Floor Statements

Mr. President, I, on this issue, yield as much time to myself as I shall need. I ask unanimous consent to do that, and that the time come off the resolution.

Mr. President, I don't know exactly where to begin on this particular subject. But I would like for the American taxpayers to understand one thing: We maintain a strategic oil reserve. It is 700 million barrels of oil that is stored in salt caves in Louisiana. It costs us $175 million a year to maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I just want the taxpayers to know what they are paying for.

The fact is, part of that oil was purchased by this Government and put in there, but most of it was taken from royalties. They took the oil instead of the money. And that was recovered on the Outer Continental Shelf or from public lands. So it is there: 700 million barrels of oil that costs the taxpayers $180 million a year to maintain.

I suggest that we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is not costing the American people a thing. It is still in the ground in North Dakota, found on public lands, where we cannot get to it. It is found in Montana, on public lands, where we cannot get to it. That is because of organizations that deal primarily in fear, not common sense.

Abraham Lincoln once said: God must have loved the common man because he made so many of us. Then, when we use the same term in the phrase ``common sense,'' that sort of changes the definition a little bit.

That Strategic Petroleum Reserve is also maintained, and it is still in the ground in ANWR. We do not know how big that reserve is. It has been estimated to be anywhere from 5.3 billion barrels upwards. Does it answer the question of our shortage? Does it take care of all of that? No, it does not. We know that. But, on the other hand, it replaces all the oil we buy that is termed ``rogue'' oil--Iraqi oil that we give hard dollars for and that you contribute to every time you fill your tank at a filling station.

What is that money used for? We have seen it on television every night for the past month and a half. We know what that money is being used for. We give it to a tyrant who uses that money to subsidize families, to entice them to take one of their children and strap dynamite on them and walk onto a bus and blow themselves up, and for the development of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological warfare. That is what that money has done.

And yet we sit here today trying again to ban the use of a resource that is not only one of the major underpinnings to our economy, but also takes away from that $180 million a year we spend to maintain that SPR in case of an emergency. That is 90 days. It wouldn't even last 90 days. We would just go through it, bingo. It defies common sense, what we are doing here.

As far as my State of Montana is concerned, I don't know what the impact is. I know during the major exploration and lifting of Prudhoe Bay and the North Slope when it opened up, probably 1,500 families in Montana worked on the North Slope. It provided a lot of jobs. I am not saying that their figure here on the creation of jobs is what some would claim, but it isn't zero, I will guarantee you that. It is going to put a lot of people to work. Maybe jobs only are important to us if they are just in our home state. Maybe it is the welfare of the people if it is just in our State. But the impact it has on Alaska is terrific, on the people who live there, work there, raise their families there, provide services there.

If you wanted to put it to a vote in Alaska, this debate wouldn't even be taking place. The Native Alaskans; ask them, take a vote among them, if we really believe in this 50 percent plus 1. It is their income. This is just about all they have.

What you see of the pictures over there is a result of a 30-day growing season. Any other time I would look with great interest at a photograph that was being displayed last night of the caribou that was out in the water. They had water clear up over their back going into the sea up there. Do you know why they are standing in that water, folks? It is not to cool off. Because they have mosquitos up there that are big enough to turn over your dog tags and check your blood type. That is what they are getting away from. It is a hostile environment.

What are we doing here with the new technology: I mentioned a while ago the jobs of the families who are affected in my State. Those kinds of jobs have moved on. New technology has taken over. We drill differently now. We do it all differently with horizontal drilling practices, with one little area impacted. You may see the wells. It wouldn't be the size of the Chamber of the Senate. It may have a dozen wells. That is the way we do it now. Technology has moved on.

I was interested in the words of my good friend, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from California. And by the way, California consumes 12 percent of all of the transportation fuels produced in this country. Yet we cannot drill on the Outer Continental Shelf of California. There is a moratorium on that. There is a moratorium on Florida. They are quick to talk about the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Louisiana and Alabama. We can't drill off the east coast, yet Canada does. When you get north of the border, they drill all the way offshore almost to Iceland. If you want to go east of the United States and the Canadian line and the northern territories off Alaska, you have gas and oil production all across Canada. The largest exporter of energy to this country is Canada, both in crude and in gas.

Yet the United States is being denied our own resource in our own country to supply the heat and the transportation fuels for our own people and our own security. And groups would manipulate information on ANWR to deny the American people when common sense tells you it is just the other way. Those of us who live near and some of us on public lands understand what the thinking is.

I will tell you this, as we talk about this total resolution. If you want to see something happen, this President has offered a way to stimulate the economy and to have it going when those young men and young women come home from the gulf and they go back into the workforce. Do you want them to come back into a sluggish economy? Is that what we want to do here? Do we want to take a sluggish economy and pound it down further and have no opportunities for them outside of military life, those reservists and also those who serve in the National Guard?

We are finding out the cost of 50 percent of our force structure and military is at home now and not found on military bases, full-time soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. This is a part of that growth package. This is a part of a package that shows immediate return to the American taxpayer and also gives us that security, our own home security, if it is ever needed. What is wrong with finding out how much oil we really have? We can't even explore, let alone lift. And we are doing it based on thinking and facts that do not heed common sense. It is groups, little tiny groups that propagate misinformation and do it on an emotional ``green, fuzzy'' resolution. That you would deny people a livelihood, deny them food, deny them the basic needs of education and health care in the State of Alaska based on misinformation, that can't make one feel very good.

So if we are looking for job creation, if we are looking for energy security, if we want to do away with this little ticket of $175 million a year just to maintain oil in salt caves, then when you get the bottom line, the answer is

pretty clear--let alone the promise that this Congress made to the State of Alaska whenever they passed the land bill there and also created the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

By the way, we are breaking that word, too. That rests on the backs of Congress. So I ask for those who live there, the Natives who were raised there, with their traditions--I will tell you, I don't know if you have ever seen the caribou come across there. The area is not short of wildlife--not from the impact of Prudhoe and North Slope. All the benefits that have gone to Alaska and to America as a result of that tremendous resource--those tremendous reserves, in a part of the world that is fragile, yes; all land is fragile, but it is a land we can take care of and still use the resources it provides.

I ask my colleagues to use some common sense. Go through the same figures I have. If you get a different number, you let me know, because I am just a country boy; I count bushels and heads of livestock. But when you get to the bottom line, it is a plus for America, a plus for our security, a plus for jobs, and it is also a plus for the great State of Alaska.

Our technology has not gotten us to the point where we can safely and economically do in our transportation fuels, using fuel cells and biomass, anything you want to do. That technology is not there yet, folks. If you want to cut off the oil today, you will see how fast this economy would crumble. But you cannot talk economy, you cannot talk numbers, because this is an emotional debate. It is wrong. It is wrong to do it to the State of Alaska, and it is wrong to do it to America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I rise to honor MSgt. Katherine Barton for her 20 years of service in the U.S. Air Force. She recently retired from the Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base, in San Antonio, TX.

Katherine Barton grew up on air force bases all over the country, moving every few years as her father, Lt. Col. William C. Flannigan, was promoted and reassigned. She enlisted in the Air Force in 1979 and began her distinguished Air Force career as a police officer. In subsequent years she became a supervisor in medical administration, where she continued to perform her duties in an outstanding manner, as well as earning her bachelor's degree in History from the University of Houston.

MSgt. Katherine Barton's service includes Active Duty assignments in New York and Texas, National Guard assignments in Vermont and Texas, and Air Force Reserve assignments in Louisiana and Texas.

MSgt. Katherine Barton and her husband, Keith, are the proud parents of three sons. Like most military families, Keith's support has been instrumental in Katherine's service to her country.

While in the Reserves, MSgt. Katherine Barton has been activated in time of war, not once, but twice; in January 1991 for the gulf war and again in October 2001 for the war on terror. When she was needed most, MSgt. Katherine Barton left her job as a teacher, the comforts of her home, and the arms of a loving family to serve her country.

Madam President, I congratulate MSgt. Katherine Barton for her 20 years of service to our great Nation. Her contributions to the U.S. Air Force and to all Americans she protected will not be forgotten.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is not about a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Regardless of one's views on abortion in general, the partial-birth abortion procedure should have no place in a civilized society such as ours. Partial-birth abortion is an undeniably abhorrent procedure, and most physicians believe it is never medically necessary. The American Medical Association, the largest association of doctors in the United States, and the medical community at large, has endorsed banning this late-term abortion procedure. It is time for the Congress to follow suit.

Since 1995, at least 31 States have enacted laws banning partial- birth abortion. On June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska statute that prohibited the performance of partial-birth abortions. The Supreme Court determined that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional because it failed to include an exception to protect the health of the mother, and because the language defining the prohibited procedure was too vague. We must not allow the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to be diluted by amendments that would limit the application of this bill to a time after a child is determined to be viable. Such language would allow this procedure to continue being performed as late as the sixth month of pregnancy. Additionally, such amendments would create loopholes allowing this cruel procedure to be used even as late as the third trimester of pregnancy, a time at which many babies can sustain life outside the womb.

Passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act would prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother who is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Experts have estimated that the partial-birth abortion procedure is used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and that the vast majority of these procedures are performed on a healthy mother and a healthy fetus. The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition on Truth--PHACT--a group of over 600 physicians- specialists--has spoken out to dispute the claims that some women need partial-birth abortions to avoid serious physical injury. In September 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said:

Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to

protect a mother's health or her

future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a

significant threat to both.

Banning partial-birth abortion has been addressed in every Congress since the 104th session, and banned in both the 104th and 105th sessions. We now have a President in office who has vowed to sign this Partial-Birth Ban Act when it comes before him without hostile amendments that would allow the continuance of this procedure. It is our moral duty to ban this repulsive practice once and for all, and it is my sincere hope that Congress will be able to finally pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the loss of 11 brave soldiers killed in a UH-60 Blackhawk crash on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 11, at Fort Drum, New York. This tragic accident occurred as the unit was conducting a routine training exercise. One of the young men on board, Pfc. Stryder O. Stoutenburg, was from Missoula, MT. He was only 18 and was assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

The other 10 young men killed are: Cpt. Christopher E. Britton, 27, from Ohio, assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment.

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kenneth L. Miller, 35, from California, assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment.

Staff Sgt. Brian Pavlich, 25, from Port Jervis, NY. assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

Sgt. John L. Eichenlaub, Jr., 24, from South Williamsport, PA, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

Sgt. Joshua M. Harapko, 23, from Peoria, AZ, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

Spc. Lucas V. Tripp, 23, from Aurora, CO, assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment.

Spc. Barry M. Stephens, 20, from Pinson, AL, assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment.

Pfc. Shawn A. Mayerscik, 22, from Oil City, PA, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

Pfc. Tommy C. Young, 20, from Knoxville, TN, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

Pfc. Andrew D. Stevens, 20, from Rockingham, NH, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

In addition, two young men were seriously injured--Spc. Dmitri Petrov and Spc. Edwin A. Mejia, both from Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment.

Each and every one of these young men was a patriot and served their country bravely. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these boys. While the cause of the accident remains under investigation, I have asked to be kept informed of any and all developments and am confident that a thorough examination will be conducted.

Our brave military men and women fully know the risk they take in doing their duty and they meet this risk head on, to ensure that the rest of us continue to live with freedom. Tragic accidents such as this one truly remind us all of the high price of freedom.

I will continue working with my colleagues to make sure our troops have the best equipment, instruction, and supplies to ensure their safety not only on the battlefield, but in training exercises as well. May God bless the young soldiers who died training to defend the values of this great Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in sponsoring S. 562, which will reorganize the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have been a long-time advocate of splitting this controversial court and my passion was further enflamed when a three- judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. I found this ruling appalling.

In fact, I am also a cosponsor of S. Res. 71, which expressed support of the Pledge of Allegiance. This resolution unanimously passed the Senate on March 4. This resolution came as a result of the Ninth Circuit voting not to have the full court reconsider the earlier decision, which I believe was a mistake.

The current Ninth Circuit encompasses nine States, two territories, and 14 million square miles. The current population is estimated at 45 million people; however, the Census Bureau has estimated the population to grow to 63 million by the year 2010. In comparison, the circuit with the second highest population is the Sixth Circuit, which contains 29 million people. The Ninth Circuit also seats the highest number of active judges with 28, whereas the Fifth Circuit has the second highest with 17. The average number of judges in each circuit, excluding the Ninth Circuit, is 12.6.

The population served by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals needs a change. The liberal, frequently reversed decisions handed down by the Ninth Circuit do not fairly represent the views of my State and many of those in the surrounding region. About half of the judges on the Ninth Circuit are California based and, with all due respect, do not reflect the principles and values of those of us from Montana.

The amount of time between filing and disposition on the Ninth Circuit is exorbitant. In 2001, the national average was 10.9 months, while the Ninth Circuit's average time was 15.8 months, nearly a 5- month difference. From 1996 to 2001, the national average has increased by 0.5 months while the Ninth Circuit's average has increased by 1.5 months.

The size, unbalanced judgeships, high reversal record, and intracircuit conflicts of the Ninth Circuit, along with the past success of dividing the Fifth Circuit, endorse the notion of division. It was the intent of Congress to create regional courts based upon identity of population and the current Ninth Circuit Court simply does not reflect Montana's unique social, cultural, geographic or economic characteristics.

This trend cannot continue. It is time to split the Ninth Circuit and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this reasonable, commonsense bill.

Mr. President, the treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions also known as the ``Moscow Treaty'' obligates each side to reduce the number of its strategic offensive nuclear warheads to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 by the end of 2012. This treaty is a good beginning and I congratulate the President for making a complete break with past arms control approaches by placing reliance on deterrence and missile defense. The enemies of American must clearly understand that they cannot attack or threaten us with impunity and that our Nation will have a national missile defense in place as soon as possible.

President Reagan coined the phrase ``trust but verify,'' This phrase could have no greater meaning than when it is applied to the Moscow Treaty.

I recently returned from Moscow where I was deeply impressed by the dramatic transformation underway in that huge country. While there is no doubt that Russia is on the track towards democracy and a free market economy, it is equally clear to me that the Russians are not at the stage where they can be given a blank check to implement the Moscow Treaty. Congress has authorized more then $4.7 billion for U.S. programs aimed at helping Russia and other newly independent states to reduce the threats from their weapons of mass production. The Moscow Treaty does not expressly deal with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program but the objectives of the treaty cannot be achieved without extending this assistance to Russia. The only certainty about future costs to implement this treaty is that the costs are uncertain and that the uncertainty goes toward how much higher costs will be. According to a GAO report issued this week, ``. . . a pilot facility to destroy 14 percent of Russia's chemical weapons over an 11-year period would cost the United States almost $890 million--an increase of about $150 million from the estimate . . .'' Higher program cost uncertainty is compounded by Russia's apparent inability to pay for its agreed-upon share of project costs.

Another problem with an effective reduction of weapons of mass destruction is that Russia is not always willing to provide access to its sensitive national security sites. Access is essential to verify that the Parties are living up to their part of the agreement. According to the same GAO report, U.S. inspectors do not have access to the sites in Russia where 90 percent of the materials used in weapons of mass destruction are stored. Access issues largely revolve around trust, and, frankly, this treaty highlights the need for access; it does not solve the problem.

Despite its obvious incompleteness and inadequacies, the Moscow Treaty is a step in the right direction of reducing and limiting strategic nuclear warheads. Reliance on a START I verification regime as provided in the treaty is not, of course, satisfactory, but it can provide a block in the foundation for good faith implementation through a genuine verification scheme.

President Bush is headed in the right direction in working to build a constructive partnership with Russia. American does not fight wars with democracies. While a reduction in nuclear weapons is an important element on both sides in building the trust and mutual dependence needed for a stable, long-term relationship, I want to stress the importance of maintaining the Nuclear Triad. Our land-base missile systems, in particular, play an essential role in ensuring this Nation's security. With 200 Minuteman III missiles, Malmstrom Air Force Base, in my State of Montana has and will continue to play a critical role in our national security.

The Moscow Treaty deserves the advice and consent of the Senate so long as it is seen as the beginning and not the end of the long path we must follow to rid the earth of weapons of mass destruction and threats to our national security.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I object.

I thank the Senator from New York.

The reason I objected is, that is not the issue at hand on the floor now, and the proper people are not on the floor to strengthen or weaken his argument on Mr. Greenspan.

But I have been watching the debate on Miguel Estrada with a great deal of interest. I would agree with my friend from New York in that I have traveled through my whole State--not the whole State, but a goodly part of it--and it is not the first question we are asked in townhall meetings or in an occasional meeting on the street.

I understand, though, that the Senator from New York questioned Mr. Estrada for about 90 minutes or so in committee. And I think it is general practice here that if you have more questions, even after the committee hearing is over, you submit written questions. I would inquire of my friend from New York: Did you send Mr. Estrada any written questions after the hearing, after he was voted out of committee and his nomination was brought to the floor?

You got the right mountains, but you have got the wrong State.

Will the Senator further yield?

Being that the Senate is made up of about 65 to 70 percent attorneys--and I not being one of those--that was the longest ``yes, I did not ask him any further questions in written form'' I have ever heard. But we have to contend with that in this body.

I watched those hearings with a great deal of interest because I believe, as does the Senator from New York, this is a very sensitive and important part of our role in the Senate. However, I think we have injected a double standard here in this case. And I think that case has been made here. But I would say after----

If I may finish my question. Didn't he answer that question just about the same as the nominees sent up by the previous President of the United States? That is what I am going back to.

Like the Senator from New York, I think we should be moving on. I contend that we have talked about this, we have discussed it and debated it. The only thing I am saying is let's just vote on him.

I plan to come back to the Chamber later today to make a statement. I was interested in the Senator's discussion and his statement. I thank my good friend from New York for responding to the question.

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. President, I say to my friend from New York, I did not get questions on homeland security or the economy while I was up there. We will go over those questions later.

I understand what the Senator from New York said about Judge Paez, but in the end, did he get a vote?

Yes or no, and I have a followup question.

Mr. President, if my friend from New York will allow a comment, and maybe a followup question.

No, a followup question. That is a long way to say, yes, he got a vote. Is it snowing outside today, right now?

I submit it is snowing inside today also.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank my good friend from New York.

Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleagues in supporting the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. We have heard more information on this man than anyone I can remember in recent times. There is not much about this gentleman or this situation that has not been said thus far on the floor of the Senate.

The history of this man I can relate to. I kind of started out on my own about that age, but I will never attain the level of society and dedication he has. He did it the hard way, by his own bootstraps. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, near the top of his class. We also know he is a very successful appellate lawyer who argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court. We know he has been rated well qualified by his own colleagues in the American Bar Association.

I find it interesting, as the case is trying to be made, that somebody is being denied their constitutional rights, the constitutional right of advice and consent. I tell the American people, no Senator is being denied access to this floor. No Senator is being denied the ability to come to this floor and make his or her case either in support or opposition to the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. Everyone is free to do so and is afforded the opportunity to discuss the merits of one side or the other. Nobody is being denied that. It is pretty simple, and I think the American people understand that. Come down and make your case. If you did not make it the first time, come back the second time, come back as many times as you like to respond.

No one has been denied anything dealing with the merits of this man Miguel Estrada. Come down and make your case. Then vote. It is very simple. There is nothing hard to understand about that.

If a good case is made, there may be 51 votes. Folks will vote for you and you have won, and we will say congratulations. Nobody is being denied that.

We see quite a lot of dust being kicked up to fuzz up and confuse the issue. The issue is Miguel Estrada. That is what it is about. He has been nominated to occupy a seat on the DC Court of Appeals.

I am not an attorney, never been hinged with that title, but I too get to vote. I too get to look at information, both positive and sometimes negative, about this man. He will be the first Hispanic to serve on the DC Court of Appeals, and I applaud President Bush for nominating a candidate of this quality and this integrity.

He is a living example of an American attaining what he terms as his American dream. Right now he is being denied a vote. That seems sort of strange to me. He deserves an up-or-down vote, and at the end of that we will count them up and we will move on.

Why should I, a Senator from Montana, be interested in a nominee to the DC Court of Appeals? Well, so many cases are argued before this court that have to do with the management of public lands and the management of our national parks. Because I am from a public lands State, it matters a great deal that the laws of the land are properly judged and adjudicated. Every piece of information that I have been able to read or listen to or watch tells me he understands one little word in the English language that is very important to each and every one of us. The word is ``fair,'' dedicated to the study of both sides of any issue and then relating that to the law or the Constitution of the United States and making judgments.

That is pretty simple. We make things a lot more difficult than they should be. I have seen the big thick book that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee had, all the questions he was asked, the responses. What else is there to know about this man that has not been revealed? Instead, we hear ``deny,'' when not one person in the United States as a Member has been denied access to this floor.

Cases that have to do with public lands have great ramifications for Montana. Therefore, not only will I think he will be fair, judicial, and constitutional, but I believe it is also important to fill this vacancy. Right now, we see declarations of emergencies in so many of our appellate courts that we are seeing justice delayed, justice denied.

So what do we see happening today? It is written in the Constitution about our rights not being denied, but we sure see a little bit of obstructing and delaying in the confirmation process. We will not even be denied a vote. Every Senator will come down and cast his vote.

He was rated the highest rating of the American Bar Association. Yet we have heard it argued that he does not have the right qualifications to serve the court and therefore make a decision that we are going to talk the nomination to death. The Senate is a better body than that. Being around politicians a lot, being talked to death happens to be the worst death in the world.

So, is he qualified? You bet he is. Does he meet the limits on some folks? Maybe not. Does he meet their litmus test, maybe a personal litmus test? Maybe not. But there were people who disagreed with us when we ran for office and no one was denied the vote. If we had to go through this process just to get elected to the Senate by our constituency, we might not ever get here; we would be talked to death at home.

We are not going to talk about his background. We are going to talk about this American. No, he did not start here, but this American has applied his talents and his intellect to become an appellate judge. I am proud of this man. Nowhere else do we see an example of who we are and why we are Americans.

I am happy to yield.

That is the way I understand it.

That is my interpretation.

You are asking a man who is not trained in the legal disciplines.

I say that the majority, 50 plus 1, would be all it takes.

That is something else that sort of confused me the way you put your argument, but I am wondering why we are raising the bar for this nominee. Is that what we are doing here? Are we saying he has to stand a more difficult test than all others in the past or all others will be asked in the future?

I go back to that other old word, I say to my friend from Alabama: ``Fair.'' I guess that is all we ask, fairness. Everything I have read and everything I have heard tells me that this man is qualified to sit at any other man's fire. And I would tell you they don't come with a higher recommendation than that. But let's not ask this man to be subjected to a higher bar than has been asked of every other American-- not this American.

I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great bunch of college athletes from one of the best colleges in the Northwest. On December 21, the Carroll College Fighting Saints from Helena, MT, defeated the Georgetown Tigers of Georgetown, KY, to win Carroll's first NAIA national football championship.

The Fighting Saints scored 21 points in the first half, leading the Tigers 21 to 7. These 21 points were the most the Tiger defense had given up all season. Additionally, this was the first time they had trailed at halftime all season. During the second half, the Saints scored their fourth touchdown. This touchdown went unanswered by the Tigers, and the Fighting Saints won their first NAIA title by a score of 28 to 7.

The 2002 Carroll team is truly one of the best to play in the Frontier Conference, and I can personally attest to that since I had the pleasure of watching this fine team play last year. However, this is not by any means the first time this school has had an outstanding football team. Carroll College has a long tradition of outstanding coaches and student athletes. One noteworthy team was the 1931 Mount Saint Charles College football squad. It wasn't until the next year that Mount Saint Charles became Carroll College. This 1931 team went 6 and 0, beating Montana State University twice. Incidentally, these football players were unscored upon during that year. This team was the Carroll College team of the 20th century, and the 2002 Fighting Saints are truly the team of the 21st century.

The 2002 national championship team had four players named to the NAIA All American football team, a great honor for any program. While these are outstanding athletes, they are not alone. Every member of this team played an important role in winning this national championship. That is why, at this time, I would like to submit a full Fighting Saints roster to be printed in the Record of the Senate following my statement. I would also like to commend Coach Mike Van Diest and his coaching staff for putting together and leading such a fine team.

Carroll College has long been known for quality athletic programs, but its academic reputation is one that receives national attention year after year. In the fall of 2002, U.S. News and World Report ranked Carroll as the fourth best comprehensive college in the West. This is Carroll's ninth year in the top 10 in this category. The pre-med class of 2002 had a 100-percent acceptance rate at prestigious medical schools all across the country. Carroll's accounting students achieve a first-time CPA exam passage rate three times the national average. The Carroll College Talking Saints forensics team ranks among the best in the Nation year after year. In 1999, the Talking Saints won the National Parliamentary Debate Associations national championship.

Today, I congratulate the student athletes and coaches of the 2002 NAIA national championship football team, but would also like to commend the many fine accomplishments of the students and faculty of Carroll College.

The roster follows:

Bryan Chase, Mike Miller, Heath Wall, Zach Bumgarner, Matt

Garreffa, Nick Garreffa, Bryce Doak, Cory Perzinski, Dustin

Michaelis, John Klaboe, Mark Esponda, Travis Bradshaw, Marcus

Atkinson, Jeremy Pantoja, Tom Boyle, Devin Wolf, Mike Maddox,

Sheridan Jones, Kyle Baker, Buck Bower, D.J. Dearcorn, Dustin

Barber, Arnie Bloomquist, Jason Ostler, Regan Mack, Matt

Slingsby, Nate Chiovaro, Rhett Crites, Joey Stuart, Darold

Debolt, Mike Pancich, Chris Ramstead, Casey Glenn, Shawn

Wanderaas, Jarrod Wirt, A.J. Porrini, Chris Jones, Gary

Cooper, Jared Petrino, Matt Thomas, Nick Porrini, Quinn

Erwin, Scott Wunderlich, Tyler Emmert, Brett Bermingham, John

Forba, Justin Wigen, Spencer Schmitz, Tyler Maxwell, Kevin

McCutcheon, Paul Barnett, Jeff Pasha, Curtis Lineweaver, Matt

Peterson, James Grimes, Tim Bowman, Luke Lagomasino, Shane

Larson, Nick Hammond, Robb Latrielle, Brad Grutsch, Matt

Ventresca, Jeremy Grove, Mike Ward, Pat Womac, Kyle East,

Nick Colasurdo, Zack Zawacki, Gary Hiner, Casey FitzSimmons,

Sam Morton, Brandon Sheahan, Josh Schmidt, Mark Gallik, Jeff

Shirley, Mike Donovan, Andrew Hunter, Ben Shapiro, Jeff

Michelson, Zac Titus, Mike Kuhnly, Jessie King, Phillip

Wilson

You are correct Senator. Four million dollars is in the report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee in the form of a Dear Colleague letter dated April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, which contains 22 bipartisan signatures.

My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and I hope this is of aid to the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in the upcoming year.

clean water partnership for the americas

I would be pleased to yield to the Senator to discuss this important issue.

I appreciate Senator Crapo's interest in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. I understand this is an important issue to the Senator and would be happy to work with him so that the acquisition of these easements will be considered in conference.

I agree with the Senator that the service should make every effort to address these recreation infrastructure needs, including boat ramp extensions and intermediate pump stations, using resources in the repair and rehabilitation account or other appropriate funding sources.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from Virginia and Arkansas for their support of this important program to assist States in implementing effective programs to ensure conservation and sustainable use of game and non-game species. As this program is considered in conference, I will give every consideration to the request of the Senators from Virginia and Arkansas, and keep their views in mind as we negotiate a final omnibus appropriations bill.

I concur. The National Park Service should give careful consideration to the Charles Towne Landing application as well as the others.

Yes, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Michigan. The Senate did include funding in the amount of $3 million for the Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program. The legislation also authorizes the Department of Interior to continue administering the program from fiscal year 2003 to 2007. Future years funding will be subject to appropriations. In addition, the authorizing language provides that the Secretary of Interior shall ensure that a tribe that agrees to fund all future operations and maintenance costs receives the highest priority for a grant under the program.

The program was first authorized and funded in fiscal year 2001. The Program was reauthorized in fiscal year 2002, but the subcommittee did not provide funds to the Department of Interior because there were no eligible tribes capably of sharing the construction costs. The subcommittee was pleased to learn that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan is eligible, willing, and capable to take advantage of this innovative program during the fiscal year 2003 funding cycle.

The subcommittee believes that the Tribal Construction Demonstration Program will continue to prove to be one of the most beneficial and successful programs of its kind for the improvement of Native American education facilities.

I understand the importance of this item to the Senator from North Dakota, and I will work with him on this item when this bill moves to conference.

You are correct, Senator. Four million dollars is in the report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in the form of a dear colleague letter dated April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, which contains 22 bipartisan signatures.

My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of the next generation lighting initiative, and I hope this is of aid to the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in the upcoming year.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his kind words as a member of the Interior subcommittee.

The Senator is correct. The House has recommended $3 million for ``applications integration.'' I say to the Senator that he is always a strong and compelling advocate and that I will endeavor to give his request every favorable consideration within the limitations that will confront the conferees on this bill.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Mississippi. And I thank my friend from South Dakota for his work.

I want to make a couple of points because I guess we are all trying to say the same thing; it is just that everybody has not had an opportunity to say it.

The farming business is just as competitive as any other business. But let's go back and think a little bit. You have 2 years here: 2001 and 2002. You also have a section in this bill that deals with CRP. But I am going to make sure that something gets to the President of the United States. That is what I am going to do.

I may end up supporting both of them. Somewhere in the middle we will come up with a disaster package that provides the right kind of assistance to the people who have had actual losses. That is what is important. It is not one or the other. We were operating under a different bill the last 2 or 3 years that the Senator from North Dakota was referring to, completely different. There is no question in my mind that we are looking at a year now or a Congress now where we are going to have to take a look at risk management and how we manage our risk.

I am pragmatic. I do not want to mislead my people in the State of Montana who are going into their 6th year of drought. We know what it is all about. So I will probably support both amendments. But I want to make sure we get one to conference so we can deal with some of those specific areas in order to get the money to the people who have actually experienced the impact of this drought.

I thank the chairman of the committee. I also appreciate the leadership of the Democratic leader.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 1:30 p.m., with the time equally divided, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, this morning we are continuing to negotiate the reorganization of the responsibilities in this Senate. Those folks who observe the Senate and the goings on on the floor probably think there is not a whole lot going on, but it is kind of like a duck. He looks pretty calm and serene on top of the water, but under the water there is a lot of paddling going on.

As we work our way through this, it is hopeful we will come up with some kind of an agreement in the near future.

That being said, this morning we announced our agenda for the upcoming session as far as the Subcommittee on Telecommunications. I will share with my colleagues how these issues will rank and their importance. Last year, we passed a ``can spam'' bill out of committee. The bill came to the floor at the tail end of the session and was up for consideration in a package with a lot of other legislation, but it did not make it. It is broadly supported by this body. There is a similar bill in the House of Representatives which has to do with spam.

Spam is the unwanted mail that one gets in e-mail. Whenever one clicks on their e-mail, they see a lot of unwanted messages that are selling everything from shoelaces to whatever. This unwanted mail continues not only to plague our system and clog it, but in rural areas, especially like my State of Montana where some Internet users actually have to pay long distance fees to their server, it becomes quite expensive. In fact, American business is reporting that the cost of spam right now is going out of sight.

Before Christmas of last year, it was thought that around 8 percent of the mail a person received in their Internet was unwanted mail or spam. By December of 2002, just before Christmas, that figure grew to 40 percent of the mail a person found in their mailbox was unwanted. Another figure that sort of astounds all of us, it was estimated the average user of the Internet receives 2,300 pieces of unwanted mail in their mailbox.

Spam messages sent increased nearly 300 percent between the years of 2001 and 2002. This tells me it is time we pass this legislation and get it to the desk of the President. Junk mail sent will outpace other e-mail by at least the middle of this year, and 80 percent of the people online now say they find spamming very annoying.

That being said, we must pass this legislation. It is the first agenda item on my priority list, and we can do it.

I also remind Members, there are a couple of important meetings coming up this month and next that have to do with the Internet. February 12 is the Internet caucus. It is probably the most active caucus we have in the Senate. I am being told now some folks want to set up demonstrating units and vendors have to be turned away. That will be held in 902 of the Hart Building on February 12, starting at 5 p.m. It will be highly attended. I think we had a larger number of people at the planning meeting the other day than was anticipated, so there is quite a lot of interest in that.

The U.S. Asian Network kickoff will be January 27. Of course, that is just prior to the President's State of the Union Message that will be on January 28.

The head of the ruling party, Mr. Hyun of South Korea, will be there. He is part of that network. This was founded about a year ago to bring together the countries in the Pacific Rim and the Far East, because we feel the free flow of communications and technologies is a key to stability in the Far East. We are in this situation now with North Korea, and we feel the free flow of information and those technologies will somewhat diffuse that if people are informed. It will also address key areas such as privacy and copyright. All of those issues are very important to the communications industry.

A new caucus that was formed last year was the E-911 caucus. E-911 is enhanced 911, which is legislation that passed 2 or 3 years ago and was signed by President Clinton. I sponsored that bill, which was probably one of the better public safety bills we passed in Congress.

When a person has an emergency and dials 911 from their home, from a wired line, the one who fields that call has an immediate trace on that call and they know exactly where the person is when they report an emergency.

In the early days--and when I say early days, let's say around 1996 or so--if someone was a cellular phone user, using wireless communications, they could dial 911 and the person at 911 who received the call really did not know where to go. A person was liable to get the 600 Cafe in Miles City, MT, and they might be in southern California. It just did not know where to take someone who called 911.

We have dealt with that issue, making 911 the national emergency number, No. 1. No. 2, we want to put in place those technologies that when a person dials 911 from their cellular phone, they have the ability to be located.

In my State of Montana, under certain emergency conditions, we lose lives because we have to deal with distances, and also we do not know where a person is located. To give an example of that, there was a man involved in an automobile accident. He was south of Missoula, MT, which is over in the western part of the State, in the Bitterroot Valley. When he dialed 911, his call came into a communications center. When they asked him where he was, he said he was south of town. The operator, we are happy to say, said: What town? He says, Missoula.

Well, he had the operator in Miles City, and those two cities are 400 miles apart.

So working with Senator Clinton of New York, the cochair of the E-911 caucus, we will have our first meeting on February 24. Any Member wanting to join that caucus because of their interest in 911, please join us to get this technology in place because it is superb legislation that helps us in our public safety.

This year, Members can also look for the debate to start on spectrum reform: How we handle our spectrum, how we allocate it, how we regulate it. It has been a long time since we have looked at spectrum allocation and management. There has been an agreement now between the Consumer Electronics Association and the television people that will advance or accelerate the deployment of high-definition television, or digital television, in the home. It was an industry problem they had to face. They faced it. The standards are now set in the private sector. The ``plug in and play,'' as they call it, of buying a digital television, plugging into the cable, and it works, and the customer will have digital television or high-definition television immediately should bring down the cost to the consumers as more and more digital televisions are offered.

We will have spectrum returned to the Government for reallocation. How we handle that spectrum, how we manage it, will be very important. There are a couple of studies completed and one more to complete. Mark my word, this will be an issue of high debate, although it will not be a front-page issue.

Yesterday, Senator Baucus, my colleague from Montana, and I introduced a new broadband bill. Last year, I was privileged to work with Senator Rockefeller on the Commerce Committee as he had written a bill giving

tax credit to those entities wanting to build out broadband technology, even in rural areas. In that bill, we used tax credit as an incentive. This differs a bit. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Montana in his position on the Finance Committee. This allows 50 percent expensing on the buildout expenses the first year and then would be spread over the full years of depreciation the 50 percent balance. In other words, all investments in the buildout of broadband technology can be expensed.

I urge my colleagues to look at this piece of legislation as it moves through the Congress. It is the key of the deployment of broadband technologies to every corner of the United States and availability to all consumers.

In rural areas, we are doing things differently in two different categories. One of them is rural health. Broadband technology becomes very important. In fact, it is the cornerstone of telemedicine and how we serve our aging population in rural areas. I have 13 or 14 counties that have no doctors at all. They are being administered to by physician assistants and nurses. The ability of telemedicine to diagnose and to serve those people in rural areas becomes very important.

Also, in the area of education is distance learning. A small school located on the prairies of eastern Montana should have the same learning opportunities as young people attending schools in a more urbanized area. Also, in the inner city where tax bases have been eroded, the quality of school has slipped, those young people attending school should be afforded the same learning opportunities.

We must look at ICANN, the organization that assigns names and areas of the Internet. That has to be reformed. I heard when I was home over the holidays about wireless privacy. By 2005, it is estimated there will be over 250 million users of cellular telephones. Not only does this cause a backbreaking demand for spectrum, but it cries for privacy. Now there are scanners being developed with which people can eavesdrop on your telephone conversation from a wireless phone. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people and to me.

Regarding online privacy, we worked closely with Senator Hollings in his privacy bill which we passed out of committee. It should be passed by this body.

Last but not least, we should look at universal service and reform. Universal service is that pot of money that allows companies to put telephones and communication devices into areas where they have very high expenses. It should be known to the consumer and also to the ratepayer how this is done. We also know that the fund is going down because of collections. I support strongly universal service. Of course it needs reforming. That will be on our agenda as we move through the year.

That should bring my colleagues up on our agenda in the Commerce Committee. I am happy to say the Presiding Officer has been instrumental in moving good communications legislation in the House. We welcome him to the Senate. We also welcome him to the Commerce Committee. I hope he will take a look at the Subcommittee on Communications. His talents will be beneficial to that committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague from Montana to introduce legislation to provide tax incentives to accelerate the deployment of ``broadband'' high-speed Internet access across the country. Broadband is an issue about which I feel very strongly, and upon which I will be very focused this year as chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Although many urban and suburban areas now have access to a broadband connection, many rural areas still do not. And that places rural areas at a disadvantage in a number of ways in terms of economic development, educational opportunities, health care and numerous other applications. By creating a financial incentive to encourage broadband providers to extend their networks into rural and other underserved areas, we can help overcome that disadvantage.

The bill will create a temporary tax incentive for providers in the form of ``expensing,'' allowing an immediate deduction of a capital expenditure in the first year of service rather than depreciating that investment over time. In the case of ``current generation'' broadband investments in rural and underserved areas, the bill will allow 50 percent expensing of the investment, with the rest to be depreciated according to normal depreciation schedules. And where providers build out ``next generation'' broadband networks, which are typically more expensive, the bill will provide for 100 percent expensing.

This legislation generally mirrors the broadband tax credit legislation introduced by my friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in the last Congress. I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue. The only difference in that bill and the one we are introducing today is the form of the incentive, expensing rather than tax credits.

I am proud to tell you that the first broadband tax incentive in the Nation occurred in great State of Montana. In 1999, Montana enacted a broadband tax credit, which was in effect for 2 years. In those 2 years it had very positive results. Here is a quote from one of our public utility commissioners, Bob Rowe, in one of our State newspapers, The Missoulian, in June 2001, describing the effect of the Montana broadband credit:

The results are impressive. Dozens of projects were awarded

tax credits, most of them in rural Montana, places like

Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber. Projects

included DSL, cable modems, and wireless. They also included

projects to provide ``redundant'' access that is critical to

many technology businesses in case service goes out.

That is the kind of effect which a broadband tax incentive can have. Circle, Crow Agency, Superior and Big Timber are not large metropolitan areas. They are small communities of a few hundred people. If a broadband incentive can have that kind of effect in those places, it can have that kind of effect anywhere.

Now, what has happened to the Montana broadband credit? Like many other State tax breaks all across the Nation, it has been suspended, not repealed, but suspended, because of the current budget shortfall which the state is facing, which is exactly why we should consider a Federal broadband incentive at this time, when we are beginning the process of crafting a package of growth measures to put our economy back on a solid footing.

And I firmly believe that broadband can have a positive effect on our economy. A number of very solid studies lead me to this conclusion. A study conducted by economists at the Federal Reserve Board concluded that information technology accounted for over 60 percent of the productivity growth occurring from 1995 to 1999.

During the first half of the 1990s, the average productivity increase was only 1.5 percent per year. Then, when the Internet began to be widely used, average annual productivity jumped to 2.8 percent in the second half of the decade. That is a very significant increase, and it occurred largely from the ``network effect'' of linking our computers. Now, what broadband will do is allow us to use those linked computers for much more advanced applications, video conferencing, real-time collaboration on large computer files, telemedicine, distance learning, etc.

And, for those of us from agricultural States, we should be aware of the applications that our farmers and ranchers might use: Remote livestock sales, remote monitoring of irrigation facilities, tele- veterinary, etc. Anyone who thinks farmers don't care about technology should spend some time on today's modern farm, and they will learn that American agriculture is one of the most innovative industries in the world.

Let me give you an example. Deere and Company, the farm equipment maker, has supported legislation of this type. Others may dismiss this company as they just make tractors. However, if you were to talk to them, you would learn that the tractor of tomorrow, indeed of today, has a lot of high-tech equipment on board that, as it drives through the fields, gathers information on plant conditions and soil conditions and moisture content and so forth.

And that is incredibly valuable information to a farming operation. But to really use that information, you need a broadband connection to send it from the tractor to, say, a plant specialist a hundred miles away. Without that broadband connection, it will take a very long time to transmit the data, which makes it a lot less useful.

One economist, Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institute, has estimated that accelerated deployment of broadband will generate up to $500 billion in economic growth annually. Talk about an economic stimulus. I think we would all be delighted to have that happen, and I believe we should take steps to allow it to do so. This legislation is an important step in that direction.

And one important reason for us to encourage more broadband investment is international competitiveness. A number of other countries, like Japan and China, are now making much greater investments than the United States in optical fiber and other advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Japan is now the world's largest purchaser of fiber, much of which is going to deploy fiber-to-the-home. In 1 month last year, they wired more homes with fiber than we did in the entire year.

And although China has been playing catch up on building out their Internet backbone, they are doing so at a very fast pace and could soon overtake Japan as the world's biggest fiber market.

It is also happening in Europe. The Government of Sweden has dedicated

$800 million for broadband deployment in rural areas of the country, while they have already wired much of Stockholm with fiber-to-the-home. Last year, France announced that it would invest $1.5 billion on broadband infrastructure over the next 5 years.

I believe it is extremely important that the United States not fall behind in telecom and Internet technology, and a financial incentive of the type provided by this legislation will help ensure that we do not.

Let me briefly describe the specifics of the bill. As I said earlier, it provides 50 percent expensing for investments in rural and underserved areas of ``current generation'' broadband technologies, which are defined as those delivering at least 1.0 megabits per second of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 128 kilobits per second upstream from the subscriber.

It provides 100 percent expensing for investments in ``next generation'' broadband technologies, which are defined as those delivering at least 22 megabits per second of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 5 megabits per second upstream from the subscriber. It is technology neutral, it makes no difference if you are using as your medium copper wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber, terrestrial wireless, satellite or something else. If you deliver the threshold speeds, you are eligible for the benefit. And it sunsets in 5 years. The intent is not to provide a permanent benefit to the telecom sector, but rather to provide incentive to build out new infrastructure within a short time period.

And so that my colleagues and the public can read the specifics themselves, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Let me just conclude by saying that I believe this is important legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will join in supporting it. I look forward to working with my home State colleague, Senator Baucus, and also Senator Rockefeller and others to ensure that we push it through the Congress this year and send it to the President for signature.