Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of a measure that I introduce today, with the support of my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked closely on the CAN SPAM bill together, and after four years of effort finally saw its successful passage last year. I am pleased to work with Senator Wyden again on another critical issue which is potentially of even greater concern than junk email given its invasive nature--that of spyware. I also appreciate the support of another of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Boxer. Together, we have crafted legislation aimed at ending the insidious operation of spyware, the SPYBLOCK Act of 2004. By introducing this legislation today, we take the first step in giving consumers the control to stop this deceitful practice.

Spyware refers to software that is downloaded onto users' computers without their knowledge or consent. This sneaky software is then often used to track the movements of consumers online or even to steal passwords. The porous gaps spyware creates in a computer's security may be difficult to close. For example, one popular peer-to-peer file sharing network routinely installs spyware to track users' information and retrieves targeted banner ads and popups. As noted by a recent article in PC Magazine these file-sharing networks may be free, but at the cost of privacy, not money. Of the 60 million users, few know they are being watched. Of those who do discover spyware, uninstalling it may prove more difficult than other software programs. Some spyware includes tricklers, which reinstall the files as you delete them. Users may think they are getting rid of the problem, but the reality of the situation is far different.

The creators of spyware have engineered the technology so that once it is installed on a computer, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to remove and in some cases requires the entire hard drive to be erased to get rid of this poisonous product. Such drastic measures must be taken, because often spyware tells the installer what websites a user visits, steals passwords or other sensitive documents on a personal computer, and also redirects Internet traffic through certain web sites.

One of the most disturbing aspects about the spyware problem is that so few consumers are even aware of it. Bearing this factor in mind, the SPYBLOCK bill relies on a commonsense approach which prohibits the installation of software on consumers' computers without notice, consent and reasonable ``uninstall'' procedures.

The notice and consent approach which SPYBLOCK takes would end the practice of so-called ``drive-by downloads'' which some bad actors use to secretly download programs onto users' computers without their knowledge. Under SPYBLOCK, software providers must give consumers clear and conspicuous notice that a software program will be downloaded to their computers and requires user consent. This simple provision could be fulfilled by clicking ``yes'' on a dialog box, for example.

SPYBLOCK also requires notice and consent for other types of software. In the case of ``Adware,'' providers are required to tell consumers what types of ads will pop up on users' screens and with what frequency. Consent is required for software that modifies user settings or uses ``distributed computing'' methods to utilize the processing power of individual computers to create larger networks. Finally, software providers must allow for their programs to be easily ``uninstalled'' by users after they are downloaded. As with the CAN- SPAM law, enforcement authority would be given to the Federal Trade Commission. States attorneys general could take action against the purveyors of spyware.

Clearly, it is time to call the bad actors to account. It is impossible to understand how any of the individuals or companies using spyware believe tracking Internet usage, stealing passwords, and hijacking the processors of someone else's computer, all without their knowledge, is justifiable.

Working closely with my colleagues Senator Wyden and Senator Boxer, I am confident we can make major progress on this critical legislation, before spyware infects a critical mass of computers and renders them useless. Just trying to keep up with the latest anti-spyware software poses a tremendous cost to businesses, let alone individuals who have to spend their time online worried about the next spyware infestation. Again, I would like to thank Senators Wyden and Boxer for their hard work on this vital issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of a measure that I introduce today, with the support of my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked closely on the CAN SPAM bill together, and after four years of effort finally saw its successful passage last year. I am pleased to work with Senator Wyden again on another critical issue which is potentially of even greater concern than junk email given its invasive nature--that of spyware. I also appreciate the support of another of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Boxer. Together, we have crafted legislation aimed at ending the insidious operation of spyware, the SPYBLOCK Act of 2004. By introducing this legislation today, we take the first step in giving consumers the control to stop this deceitful practice.

Spyware refers to software that is downloaded onto users' computers without their knowledge or consent. This sneaky software is then often used to track the movements of consumers online or even to steal passwords. The porous gaps spyware creates in a computer's security may be difficult to close. For example, one popular peer-to-peer file sharing network routinely installs spyware to track users' information and retrieves targeted banner ads and popups. As noted by a recent article in PC Magazine these file-sharing networks may be free, but at the cost of privacy, not money. Of the 60 million users, few know they are being watched. Of those who do discover spyware, uninstalling it may prove more difficult than other software programs. Some spyware includes tricklers, which reinstall the files as you delete them. Users may think they are getting rid of the problem, but the reality of the situation is far different.

The creators of spyware have engineered the technology so that once it is installed on a computer, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to remove and in some cases requires the entire hard drive to be erased to get rid of this poisonous product. Such drastic measures must be taken, because often spyware tells the installer what websites a user visits, steals passwords or other sensitive documents on a personal computer, and also redirects Internet traffic through certain web sites.

One of the most disturbing aspects about the spyware problem is that so few consumers are even aware of it. Bearing this factor in mind, the SPYBLOCK bill relies on a commonsense approach which prohibits the installation of software on consumers' computers without notice, consent and reasonable ``uninstall'' procedures.

The notice and consent approach which SPYBLOCK takes would end the practice of so-called ``drive-by downloads'' which some bad actors use to secretly download programs onto users' computers without their knowledge. Under SPYBLOCK, software providers must give consumers clear and conspicuous notice that a software program will be downloaded to their computers and requires user consent. This simple provision could be fulfilled by clicking ``yes'' on a dialog box, for example.

SPYBLOCK also requires notice and consent for other types of software. In the case of ``Adware,'' providers are required to tell consumers what types of ads will pop up on users' screens and with what frequency. Consent is required for software that modifies user settings or uses ``distributed computing'' methods to utilize the processing power of individual computers to create larger networks. Finally, software providers must allow for their programs to be easily ``uninstalled'' by users after they are downloaded. As with the CAN- SPAM law, enforcement authority would be given to the Federal Trade Commission. States attorneys general could take action against the purveyors of spyware.

Clearly, it is time to call the bad actors to account. It is impossible to understand how any of the individuals or companies using spyware believe tracking Internet usage, stealing passwords, and hijacking the processors of someone else's computer, all without their knowledge, is justifiable.

Working closely with my colleagues Senator Wyden and Senator Boxer, I am confident we can make major progress on this critical legislation, before spyware infects a critical mass of computers and renders them useless. Just trying to keep up with the latest anti-spyware software poses a tremendous cost to businesses, let alone individuals who have to spend their time online worried about the next spyware infestation. Again, I would like to thank Senators Wyden and Boxer for their hard work on this vital issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the managers of this difficult bill for the hours and days of work that have gone into this bill. This legislation is the most difficult the Senate will deal with this year. It goes without saying that there are more moving parts of this bill and that's what makes it so difficult. It affects every State in the Union in important ways: infrastructure and jobs. Every Senator in this body knows and understands that. All of us here are in need of both and it affects rural and urban areas alike.

If I have learned anything during my tenure here, it is this: It is impossible to out build America's love for the automobile.

The Subcommittee on Communications of the Commerce Committee has looked at this along with the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. We have spent hours discussing safety and efficiency. We have passed legislation in telecommunications making it easier to telecommute. The deployment of broadband Internet services is lagging due to several reasons, but it becomes vital to the easing of congestion found in our morning and evening commutes--labor and consulting laws to deal with the one who stays home two of the five working days and uses either the telephone or Internet to correspond and perform his or her office responsibilities. It is being done in Washington, D.C. as we speak.

Great strides have been made in telemedicine and distance learning using these new and exciting communications tools. What I am trying to say is simple. It is not just a highway bill to move people but to move people and commerce. It is just one more item that is the infrastructure to do many things. The Internet has allowed Montana to move closer to downtown Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, Seattle, Denver, or San Francisco. For that matter, it has opened up the world and world markets to us in rural areas as never before.

Now why do you ask why Montana has a huge interest in our roads and highways? We still depend on our farm-to-market roads. We are at the end of the line for product and the head of the line for the natural resources that are in high demand in every corner of the Nation.

Here is the problem. It is a problem that has been dealt with by so many Senators and Congressmen in a fair way. Montana has only 28 people per lane mile on our Federal aid highways when the national average is 124. That is on Federal aid highways. In another area, our per capita income is below the national average. If that is not enough, rural Montana has long stretches, fewer people with smaller incomes. In fact, you have heard me use this expression a lot: ``We have a lot of dirt between light bulbs.'' We also have ways of financing the modern day needs for modern day roads. We have huge holdings of federally owned lands--federally owned national parks, national forest lands, Indian reservations, and public lands. They all have transportation needs that are unique to their areas. That limits our tax base, thus the need for some assistance in fulfilling the transportation needs for the entire country.

Overall, I am very supportive of the bill before us today, but I do have some concerns and issues I wish we had more time to deal with.

As the bill is written now, Montana would not receive funds under the impaired driving or occupant protection sections of this bill. I have two amendments that create a minimum guarantee to States such as mine that desperately need assistance is these areas. If it is a national program, then everyone should be able to access those funds. I understand the incentive-based approach my colleagues have written but creating programs that exclude some States is not the right direction.

Senator Shelby did a great job, and I thank him for his work and assistance on rural transit. Even though Montana receives a 169 percent increase from TEA-21, it translates into modest dollars. Now here is my problem. We have an aging rural population. I have 14 counties that do not have a local physician. So routes taken in Montana must traverse these areas where we have modest ridership and long travel distances. These new transit funds will help us meet those needs.

While we are on the subject of mass transit, it is time to face the situation of Amtrak.

Let me state at this point that I have been and continue to be a supporter of Amtrak. With all its problems, all the bumps, scars, and warts, Congress has listened to our folks at home, and it is clear they want a national passenger

system. It is costly. There are all kinds of studies and reports that one can draw from to deal with Amtrak, and I have yet to see any change in how it does business. We demagog the issue a lot and sometimes we see some attempt to change it but nothing that would change it drastically. We all demagog well, but we have shown no political will to change it. Regional needs and issues come front and center when we try.

There are those who think of Amtrak as a light rail commuter system, so the interest and money flows in that direction. It is the only national passenger railway system this country has. Let me repeat--it is the only national passenger system we have. If it takes money from the Federal Treasury to subsidize, then so be it. But if there are areas where it is being used as a local commuter service, then are the taxpayers of the Nation subsidizing a local problem?

Amtrak is just one of many important rail issues we should discuss today. When looking at rail policy, I believe it is important to consider the outlook of the rail customers along side that of the railroads, and those views are quite different.

In my State and many others across the Nation, we have the issue of captive shippers, and the economic impact to our States is no small item.

We have heard from more and more shippers about decreased transportation competitiveness and, as a result, increased transportation rates.

Let me give a quick description of what has happened in this country the last 20 or so years. In 1980, there were 40 class I railroads in this country. As a result, Congress passed the Staggers Act that year with the intent that regulation would be eased and competition would endure and drive the marketplace ensuring rail rates would remain reasonable. Through regulatory involvement and a stifling amount of consolidation, we find ourselves with essentially four class I railroads today, two in the east and two in the west.

Together with Senators Dorgan and Rockefeller, I introduced S. 919, the Railroad Competition Act of 2003 which is represented in several amendments before us today. Our intent is to correct the model and the economic structure that allows monopolistic behavior in the freight rail industry. Contrary to what you have heard from the railroads, there are no provisions in our amendments that are re-regulatory. The bill restates the original intent of the Staggers Act of 1980 which has been eroded by mergers and regulatory interpretation.

Our amendments will not penalize the railroads or create an environment where railroads cannot compete with other transportation modes. In fact, our amendments will create competition among our railroads improving transportation efficiencies in our economy. I am the last Member of Congress who would introduce a measure that would drive a railroad out of a local economy, simply due to the fact that my State of Montana is nearly entirely captive to one railroad.

The bottom line is the railroad industry in this country is allowed to legally operate in a business model that breeds monopolistic behavior.

Montana is a classic case of what happens to rail customers when you eliminate competitive transportation alternatives. Our rail rates are some the highest in the Nation and my shippers end up subsidizing rail rates in regions where competition is present. Our rail customers pay more for less service. The rail customers in regions with competitive alternative pay less and receive more service.

American agricultural shippers are the most vulnerable to predatory marketing by monopolistic practices of railroads. The farm producer, unlike every other industry in America, cannot pass the freight costs onto anyone else. They must simply eat the cost.

It has been 24 years since the enactment of the Stagger Act, and neither the marketplace nor the Surface Transportation Board has corrected the obvious monopolistic behavior of our railroads. I ask that my colleagues seriously consider the rail customer issues we have in this country.

Finally, I appreciate the hard work of the managers of this bill and their consideration for rural America. It is my hope we begin to move forward on the highway bill and I look forward to its timely passage.

Mr. President, not on the Senator's time.

Mr. President, as my good friend from New Mexico was pointing out some of the good news, I have some more. I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on S. 877.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment with the substitute amendment from Senator Burns, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is a good day, not only for me personally but many of us who serve in this Senate, especially my friend from Oregon whom I see across the aisle.

It has been 4 years, working on this legislation. This is the CAN- SPAM bill--everybody is pretty familiar with it--which we hope will stem the tide of junk mail that is flooding our Nation's inboxes and our e-mail.

I specifically thank my colleague Senator Wyden from Oregon who is coauthor of this bill. He has been working tirelessly on this for years--as long as I have. Thanks to the discussions over the past few days, many already strong proconsumer provisions in CAN-SPAM have been enhanced. Those negotiations have been ongoing and, in some cases, have been rather tense. The bill the Senate considers today contains substantial statutory damages for spammers and additional notice requirements on commercial e-mail.

The character of the Congress is not always proactive; it is always reactive, it seems. That is the nature of the political landscape in which we find ourselves. We do not get too excited about doing anything until the folks at home get excited, or enough of them, that they form a critical mass for us to take action.

I congratulate Senator Wyden. We serve together on the Commerce Committee. We were approached about doing something about the Internet and what is coming down on our computers and is found in our mailboxes on the Internet. We saw, 4 years ago, that this was going to become a problem. It was not just the idea of the Senator who stands before you now to do something about unwanted e-mail 4 years ago. There were more Senators around here who had the same vision, that as this industry grows, a problem will also grow with it. And that is what happened.

The extent of bipartisan cooperation on this issue is no surprise, given the deluge of spam consumers face in their inboxes every day. The costs to businesses and individuals is escalating and wide ranging. Businesses lose money when employees take more and more time to wade through their e-mail. Servers all over the country have difficulty blocking spam, clearing their machines so they can operate while spammers work to find more and more ways to circumvent the latest software server or individual blocking systems.

In my State of Montana, spam is really horrible, as it is in all rural areas across the United States. We have vast distances in Montana. Many of my constituents are forced to pay long distance charges on their time on the Internet. It is not the only State that has to do that. You will find that in the majority of rural areas, in all our States. Spam makes it nearly impossible for rural America to realize the tremendous economic and educational benefits of the online era.

This bill empowers consumers and grants additional enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission to take action against spammers. It also allows the States' attorneys general to do the same. The bill requires the senders of commercial e-mail to include a clear opt-out mechanism to allow consumers to be removed from the mass e-mail lists. This opt- out must also be clearly described in the e-mail itself, so users of e- mail are not forced to sift through pages and pages of legalese to determine where they can stop the unwanted mail. Senders of commercial e-mail must also provide a valid physical postal address, so they are not able to hide their identities. Finally, e-mail marketers must include a notice that the e-mail is advertising.

Simply put, the CAN-SPAM bill finally gives consumers a measure of control over their inboxes.

In cases where e-mail marketers don't comply with the CAN-SPAM bill, the penalties are very severe. For this part of the bill we have many people to thank. Spammers are actually on the hook for damages up to $250 per spam e-mail with a cap of $2 million. That gets my attention right there. This already high penalty can be tripled if particularly unethical methods are used, such as a computer hijacking to send spam by taking control of computers of legitimate users without their knowledge, and for harvesting addresses from legitimate Web sites to send spam. For criminal spammers who try to hide their identities by using false header information, damages are not capped. In other words, they can go as high, those damages can go as high as the market would stand. It also includes enhanced enforcement authority of the FCC to close possible loopholes for spammers and to keep up with the technological developments.

Let's face it, technology moves at the speed of light. Granting the Commission the ability to keep pace with new techniques of spammers is essential because it has become clear, in recent years anyway, that these criminals are growing increasingly sophisticated in their methods.

So the passage of this bill today will help stem the tide of the toxic sea of

spam. Clearly, consumers have been demanding control over their e-mail inboxes, and the passage of the CAN-SPAM today will give those consumers a key victory in the battle against criminal spammers.

Again, I thank my good friend with whom I served on the Commerce Committee, Senator Wyden of Oregon, who has absolutely been a knight in shining armor in negotiations and working this through the Congress. Also on the floor is Senator Schumer of New York. Senator Schumer has offered many positive provisions in this bill. We have had a great time debating that. But nonetheless, his contribution is clearly in this bill and we appreciate his work. Of course, when I say it is a bipartisan effort, that is usually the way we get legislation passed around here, legislation that has any kind of future at all.

I thank them both. It gives me great pleasure to yield the floor for my friend from the great State of Oregon, Senator Wyden.

Mr. President, I would like to engage the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, in a colloquy regarding some details of the anti- spam legislation approved by the Senate. We have worked tirelessly on S. 877, and it is important to ensure that spammers cannot get around the definitions of electronic mail address and electronic mail message that will be regulated under this law. The definitions in the bill require electronic mail addresses to contain a domain part. This requirement is important to make sure we only capture e-mail and do not regulate other communications platforms, such as Instant Messaging. However, I want to be clear that the intent of Congress is to capture e-mail messages as that term is commonly understood. This includes e- mail messages sent within the same domain that may not actually display the domain part of the e-mail address.

I would like to flag one other aspect of the bill. Under section 6, the FTC can bring enforcement actions against merchants whose products are promoted in spam e-mails, even if the merchant is not the spammer. Isn't that correct?

But isn't it also true that section 5 can be used against merchants whose products are promoted in spam e-mails? Can't the FTC, State A.G.s, and Internet Service Providers bring actions under section 5 against parties who aren't themselves spamming, but rather hire spammers to promote their products or services?

That confirms my understanding. So what is different about section 6, as I understand it, is that section 6 does not require any showing that the merchant actually hired or induced the spammer to send the spam. In other words, if the spammer is hard to find and his contractual relationship with the merchant has been obscured by under- the-table dealings, the FTC doesn't have to spend time and effort trying to prove the relationship.

I thank my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the final passage of the CAN-SPAM bill, which will help to stem the tide of junk e-mail that is flooding the Nation's inboxes. I want to specifically thank my colleague Senator Wyden, the coauthor of the bill, who has been working tirelessly on this issue for years. Thanks to discussions over the past few days, many of the already-strong proconsumer provisions in CAN-SPAM have been enhanced. The bill the Senate considers today contains substantial statutory damages for spammers and additional notice requirements on commercial e-mail.

The extent of bipartisan cooperation on this issue is no surprise given the deluge of spam consumers face in their inboxes everyday. The costs to businesses and individuals are escalating and wide ranging. Businesses lose money when employees take more and more time to wade through their e-mails. Servers all over the country have difficulty blocking spam, all while spammers work to find more and more ways to circumvent the latest software, server, or individual blocking systems.

Spam is particularly harmful to rural areas. Because of the vast distances in Montana, many of my constituents are forced to pay long distance charges for their time on the Internet. Spam makes it nearly impossible for those in rural America to realize the tremendous economic and educational benefits of the online era.

The CAN-SPAM bill empowers consumers and grants additional enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to take action against spammers. The bill requires the senders of commercial e-mail to include a clear ``opt-out'' mechanism to allow consumers to be removed from mass e-mail lists. This ``opt-out'' must also be clearly described in the e-mail itself, so that users of e-mail are not forced to sift through pages of legalese to determine where they can stop unwanted e- mail.

The senders of commercial e-mail must also provide a valid physical postal address so that they are not able to hide their identities. Finally, e-mail marketers must include notice that the e-mail is an advertisement. Simply put, the CAN-SPAM bill finally gives consumers a measure of control over their inboxes.

In cases where e-mail marketers don't comply with the CAN-SPAM bill, the penalties are severe. Spammers are on the hook for damages up to $250 per spam e-mail with a cap of $2 million. This already high penalty can be tripled if particularly unethical methods are used, such as ``computer hijacking'' to send spam by taking control of the computers of legitimate users without their knowledge or for harvesting addresses from legitimate Web sites to send spam. For criminal spammers who try to hide their identities by using false header information, damages are not capped.

The CAN-SPAM bill also includes enhanced enforcement authority for the FTC to close possible loopholes for spammers and to keep up with technological developments. Granting the Commission the ability to keep pace with the new techniques of spammers is essential because it has become clear in recent years that these criminals are growing increasingly sophisticated in their methods.

The passage of CAN-SPAM today will help to stem the tide of the toxic sea of spam. Clearly, consumers have been demanding control over their e-mail inboxes and the passage of CAN-SPAM today will give consumers a key victory in the battle against criminal spammers.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from New Mexico for yielding.

I want to say one thing, and that is that the general premise of this bill is in the right direction. The emphasis is on renewables and things we can do that are good for the environment and still produce energy. All this other chaff and dust that has been kicked up around it that gives opponents such a move in the right direction can be dealt with later, but the general premise of the bill is good because a balance is there in the areas in which most of us really believe.

Let us not take our eye off the ball. Let us move it on down the field under a premise of developing a policy and a way to not only deal with the environment but also produce energy.

I tell my colleagues, we can deal with those things that are objectionable at a later time, but we must move in this kind of a direction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of the Energy Committee for his leadership on this challenging bill both on the Senate floor and through the conference. This is the first comprehensive energy legislation this country has seen in more than a decade, and it is a huge step forward for America. This energy bill is about looking forward to our future, and creating the energy and the jobs that will keep this country best in the world.

This is a large and complicated bill. It addresses everything from energy efficiency and conservation, to research and development for new technologies, and policies to encourage a wide variety of energy sources nationwide. People will always find something to criticize in a sweeping piece of legislation, but we need to focus on the huge accomplishments this bill will achieve.

We will advance cutting-edge technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and improve clean technologies already in place like nuclear power, hydropower, wind, and solar energy. At the same time we will shore up our own domestic production of the resources we use most, including clean coal, oil, and natural gas. We will begin to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel annually as a result of this bill, and that is a very good thing for farmers and consumers across America. Real reforms in the electricity title will result in more reliable service and more investment in the backbone of our electricity infrastructure.

I would especially like to acknowledge Senator Domenici's wise counsel in regard to an amendment I had intended to propose to enhance the economic growth of western States. My amendment would have provided for the study and creation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors by the Secretary of Energy, based on national security and energy policy grounds. Pursuant to those designations, the permitting and siting of needed electric transmission lines would be provided for. While most of this additional capacity would probably be achieved by broadening existing rights-of-way, there would no doubt be some need for additional rights of way. Upon the advice of the chairman and his assurance that he would pursue these concepts, I declined to offer that amendment on the Senate floor.

I am very encouraged that the chairman has been successful in having the concept of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors included in the bill, for any area experiencing electric energy transmission constraints or congestion. Transmission capacity in these western States is one of the significant issues regarding their future economic expansion. Furthermore, if we could unlock the tremendous coal, wind and other resources of these States through mine-mouth electric generation and provide for the transmission of that electricity to load centers it would take significant pressure off our increasing reliance on natural gas as a power source. This is one of the keys to a balanced energy portfolio and lessened reliance on foreign energy sources.

My home State of Montana can make a significant contribution to our Nation's energy independence, provided we can develop the needed transmission infrastructure to move electricity to market if we generate it from our coal and wind resources. This is very important for both the generating States and the end-user markets and is simply good national energy policy and good national security policy.

This energy bill isn't perfect, but it helps us transition into tomorrow's economy without sacrificing our quality of life today. It is a good balance, and a good compromise between the countless demands that have been made by those with opposing viewpoints. No one can win every battle, but without this energy legislation the entire country loses. I am disappointed there are Members in this body who would rather complain about this bill than enact it. We shouldn't let partisanship get in the way of progress, and this bill is progress. No one got all they wanted, but every State in the Union will benefit, and every American will be better off if we ensure this country's energy security by passing this legislation.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2115, which reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act would provide just under $60 billion over the next 4 years for FAA activities. These are much needed funding improvements because we find ourselves in one of the greatest transition periods as a country, and as proponents of the aviation industry, in the history of our nation. With the slow recovery of the industry and the economy since the attacks of 9/11 it is important we pass this legislation immediately.

As a member of the conference, my colleagues and I addressed several important issues and challenges. One of the most important achievements is the progress made in funding the Airport Improvement Program, which is funded at $3.4 billion in 2004 and increases $100 million each year ending at $3.7 billion in 2007. This is a necessary increase, as we need to constantly improve our Nations' airport infrastructure especially in rural and underserved areas.

Mr. President, as you know, several provisions in or absent from the bill have bogged down its passage. As a member of the conference, even I do not support all provisions in this bill, but I understand the importance of the bill as a whole and the potential pitfalls our infrastructure will take if not enacted.

I do not intend to discuss the entire report, but there are several critical provisions I would like to briefly address which greatly affect my State of Montana and my constituents.

The first provision is intended to make additional slots available to improve access to the Nation's Capital for cities located beyond the 1,250 mile service perimeter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, DCA. I am particularly concerned that small and midsized communities in the west, especially in Montana and neighboring states, continue to have far fewer service options to reach DCA than communities located in any other area of the country. This is due to the fact that the most important hub airport serving the northern tier and intermountain region, Salt Lake City, is located outside the DCA perimeter.

Network benefits are critical to improving this situation, and it is very important that the Department of Transportation consider and award these limited opportunities to western hubs that connect the largest number of cities to the national transportation network. Salt Lake City is a prime example. That airport serves as a primary transportation hub for the intermountain west. I was very disappointed that Salt Lake City received only a single flight from the prior AIR-21 allocation, while other hubs servicing the southwest region received two, or even three daily flights. Increased service at Salt Lake City should be a priority, because of the many critically underserved communities in the northern tier and intermountain west that will receive significant network benefits from additional flights at that hub.

The second issue is the Essential Air Service Program, EAS. As you know, the EAS program provides subsidies to carriers for providing service between small communities and hub airports and is, no pun intended, essential to my state. This report authorizes approximately $500 million for EAS, and I am extremely supportive of that level.

Unfortunately, the conference report also contains a provision, which directs the DOT to establish a pilot program for up to 10 EAS communities located within 100 miles of a large hub, and those communities will be required to pay 10 percent match of the EAS subsidy. While this provision does not affect my Montana EAS communities, I am still extremely unsupportive of this provision. If any Montana communities were asked to pay this match, there is no way they could come up with the funds. I want this body to know I will

fight expansion of this pilot program in future authorizations. While we need to work on possible alternatives to EAS, we cannot ask small communities across the Nation to fork out funds they do not have for a service they deserve and need.

Finally, this report contains language based on two amendments I offered on the Senate floor during debate earlier this year. The first asks for a report from the Secretary of Transportation on any actions that should be taken with respect to recommendations made by the National Commission to Ensure Consumer Information and Choice in the Airline Industry. The second amendment authorizes compensation to General aviation businesses for losses incurred after the attacks of 9/ 11. General aviation is an extremely important piece of this country's aviation backbone and we need to keep their perspective in mind whenever any aviation legislation is addressed whether it deals with security or overall aviation policy.

In summation, we have crafted a fair and necessary piece of legislation that needs immediate passage. I ask my colleagues to support final passage of this critical piece of legislation that will aide all aviation sectors across this Nation.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, this is mistimed to be considering this rule change on this piece of legislation. On behalf of some Senators on this side of the aisle I will have to object to the Senator's request.

I reserved the right to object, and I did object.

I object.

Mr. President, this is a special day today. I just want to take note of it now. It is a special day, the birthday of someone Americans all know. He is one of our senior citizens who has his birthday today. When this animated character burst on the scene, it changed our country. That change was bound to happen because of his appeal to the young and the old. He has changed the way we communicate. He has changed the way we travel.

He is just a little fellow, but size has meant nothing to this animated character. He has always held that it is not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog.

He has changed our attitude on how we solve our problems and most times taught us to laugh at ourselves and lighten up on ourselves. He has entered our lives and he has changed us all, from the young to the old.

Today is the birthday of Mickey Mouse. It is also shared by our good friend, the President pro tempore now in the chair, Chairman Stevens.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I commend TechLink, a technology transfer center at Montana State University, for its outstanding achievements. TechLink has been highly successful at helping both the Department

of Defense and NASA to develop, transfer, and commercialize new technology in partnership with industry.

Congress first appropriated funds in 1996 to establish TechLink as a pilot program. Since then, this program has exceeded all expectations. TechLink has established more than 250 partnerships between Federal laboratories and the private sector, including technology licensing agreements, cooperative R&D agreements, and contracts to small businesses for new technology development. These partnerships involve more than 50 different Federal research centers--including over 40 Department of Defense labs and all 10 NASA centers. TechLink has played a key role in linking the high-tech sector in the Northwestern United States with Federal laboratories nationwide. It has assisted more than 150 companies throughout the Northwest.

Beginning this last October, TechLink became a permanent part of the Department of Defense's technology transfer, transition, and acquisition activities. It is the only Department of Defense-wide technology transfer center serving the Army, Navy, Air Force, and various defense agencies. TechLink accounts for approximately one- fourth of all Department of Defense technology licensing agreements nationwide. It is playing a key role in transitioning innovative technology from Department of Defense labs and the private sector into commercial products that not only support our Nation's military and homeland security, but also contribute to national economic competitiveness and prosperity.

TechLink provides an outstanding return on investment. Partnerships that TechLink has established with industry are returning revenues and in-kind contributions to Department of Defense labs worth more than three times the Federal funds expended to support TechLink's activities.

As a result of its many innovations and achievements, the U.S. Department of Commerce recently recognized TechLink as one of 10 ``exemplary models'' nationwide of Federal technology transfer. I am proud to have played a key role in establishing TechLink, and wish this center the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research program or EPSCoR. First, I would like to thank the distinguished chair of the subcommittee for including $100 million in the EPSCoR program. This is a very important program in my State of Montana--and very important for the other 22 EPSCoR states that are trying to develop a competitive research program.

I would also like to mention that I have talked with the EPSCoR project director and other participants in the program from Montana and that they have told me that the infrastructure improvement components of the program is critical to all other efforts to develop research capacity and to compete successfully for other NSF funding. I would like it to be clear that the research infrastructure component is central to the program and that we have provided funds to ensure that states can be fully funded.

That is very important. Finally, I would just add that I hope NSF will make every effort to include the EPSCoR states in its new cyber infrastructure activities. NSF did a very fine job a few years ago in helping secure high-speed connections for research institutions in EPSCoR states. The new NSF cyberinfrastructure program is evolving and I hope that they will include states like Montana in these efforts since networking and advanced computing are essential to keeping our research universities connected to cutting-edge research and allow them to collaborate and use equipment at remote locations.

Mr. President, a lot of questions are being asked about this debate as we roll along. We went late last night and there are probably some folks who have been short of sleep.

Let there be no doubt about it, as we close this half hour, this is obstruction.

A week ago tomorrow, we argued about definitions. Now we are worried about ideologies and how we appoint our judges. Here is one way you can have an issue and you can be on both sides of it and never worry about the consequences. That is healthy for us. We passed that through this Senate with strong bipartisan support and only 14 folks voting against it. Now we can't name conferees. ``Well, I voted for it.'' But we do not want it to get to conference.

I am fighting for two judges, Janice Rogers Brown and Carolyn Kuhl. Both of them are nominated to the Ninth Circuit. Why am I fighting so hard for them? Let me tell you why.

I am sponsoring legislation to split up the Ninth. It is too big. It covers California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and my home State of Montana. It covers 14 million square miles--that is a fairly good sized pasture--with 45 million people. The second highest population is the Sixth Circuit with 29 million. It has the highest number of active judges with 28. The average number per judges per circuit, including the Ninth, is 12.

Let me tell you another reason why. The decisions that have been handed down by the Ninth lately--from 1996 through 1979--the Supreme Court heard 228 cases from the Ninth Circuit, and 27 of those decisions were overturned, 17 of them by unanimous decision.

From 2001 through 2002, 12 of the 17 Ninth Circuit decisions were reversed, and 7 of those were unanimous.

How would you like to have that track record? And we live in that circuit. Then you wonder why we get excited about the appointment of judges to that Ninth Circuit.

It is absolutely unbelievable.

I am an original cosponsor of S. 562. We must get it done.

What we are talking about here is people in a circuit who can't handle the work and come up with decisions that can't stand the test in the Supreme Court. That is pretty bad--1 in 27. That is almost as bad as 0 and 1 in a gunfight in judicial terms.

I am not an attorney. I don't think I will ever be one. But I will tell you that you can read and you know where the American people are, and those people are denied representation on the Ninth Circuit.

Definitions: We have heard it. If we cooperate, things would really get along good here. If we cooperate--we did--that is healthy for us. Now we can't name conferees to finish the job that is in front of us.

This is not my first rodeo. I know what is going on here. They should be ashamed--ashamed to contradict their own conscience.

Obstructionism: Give these judges a vote up or down. That is the way you got here. They deserve the same.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield on that point, 9 times out of 10, whenever we get in trouble in this body it is in dealing with definitions up front. That is our problem now.

I know they are trying to work out some way over there to define certain parts of this, but there has to be something between the amendment pending and where we want to go. We are all in agreement that in this industry, when the moratorium was first put on--to allow this industry, this industry that was a baby industry, to build out--what we did was right. The second time we extended it was the right thing to do. We have seen an explosion in an industry.

There are, however, some sections that are discriminatory. There were some loopholes found by the States. So we have an inequitable situation due to definition.

I hope the parties can work this out to the satisfaction of the intent of the Commerce Committee when we passed it the first time, when we extended it the second time, and now when we want to extend it another time.

Maybe status quo is not exactly right. But nonetheless, it is something we have to work on. The Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina have a point that we have not worked on the definition and how it will be determined or defined in the taxing entities of the States, or even, for that matter, counties and cities.

I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota allowing me this time.