Floor Statements

Mr. President, this is a special day to those of us who serve on the Commerce Committee and have served on the Commerce Committee ever since we have been in the Senate because today is the 10th anniversary of the Telecom Act of 1996. I want to talk about a bill I am introducing today as the Internet and Universal Service Act of 1996, or the NetUSA, if you will.

When I first came here and went to work, I was very much interested in telecommunications. The big reason is in my State of Montana we have only 900,000 people but we have 148,000 square miles. I remind my colleagues, if you drew a straight line from Yaak, MT, to Alzada, MT, it is farther than it is from Chicago to Washington, DC.

So we went to work in telecommunications for the simple reason we had to do something about distances, and we did. But it took almost 6 or 7 years before we came up with a bill that overhauled the old Telco Act of 1935. What we were trying to do is deal with the 1990s technology with a 1930 law and we found it almost impossible to do, so the whole act had to be rewritten.

Since the Telecom Act, the only thing that is certain is change. With change, several trends have emerged, including the development of new technologies, industry consolidation and convergence, and product bundling.

The pace of technological change has been astounding. We have a plethora of new technologies including WiFi and WiMAX, and all new words in telecommunications--wireless Internet access, voice over Internet protocol, which we refer to now as VOIP, the

telephone service using the Internet and broadband over powerline-- BPL--for Internet access via electrical lines.

While the Telecom Act promised industry and technology convergence, only recently is it materializing--with telephone, cable, and wireless companies invading one another's turf. Cable companies are offering television service over the Internet, telephone companies are offering video services over their facilities. New technologies have brought consumers a variety of choices for local, long distance, video, wireless, and Internet services, and many companies are offering bundled services.

The radical transformation of the industry has led some to call for a complete rewrite to the Telecom Act. Central issues in the debate today are the reform of the Universal Service Fund--the USF, reform of intercarrier compensation, franchising issues for video providers, and net neutrality are some among a whole host of other challenges.

As Congress begins working to rewrite the telecom laws, my central focus will be encouraging broadband deployment in every corner of the U.S. and preserving and improving universal service. Broadband deployment is more vital now than ever before, and it is a key to our future. In the 21st century, how do we compete against workers who work in economies of scale and their salaries are a little bit less than ours? We ensure that U.S. workers can obtain broadband services at affordable prices no matter where they live in this great country.

The GAO recently agreed, recommending the Government make more broadband infrastructure investments to improve the U.S. workforce's human capital and skill level. I think the President talked much about this in his State of the Union.

Technology provides a greater chance to live where you want and hold a good job. If a community does not have broadband, it is at a huge competitive disadvantage. It is just that simple.

Even though the technologies were developed in the United States, we still lag behind other countries in the deployment of broadband. We need to provide incentives for companies to continue to expand their broadband facilities and to ensure all Americans have access to the Internet, regardless of where they live--particularly since, although Internet penetration has grown in rural communities, a gap still exists between them and the suburban and urban communities.

One way I will provide such incentive is to continue my support of universal service, although it may take a little bit different direction in the distribution. The nearly 100-year commitment Congress and this Nation have had to USF has been indispensable in providing the same opportunities for rural America to participate in the Nation's education and health care systems that exist for Americans in urban areas, and for every American to participate fully in the Internet economy.

Just as rural electrification in the 1930s led to the surge in economic growth and raised the living standards across rural America, universal service plays the same role in the Internet era. We didn't get electricity on my farm until early in the 1950s. I can remember when you used to go to town and that electricity seemed like a pretty special thing. Had not the Government created the REC, or the rural electrics, I contend that out on the farm we would still be watching television by candlelight.

Without universal service support, phone bills in rural areas across the country, such as Montana, would increase dramatically. Universal service also helps to ensure that schools and libraries receive access to the Internet at rates they can afford. Because of universal service, the Internet now reaches almost all school-age children, no matter where they live. Universal service helped link rural health facilities to urban medical centers, promoting telemedicine. My State of Montana is on the cutting edge of that. Many people in remote communities would not have access to health care just using the Internet. The all- important issue in Montana is where these counties do not even have a doctor. I have 13 counties that have no physician.

For those who say universal service no longer makes sense, or that it should be repealed or scaled back, I encourage them to visit my State and see the fund in action. As one official from a carrier serving a remote corner of Alaska recently commented, universal service is ``more than a line item on a bill. . . . [It] provides a link to the outside world.''

That is not to say that changes do not need to be made in universal service. They do need to be made. It is a different world. Technologies are different and we must respond. As the length of time that new technologies emerge shortens, we must be able to deal with them. As consumers switch to new technologies such as wireless service, e-mail, voice over IP, universal service is slowly taking in less money every year. Therein lies the problem.

At the same time, the amount of money we disburse is increasing. This situation is obviously not sustainable, nor is it acceptable to Congress.

Additionally, we need to ensure the universal service is distributed where it is needed. The Senator from Alabama understands universal service and the impact it has on rural Alabama. In revising universal service to adapt to the changing technology landscape, it is essential to maintain the commitment levels to universal service programs to foster the continued availability of telecom and advanced services in rural communities, and to strengthen and improve the overall fund.

My proposed legislation will speed up deployment of broadband in rural areas and preserve and improve universal service.

Some things my bill seeks to do are to ensure that companies that receive universal service funds will invest in deployed broadband services; to ensure that universal service support contributions are assessed in a fair and competitively neutral manner; ensuring the integrity of the Schools and Libraries Program to deter waste, fraud, and abuse by strengthening the FCC's management and oversight, including imposing sanctions on applicants or vendors who repeatedly and knowingly violate the rules. That is what my bill does, in part. Lastly, improving the effectiveness of rural health care programs. It is unbelievable what we can do for rural health care when we can move massive amounts of information.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft creative solutions to these issues that are so vital to our Nation's future. It is the 10th anniversary. It took us almost 50 years--in fact, a little over 50 years, to change the act in 1996. This time, we had to act a little bit quicker because emerging technologies wait for no man. They are there, they are being used, and we must deal with them as they emerge.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me this little time and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the passage of the universal bill in this body.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a special day to those of us who serve on the Commerce Committee and have served on the Commerce Committee ever since we have been in the Senate because today is the 10th anniversary of the Telecom Act of 1996. I want to talk about a bill I am introducing today as the Internet and Universal Service Act of 1996, or the NetUSA, if you will.

When I first came here and went to work, I was very much interested in telecommunications. The big reason is in my State of Montana we have only 900,000 people but we have 148,000 square miles. I remind my colleagues, if you drew a straight line from Yaak, MT, to Alzada, MT, it is farther than it is from Chicago to Washington, DC.

So we went to work in telecommunications for the simple reason we had to do something about distances, and we did. But it took almost 6 or 7 years before we came up with a bill that overhauled the old Telco Act of 1935. What we were trying to do is deal with the 1990s technology with a 1930 law and we found it almost impossible to do, so the whole act had to be rewritten.

Since the Telecom Act, the only thing that is certain is change. With change, several trends have emerged, including the development of new technologies, industry consolidation and convergence, and product bundling.

The pace of technological change has been astounding. We have a plethora of new technologies including WiFi and WiMAX, and all new words in telecommunications--wireless Internet access, voice over Internet protocol, which we refer to now as VOIP, the

telephone service using the Internet and broadband over powerline-- BPL--for Internet access via electrical lines.

While the Telecom Act promised industry and technology convergence, only recently is it materializing--with telephone, cable, and wireless companies invading one another's turf. Cable companies are offering television service over the Internet, telephone companies are offering video services over their facilities. New technologies have brought consumers a variety of choices for local, long distance, video, wireless, and Internet services, and many companies are offering bundled services.

The radical transformation of the industry has led some to call for a complete rewrite to the Telecom Act. Central issues in the debate today are the reform of the Universal Service Fund--the USF, reform of intercarrier compensation, franchising issues for video providers, and net neutrality are some among a whole host of other challenges.

As Congress begins working to rewrite the telecom laws, my central focus will be encouraging broadband deployment in every corner of the U.S. and preserving and improving universal service. Broadband deployment is more vital now than ever before, and it is a key to our future. In the 21st century, how do we compete against workers who work in economies of scale and their salaries are a little bit less than ours? We ensure that U.S. workers can obtain broadband services at affordable prices no matter where they live in this great country.

The GAO recently agreed, recommending the Government make more broadband infrastructure investments to improve the U.S. workforce's human capital and skill level. I think the President talked much about this in his State of the Union.

Technology provides a greater chance to live where you want and hold a good job. If a community does not have broadband, it is at a huge competitive disadvantage. It is just that simple.

Even though the technologies were developed in the United States, we still lag behind other countries in the deployment of broadband. We need to provide incentives for companies to continue to expand their broadband facilities and to ensure all Americans have access to the Internet, regardless of where they live--particularly since, although Internet penetration has grown in rural communities, a gap still exists between them and the suburban and urban communities.

One way I will provide such incentive is to continue my support of universal service, although it may take a little bit different direction in the distribution. The nearly 100-year commitment Congress and this Nation have had to USF has been indispensable in providing the same opportunities for rural America to participate in the Nation's education and health care systems that exist for Americans in urban areas, and for every American to participate fully in the Internet economy.

Just as rural electrification in the 1930s led to the surge in economic growth and raised the living standards across rural America, universal service plays the same role in the Internet era. We didn't get electricity on my farm until early in the 1950s. I can remember when you used to go to town and that electricity seemed like a pretty special thing. Had not the Government created the REC, or the rural electrics, I contend that out on the farm we would still be watching television by candlelight.

Without universal service support, phone bills in rural areas across the country, such as Montana, would increase dramatically. Universal service also helps to ensure that schools and libraries receive access to the Internet at rates they can afford. Because of universal service, the Internet now reaches almost all school-age children, no matter where they live. Universal service helped link rural health facilities to urban medical centers, promoting telemedicine. My State of Montana is on the cutting edge of that. Many people in remote communities would not have access to health care just using the Internet. The all- important issue in Montana is where these counties do not even have a doctor. I have 13 counties that have no physician.

For those who say universal service no longer makes sense, or that it should be repealed or scaled back, I encourage them to visit my State and see the fund in action. As one official from a carrier serving a remote corner of Alaska recently commented, universal service is ``more than a line item on a bill. . . . [It] provides a link to the outside world.''

That is not to say that changes do not need to be made in universal service. They do need to be made. It is a different world. Technologies are different and we must respond. As the length of time that new technologies emerge shortens, we must be able to deal with them. As consumers switch to new technologies such as wireless service, e-mail, voice over IP, universal service is slowly taking in less money every year. Therein lies the problem.

At the same time, the amount of money we disburse is increasing. This situation is obviously not sustainable, nor is it acceptable to Congress.

Additionally, we need to ensure the universal service is distributed where it is needed. The Senator from Alabama understands universal service and the impact it has on rural Alabama. In revising universal service to adapt to the changing technology landscape, it is essential to maintain the commitment levels to universal service programs to foster the continued availability of telecom and advanced services in rural communities, and to strengthen and improve the overall fund.

My proposed legislation will speed up deployment of broadband in rural areas and preserve and improve universal service.

Some things my bill seeks to do are to ensure that companies that receive universal service funds will invest in deployed broadband services; to ensure that universal service support contributions are assessed in a fair and competitively neutral manner; ensuring the integrity of the Schools and Libraries Program to deter waste, fraud, and abuse by strengthening the FCC's management and oversight, including imposing sanctions on applicants or vendors who repeatedly and knowingly violate the rules. That is what my bill does, in part. Lastly, improving the effectiveness of rural health care programs. It is unbelievable what we can do for rural health care when we can move massive amounts of information.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft creative solutions to these issues that are so vital to our Nation's future. It is the 10th anniversary. It took us almost 50 years--in fact, a little over 50 years, to change the act in 1996. This time, we had to act a little bit quicker because emerging technologies wait for no man. They are there, they are being used, and we must deal with them as they emerge.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for allowing me this little time and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the passage of the universal bill in this body.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise on this subject and first of all I want to congratulate--maybe that is not the word--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for tackling this important problem. I can't think of a time or a piece of legislation that has been so complicated and so important to my State of Montana. So I want to tell the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that the statement he made is right on target. Some of us that have been impacted by asbestos and asbestos- related diseases take this very seriously. We need to vote to proceed.

I want to tell you why I am involved in this and there are a couple of other issues that are also burning in our office right now that need my personal attention. When you go to Libby, MT, it is a little town in northwest Montana on the Kootenai River, and the W.R. Grace Company had a mine up there. And if you are not torn on this issue, both sides of it, the statement of Eva Thomson from up there I will just read her statement. That is why I am giving my statement with regard to Libby, because it is an isolated case.

Eva Thomson said:

I have two sons, both them and I have asbestos-related

disease. But they are not eligible by the standards in the

existing bill as it is today. If the bill cannot be done

right to protect us victims, please don't pass it at all. We

place 225 crosses in the cemetery this Memorial Day in

remembrance of asbestos victims. There are more than 20 new

crosses this year. We need help, real help, and she thanks

me.

Yet I have another one from Charlotte Wade, who says:

Please don't forget us. I watched my Dad Jack die in 2002

and my mother Margaret die and suffocate from asbestos in

2004. I'm next. I've been on oxygen since the year 2000. My

three grown children, no doubt, will follow.

Jim Davidson, long time resident of Libby, MT. He has been diagnosed with mesothelioma:

Because of the short time I have left, I'm vitally

interested in seeing that a compromise is reached to allow

passage of some type of relief to me and all others affected

by asbestos and worse. As you know, there's no other avenue

left to those of us in Libby, Montana, because of the

bankruptcy of W.R. Grace. So I urge to you work for some type

of help for us.

Those are just three of hundreds in Libby, MT, that makes it a special place and harbors a special place in this piece of legislation. So I rise today to ask the Members of the Senate to remember the plight of the residents of this small town as this debate over the asbestos bill continues. I know a lot of folks have taken issue with the assertion that the Libby residents deserve special consideration. Well, I am here today to reiterate why this consideration is needed.

The asbestos contamination in Libby is as widespread as any area in the country. Though a sparsely populated town, the residents of that city have been profoundly affected by this spread of asbestos-related diseases. The asbestos exposure in Libby is unlike any other place in the United States. While I know my colleagues lament that they have similar situations in their own States, I ask them to simply listen.

The scope of asbestos exposure in Libby, MT, may never be known, but let me assure, you, Mr. President, that it is significant.

When Governor Martz of Montana executed the so-called silver bullet under CERCLA, she triggered a fast track listing of Libby on the National Priorities List. There has only been one other time when the silver bullet has been triggered due to asbestos. But that case in Arizona was limited to 17 square acres, not the contamination of an entire town. And unlike the case in Globe, AZ, the asbestos in Libby, MT, can't simply be covered in a filter fabric and soil and rock, fenced to keep everyone out. Unfortunately we can't control the exposure in that way. And the people in Montana--in Libby--don't want that.

So I challenge anyone--anyone--from any State to identify a town anywhere else in the country that has these kind of situations. I just want to show you right behind me is the vermiculite mine that was opened in 1924. By the 1950, cases of previously diagnosed as tuberculosis were instead cases of asbestos exposure. The town of Libby is located in a valley where the W.R. Grace processed ore from the contaminated mine, more than a half million pounds of asbestos a day was processed.

The Libby case is not an isolated case to the exposure within the confines of a factory. Instead, asbestos was everywhere. Community exposure was rampant. Contaminated properties including everything from the Libby community boat dock to the high school--the high school track. I want to put up this next picture. This is important. This is more than just a family hugging a mine worker after coming home and complaining of exposure. This is about asbestos exposure so significant that asbestos fibers fell like snow from the sky.

This is not very far from the mine. It is not very far from their loading and processing areas. This is the baseball field in Libby, MT. Children played on piles of vermiculite and all around town finding humor in taking a match to a fiber which would ignite.

Houses all over town were insulated with asbestos-contaminated in insulation. So my point is this morning, I invite anybody to visit this small town in northwest Montana, though I doubt my colleagues will take me up on the offer. In the summer, maybe when fishing is pretty good I could probably lure some of you out there but this is extremely important that other Senators understand the vast difference between this town of Montana and various processing plants that were located around the country. They were in isolated and enclosed areas.

This was free to the wind, to the winds of the vermiculite and one cannot just sit here and try to draw a mental picture of the impact that it had.

It is extremely important that Senators during this debate understand this is a special place, a special circumstance, and special people who still live there. I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Specter has done marvelous work on this. And to tackle this issue, as big as it is, and though we may have some disagreements on the size of the trust fund, who pays into the trust fund, how much they pay, the formulas, all of this, but I am sort of on the other side of this. Mine is the protection of people who have seriously been impacted by this thing we call asbestos since 1924.

Walk through the cemeteries and see those families, and to have people come to your town hall meeting short of breath, being suffocated by this disease, or any disease related to asbestos.

I only hope we can continue to work together not only to safeguard these Libby provisions, but to improve them as well.

And again I want to thank the chairman. He is a man of great bravery to take this issue on. And it is troubling. It is complex. But I will tell you, it is important.

And I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators Nelson, Mikulski, Landrieu, Murkowski, Boxer, Snowe, Reed, Roberts, Lautenberg, DeWine, Smith, Jeffords, Corzine, Stevens, Sarbanes, Kerry, Lincoln, Murray, Durbin, Coleman, Feinstein, Johnson, Collins, Schumer, Baucus, Cochran, Brownback, Cantwell, Clinton, Dodd, Lieberman, and Stabenow in cosponsoring S. 1272, Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2005.

The contribution Merchant Mariners made during WWII have gone unheralded for far too long. The Merchant Marine is the forgotten service of World War II.

Although their numbers were small, they suffered the highest casualties of any service in World War II. Merchant mariners were responsible for transporting troops, tanks, food, fuel, airplanes and other supplies and, as a result, their likelihood of combat was extremely high. In fact, enemy forces sank over 800 of their ships between 1941 and 1944.

For more than 40 years, Merchant Mariners were denied any G.I. bill of rights benefits. In 1988, they were granted a ``watered down'' version of the G.I. bill of rights, but some portions of those benefits were never made available to them. In addition, they still have not received proper recognition as veterans for Social Security purposes.

This legislation would rectify that inequity by recognizing these American heroes with the status of ``veteran,'' and it would grant a small monthly stipend to these veterans or their widows in order to offset their lost benefits.

As a veteran, I will always seek to protect the honored place of our military heroes. I cherish their service, and I will do everything in my power to support their interests. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the best NAIA football team in the Nation. The Carroll College Fighting Saints of Helena, MT, defeated the St. Francis University Cougars in Savannah, TN, earlier today.

The Saints beat the Cougars by a final score of 27-10 for their fourth straight NAIA National Championship. Today's ``Rumble on the River'' was also a historic victory marking the first NAIA team to win four straight national titles. Only one other team on any level of modern college football has won four straight titles.

The Saints' defense entered today's game as the best in the Nation allowing an average of only nine points per game this season.

We have some very talented football players in Montana at all levels of play. But today belongs to the Fighting Saints.

As on any football team, each player has a role in the success or failure of the team. However, it is important to recognize those players who were individually awarded for their efforts. All Americans like Kyle Baker, Casey Crites, and Tyler Emmert contribute to the team's success.

Saints' quarterback Tyler Emmert had thrown this season for 3,039 yards and 32 touchdowns prior to entering today's game, becoming the NAIA career leader in total offense.

He has accounted for 13,681 yards in his entire career and owns a record of 50-3 as a starter for the Saints. Now that record is 51-3.

Congratulations as well to Coach Mike Van Diest and his staff as well as to Dr. Thomas Trebon, president of Carroll College.

What an impressive team. What an impressive run of seasons.

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

Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, are we on the PATRIOT Act or what is the order?

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes--and I don't think it will be that much--as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I heard the words of our assistant leader on the majority side and wanted to come to the Senate. These words may get lost in the swirl of the times with the holidays, but yesterday was truly a historic time not only for the people of Iraq, but a historic time for the peace process in the Middle East.

There was not a doubt in anyone's mind around the world what that was about yesterday. They not only elected permanent representation in their government that will move on and try to finish their constitution, but it was a symbol of a people who voted for peace, security, and a new economic future. That is what that was all about yesterday.

I congratulate the people of Iraq who, with a great deal of courage, turned out and stood in lines and voted their will. This is what this whole exercise has been about.

I leave a message with not only this Congress but to some who fail to see how much hope was on display yesterday: there is hope for the future. Now we have little girls going to school in Iraq. Hope for families, that they can participate in a republican form of democracy, and to change the economic culture of those people who live in Iraq.

Think of the possibilities. The success in Iraq also has done another thing that will change not only Iraq, but it will change the whole area. For the first time since World War I there will be a transportation and communication corridor that will change the economic culture from Tel Aviv to Kuwait City. Think of what that does. It puts Amman back on the trade route, so to speak. King Abdullah, the leader of Jordan, understands this. And as he looks at that, it puts Amman back on the trade route.

But what about the future? Anyone who has visited Iraq has seen this, probably in Baghdad, or wherever. But I will tell you what this farm kid has seen on his visit to Iraq. When we were in Mosul we saw dry land, farming, good soil. There are two great rivers with irrigation systems from both of them. I saw the kind of dirt it takes in which to build an economy.

Let's don't talk about gas or oil. Let's talk about the very industry that contributes more to the GDP of any country in the world, and that is agriculture. They have the ability to be the breadbasket of the Middle East. As you know, most of the Middle East is desert. Most of it has soil that is very thin, and there are not many nutrients in it. And even where you find those areas where they have it, it is in need of water. Water isn't there.

I looked at the north of Israel one time, and I understood the problem there. The problem there has to do with water, the ability to irrigate out of the Jordan River. You have two great river systems in Iraq.

The next step in this budding new freedom is the cornerstone of freedom, and that is land ownership, making people productive, growing renewable resources, providing for your family, but also providing a great export out of Iraq and becoming a trading partner with their neighbors.

We cannot change the ethnic culture, nor can we change the Islamic culture, but we can change the economic culture to where more people of that society participate in the economic well-

being of their country. Just think of the possibilities and the hope it brings to the next generations of those folks.

If you can find something to export--and I will tell you, I look at Jordan. There is a country that is not very wealthy. The only thing they have to export is potash, and the world can only use so much potash.

But they understand communications and transportation. So there is great hope there now. There is the hope of land ownership, the hope of participation in supplying food and fiber not only for their own people, but to export to other neighboring countries. That corridor is now established with the free movement not only of people, but also goods and services.

That corridor will widen. It will effect the way people do business in Syria and the way they do business in Iran. It will change even how they do business in Egypt. The Nile Delta, a very fertile delta, now will have some competition in the food business.

Also, it will have possibilities for our country when those economics take hold. And it is not going to happen by next week, or next year, or maybe not even for the next 5 years. But you are going to see it happen because of this taste of freedom, land ownership, independence, and to be able to participate in their own government, and, yes, even in their own provincial governments.

So the possibilities of peace and stability and economic advancement have never been greater than at any time in history since World War I. Yet there will be those who say we should not be there helping freedom- loving people achieve the same dream, having the same hopes we have for our next generation, our children, and our grandchildren.

Hope is eternal. Now they have a future, a future they have never had since almost 100 years ago. And the impact of that will spread throughout the Middle East. It will happen. The Presiding Officer comes from an agricultural State with land ownership, productivity, and exports. My good friend from Iowa, my goodness; they are the breadbasket of the world. They can grow more in Iowa with what falls out of their pocket accidentally than we can, on purpose, in Montana, I will tell you. What a great and blessed State, and the same for the State of my friend from Texas, who is on the floor.

But what makes it operate is land ownership and participation in the economy. Then the terrorists have nobody to recruit because there is hope.

Our Marines, our Army, and our Air Force paid a heavy price because they, too, believe this legacy of freedom, to be passed on from one generation to another, is worth dying for.

I had a lady say: ``If you wanted to take a poll in Iraq, if you polled our military people, that poll would say they don't want to be there.''

I said: Well, if you took a poll in the English Channel on June 6, 1944, they didn't want to be there either. What was that for? Countries had been overrun by a tyrant who brought nothing but tyranny. And they were an enemy of this country and our ideals and our principles.

They have those principles already. But what they have too is hope. And we have to nurture that hope because they cannot only feed themselves, with their renewables grown from Mother Earth, they can become a powerhouse in the Middle East for commerce. Just think of that corridor. Just think of the possibilities of changing an economic culture that will run from Tel Aviv to Kuwait City, and then you tell me: Was it worth it?

This President understands a vision of hope for freedom-loving people everywhere. And what it offers to their citizens is beyond some folks' comprehension. Freedom is not free. Hope is not free. There must be sacrifice.

Yesterday, those folks lined up by the droves to take advantage of changing their lives, sending a strong message to the rest of the world: Terrorists, you are not welcome here anymore.

That is the greatest enemy terrorists have, when the fires of freedom burn in the hearts of a people in a line where they stand, where they vote.

That is the vision I have for the Middle East. It is very clear. It is clear that with that reform comes land ownership, irrigation systems, dry land farming, and participation in the world of commerce. Not only in that, but in goods and services also. Iraqis are a very talented people, a people who have that fire of freedom in their heart. We wish them well, and we stand beside them as that fledgling democracy, that republican form of government, gets its kick-start. And it really got a kick-start yesterday. We wish them well. We congratulate them for their courage to stand up and be counted.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on April 28, 2005 of this year, just hours after the National Academy of Science released its report, I stood before this body and declared the importance of amending this law. On May 9, I introduced S. 977 which places Montana on equal ground with others who have suffered from nuclear testing fallout. Again, on May 10, I stood in this Chamber and talked about the importance of this legislation for the good people of Montana. Today, I am happy to be joined in my efforts by the Senator from Idaho, who introduced similar legislation for the people of Idaho. This bill is an important step forward in securing the justice that the people of Montana deserve. This bill combines my efforts with those of Senator Crapo to extend RECA coverage to both Montana and Idaho in a single, simple bill.

Montana, more than any other State, was affected by the downwind radiation that came from the nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s. The statistics are eye-opening. Of the 25 counties in the United States with the highest exposure rates, 15 are in Montana. Meagher County in Montana has a rate of exposure greater than any other county in the United States. Fifty-five out of Montana's 56 counties experienced elevated levels of radiation exposure. And yet, Montana is the only State in the region that receives absolutely no compensation from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act whatsoever.

The reported rate of thyroid cancer--which is the health affect most associated with the exposure to Iodine-131 from this testing--is 17.5 times the national rate. Between 1989 and 2003, while the national rate of thyroid cancer increased 38 percent, Montanans saw an increase of 127 percent.

When Congress passed RECA in 1990, it was an important step toward setting a grave injustice right. As a cancer survivor myself, I know that no amount of money can heal the wounds suffered by the victims of radiation exposure. Time and time again, I have heard from Montanans who tell me that it is not about the money. The people of Montana aren't coming to their Government with their hands out. They are demanding justice. They are demanding acknowledgement of their suffering. They are demanding that we do the right thing.

When RECA was passed in 1990, my colleagues did their best to do the right thing. For that, they should be commended. For the 9,117 Americans who have received compensation for downwind exposure since RECA became law in 1990, justice has been served. Responsibility has been taken, so that wounds can begin to heal.

And, it wasn't an easy journey. The first hearings for RECA were held way back in 1979, almost 30 years ago. The questions that needed to be asked took time to answer: Was there downwind

radiation? Were people exposed to that radiation? Were there health consequences to that exposure? And while the Senate struggled with these questions, Americans that were affected waited. As my colleagues expressed 20 years ago, time is not on our side in this matter, and all too often justice delayed is quite literally justice denied.

When Congress passed RECA in 1990, the extent of the damage done from this radiation was not fully understood. New studies, by the National Cancer Institute and the National Academy of Sciences, decades in the making, have shown that for many Americans, like those in Montana, justice has been denied. They live in the most affected regions of the country, and yet they find the door of justice closed to them by lines on a map. For some of these people, it is too late. The clock is ticking, and many have not survived long enough for their Government to do the right thing.

That is why I stand adamant that the time to act is now. We did the right thing in 1990. It is time to do the right thing today.

Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Vitter, Salazar, Nelson, Johnson, Chambliss, Thune, Hagel, Isakson, Lautenberg, Dole, and Stevens, in cosponsoring S. 1998, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.

During this Christmas season, our forces are deployed around the world, and many serve in hostile locations. Our service men and women continue to make great sacrifices abroad to ensure our safety here at home. It is our duty to recognize and honor that sacrifice and heroism. Unfortunately, some civilians have created elaborate lies to claim some of this honor as their own.

I am disturbed by stories of these despicable frauds who have tried to falsify heroic military records. These people wear medals that they did not earn, and claim honors which they do not deserve. This type of lie strikes at the very heart of the honor of our military and our Nation.

We must act now to protect the reputation of our military heroes with the full force of law. Those who seek to steal recognition that they have not earned must be held accountable and brought to justice. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 does just that by enhancing penalties for making false claims in regard to personal medals awarded for combat action and valor, such as the Purple Heart, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Silver Star, or Congressional Medal of Honor. This law will allow law enforcement officials to prosecute individuals who falsely claim to be recipients of these awards, and perpetrators may receive a sentence of up to 1 year as a result.

As a veteran, I will always seek to protect the honored place of our military heroes. I cherish the sacrifices of all veterans, and I will continue to do everything in my power to support and protect their interests. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the resolution I submitted and which was approved by unanimous consent on the Senate floor this week, in support of the President's position on Internet governance at the U.N. Summit on the Information Society. I thank the cosponsors on this resolution: Senators Stevens, Inouye, Leahy, Smith, Sununu, Bill Nelson, Hutchison, Inhofe and Craig. And I also acknowledge Senator Coleman for all his good work on this issue.

No one can really control the Internet. It is not supposed to be controlled. It is an architecture, literally and figuratively, of freedom--freedom of information, of speech, of interconnection, of religion. Because the Internet was developed and commercialized in the United States, it reflects those core American values, and boosts them all around the world. And the United States should be proud of the way it has handled the growth of the Internet--particularly in the way it has kept the private sector experts in charge, and government bureaucrats out.

I have been particularly concerned the status of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, the private, expert body that oversees and manages the Internet's Domam Name System. This is the ``plumbing'' that makes each Internet site unique and keeps the Internet a global unitary network. The United States created ICANN and its unique model of oversight, with the input of international stakeholders. And U.S. Government oversight of ICANN has been critical in making ICANN more responsive and more capable of carrying out its important technical mission. ICANN is not perfect. I have been critical of its shortcomings in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. But I strongly support its model of governance that leaves the private-sector experts in charge.

The preliminary news from the U.N. conference seems to be good. Some of the worst ideas, such as creating a new U.N. bureaucracy instead of ICANN, or to direct ICANN, seem to have been avoided. But I will look closely at the final results and make sure that nothing has been agreed to that could damage the Internet. I hope to hold a hearing in the Commerce Committee early next year about this, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the key stakeholders at that time.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Forests for Future Generations Act, because it addresses a very serious problem in our National Forests. I am not sure how many people in this body have witnessed the devastation of a catastrophic wildfire, but I recommend that everyone tour a burned over forest. It is a sobering reality, often resembling a moonscape.

The worst fire year in recent Montana history was the summer of 2000, when we burned 945,000 acres of productive Montana land. After months of smoke-filled air, we were left with decimated wildlife habitat, charred hillsides, sediment-filled streams, and millions of board feet of dead, standing timber. Active forest management would require that restoration of these fragile soils and ecosystems begin as soon as possible, but that is almost never the case on national forest land. Instead, we spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours writing a plan to restore the burned area, which is inevitably appealed, challenged, and litigated by an environmental group. We end up arguing in the courtroom when we should be working in the forest.

I have seen side-by-side sections of land where private landowners or even the State of Montana has taken quick action and removed some dead or dying timber then replanted the forest. News are growing on the private land before any of the Federal timber is even harvested. It is amazing to me, and it makes absolutely no sense. For that

reason I am happy to cosponsor this bill, because it is time to reintroduce some common sense into a system that has gone far off the tracks.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Forests for Future Generations Act, because it addresses a very serious problem in our National Forests. I am not sure how many people in this body have witnessed the devastation of a catastrophic wildfire, but I recommend that everyone tour a burned over forest. It is a sobering reality, often resembling a moonscape.

The worst fire year in recent Montana history was the summer of 2000, when we burned 945,000 acres of productive Montana land. After months of smoke-filled air, we were left with decimated wildlife habitat, charred hillsides, sediment-filled streams, and millions of board feet of dead, standing timber. Active forest management would require that restoration of these fragile soils and ecosystems begin as soon as possible, but that is almost never the case on national forest land. Instead, we spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours writing a plan to restore the burned area, which is inevitably appealed, challenged, and litigated by an environmental group. We end up arguing in the courtroom when we should be working in the forest.

I have seen side-by-side sections of land where private landowners or even the State of Montana has taken quick action and removed some dead or dying timber then replanted the forest. News are growing on the private land before any of the Federal timber is even harvested. It is amazing to me, and it makes absolutely no sense. For that

reason I am happy to cosponsor this bill, because it is time to reintroduce some common sense into a system that has gone far off the tracks.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to honor Steve Pilcher, a leader in the Montana livestock industry. At the end of this year, Steve will retire from his years of service as executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. His service will be missed, but the values and leadership Steve brought to the organization will continue on.

Many American children grew up with the Saturday Western matinee as the high point of their week. The ideals shared by those men in their white Stetsons were strong, moral, and enduring. There were some great rules to live by that were shared by the cowboys on the Silver Screen.

Steve took every one of those lessons to heart. He not only believes in the ``Code of the West'' those cowboys shared with us, he continues to live it, both in his personal life and his professional life.

Hopalong Cassidy had a Creed for American Girls and Boys. The first rule in his creed was, ``The highest badge of honor a person can wear is honesty, be mindful at all times.'' Regardless of the fallout, Steve does not believe in bandying the truth. He is always a square shooter. He has taken the heat many times for standing by the truth, but Steve is a man of honor. He knows the truth is worth whatever adversity it brings from others who do not feel the same way.

Gene Autry offered the Ten Commandments of the Cowboy. The first commandment said, ``A cowboy never takes unfair advantage.'' Steve has always worked hard to prove that the ranchers in Montana expect only what they earn. He knows that you have to work those extra hours to make sure things are fair. Nothing is given to you.

Also, there was the Lone Rangers Creed. Perhaps the part Steve took to heart the most was, ``God put the firewood here but every man must gather and light it himself.'' There is no doubt Steve Pilcher has been gathering the firewood for the Montana Stock-growers. He has worked tirelessly for this industry and I know he will continue to light that fire.

As we recognize Steve Pilcher for his major contributions to not only Montana's livestock community but the Nation's, there is one more thing that I must add: Happy Trails my friend, until we meet again.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Bryant Elementary School, Chief Joseph Elementary School, and Huntley Project Elementary School. Montana is proud and I am honored to recognize these three schools identified as blue ribbon schools under No Child Left Behind.

As the spouse of a schoolteacher, I understand the many difficulties our schools face. Each and every day, parents send their children off to school to be educated, cared for, and disciplined. These three Montana schools have received this important award, and were honored last week at the Department of Education. I thank the staff, teachers, and parents for their hard work to make such success possible. The Blue Ribbon Award is no small achievement--students from these schools are in the top 10 percent of students across the State. I am honored to acknowledge them for their work.

Principals Howard Corey, Rick Knisely, and Russell Van Hook all understand the importance an education can have on the life of a child, as well as the significant role parents and the community play in the development of these future leaders. They should be

commended for their leadership and vision which produced such meaningful results.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the students at each of these institutions. While the adults have provided the foundation for a positive and educational classroom experience, ultimately the students decide to succeed for themselves, meeting and exceeding the high standards set for them. I am confident that we are raising the next generation of successful Americans to be productive and educated members of society. I am especially proud of the progress that these Montana students have made, and I urge them to keep up the good work. I am proud of each and every one of you. To the students, educators, and parents, thanks for all the good work you do.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate is undertaking a significant effort to reduce Federal spending and return fiscal responsibility to the Congress. Not since 1997 has Congress attempted a budget reconciliation bill. But the fiscal situation facing the American people today demands a serious commitment from the Federal Government to reduce deficit spending. This reconciliation package is an important part of that process.

I recommend the chairman of the Budget Committee for his efforts on reconciliation. He has been an outstanding advocate for fiscal restraint, while trying to respond fairly to the competing demands for increased spending. While I do have some concerns about certain cuts included in this bill, on the whole I think it is a balanced package that accomplishes meaningful restraints on Government spending.

One of the positives of this bill is the provisions relating to energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is time to open ANWR for oil production to increase our domestic supply of petroleum. We need to look no further than the gas pump to see what happens when U.S. oil production lulls. High gas prices hurt Montanans and dependence on foreign oil hurts our national security.

The Energy Information Administration states that the coastal plain region harboring the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area is ``the largest unexplored, potential productive onshore basin in the United States.'' Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, estimate that drilling in ANWR could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil--an amount roughly equal to 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.

Most people don't understand that the 1002 Area is only 1.5 million acres within the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This budget allows for development of only 2000 of those 19 million acres in ANWR. That means 99.99 percent of ANWR will be untouched. If this tragedy-filled hurricane season has taught us anything, we should realize that by concentrating our production and refinery capability in the Gulf of Mexico, we are risking supply disruption.

We need to do more offshore, and more onshore across this country. Last week, I held a hearing on onshore oil and gas development. The backlog we face in processing permits for reasonable onshore production contributes to the energy crisis we are facing now. All segments of the economy are directly impacted by the costs of fuel to produce and move our output. From keeping warm in our homes to moving food to the market, the American taxpayer faces a tighter budget as a result of skyrocketing energy costs. We simply must consider all options when it comes to increasing production, and ANWR are an important part of that.

The United States has some of the strictest environmental laws in the entire world. We can safely and carefully produce oil within our own shores, or we can ignore our responsibility to domestically produce this resource. Royalty revenues from oil production in ANWR is expected to produce $2.5 billion for the Federal Government over the next 5 years alone, plus provide valuable jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It is time for this body to do the right thing and increase our domestic production of energy, and ANWR is a good place to start. So I applaud the work of the chairman of the Energy Committee for including ANWR in this budget.

I am also pleased with the provisions to address digital television transition. Setting a firm date of April 7, 2009, allows the FCC to make critical spectrum available for the emergency workers who protect our communities. Our first responders need access to this spectrum to ensure communications in times of national emergencies.

In a rural State like Montana, this spectrum can also be used to expand broadband access, linking rural communities not just for emergency needs, but for education, telehealth, and economic development.

The revenues generated by this spectrum auction generate billions toward paying down the national debt, but also give us the flexibility to address some other priorities, including essential air service. I was pleased to be able to include language in this bill that will provide an additional $75 million for essential air.

Thirty-seven States rely on essential air, but skyrocketing fuel prices are placing that service in jeopardy. The provision I included will increase EAS funding over the next 5 years, and ensure that communities relying on essential air will continue to have transportation options.

Also important to Montana is ensuring that Federal incentives for higher education remain intact. Though significant cost savings have been achieved in the reconciliation package adopted by the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, many positive changes have been made to benefit the students who most need assistance.

The higher education reforms save $9.8 billion over 5 years, while still preserving critical benefits for students across the country. For first- and second-year college students, the loan limits will be increased to $3,500 for the first year and $4,500 for the second year. This is especially important in a State like Montana, which ranks third-from-last in retention of first-year college students who continue on to their second year.

Not only are we increasing the overall aid available, but are also emphasizing the various types of education needed from the current workforce. This bill provides for additional funding for grants for Pell-eligible students who major in math, science, technology, engineering, and some foreign languages. All too often, employers comment that they have skilled jobs available, but are unable to find the kind of specialization they need from students, and by providing incentives for students to study in these under-utilized areas, they are able to obtain an affordable education and fill a much-needed place in the workforce.

I am especially proud of the provision in this bill which provides for

deferment on loan payment for borrowers serving in active duty or in the National Guard. This provision sends a strong message of support to our men and women in uniform, and I am pleased to support its inclusion.

While there is plenty to praise in this reconciliation package, I have very strong concerns about the proposals to cut $4 billion out of agriculture programs. When this Senate debated the spending cuts and reconciliation instructions earlier this year, this body agreed to $3 billion in agriculture cuts.

While I would prefer no cuts to farm bill programs, I understand that everyone must do his or her part to reduce Government spending. The House of Representatives wanted to cut more out of farm programs, as did the President. I think the Senate settled on a fair amount, and I applaud the chairman of the Budget Committee for retaining that level in conference.

But we are not talking about $3 billion in cuts, the $3 billion that we all agreed to. Instead, farm programs are taking a massively disproportionate cut. Commodity and conservation programs are being reduced by nearly $4 billion. The extra money is not being returned to the Government to pay down the debt. It is going to a select group of interests, to subsidize small dairies. These budget cuts pit one producer against another. My Montana wheat growers are being asked to pay for dairy subsidies. That is simply unreasonable.

In these times of high energy and fertilizer costs, we are asking farmers to bear much more than their fair share of program cuts. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this proposal. Cuts to agriculture spending need to be fair and shared across the board. Giving one sector of one industry a billion dollars for 2 years, at the expense of farmers all over the country sends a terrible message to the hardworking families that feed this Nation.

Lastly, I want to turn to the issue of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. While I believe the proposals to reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid included in this reconciliation package are generally good, there are some issues I want to highlight.

I remain concerned about our community and independent pharmacists. In Montana, they are small business men and women, and, all too often, they are the only place in small towns where folks can get the medication they need. I remain concerned about how this package may affect them and will do what I can to make sure they are not adversely affected by provisions in this bill.

However, this bill also provides funding to states that face shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP, and expands outreach and enrollment activities to cover more children. The SCHIP program has been incredibly important in Montana, in ensuring children have the health care they need to lead healthy, fruitful lives. I am glad to see that this bill also establishes a new grant program to finance innovative outreach and enrollment efforts designed to increase enrollment and promote an understanding of the value of health insurance coverage. I expect this outreach to be helpful in Montana, where reaching those in need is often difficult because of the vastness of our state.

This bill will also extend the Medicare Dependent Hospital program, which provides financial protections to rural hospitals with less than 100 beds that have a greater than 60 percent share of Medicare patients. Many of Montana's hospitals fall into this category, as our Medicare population, especially in the most rural areas continues to grow rapidly.

Medicaid options are expanded through the Family Opportunity Act, so that parents of severely disabled children can go to work, without risking Medicaid benefits. New incentives are provided to purchase long-term care, and new resources are provided to help states combat fraud and abuse that steal money away from low-income families that need it the most. These are good reforms, and they will greatly benefit Montanans.

Undertaking spending cuts on any scale is a difficult task. But Congress must do its duty to rein in the growth of the Federal Government, provide incentives to economic growth, and ensure that the safety nets we have in place are truly benefiting those who need assistance most. Although there are certainly things I would change about this package, I urge my colleagues to support it. The American public must know that Congress is willing to make difficult choices to reduce runaway Government spending and use tax dollars wisely. This budget is a good start, and I look forward to supporting its passage.

Just a few weeks ago, the Senate passed the Transportation

appropriations bill, which included $1.45 billion in Amtrak funding.

This amendment today represents the next step in continuing the fight to reform Amtrak in a way that preserves passenger rail as a necessary component in our Nation's transportation system.

The Empire Builder, which runs through Montana, serves an important public need, and I appreciate the work of Senators Lott, Inouye, and Lautenberg on developing this reauthorization bill.

This bill provides needed reforms to help Amtrak operate more efficiently but does so in a way that enhances, rather than harms, existing service.

Amtrak is a key component of Montana's infrastructure, and folks feel pretty strongly about keeping the Empire Builder operational. Conservative estimates indicate that the Empire Builder brings roughly $13 million annually into Montana.

Recently, Amtrak announced record ridership numbers for the past fiscal year--a trend we saw in Montana as well. Given the high fuel prices folks are facing these days, preserving alternate forms of transportation is even more critical.

Amtrak continues to have widespread support throughout the country, and Congress needs to ensure that Amtrak remains a part of our Nation's infrastructure. Part of Congress's duty is to make sure that Amtrak is responsible with the Federal dollars it receives.

This legislation provides important reforms for Amtrak, including audits on amenities like food and beverage service, and sleeper cars. On a train like the Empire Builder, those amenities are critical. On other trains, maybe some changes can be made. Each route needs to be evaluated for potential reforms.

Amtrak must work to reduce its reliance on Federal spending and improve performance across the board. This amendment today moves Amtrak in that direction, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

I recognize that attaching authorizing language to the budget reconciliation is not the preferred method to move this bill. However, Amtrak needs to be reauthorized, and Congress must do its duty to direct passenger rail reform.

So I hope that the Senate can agree to include this amendment today and take action on the important reforms that Amtrak needs.

Will the Senator yield?

If all of the money is not used for the set-top box and there is money left over, yes, it does go to

debt reduction, but isn't it also earmarked in there for first responders and spectrum? Did we not talk about them? Basically that is why we are trying to free up a lot of the 700-megahertz block of spectrum.

I understood that was the case. The Senator said it all goes to deficit reduction, but I thought some of it was held in reserve for emergency responders?

I thank the Senator.