committee when I first came here in 1988 and 1989. I was up to my eyes in confusion, trying to drink out of a fire hydrant to take it all in. My former chairman of the Commerce Committee was part of my education, a very important part of it, in understanding the work done in the committees and this business of setting policy that conforms to the wants and desires of our States and what is good for the country.

One time I offered a little amendment that had a far-reaching effect in the debate of regulating the cable industry. I didn't want to do that but I wanted to give him a little competition to make them better. I offered an amendment without telling anybody on the committee, without telling a soul.

I will tell the Presiding Officer I know what it is like to sit way down at the end of the committee because when I came here my seniority was S100.

I remember the chairman, Mr. Hollings, saying, I've never heard of anything like that. It was pretty obvious we were going to have to go to a vote. He didn't know if he had enough votes to defeat it and I didn't know if I had enough votes to pass it. An instance such as that calls for a little backroom sit-down, talk about this, and see what it does to the issue.

I was right there with him. Senator Inouye from Hawaii was also in the meeting. One can start to learn the ways of the Senate especially in the areas of committee work.

I will miss Ernest Hollings because he has been an institution here serving from the 89th through the 108th Congress. That is a great tradition.

The Presiding Officer knows and understands Ernest Hollings. We may disagree on philosophy but we did not disagree on America.

Don Nickles will leave this Senate in this year, having arrived in 1980 with President Ronald Reagan. The real voice of conservatism, a fiscal conservative, who stood in this Senate and fought wasteful spending and did it with grace, did it with knowledge, a leader among all.

There again, he being 8 years ahead of me, he was a mentor and someone I could look to, study and learn from.

In 1987 or 1986, Tom Daschle came to the Senate. A neighbor from South Dakota from Aberdeen, SD, we both learned a little bit here. He was much more successful than I, reaching into leadership of his party. We had a lot of common friends in South Dakota. I will be sorry to see Tom Daschle leave the Senate. But he has left big tracks here. There are fond memories on issues that we agreed on and issues that we did not agree, but we did not do it being disagreeable.

Bob Graham from Florida I learned was in the Angus business and he leaves this year.

John Breaux from Louisiana. I worked with him on the Commerce Committee regarding energy issues. His wisdom will be missed.

I am afraid I took much more from these men than I could ever return to them.

I served only one term with John Edwards and Peter Fitzgerald. They, too, will be missed in the Senate. Their contribution was huge.

Ben Nighthorse Campbell served from the 103rd to the 108th Congress. But my, the knowledge he has had and the experiences he has had.

It seems as if he has always ridden dangerous things, including old broncs and horses, which are unpredictable, and, you might say, not the safest things. What a great thrill being the cover Senator for Harley Davidson. He, too, has lived a great life. He, too, understands the West. He is also a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. The reservation is in my State of Montana.

We campaigned together, learned from each other. Now he will be returning back to his Colorado, back to the High Country. He is looking forward to that.

Peter Fitzgerald comes from Illinois. As to all of these men, I want to say you do form relationships here, and there is a certain bond that attracts us all, as we learn that even though you may be on the same side of the aisle or the opposite side of the aisle, one could always agree or disagree without being disagreeable. That is what makes the Senate a special place.

We will miss all of these men, but I am looking forward to those who take their place as, there again, new relationships will be developed, a new bond dealing with the old challenges of a free society, with those who love the Constitution and love this country who were prepared to die for it and would if asked to do so today. No one doubts the depth of their patriotism nor their service to their country. We welcome them as we say goodbye to old friends, old relationships that will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will only require about 5 or 6 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague

from North Dakota for yielding. It will not take me long to make this statement.

(The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 2987 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, today I want to recognize a truly great citizen, a great tribal leader and a miltary hero, John ``Roddy'' Sunchild. The Rocky Boy Tribe of North Central Montana, the State of Montana and the United States of America have lost an outstanding leader, citizen and soldier. And for those of us who had the privilege of knowing him, his family and colleagues, we have lost a great father, grandfather, husband and friend.

John ``Roddy'' Eagle Sunchild, Sr. an enrolled member of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation was born June 30th, 1930, the grandson of Sunchild, an early leader of the Cree people. He attended schools on the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation in Montana in his youth.

Roddy was a quiet, unassuming man. At the same time, he was a fierce advocate for his community and his people and a courageous warrior/ soldier for his country. He possessed a gentle, understated sense of humor that put people at ease and, at the same time, made points more eloquently than long-winded speeches.

At age 17, Roddy enlisted in the U.S. Airborne Paratroopers and was immediately assigned to a tour in Korea. It was during his time with the 4th Airborne Ranger Company that he distinguished himself as one of the most honored members of the 187th Regimental Combat Team. Roddy received citations which included the Master Parachutist Badge, Airborne Glider Badge, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Double Valor, the Purple Heart, the U.S. Good Conduct Medal, Korean Campaign Medal, the U.S. Presidential Unit Citation, the French Fourragere, and Master Sergeant. The highest level he attained in the military was an

Mr. President, as you know, we are trying to finalize the appropriations bills this week so that we can get that done and go home. But in these appropriations bills, there are a lot of surprises. One of them is a movement to water down the country-of-origin labeling, a law that was passed in the 2002 farm bill.

I will tell you that over the past weeks--in fact, before the election--I was in 45 communities and traveled 2,500 miles and found out that my State supports country-of-origin labeling and does not want to see it watered down. I heard from my folks. They strongly support it.

In Montana, we want ``U.S.A'' on it. They are proud of what they produce. They are proud of the finished product. Of course, I have supported country-of-origin labeling for many years, and I was glad to see it finally pass in 2002 when we passed the 2002 farm bill.

Now we are at the task of trying to write the administrative rules on a law that is already in place. We are having problems with that.

But as Congress completed the bill and the President signed it into law, we had some folks already trying to dismantle it. That is wrong. Some folks wanted to muddle it up. That was wrong for the simple reason that you can't implement a law unless you know what the rules are. We don't know what those rules are right now. In fact, I think it is kind of like if the Washington Redskins go over to play Baltimore in football and they don't make the rules until after the opening kickoff. I don't think that works very well.

But right now we have some folks who want to take another run at it. They are getting very aggressive and working overtime to get it done. Granted, the law has a couple of flaws in it. It is nothing that we can't fix. But keeping it muddled up all the time while we are trying to write the administrative rules becomes very difficult.

There is a move to defund the entire writing process at one time. That was defeated.

Now, instead of having a mandatory COOL law in effect today, which was the original intent to have a good program, of course, the rules continue because the implementation wasn't supposed to be until 2006. That was a compromise to continue the rulemaking process. Now I am told that there is another move again to soften the law and make it a voluntary law instead of a mandatory law. I don't support that. My producers don't support that. They are tired of waiting around.

We need to get the country-of-origin labeling done. It needs to be done right, and it needs to be mandatory.

I have a concern with the COOL law currently on the books. But today I am introducing legislation that begins to fix one part of that law.

Right now, very little beef will actually be labeled in the grocery stores. The law excludes over half of the beef sold in this country. But let me be clear. Under no set of circumstances do I support rolling back the country-of-origin labeling. If Congress votes to make COOL voluntary, it may as well repeal the law because voluntary COOL does not work.

On October 2002, the Secretary published guidelines for a voluntary labeling program so any retailer who chose to label could do it. But none did.

Some of my friends say if we mandate a program, then let us try voluntary again. It is now time to shift the balance of power in the world of agricultural marketing and mandate country-of-origin labeling.

You see, overwhelmingly, the folks who support COOL are small cow/ calf producers--my ranchers back home in Miles City, Judith Gap, Rudyard, Dillon, and across the State of Montana.

These are guys who have worked hard on their ranches each and every day. They raise and produce healthy cattle and they want ``U.S.A.'' on their products. I don't blame them. But they do not have a lot of say in this decision. Once the calves leave the ranch, producers lose control to other parts of the industry.

While what I am doing is offering a bill to fix it, let us expand the bill to processed meats. We have to do that. The bill I am introducing will remove the exemption in the law for processed foods. In practice, this means beef jerky, sausages, and marinated pork tenderloins which are all excluded from the labeling requirements as it stands. These are common consumer products and none of them would be just the same as they are for fish and shellfish which is already in effect. Looking at those rules, we are not asking for any more.

With that, let us understand that attempts to weaken the law cannot happen in this body nor should it happen on these appropriations bills.

Mr. President, as you know, we are trying to finalize the appropriations bills this week so that we can get that done and go home. But in these appropriations bills, there are a lot of surprises. One of them is a movement to water down the country-of-origin labeling, a law that was passed in the 2002 farm bill.

I will tell you that over the past weeks--in fact, before the election--I was in 45 communities and traveled 2,500 miles and found out that my State supports country-of-origin labeling and does not want to see it watered down. I heard from my folks. They strongly support it.

In Montana, we want ``U.S.A'' on it. They are proud of what they produce. They are proud of the finished product. Of course, I have supported country-of-origin labeling for many years, and I was glad to see it finally pass in 2002 when we passed the 2002 farm bill.

Now we are at the task of trying to write the administrative rules on a law that is already in place. We are having problems with that.

But as Congress completed the bill and the President signed it into law, we had some folks already trying to dismantle it. That is wrong. Some folks wanted to muddle it up. That was wrong for the simple reason that you can't implement a law unless you know what the rules are. We don't know what those rules are right now. In fact, I think it is kind of like if the Washington Redskins go over to play Baltimore in football and they don't make the rules until after the opening kickoff. I don't think that works very well.

But right now we have some folks who want to take another run at it. They are getting very aggressive and working overtime to get it done. Granted, the law has a couple of flaws in it. It is nothing that we can't fix. But keeping it muddled up all the time while we are trying to write the administrative rules becomes very difficult.

There is a move to defund the entire writing process at one time. That was defeated.

Now, instead of having a mandatory COOL law in effect today, which was the original intent to have a good program, of course, the rules continue because the implementation wasn't supposed to be until 2006. That was a compromise to continue the rulemaking process. Now I am told that there is another move again to soften the law and make it a voluntary law instead of a mandatory law. I don't support that. My producers don't support that. They are tired of waiting around.

We need to get the country-of-origin labeling done. It needs to be done right, and it needs to be mandatory.

I have a concern with the COOL law currently on the books. But today I am introducing legislation that begins to fix one part of that law.

Right now, very little beef will actually be labeled in the grocery stores. The law excludes over half of the beef sold in this country. But let me be clear. Under no set of circumstances do I support rolling back the country-of-origin labeling. If Congress votes to make COOL voluntary, it may as well repeal the law because voluntary COOL does not work.

On October 2002, the Secretary published guidelines for a voluntary labeling program so any retailer who chose to label could do it. But none did.

Some of my friends say if we mandate a program, then let us try voluntary again. It is now time to shift the balance of power in the world of agricultural marketing and mandate country-of-origin labeling.

You see, overwhelmingly, the folks who support COOL are small cow/ calf producers--my ranchers back home in Miles City, Judith Gap, Rudyard, Dillon, and across the State of Montana.

These are guys who have worked hard on their ranches each and every day. They raise and produce healthy cattle and they want ``U.S.A.'' on their products. I don't blame them. But they do not have a lot of say in this decision. Once the calves leave the ranch, producers lose control to other parts of the industry.

While what I am doing is offering a bill to fix it, let us expand the bill to processed meats. We have to do that. The bill I am introducing will remove the exemption in the law for processed foods. In practice, this means beef jerky, sausages, and marinated pork tenderloins which are all excluded from the labeling requirements as it stands. These are common consumer products and none of them would be just the same as they are for fish and shellfish which is already in effect. Looking at those rules, we are not asking for any more.

With that, let us understand that attempts to weaken the law cannot happen in this body nor should it happen on these appropriations bills.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to comment on S. 2437, the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, VIVA, which prevents any vote in the upcoming election from being cast inaccurately by allowing voters to check their ballots on paper to ensure accuracy. The paper trail required with this bill would serve as a safety net if an electronic malfunction happens to occur.

American voters are skeptical coming into the 2004 election after the much debated recounts that took place in the 2000 election, and in order to put the voters at ease, we must make our voting technology better and keep every vote on record. I have heard from several Montanans who say they want the security to view an individual paper version of the ballot before it is cast and counted. They also want to know they have the opportunity to correct errors that are discovered on the individual paper version of the ballot that this bill will provide. I join Senator Ensign and Senator Reid in urging all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Voting Integrity and Verification Act of 2004 to ensure that votes are accurately cast in the upcoming election.

Will the Senator yield?

As I looked at this amendment and thought of making available the information of how much we spend on intelligence--not only are there operations we have to take into consideration, lives of people are on the line. We make them more vulnerable every day in their work, gathering intelligence.

And I ask the Senator, has anyone determined what it does to the human assets, the people? They are the best we have. Are they willing to work for this agency to get the best intelligence we need?

Madam President, I have drawn the conclusion that basically this destroys the network. And we wonder why we do not have human resources on the ground in some areas in the world and, yes, even in our own country. I will tell you, if this is disclosed, this will be one of the main reasons that we will have.

Madam President, I say to the managers of the bill, I would like to respond to the ranking member's assessment of why the funds should be disclosed. I ask permission to do that.

That will be fine. We might ask for a little more time.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has asked for 5 minutes. I will let him have his 5 minutes now and I will follow him.

Mr. President, we do not want to prolong this debate because we have already discussed it in the Commerce Committee. I have a second-degree amendment that tightens that loophole down a little bit, but I want to set the record straight.

The 9/11 Commission recommendation read this way:

Congress should support pending legislation which provides

for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum

for public safety purposes.

That is all it said. There is spectrum available if the FCC would only assign it.

When we accelerate the transition to digital we are taking the small market television people almost off the air. In fact, some would say that we are turning off about 73 million TV sets. As long as you set a hard date on a transition, those who would supply the equipment for that transition that you have to have, it seems as though the prices never come down.

I have been in the market a little bit. I might have rode in town on the last load of pumpkins, but I didn't fall off the load and break my head. As long as there is a date there, the price will stay high and some of the little stations will never be able to make the transition.

I have the smallest TV market in the United States called Glendive, MT. It is 258th in all the markets. They cannot afford that. In 1998, I sent a check down there to buy the time when I was running for the Senate, and the buy was the biggest buy they had all year. They called me back and wanted to know if I wanted them to send the deed to the station. They thought I had bought the station.

That is what we are looking at. Do we want to take off these little stations? We are talking about public safety--free over the air. Television does weather, a lot of announcements and public service in our local news. How many people could not take their eyes off the televisions in this market whenever these twisters were going around in advance of and behind all of the hurricanes and the leftover hurricanes that come through this area. Do we want to lose those free over-the-air broadcasters? I don't think so, not with the service they provide to our local communities.

We have talked with the first responders, and we have done a lot of work with the first responders. We have a bill on the Senate floor today called E 9-1-1, and the heart of that bill is to make sure that every time you pay your phone bill you pay a little tax, and that money goes to the States so that these communication centers can upgrade, modernize. When you dial 9-1-1 on your cell phone, they can locate you as if you dialed in on a wired line.

I think that is a no-brainer. It only took 4 years to pass the original bill. Now we have to make sure the money goes to the right place. Senator Clinton of New York and I have been working on that for 2 years. And it still hasn't passed.

This underlying bill we are talking about, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, this legislation should not even be on this bill because they are talking about intelligence. They are talking about if something bad were to happen in this country. We are talking about after it happens, and that is a whole new kettle of fish.

I am offering a second-degree amendment in the form of a substitute. Basically, it tightens up the loophole that the Senator from Arizona is so concerned about.

I will read it into the Record:

(B) to the extent necessary to avoid customer disruption

but only if all relevant public safety entities are able to

use such frequencies free of interference by December 31st,

2007, or are otherwise able to resolve interference issues

with relevant broadcast licensee by mutual agreement.

That is what we are saying, that the first responders have to ask for it. I will tell you, and I agree with the Senator from Arizona, we are going to lose some stations--and those channels, some of them are minority stations--as a result of this legislation.

I appreciate where the Senator from Arizona wants to go, but I will tell you, market forces usually do a better job in transitioning us into a new era than hard and fast dates do. They do it in an economical sense and let everybody, all competitors, compete and survive in the marketplace.

We know there is going to be demand for high-definition television. I can remember, in 1991, going to the Consumer Electronics Convention in Las Vegas. Do you know what they wanted to do? They wanted the Government to set the standards of high-definition television. My message then was: You do not want the Government to set standards, because when we put them in law, they are there for a long time. Your competition is international. You set the standards. The industry sets the standards, the standards in which they can compete and still make the transition to and use the new technologies that are to come.

That is basically what we are talking about. So I offer this amendment in the form of a substitute and ask for its adoption.

I yield the floor.

I can do that.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Special Olympics and Empowerment Act of 2004. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which will create a multi-million dollar authorization, over 5 years, for the Special Olympics. This crucial funding will expand the scope of the Special Olympics by offering more children and adults with disabilities the opportunity to join in the life-changing events of the Special Olympics program.

The oath of the Special Olympics is ``Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.'' This mission of this program certainly rings true to the spirit of America and beyond. More than one million athletes and 500,000 volunteers participate in Special Olympics world-wide. Also, in my State of Montana, the Special Olympics signifies a real success: during the last year over 2,000 Special Olympics athletes participated and they could choose from as many as fourteen Olympic-style sports.

It is important to me that Montanans with developmental and intellectual disabilities have access to recreational opportunities that will not only improve their health and well-being, but also promote mental and emotional strength. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Special Olympics.