Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Mark Kaniut of my staff during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill introduced last week by my colleague, Senator Ensign. I am pleased that he has taken the helm in addressing the many problems posed by an excessively large and cumbersome Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in his bill S. 2278. I am glad to add my name as a cosponsor of this bill. Montana sits in the Ninth Circuit, whose docket has grown in recent years. In 2003, 12,872 appeals were filed at the court, up almost 1,500 from the previous year. The Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2004 will create two new circuit courts in addition to a restructured Ninth Circuit. The new Ninth Circuit would still contain California, and also Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Marianas Islands. The new Twelfth Circuit would include Montana, as well as Arizona, Nevada, and Idaho. The new Thirteenth Circuit would comprise the remaining states: Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. I know many in the Senate have revisited this issue every year, and I am pleased to support this current bill.

Many times the judiciary in this country is bound to make unpopular but correct decisions, but lately, the Ninth Circuit has made decisions which I believe are both unpopular and wrong. Many Montanans who hold far more conservative views than the membership of the Ninth Circuit bench sitting in San Francisco were nonetheless bound to a particularly offensive decision made last year. The court found the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when it is recited in school by our youngsters. The Supreme Court has heard this argument last month, and a decision is expected in July. This case highlights the disconnect between the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit and my State of Montana which it supposedly represents. When I walk around Washington, DC, I see the presence of our forefathers and our tradition everywhere, which includes many references to God in our hallowed halls and on our currency. Many have given their lives in the name of God and country, and this faith has sustained us as a Nation. By limiting the words our children can utter in the classroom in support of this Nation and our faith, the Ninth Circuit has taken yet another step to remove all that is sacred for Americans. Americans know the words to patriotic songs, like ``God Bless America'' or ``America the Beautiful,'' but this may change if our Nation's young people are not permitted to sing them in a classroom. I find this decision extremely upsetting, because now more than ever, we need to teach our children a little more about faith in America and patriotism. There used to be a time when most young people felt compelled to serve their country, whether it be completed through military or volunteer service, but now it seems as though those numbers lessen every year. In America, we pride ourselves on the willingness of individuals to lend a helping hand, and I am saddened that the court has played an instrumental part in gradually eroding our Nation's values.

One of the other areas the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly addressed is land management, which usually has a negative effect on my State of Montana. One need only look to some of the court's recent decisions, which all share one commonality: they represent

the conclusions of a bench that is thoroughly unfamiliar with land use and its implications on Montana.

It is worth noting at the outset that many cases never make their way to the Ninth Circuit docket, simply because the parties know the fate of their cause. This is especially true for the Forest Service, which has lost many battles in front of the Ninth Circuit, and Montana is certainly not better off for it.

For example, in Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, the Ninth Circuit found that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, as well as the Endangered Species Act. Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 890, 9th Cir. 2002. In this case, environmental groups challenged the validity of the Darroch- Eagle timber sale by the Forest Service. At the district court level, the Montana judge felt so strongly that the environmental groups did not have a claim that he granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service. This is important given the legal significance of summary judgment. Even if all of the plaintiff's claims are true, there is no legal remedy available. The Ninth Circuit turned this decision on its head, and issued an injunction against the Forest Service so they could not proceed with the sale.

In a similar situation, the Montana district court again granted summary judgment for the Forest Service in 2003, and again, the Ninth Circuit reversed. In Sierra Club, Inc. v. Austin, an unreported case, the Ninth Circuit found that the Forest Service's post-burn plan for Lolo National Forest violated NEPA. According to a front-page story carried by the Missoulian in December, 2003, the post-burn project would have permitted salvage logging of 2,322 acres and commercial thinning of 2,470, no small undertaking by any means. Even though the court found that the water-quality assessment done by the Forest Service was not arbitrary and capricious, it nonetheless concluded that the actions by the Forest Service in the environmental impact statement, EIS, did not include analysis of the logging effects on unroaded areas, and therefore violated NEPA in that sense.

Also in 2003, the Ninth Circuit found the Forest Service had potentially violated portions of the Montana Wilderness Study Act in Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 314 F.3d 1146, 9th Cir. 2003. This act was passed by Congress in 1977 to allow the study of certain lands, to be called wilderness study areas, so that they could maintain their wilderness character and possibly be included within the National Wilderness Preservation System. Since no final designation of a wilderness area had been given, the Forest Service had been operating under temporary rules for the past 25 years. Apparently, the Ninth Circuit found that there was an issue to be resolved by allowing the trial to proceed, and remanded the case to go ahead to trial. The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court.

These three cases highlight recent action of the Ninth Circuit. The last two years have been extremely litigious ones for the Forest Service in Montana, and I regret the time and energy that the Forest Service has had to put forward on this issue, but especially the taxpayers' money involved needed to defend against all of these claims. The Ninth Circuit's sympathy for the claims by various environmental groups has provided an attractive solution to any local Montana court decision they may not like. Unfortunately, the taxpayers end up footing this bill, and the stewards who protect our forests are being second- guessed at every turn.

The Ninth Circuit is also rendered ineffective because of the size of its bench as well as its extensive geographic coverage. There are 47 judges on the bench, and as noted legal scholar Richard A. Posner once explained that the circuit is predisposed to ``judicial irresponsibility'' because of its size. One Ninth Circuit judge, Andrew Kleinfeld, said the judges do not even have the time to read one another's opinions, which provides little guidance to other judges or those affected by their decisions.

The problems with the Ninth Circuit are due to many factors, whether it be the geographic size of the region, the number of judges, or the impractical decisions issued by those judges. The legislation recently introduced will address this problem, so that Montanans will benefit from a more reasonable bench, which will reflect the opinions of those in our area, rather than those located near San Francisco.

In order to best preserve the common sense that Montanans pride themselves in, I am pleased to support this bill. Let's bring a little common sense back to the judicial system. This is certainly a step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one small piece of this legislation which will make a big difference in rural States such as Montana. I am talking about the broadband expensing provision, which would encourage broadband providers to extend their networks to underserved areas, and to upgrade their networks to ``next-generation'' speeds so that they can deliver a full complement of voice, video and data services. We have been working on this legislation since 2000-- Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Clinton. There are a lot of us who feel strongly about this issue. It has passed the Senate twice now, but, unfortunately, we have been unable to persuade our friends on the other side of the Capitol to support it. So I want to thank the Finance Committee for including it again in this bill, and I am going to push my colleagues on the House side to get behind it this time because it is very important. It is important for rural areas, for underserved inner city areas, for education, for health care, for energy savings, for a

whole list of reasons. And I want to say this. It is fitting for this broadband incentive to be included in the FSC/ETI bill because this provision will have a big effect on international competitiveness. We are hearing a lot about ``offshore outsourcing'' these days, and broadband is a response to that. If we have a robust high-speed network all over this country, companies will not need to send jobs to India-- we can do them in Montana, and in Iowa, and in West Virginia, and in communities all across the nation where costs are lower. So this is about providing an infrastructure that makes us more productive, just as the Interstate highway system, and rural electrification, and the transcontinental railroad all made the Nation more productive. Broadband is a key infrastructure of the 21st century, and we need to construct it as quickly as possible. I believe this provision will help do that, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its enactment this year.

Mr. President, this bill adjusts the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in Montana.

For the Helena and Lolo National Forests, these adjustments are necessary to continue the community-based Blackfoot Community Project. This community-driven project is a collaborative effort supported by local residents, elected officials, State and Federal agencies, and others who care about the future of the Blackfoot River Valley.

The project will eventually result in the future ownership and management of nearly 88,000 acres of land in the Blackfoot River watershed. The project will protect the rural lifestyle of a large, intact landscape that supports agriculture, timber harvesting, recreation, and natural resources that are important both locally and nationally.

The project will provide a model for forest management in the west, by creating a private-public partnership to manage a portion of the Blackfoot watershed as a community forest for sustainable timber products and other natural resources benefits. The local community has requested Forest Service acquisition of certain parcels outside the existing National Forest Boundary to ensure continued public uses of these lands including public access for recreation, hunting, livestock grazing, and watershed protection. The end result of this boundary adjustment Forest service will be consolidated ownership and improved forest management.

The boundary adjustment on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest reflects changes in the Forest as a result of the Watershed conservation project completed in 2003. About 11,000 acres of the Watershed Property that is currently adjacent to the proclaimed Forest will be more accurately classified as existing within the Forest boundary. The Forest Service purchased the property in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The County Commissioners, local public, and conservation and sportsman's groups supported the project.

Mr. President, this bill adjusts the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in Montana.

For the Helena and Lolo National Forests, these adjustments are necessary to continue the community-based Blackfoot Community Project. This community-driven project is a collaborative effort supported by local residents, elected officials, State and Federal agencies, and others who care about the future of the Blackfoot River Valley.

The project will eventually result in the future ownership and management of nearly 88,000 acres of land in the Blackfoot River watershed. The project will protect the rural lifestyle of a large, intact landscape that supports agriculture, timber harvesting, recreation, and natural resources that are important both locally and nationally.

The project will provide a model for forest management in the west, by creating a private-public partnership to manage a portion of the Blackfoot watershed as a community forest for sustainable timber products and other natural resources benefits. The local community has requested Forest Service acquisition of certain parcels outside the existing National Forest Boundary to ensure continued public uses of these lands including public access for recreation, hunting, livestock grazing, and watershed protection. The end result of this boundary adjustment Forest service will be consolidated ownership and improved forest management.

The boundary adjustment on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest reflects changes in the Forest as a result of the Watershed conservation project completed in 2003. About 11,000 acres of the Watershed Property that is currently adjacent to the proclaimed Forest will be more accurately classified as existing within the Forest boundary. The Forest Service purchased the property in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The County Commissioners, local public, and conservation and sportsman's groups supported the project.

Mr. President, I honor some of the greatest men and women in the Nation--Montana teachers. In my State we are blessed to have educators making a difference each day in the lives of our young people. This week is Teacher Appreciation Week and Montana educators should hold their heads high. Montana 8th graders have the second highest science scores in the world. Eighty-four percent of Montana public school teachers in core academic fields have full certification and a major in their field, ranking Montana as one of the top States-- 2nd out of 50--in teacher qualification. Montana is one of the top 11 States in the percentage of high school graduates going on to college.

Yes, our children are truly fortunate. Our highly qualified teachers not only work hard, but they care about each and every student that enters their classroom. I thank you, Montana teachers, for your sense of duty and compassion to our precious future generation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for the next 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I have heard my colleagues come to the Senate today criticizing the President about the handling of Iraq and the war on terrorism. I hate for it just to lie there and somebody not explain to the American people that we are at a war. This is a war that is as big as World War II or World War I. It is global in its size, but it is with a different enemy than we have ever known before in the history of this country or any other country. It is terrorism. It is performed by people who do not wear uniforms, who operate in the shadows and are faceless, are indiscriminate in whose life they take-- whether they be combatants or noncombatants, men or women, young or old--and a respecter of no nationality. That is the enemy.

Some would actually question the decision to move against Iraq or Afghanistan. Let me remind my fellow Americans and also my colleagues, we could go back as far as Beirut when a building was bombed there and over 200 marines lost their lives. It was a car

bombing. We had never experienced that before. It gave us a pattern of what was to come in later years.

We have heard the crying of the Iraqi people. I believe the spirit of freedom lives in their breast as it does in ours. But let's look at the track record, how we got to where we are today.

Do you recall the World Trade Center, the first time it was hit, February 26, 1993? Six people died. Cyanide gas and other chemicals were found in that building. Next, we move to June 25, 1996, when 19 Americans were killed and 372 were wounded at a place called Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Nothing was done about either one of those attacks.

Then came August 7, 1998. Two embassies were bombed; one in Tanzania, one in Kenya, eastern Africa.

Then came October 12, 2000. The USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. Seventeen American sailors died.

Then we come to September of 2001--September 11; 9/11--and the World Trade Center, New York City. Two airplanes were flown into the two towers. Over 2,500 people were killed on that fateful day that most of us remember. There was another attack in Washington, DC, at the Pentagon on that same day. On that day some 3,000 people died. We did not even lose that many at Pearl Harbor when Japan attacked our forces, the U.S. Navy.

We could go on about Santiago, on September 27, 2001; the U.S. housing compound in Saudi Arabia--all of those terrorist attacks on American citizens.

Because we did nothing to answer any of those attacks, was that basically a green light to go ahead? How long do we have to apologize and say, Well, we are trying to find a way to take care of this cancer that has invaded our world?

So the decision was to say, after 9/11: Let's go after the cancer. And we did that. And al-Qaida, even though it operates, I will tell you, it does not operate as freely as it did.

The American people, have they forgotten we have not been hit by another terrorist act in this country since we made the decision to tear the heart out of the dragon?

And then the idea of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, he had them. He used them. He manufactured them. People were even trained.

I do not think we need to apologize to anybody anymore for the actions we are taking. Enough is enough, for the protection of our country and for the protection of the people who live here, who work here, and long to be free.

Just ask the young men. For everybody who would say, Well, this thing is falling apart, do you realize our recruitments are up? People who are reenlisting in the service--those numbers are up. If you talk to our young people there in Iraq, who are doing those patrols--and I have done that; I have been there--they know what the mission is. They know the risk involved. They willingly accept it because they have a great heritage of generations before them. When called upon to make the sacrifice for national security, Americans have always answered the call--even in light of those who would be apologists.

So we as, say, the political arm also have an obligation to make sure they inherit the world they think they are getting. They are willing to die for it. We should support them because they understand the next generation will. If you wanted to take a poll on how many people wanted to be on Normandy Beach on June 6, 1944, I doubt you would get a majority of people who would like to have been there. But we went. We answered the call. That is what is important. We cannot lose our will as a people or a society or as our military forces. That is what I am hearing is our will. They understand what is at stake for the next generation. That is what has made this country great. We always think about the next generation. It is not about our own generation. It is about our kids. That is what this is all about.

If we keep backing and shrinking away, then our enemy will take whatever we give them, and we will pay an even higher price than we have already paid--Americans killed, innocently, going about their own business in their own way in a free country.

We have men and women who have answered the call and a Commander in Chief who is doing his level best to not only end it in an honorable way but to also secure the freedom and the safety of people in a part of the world where that has been done very few times. He is to be commended for it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

It is my understanding we are still in morning business and we have about 5 or 6 minutes remaining on our side?

I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed and use that time up.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Nevada and my good friend from Vermont. Today is Earth Day. Of course, most of us who are involved in agriculture, we don't set aside one specific day. Every day is Earth Day for those of us who use the Earth to produce the wealth of the country.

Anyway, every year about this time they always release the index of leading environmental indicators, which gives us an overall measuring stick on how good or how bad we are doing in dealing with the environment. This press release came out of San Francisco. It is released by a group that is a think tank in Bozeman, MT. They brought out some information that we tend to forget when we talk about the environment. Steven Hayward wrote the press release. Of course we are doing better than a lot of people think we are doing.

Environmental quality is improving steadily, in some cases dramatically, in key areas with which we try to deal. Vehicle emissions are dropping about 10 percent per year as the fleet turns over to inherently cleaner vehicles, including SUVs. We are making progress. Ninety-four percent of the population is served by water systems that have reported no violation of any health-based standards.

We are getting better in trying to provide clean water for our citizens. There has been a 55-percent decline in toxic releases since 1988 even while total output of industries covered by this measurement has increased 40 percent. We are making progress. That is dramatic progress as far as quality is concerned.

Despite most popular assumptions, U.S. air quality tends to be found at least equal, if not slightly better, than in Europe. It seems we have a lot of people who distract and criticize us for our environmental policies.

This year's index includes a list of the media's best environmental reporting on that, which includes the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New Republic, and the Wall Street Journal.

In other words, all of these folks have earned their spurs, so to speak, in keeping the public informed on such matters.

There have also been notable improvements in our Government reporting with the EPA's first ever composite on national trends and State-based initiatives to improve water quality reporting and monitoring.

Private conservation efforts, such as Ducks Unlimited, and private water trusts have been highly successful as reported this year.

The index reports one of the few areas to show a decline in the quality is that of public lands. While funding and land allotments have increased, quality has deteriorated by the most significant measures. The root of the problem is excess of political management, and the answer can be found in innovative solutions such as land trusts and resource leases.

This year's index includes a special section comparing quality between the U.S. and Europe. We are winning that also.

The other ways:

Doomsaying and know-nothingism gets better headlines and

work well for direct-mail fundraising . . . but a serious

look at the data helps us to appreciate how far we've come,

and helps us set priorities for the next generation of

environmental activism.

Whenever we hear a lot of doomsaying that we are doing very badly, the scorecard reports to us overall a different kind of story. The only place we are not making any improvements at all is on the lands the Federal Government manages, not the land that is managed in the private sector.

I ask unanimous consent the entire text of the press release be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would make a

technical change to the ORBIT Act's IPO provision.

As you may recall, I sponsored the ORBIT Act in 1999 with strong bipartisan support. Since that time, I have worked with Senators McCain, Hollings and others to pass technical amendments to the Act by unanimous consent when needed. And it is my hope and expectation that we can pass this small technical change as quickly as before.

Congress passed the ORBIT Act to enhance competition in the global satellite communications market. I am proud to say that ORBIT has achieved all of its objectives. Since its enactment, the FCC has found that positive change has occurred in the satellite services market as a result of the ORBIT Act. The FCC has declared that the pro-competitive objectives of the ORBIT Act have been achieved--including the complete transformation of Intelsat from what used to be a highly bureaucratic, intergovernmental organization into a fully privatized, U.S. licensed company that is headquartered and operates in the U.S., and is now subject to U.S. laws and U.S. regulations.

Another important benefit produced by the ORBIT Act has been the infusion of U.S. capital and other private investment into the former intergovernmental organizations. American and other private investors have made significant investments in Intelsat and Inmarsat following enactment of the ORBIT Act. The only piece of unfinished business from the ORBIT Act that remains is the requirement that an IPO occur by a date certain.

I have always had serious reservations with the very idea that Congress would impose a date certain for an IPO, rather than letting market forces determine the appropriate time for such an event. If I had my preference, we would get rid of the mandatory IPO requirement altogether. But since the Intelsat IPO deadline is June 30, 2004, we don't have a lot of time to get back into the substance of that issue.

The pressing matter at hand is that Intelsat's IPO deadline is fast approaching, and the market is simply not conducive for a successful IPO. This is the same situation we encountered in 2002 when my good friend Senator Hollings and I worked together to provide a time extension for conducting the IPO. I would say to my colleagues that the telecom market isn't much better now than it was in 2002. So we again need to provide Intelsat with an extension on its IPO deadline because market conditions are not favorable at this time.

If Congress does not quickly pass legislation extending the June 30, 2004 IPO deadline, several U.S. entities who are major investors in Intelsat stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because the telecom market for IPOs is far from ideal. This will be extremely harmful to U.S. interests and it will damage Intelsat, an important communications asset for the U.S.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues and the leadership to quickly move the passage of this legislation. The bill would simply extend Intelsat's IPO deadline for 12 months and give the FCC discretionary authority to further extend this deadline another 6 months if market conditions warrant.

I urge my colleagues to support quick passage of this legislation so that it can be enacted into law well before June 30, 2004.

I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would make a

technical change to the ORBIT Act's IPO provision.

As you may recall, I sponsored the ORBIT Act in 1999 with strong bipartisan support. Since that time, I have worked with Senators McCain, Hollings and others to pass technical amendments to the Act by unanimous consent when needed. And it is my hope and expectation that we can pass this small technical change as quickly as before.

Congress passed the ORBIT Act to enhance competition in the global satellite communications market. I am proud to say that ORBIT has achieved all of its objectives. Since its enactment, the FCC has found that positive change has occurred in the satellite services market as a result of the ORBIT Act. The FCC has declared that the pro-competitive objectives of the ORBIT Act have been achieved--including the complete transformation of Intelsat from what used to be a highly bureaucratic, intergovernmental organization into a fully privatized, U.S. licensed company that is headquartered and operates in the U.S., and is now subject to U.S. laws and U.S. regulations.

Another important benefit produced by the ORBIT Act has been the infusion of U.S. capital and other private investment into the former intergovernmental organizations. American and other private investors have made significant investments in Intelsat and Inmarsat following enactment of the ORBIT Act. The only piece of unfinished business from the ORBIT Act that remains is the requirement that an IPO occur by a date certain.

I have always had serious reservations with the very idea that Congress would impose a date certain for an IPO, rather than letting market forces determine the appropriate time for such an event. If I had my preference, we would get rid of the mandatory IPO requirement altogether. But since the Intelsat IPO deadline is June 30, 2004, we don't have a lot of time to get back into the substance of that issue.

The pressing matter at hand is that Intelsat's IPO deadline is fast approaching, and the market is simply not conducive for a successful IPO. This is the same situation we encountered in 2002 when my good friend Senator Hollings and I worked together to provide a time extension for conducting the IPO. I would say to my colleagues that the telecom market isn't much better now than it was in 2002. So we again need to provide Intelsat with an extension on its IPO deadline because market conditions are not favorable at this time.

If Congress does not quickly pass legislation extending the June 30, 2004 IPO deadline, several U.S. entities who are major investors in Intelsat stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because the telecom market for IPOs is far from ideal. This will be extremely harmful to U.S. interests and it will damage Intelsat, an important communications asset for the U.S.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues and the leadership to quickly move the passage of this legislation. The bill would simply extend Intelsat's IPO deadline for 12 months and give the FCC discretionary authority to further extend this deadline another 6 months if market conditions warrant.

I urge my colleagues to support quick passage of this legislation so that it can be enacted into law well before June 30, 2004.

I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my honor to present this bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, MT as the ``Mike Mansfield Post Office.''

I rise today not just as a Republican honoring a Democrat, but rather as a Montanan recognizing the most beloved political figure of our history. Mr. Mansfield holds a special place in the hearts of all Montanans, a man whose wisdom, humility, and decency have been sorely missed.

Michael Joseph Mansfield was born in New York City on March 16, 1903. Following the death of his mother at age 7, Mike was sent to Great Falls, MT to live with an aunt and uncle.

As World War I developed, the 14-year-old Mansfield saw an opportunity to serve his country, and lied about his age in order to join the U.S. Navy. He eventually enlisted in the Army and Marine Corps as well. During this service he was stationed in the Philippines and China, a time that marked the beginning of a lifelong love for the continent, its people, and their culture.

After being honorably discharged from the Marines, Mike Mansfield returned to Montana as a 19-year-old lacking a high school education. He found a job in the Butte mines, shoveling rock as a `mucker.' It was during his time in Butte that Mr. Mansfield met his lifetime partner and companion, Maureen Hayes. It was Maureen who saw in Mike his enormous potential and convinced him to go to college. With her financial support, Mansfield obtained his high school equivalency, B.A., and M.A. from the Montana State University, now the University of Montana. Mr. Mansfield taught Latin American and East Asian history for 8 years at the University, retaining lifelong tenure as Professor of History.

Mr. Mansfield began his extraordinary public service career in 1942 when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He served four more terms before being elected to the Senate in 1952. Within 4 years, he was elected majority whip and in 1961 he was chosen as the Senate Majority Leader. Mike would go on to hold this position for 17 years, longer than any other man in the history of this great body.

As Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Mansfield is remembered as a truly unique figure, a pragmatist whose sensibility, practicality, and unrelenting pursuit of results almost always transcended ideological concerns. More Senate leader than Majority Leader, Mansfield preferred not to draw a metaphorical line in the sand. Instead, he sought to guide the body as a whole to a fair and agreeable determination.

In 1977, upon his retirement from the Senate, Mr. Mansfield was appointed Ambassador to Japan by President Carter; a post he held through 1989. This position offered Mike a chance to utilize his vast experience in Asian affairs, in a region that he truly loved. In the spirit of this admiration, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation continues to encourage dialogue and cooperation between the United States and Asia.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this dedication of a postal facility is but a small token of gratitude for the many years of exceptional service given to this body, this Nation, and Montana by this wonderful man. The ever modest and humble Mansfield would have shied at such a tribute; we might even expect him to offer the names of people more deserving of the honor than he. In truth, I can think of no one more deserving of praise than Mike Mansfield, a true hero of the Senate.

Mr. President, it is my honor to present this bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, MT as the ``Mike Mansfield Post Office.''

I rise today not just as a Republican honoring a Democrat, but rather as a Montanan recognizing the most beloved political figure of our history. Mr. Mansfield holds a special place in the hearts of all Montanans, a man whose wisdom, humility, and decency have been sorely missed.

Michael Joseph Mansfield was born in New York City on March 16, 1903. Following the death of his mother at age 7, Mike was sent to Great Falls, MT to live with an aunt and uncle.

As World War I developed, the 14-year-old Mansfield saw an opportunity to serve his country, and lied about his age in order to join the U.S. Navy. He eventually enlisted in the Army and Marine Corps as well. During this service he was stationed in the Philippines and China, a time that marked the beginning of a lifelong love for the continent, its people, and their culture.

After being honorably discharged from the Marines, Mike Mansfield returned to Montana as a 19-year-old lacking a high school education. He found a job in the Butte mines, shoveling rock as a `mucker.' It was during his time in Butte that Mr. Mansfield met his lifetime partner and companion, Maureen Hayes. It was Maureen who saw in Mike his enormous potential and convinced him to go to college. With her financial support, Mansfield obtained his high school equivalency, B.A., and M.A. from the Montana State University, now the University of Montana. Mr. Mansfield taught Latin American and East Asian history for 8 years at the University, retaining lifelong tenure as Professor of History.

Mr. Mansfield began his extraordinary public service career in 1942 when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He served four more terms before being elected to the Senate in 1952. Within 4 years, he was elected majority whip and in 1961 he was chosen as the Senate Majority Leader. Mike would go on to hold this position for 17 years, longer than any other man in the history of this great body.

As Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Mansfield is remembered as a truly unique figure, a pragmatist whose sensibility, practicality, and unrelenting pursuit of results almost always transcended ideological concerns. More Senate leader than Majority Leader, Mansfield preferred not to draw a metaphorical line in the sand. Instead, he sought to guide the body as a whole to a fair and agreeable determination.

In 1977, upon his retirement from the Senate, Mr. Mansfield was appointed Ambassador to Japan by President Carter; a post he held through 1989. This position offered Mike a chance to utilize his vast experience in Asian affairs, in a region that he truly loved. In the spirit of this admiration, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation continues to encourage dialogue and cooperation between the United States and Asia.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this dedication of a postal facility is but a small token of gratitude for the many years of exceptional service given to this body, this Nation, and Montana by this wonderful man. The ever modest and humble Mansfield would have shied at such a tribute; we might even expect him to offer the names of people more deserving of the honor than he. In truth, I can think of no one more deserving of praise than Mike Mansfield, a true hero of the Senate.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this is my first time on the floor speaking on this particular subject. I wish to thank the ranking member, Senator Conrad, from North Dakota.

I agree with my chairman that we should be here solving problems instead of throwing salt on old wounds because we have a great challenge ahead of us. There comes a time when we talk about all kinds of interests, but the national interest is more important right now than at any time in our history.

We do have serious problems and challenges. I think every Senator in this body has the capability and the will to solve some of those problems so we can go home and we can couch the argument any way we want on the political stump. I think we better add something to the debate.

Last year was my first year on the Budget Committee. Of course, this is my second budget. I compliment the leadership of the committee on both sides of the aisle because in committee we talked about some very contentious issues, different ideas on how we approach the budget and how it affects everyday life in the United States of America, knowing there are circumstances that none of us had any control over and probably will have a limited amount of effect on our country unless the American people understand the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

One has to remember the budget is a result of three different entities coming together and producing a document that reflects some of their priorities, some of their do-nots and some of their do-dos, and that is working with the White House and this President and also working with the Senate and the House and both sides of the aisle. That is what this product will reflect.

There are provisions in this resolution that probably do not find favor with everybody, and there are some provisions in this resolution that we do favor. Nonetheless, it will be a product of working with each other on this floor and also with the House of Representatives and with this President that will produce this document, a budget resolution.

Nobody likes deficit spending. We went through that once before. Some of it was self-inflicted. This one was not self-inflicted, as far as our Government is concerned. It was a result of some circumstances that happened to this country at a very inopportune time. No one could have predicted 9/11. Nobody could have predicted what that would cost or what that circumstance taught us.

It taught us one thing: that our economy is very fragile. Catastrophic events tend to shatter all other beliefs about what we do here as far as our economy is concerned.

It also taught us that our freedoms are very fragile; that in times of stress and national emergency, some things are done by Government and by people to cope with the stress of the time.

Mr. President, 9/11 probably had more to do with putting us in this pickle

than anything around because of the normal reaction of Government and Americans to that event.

What we have to look at most is that this budget reflects much of the President's proposals, but because of caps that were put in place a year ago, we are looking at some tough choices.

This budget takes steps to reduce Federal deficit spending; in other words, slow it down, much slower than first thought when we started into the process or what you have read in the newspapers or heard on television. We just have to slow it down. It is kind of like the fellow who one day got up and said: My day started off bad, and then it just tapered off.

Sometimes in the budget process--and my good friend from North Dakota has been in this process much longer than I and knows much more about it, the technical parts of it anyway, but nonetheless there are some days you get nothing for your labor.

The resolution cuts the deficit from an estimated, some people say over $500 billion. We had a figure of around $477 billion going into the process. Now looking at the figure, it will be around $477 billion this year, but we are going to get it down much lower than that by the year 2005.

The resolution prevents tax increases that would go into effect if Congress does not act. Those taxes and those tax cuts were very important to this country. How much deficit would we have had we not had them to spur this economy and see the growth not only in the New York Stock Exchange but NASDAQ.

We have seen growth in agriculture. Agricultural products are doing very well now in most sectors. As I go across my State of Montana, we can talk about marriage penalty relief, we can talk about child tax credits, but I will tell you what has helped my State more than anything else, especially my agricultural producers and my small businesspeople--and Montana is made up of small business; small business provides the vast majority of jobs in my State--was accelerated depreciation because there have been capital expenditures to revamp or redo the way they do business and how they do business. Accelerated depreciation was the shot we needed in the State of Montana.

By the way, those recommendations came out of the Small Business Committee of which Senator Kit Bond of Missouri is the chairman. You look for those opportunities when we start talking about small business or business in general.

The economy is growing at a steady pace, and I believe this budget will be reflective of that growth and show the importance to the American people to expand jobs.

If we take a look at the GDP and our national debt and our deficit spending, right now it is something we can handle, but we cannot allow it to continue. So we moved in that direction. I think the resolution will provide important assistance not only to Government through strong fiscal responsibility but also the American people through improved jobs and job environment, and private growth and opportunity.

If we look at the household surveys on unemployment, we are going to find a lot of folks are working out of their homes. We see small businesses perking up everywhere, primarily because of the tax situation. This is a good time to move in and maybe retire from a job and start one's own business.

So we have asked the American people to sacrifice because we are facing an enemy we have never had to face before. We have never had to take on terrorism as have other countries that have been putting up with it for a long time. As a result, we have said to the American people that some sacrifice is needed, and I think the American people have responded to that because we know we have a different kind of enemy that wants to take away our freedoms, not only the economic freedoms we enjoy but also our political freedoms.

They do it by fear. That is the worst kind of enemy, that operates in the shadows and complete surprise. They have no regard for age or who one is, combatants or noncombatants. In other words, they are completely indiscriminate as far as their targets are concerned. That spreads fear among people, and fear rules us.

I made the remark the other day to some visitors in Washington, DC, that I can remember when I first came to Washington, it was a very beautiful place. Right now we are moving into a season where Washington really is very pretty, but we are ugly today because of jersey barriers, security and construction. We are not a very nice place because of what we have to go through in order for this Government and its representatives to operate. So the sacrifices that are made not only here but in the whole country are difficult. We have asked America to sacrifice in these times, and they have responded.

Our young men and women who are still in the field face an unusual type of enemy. They are facing it with great professionalism and great courage. I think we ought to demonstrate the same kind of courage on this floor, to do what we have to do in order to balance this budget, in order to present a budget we can live with so the economy continues to grow and we can grow out of this situation.

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

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