Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd and DeWine and my other colleagues in introducing the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which will reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. This program, which is also know as the FIRE Grant program, addresses a critical need by ensuring that our Nation's firefighters have adequate funding for training and equipment to deal with the many hazards that they face.

As Chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I am familiar with the success of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Funding under the FIRE grant program is provided directly to local jurisdictions. Applications undergo a competitive, merit-based process, which helps to ensure that funding is spent responsibily and productively. The grant program includes a matching requirement to ensure that the local community is committed to spending the grant. It also includes a ``maintenance of expenditures'' provision to ensure that the grant will supplement, not replace, local firefighting funds. In addition, the program ensures that new technology that is bought with FIRE Grant funds meet standards set by voluntary consensus organizations, so that local fire departments will buy effective equipment.

For Fiscal Year 2004, the program received over 20,000 applications from local fire departments across the country. These requests totaled approximately $2.3 billion. The program also received around 20,000 applications in 2001, 2002, and 2003, which clearly demonstrates the need and importance of this program to the firefighting community.

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program recipients use such funds to help meet their basic needs. The uses for these grants include: personal protection and firefighting equipment;

training; firefighting vehicles; fire prevention campaigns; fire code enforcement; and arson detection and prevention. I would like to emphasize that these grants are dedicated to improving the local response to ``all-hazards,'' including natural disasters, structural fires, and acts of terrorism.

I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, and urge the Senate to support passage of this legislation this year. As we have witnessed recently, our Nation's fire services face a myriad of threats, and we should work to ensure that they are adequately trained and equipped to meet them.

Mr. President, I am unavoidably absent from the Senate this afternoon, but would like to express my strong support for S. Res. 356.

The photos and reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison that have emerged over the past week defy description. I condemn, as must all Americans, these horrific acts. It saddens and shames our country to see Americans perpetrate these abuses on other human beings. Their actions do not reflect the principles for which this country stands.

We have fought to liberate Iraq, and to free the Iraqi people from the murderous rule of Saddam Hussein. We have achieved great things in Iraq, but

we have much work to do. The sickening images of abuse that have emerged in the media threaten to undermine much of the good we have done. These incidents have marred the reputation of our country abroad, and have made the tasks of the brave Americans fighting and working in Iraq harder. But I am confident that the vast majority of men and women working to bring freedom to Iraq will conduct their noble mission with integrity and distinction.

Toward that end, we need to have all the facts about the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and we need them immediately. We cannot wait months for a new commission to issue a report, nor for new photos and details to dribble out over weeks. The American people need to know, at once, the abuses committed, punish those guilty of these crimes, and ensure that they never again occur. We must also ensure that similar abuses are not occurring elsewhere in detention centers outside Iraq. Our venture in Iraq is moral, and must be conducted with moral means. We must ensure that we are treating all prisoners and detainees humanely and in accordance with U.S. and international laws and regulations.

Mr. President, as Americans we are defined not just by the way in which we deal with our friends but by how we treat our enemies. I know that in many countries around the world, abuse of prisoners is commonplace and brutal interrogation is the norm, rather than the exception. But American, a Nation that was founded on the idea of liberty and justice for all, must hold itself to a higher standard. We liberate, not torture, and we free, not oppress.

Burned into our minds are terrible images: a hooded man standing on a box, a prisoner on a leash. These photos represent humanity at its worst, and represent everything that America is not. We must show the country and the world another image--that of Americans working with Iraqis to topple the statute of Saddam Hussein, to free the Iraqi people--truly represents who we are.

Reserving the right to object, 5 minutes?

I do not object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California be allowed 2 additional minutes to finish up.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from California. I do remember our conversation. I also remember she and I discussed the fact that the post-conflict era was going to be extremely difficult. She made a very balanced statement today, and I thank her for that as we all go through this very difficult time in the history of our country.

Mr. President, we will be having a hearing tomorrow with Secretary Rumsfeld, and after that hearing, a lot of us, I hope, will be better informed, not just members of the committee, but others will be better informed as to the dimensions of this terrible situation which we have seen so graphically demonstrated on the abuse of human rights.

I also am convinced again that the sooner we get this issue resolved and move forward and make sure it never happens again, it is very important because we have to go about the business of winning this conflict. We cannot let this terrible situation, as tragic as it is, divert us from our purpose of winning this conflict which we cannot afford to lose. We have plenty of time to debate and discuss that in the future.

I also would like to comment on my friend John Negroponte. I have known John Negroponte ever since he was ambassador to Mexico, where he did an outstanding job. He has held a broad variety of positions in both Republican and Democrat administrations. I believe he will perform admirably in the

position for which the President of the United States has nominated him.

There probably would have been a lot less discussion about Mr. Negroponte's qualifications if it had not been for the difficulties we are experiencing in Iraq at the moment, but I would also point out it also lends some urgency to getting this highly qualified, patriotic American in position as we prepare to turn over the government of Iraq to the Iraqi people, which I think all of us are in agreement should be done as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, on May 1, 2004, in a truly historic move, the European Union welcomed 10 new member states. On this momentous occasion, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the people of the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These countries have made great achievements, and America benefits from our close ties to these nations.

EU expansion represents yet another victory for freedom in Central and Eastern Europe, together with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Soviet Union's last gasp in 1991, and the two NATO expansions. Europe is divided no longer, and the United States enjoys an unprecedented relationship with the 10 new EU members.

I hope that our excellent relations with these countries will continue, and that we will continue to pursue our common goals of freedom, democracy, and prosperity throughout the world.

I reserve the right to object. I will not object, but I will point out to the Senator that we are prepared to move on to the Burma issue, and it is important. I know what the Senator wants to discuss: the importance of passing the highway bill and his objection and the usual degeneration that has taken place around here. We would like to talk about Burma and a woman who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is being kept under house arrest. But I will not object to the request of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I intend to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee and then yield the remainder of my time. I understand the Senator from North Dakota is going to yield the remainder of his time also; is that correct?

Mr. President, I yield myself 20 seconds before then.

I commend to my colleagues this morning the Washington Post editorial entitled ``Energy Follies.'' I quote:

It would make far more sense for Senators who are

interested in some aspect of this legislation--whether

ethanol or electricity regulation or renewable fuels--to

design bills around those issues and vote on them separately,

judging each by its own merits. But that would be too

rational for this Senate, which almost seems to prefer doing

things sideways.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record, and I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I intend to yield back the remainder of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the second and third votes and that the votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the Domenici amendment. It has really no business on an Internet tax bill. We all know that. I read again from the Washington Post of this morning:

It would make far more sense for Senators who are

interested in some aspect of this legislation, whether

ethanol or electricity regulation or renewable fuels, to

design bills around those issues and vote on them separately,

judging each by its own merits. But that would be too

rational for this Senate which seems almost to prefer doing

things sideways.

There is no need for this legislation on the bill. It has no place on it. I can assure my colleagues it would be dropped in conference if it were adopted.

I yield my 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee be allowed 1 minute.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the Daschle amendment is not germane and ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for the comity that has existed in addressing this bill.

I thank, of course, Senator Allen, Senator Lott and Senator Sununu, and many others who have helped to get this bill to the point where it is.

We are ready to consider amendments. I assured the opponents of this bill who have fought tenaciously--Senator Voinovich, Senator Alexander, and Senator Carper in particular--that if there is an amendment which they have filed which is not technically germane but is associated with the Internet tax, I would ask consent that it be considered because there was a feeling that they did not have their amendments properly considered. I hope we can give them that consideration.

I hope we can move forward soon with the amendments. As I last checked, there are about 30 which were filed. I hope we can move forward, debate, and dispose of those amendments. I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from West Virginia yield to me 30 seconds for a comment?

I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

It is the intention of all to finish this legislation tonight. I hope those with amendments will come over during the period that Senator Byrd makes his remarks so we can proceed with amending this legislation. I regret it, but I will object to further extraneous conversation or dialog until we finish consideration of this bill because I do not want to inconvenience Members by keeping them in late tonight. We have some 31 relevant amendments. We need to get about addressing them.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to comment.

If the Senator will yield for one additional comment, I appreciate what the Senator from Nevada said. He is very experienced at floor procedures. I point out we have been on this bill all week. I would hope we could finish it tonight. I see no reason why we cannot.

I understand his skepticism. In no way did I mean to criticise the very important statements being made on the vital issue of national security.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her courtesy.

I would like to report that after a very productive meeting amongst the principals who have been involved in this legislation, I might add, I was reminded, for about 8 years now, and thanks to the good offices of Senators Dorgan, Voinovich, Allen, Lott, Alexander, and Carper, I think we have the outline of an agreement that I hope can lead to a successful conclusion within the next hour or so.

We have refined the issues basically down to two. One of them is the issue of a moratorium. We expect Senator Lautenberg to come to the floor with an amendment on the issue of moratorium, the numbers of years of a moratorium for different protocols, and also one on the definition of the backbone. It is not clear whether the second issue will require a recorded vote.

We also reached an agreement on an amendment I will propose on behalf of all of us in a few minutes that has to do with the voice over Internet protocol issue, a definition to which we have agreed.

I inform my colleagues, I think it is very possible that we could have one or two more votes and then vote on final passage. At least I am hopeful of that outcome. I again thank my colleagues for their progress.

I will also mention that there are a couple of Senators who are being checked in who had amendments to make sure their concerns are being addressed in the amendments that may be proposed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we await the arrival of Senator Lautenberg so we can move forward with his amendment. Then I am informed that at least Senators Alexander, Carper, and Voinovich do not intend to offer their amendment on definition, but there are other Senators who also have an interest in this issue. So it is not for sure that we are not going to have an amendment on that issue.

As I mentioned, moratorium and the grandfather issues need to be addressed, and Senator Lautenberg's amendment addresses the issue of grandfathering. So we await his arrival in hopes that we can get that disposed of, and then the Lott amendment and then we would be ready to move to final passage.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry.

At what time does the Pastore rule apply?

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I would never, ever believe that my friend from Nevada would stretch any of the Senate rules. Of course, I appreciate his real knowledge of the rules of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his very adroit, as always, capable work on this issue and moving this legislation along.

I thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, who feels very strongly about this issue. I know we will be revisiting this issue again.

I thank my colleagues. I strongly recommend that we agree to the amendment by voice vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is no further debate on the amendment.

I have submitted an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Senator Lautenberg's amendment calls for a GAO study on broadband for the effects of tax moratorium on State and local economies and other impacts of this Internet tax moratorium. I find it a very valuable amendment. It would be very helpful because this is a moratorium, not a permanent ban. It would be very helpful as we debate this issue, which I imagine will start again in a year or so.

The Lautenberg amendment is a good amendment. Senator Lautenberg is a conferee, and I know Senator Dorgan will agree we will fight to make sure this GAO study is included.

I yield the floor.

As far as I know--and Senator Dorgan is more aware than I am--we have one more amendment we agreed to which I hope to propose within a couple of minutes. Senator Feinstein may or may not be proposing an amendment. We will find out shortly. Then we would be prepared to go to final passage.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, while we are awaiting the amendment and the presence or decision on Senator Feinstein's amendment, I wish to make a couple of comments about individuals. I specifically speak of Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Carper, who fought very hard and valiantly on this issue. We have honest differences of opinion on this issue.

It is very likely we will pass this legislation, but Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, Senator Carper, and Senator Dorgan have had an enormous impact. We have gone from a permanent ban to a 4-year moratorium. We are changing the definition of voice over Internet protocol. We have made significant changes to this legislation thanks to their efforts.

Throughout, our debate has been characterized by mutual respect and understanding that we just have fundamental differences of opinion. I congratulate them on a battle well fought. Although they may have lost in passage of the legislation, they improved it dramatically, and I say that from a position on both sides of the issue. They brought into play their backgrounds as Governors of their respective States and bring a much needed perspective to this body. I congratulate them for their very outstanding work, particularly over the long period of time we have been involved in this issue.

If we pass this bill shortly--and we may not--there are two individuals who deserve the credit: Senators Allen and Wyden, who took up this legislation years ago, and followed it. They have been relentless, dedicated advocates, and have brought their debate and discussion all over America. They have done an outstanding job. They are the ones who, I believe, deserve the credit on all of it for the magnificent work they have done on an issue that is of great importance and profound importance to small and large businesses all over America. I thank them for their valued efforts.

I yield the floor.

That is correct. Please proceed.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I submit the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Allen, Senator Voinovich, Senator Alexander, Senator Dorgan, Senator Carper, and Senator Wyden. It refines the language concerning the voice over Internet protocol. It is a product of an agreement of language between all of us. I ask for its consideration.

Before I do that, I believe Senator Feinstein has an amendment she wants to propose. I hope we can get an agreement, say, 40 minutes equally divided, if that would be agreeable.

Forty minutes equally divided, followed by a recorded vote, which would then be followed by final passage. I ask unanimous consent that after disposal of the pending amendment, no more amendments be in order, that there be 40 minutes equally divided between myself and Senator Feinstein, a vote on the amendment, followed immediately by a final passage recorded vote.

That is correct.

The Senator from Delaware would like to make a comment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I yield to the Senator from Virginia such time as he may consume.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Maybe the Senator could do that in the next few minutes while I make a couple of comments, if that is agreeable.

Mr. President, I would like to be clear that a tax on DSL services is a tax on Internet access. Seventeen States have cleverly found a way to get around the Internet tax moratorium. Right now, 17 States have gotten around at least the spirit if not the letter of the Internet tax moratorium by taxing DSL service.

The heart of this compromise to the original legislation had no grandfathering whatsoever--none, zero. So we put in a compromise that would have called for 3 years of non-DSL taxation, 2 years grandfathering in for non-DSL taxes. This would have given the DSL taxing States 2 years to adjust their budgets. Then we went from 3 years to 4 years' moratorium, lifting the moratorium for those who are taxing non-DSL taxes.

If we do this, we are gutting the compromise. It is unfair to DSL consumers. Why should consumers in one-third of all States be treated differently from the rest of the country?

I strongly oppose the amendment. I would like to work out the compromise as discussed between Senator Feinstein, Senator Wyden, and Senator Allen. I hope we can agree to it.

In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent to send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Hutchison which would then allow the State of Texas to have their ``access line fee'' included in the voice over IP compromise language.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent for its consideration on behalf of Senator Hutchison.

If there is an objection, just object and let us move on.

What is the parliamentary situation, Mr. President?

Mr. President, we have compromised. We have been working on this issue for a long period of time. This is a compromise that is not widely regarded, and Senator Allen and Senator Wyden accepted this grandfathering clause with great reluctance. Now the whole grandfathering clause would be made moot. I don't think consumers in one-third of all States should be treated differently than the rest of the country. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has a minute 42 seconds.

I move to table the Feinstein amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I want to join my colleagues Senators Allen, Wyden and Hutchison to include Texas access line fees collected by cities and local governments in the exception to the definition of ``tax'' in 47 U.S.C. section 1104(8).

I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky and I be allowed to engage in a dialog.

Senator McConnell, I thank you and Senator Feinstein for your leadership on this issue. What you have done last year is important. It is very important again this year.

Senator McConnell, you put your finger on one of the real tough aspects of this. People all over Burma, including the members of the National League for Democracy, the party that was overwhelmingly elected to take power and run the country of Burma, are grateful to us. It is very tough for opposition within a country to support sanctions which hurt that country economically. Yet this organization, which she leads, supports sanctions because of the terrible things this group of gangsters have done to their country.

Senator McConnell, you point out very importantly, apartheid was overthrown in South Africa because of a united front which the United States led, an issue in which you were heavily involved. Now the Europeans seem to be dragging their feet.

We have quite often heard--sometimes justified, sometimes unjustified--criticism from our European friends about our lack of attention to human rights, too much attention to politics, et cetera. This is an opportunity for our European friends to join us and bring about the freedom of the Burmese people--I refuse to call it Myanmar-- the Burmese people, free this great Nobel Peace Prize winner and spread democracy and freedom through the world.

I thank again Senator McConnell for his leadership. This legislation would not have been passed without the leadership of you and Senator Feinstein. I am very grateful.

I think we need to make this a very high priority both in the United Nations and with the European Union and with others. I know Senator McConnell is very familiar with this brave woman and her followers. A lot of Americans, unfortunately, are not.

Three Burmese citizens were recently sentenced to death for contacting representatives of the International Labor Organization. They were sentenced to death for contacting members of the International Labor Organization. This woman has been kept under house arrest. Her followers have been beaten and killed. The cruelties, the unspeakable cruelties that have been inflicted on the Burmese people by these thugs are incredible.

Senator McConnell, recently we were talking about Iraq and freeing the people of Iraq. We celebrated the 10-year anniversary of Rwanda and we said never again. Eight hundred thousand people were killed in Rwanda and we said never again. After the Holocaust, we said never again. Are we going to look back on Burma and say never again after thousands of people have been tortured and murdered and imprisoned and mistreated?

Security forces, according to national organizations, continue to commit extrajudicial killings, rape, forcibly relocate persons, and the use of forced labor. It is going on. Are we some years from now going to say never again? Are we internationally going to exert the pressures of which we are capable--by the way, including our friends in ASEAN who took Burma into ASEAN with the announced intention of reforming this gang of thugs?

Remarkable in itself. What kind of an organization can call itself an advocate of freedom and democracy and have a meeting in the center of a repressive outrageous gang of thugs?

That is an excellent point. One of the reasons, perhaps, we do not pay as much attention to them is because they do not have weapons of mass destruction. The only difference between them and Pyongyang is that they do not and the North Koreans do. That is a heck of a comment on the attention of us.

I don't want to take too much time, but I will relate a story with which Senator McConnell is familiar. Aung San Suu Kyi was married while in England to a wonderful man and has two sons. A few years ago, a very short time ago, her husband was dying in England. This gang of thugs said that she could, of course, go with her husband--he was not allowed to come to Burma--to be with her husband while he was dying but she could not come back. So these unspeakable characters would not allow her to go be with her husband as he died.

This is a remarkable statement of her courage and dedication and also remarkable commentary on the kind of people with whom we are dealing. The next time the delegate from the U.N., the special delegate--they call it Myanmar--come to see us, our European friends come to see us and talk about powers of persuasion, remind them of that story. I think it would be very difficult to argue that these people are rational or willing to listen to reason.

Again, I thank Senator McConnell for all of his hard work.

Americans are great people. We are providing a service today with your and Senator Feinstein's legislation to bring attention to the plight of the people halfway around the world and their noble and courageous leader who has been a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Every once in a while we do something very worthwhile around here and I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators McConnell and Feinstein for introducing legislation that will renew sanctions contained in last year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution.

The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to promote human rights. In few places is the lack of freedom and justice more appalling than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, led by General Than Shwe, controls the population through

violence and terror. The Burmese regime has a record of unchecked repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It also recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for contacting representatives of the International Labor Organization.

And Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Because she stands for democracy, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. The junta fears Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shines brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom, and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work.

In recognition of this, last year the Congress overwhelmingly passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country.

The State Department released just this week a new report on U.S. trade sanctions against Burma. This report notes that the Freedom and Democracy Act encouraged ASEAN nations to take a critical stance on Burma, and that these pressures were likely a factor behind the junta's August announcement of a ``roadmap'' toward democratic transition. While this roadmap is sorely lacking, it does point to the tangible effect that our efforts are having inside the country.

Yet since we passed our bill last year, the ruling State Peace and Development Council has failed to make substantial progress toward implementing a democratic government in Burma. The new State Department report indicates that Burma's ``extremely poor human rights record has worsened over the past year, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' Pro-democracy activists remain in detention, the National League for Democracy offices remain closed, and citizens do not have the right to change their government. Security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings and rape, forcibly relocate persons, and use forced labor. The military junta refuses to tolerate any form of political opposition. On top of this, the dismal economic polices implemented by Burma's rulers have led to widespread poverty and the flight of most foreign investors.

Sadly, the picture is clear. So long as this band of thugs rules Burma, its people will be never be free. They will remain mired in poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward.

For this reason I stand in support of the joint resolution that will renew the import restrictions contained in last year's legislation-- sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities. I note, however, that while the American people have spoken with one voice in support of freedom in Burma, it is past time that the leaders of other nations do the same. No other country has yet implemented U.S.-style economic sanctions. The Europeans should reject half measures and join the United States in targeted sanctions against the military regime. China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations uncomfortable with a tougher response to the junta's crimes must understand that diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with the Western democracies.

Mr. President, this week I co-authored with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright an editorial on Burma for the Washington Post. This article enumerates several of the points that I have made here, and illustrates the bipartisan consensus that we must act to promote democracy and human rights in Burma. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

In this article, we quote Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who knows quite a bit about life under tyranny and oppression. The Archbishop said that ``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one supports injustice and bondage.'' Mr. President, today we support justice and freedom.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, April 27, 2004]

A Need To Act on Burma

``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is

immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one

supports injustice and bondage.'' So said Archbishop Desmond

Tutu, the South African Nobel laureate and anti-apartheid

leader, who knows something about the struggle for human

freedom in the face of tyranny.

The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to

promote justice and freedom. In few places is this obligation

more acute than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs,

led by Gen. Than Shwe, controls the population through

violence and terror. The regime has a record of unchecked

repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child

soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of

war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched

an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung

San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the

regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists

imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It

recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for

contacting representatives of the International Labor

Organization.

The Burmese junta, with the cynical support of neighboring

governments, has announced a ``road map to democracy,''

beginning with a constitutional convention in May. The

convention is expected to be stage-managed by the junta,

which has offered no meaningful participation to Suu Kyi's

National League for Democracy, no timetable for progress

toward a political transition, no release of political

prisoners and no guarantee that the military will cede

control to democratically elected leaders. Instead, the

junta's proposals seem designed to institutionalize military

control by creating a veneer of civilian authority, while

meeting only the minimum expectations of Western democracies

in order to avoid further sanctions.

The Burmese regime's recent actions demonstrate that years

of international engagement and patience have not made the

dictatorship more humane, reasonable or open to accommodation

with its political opponents. On the contrary, it is only in

response to international pressure that the regime has made

even the smallest moves toward a political settlement with

the democratic opposition. The lesson is clear: The world's

democracies and Burma's neighbors must press the junta until

it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to

democratic rule.

The legitimacy, authority and commitment of Burma's

democratic leaders to govern their country is not in doubt.

But the international commitment to Burma's democratic

transformation remains uncertain. The Western democracies and

Burma's neighbors should immediately take three steps to

bolster Burma's legitimate democratic leaders.

First, Congress should promptly renew, and the president

sign into law, the ban on Burma's imports enacted into law

last July. These sanctions, which are set to expire after a

review period beginning Friday, are supported by Burma's

National League for Democracy. The restrictions have made it

more difficult for the Burmese military to tap financial

assets abroad, travel or accumulate revenue through trade.

The European Union, whose member democracies care deeply

about protecting human rights, and whose trade and

assistance programs give it critical leverage in Southeast

Asia, are set to announce a new Common Position on Burma

on Thursday. As part of this new policy, the EU should

also initiate target sanctions against the regime.

Second, the EU and the United States, with support from

Asian nations, should urge the junta to implement immediately

the provisions of the U.N. Commission for Human Rights and

the U.N. General Assembly resolutions--including democracy,

the rule of law and respect for human rights. The United

States and the EU should also formally place the issue on the

agenda of the U.N. Security Council, and work urgently toward

a resolution threatening credible sanctions against the

Burmese regime unless it initiates meaningful progress toward

democracy.

Third, China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations

uncomfortable with a tougher

response to the junta's crimes must understand that

diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will

profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with

the Western democracies. Thailand in particular should

consider this point when it convenes its planned

international conference to discuss what it optimistically

calls ``Burma's progress toward democracy.''

Beyond these steps, the United States, Europe and Asian

countries must demand the unconditional release of Aung San

Suu Kyi and her fellow political prisoners, but make clear

that the releases, while necessary, are insufficient. In

addition, they should continue calls for a political

settlement that reflects the results of the free and fair

elections held in 1990. This settlement must include a

central, determinative role for the National League for

Democracy.

In another era, a dissident playwright named Vaclav Havel

wrote of the ``power of the powerless'' to overcome rule by

fear and force, at a time when such a revolution in human

freedom seemed impossible. The international community today

has the power to help the powerless inside Burma throw off

the shackles of tyranny. It is time to assume this moral

responsibility. It is time to act.

I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky and I be allowed to engage in a dialog.

Senator McConnell, I thank you and Senator Feinstein for your leadership on this issue. What you have done last year is important. It is very important again this year.

Senator McConnell, you put your finger on one of the real tough aspects of this. People all over Burma, including the members of the National League for Democracy, the party that was overwhelmingly elected to take power and run the country of Burma, are grateful to us. It is very tough for opposition within a country to support sanctions which hurt that country economically. Yet this organization, which she leads, supports sanctions because of the terrible things this group of gangsters have done to their country.

Senator McConnell, you point out very importantly, apartheid was overthrown in South Africa because of a united front which the United States led, an issue in which you were heavily involved. Now the Europeans seem to be dragging their feet.

We have quite often heard--sometimes justified, sometimes unjustified--criticism from our European friends about our lack of attention to human rights, too much attention to politics, et cetera. This is an opportunity for our European friends to join us and bring about the freedom of the Burmese people--I refuse to call it Myanmar-- the Burmese people, free this great Nobel Peace Prize winner and spread democracy and freedom through the world.

I thank again Senator McConnell for his leadership. This legislation would not have been passed without the leadership of you and Senator Feinstein. I am very grateful.

I think we need to make this a very high priority both in the United Nations and with the European Union and with others. I know Senator McConnell is very familiar with this brave woman and her followers. A lot of Americans, unfortunately, are not.

Three Burmese citizens were recently sentenced to death for contacting representatives of the International Labor Organization. They were sentenced to death for contacting members of the International Labor Organization. This woman has been kept under house arrest. Her followers have been beaten and killed. The cruelties, the unspeakable cruelties that have been inflicted on the Burmese people by these thugs are incredible.

Senator McConnell, recently we were talking about Iraq and freeing the people of Iraq. We celebrated the 10-year anniversary of Rwanda and we said never again. Eight hundred thousand people were killed in Rwanda and we said never again. After the Holocaust, we said never again. Are we going to look back on Burma and say never again after thousands of people have been tortured and murdered and imprisoned and mistreated?

Security forces, according to national organizations, continue to commit extrajudicial killings, rape, forcibly relocate persons, and the use of forced labor. It is going on. Are we some years from now going to say never again? Are we internationally going to exert the pressures of which we are capable--by the way, including our friends in ASEAN who took Burma into ASEAN with the announced intention of reforming this gang of thugs?

Remarkable in itself. What kind of an organization can call itself an advocate of freedom and democracy and have a meeting in the center of a repressive outrageous gang of thugs?

That is an excellent point. One of the reasons, perhaps, we do not pay as much attention to them is because they do not have weapons of mass destruction. The only difference between them and Pyongyang is that they do not and the North Koreans do. That is a heck of a comment on the attention of us.

I don't want to take too much time, but I will relate a story with which Senator McConnell is familiar. Aung San Suu Kyi was married while in England to a wonderful man and has two sons. A few years ago, a very short time ago, her husband was dying in England. This gang of thugs said that she could, of course, go with her husband--he was not allowed to come to Burma--to be with her husband while he was dying but she could not come back. So these unspeakable characters would not allow her to go be with her husband as he died.

This is a remarkable statement of her courage and dedication and also remarkable commentary on the kind of people with whom we are dealing. The next time the delegate from the U.N., the special delegate--they call it Myanmar--come to see us, our European friends come to see us and talk about powers of persuasion, remind them of that story. I think it would be very difficult to argue that these people are rational or willing to listen to reason.

Again, I thank Senator McConnell for all of his hard work.

Americans are great people. We are providing a service today with your and Senator Feinstein's legislation to bring attention to the plight of the people halfway around the world and their noble and courageous leader who has been a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Every once in a while we do something very worthwhile around here and I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators McConnell and Feinstein for introducing legislation that will renew sanctions contained in last year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution.

The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to promote human rights. In few places is the lack of freedom and justice more appalling than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, led by General Than Shwe, controls the population through

violence and terror. The Burmese regime has a record of unchecked repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It also recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for contacting representatives of the International Labor Organization.

And Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Because she stands for democracy, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. The junta fears Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shines brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom, and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work.

In recognition of this, last year the Congress overwhelmingly passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country.

The State Department released just this week a new report on U.S. trade sanctions against Burma. This report notes that the Freedom and Democracy Act encouraged ASEAN nations to take a critical stance on Burma, and that these pressures were likely a factor behind the junta's August announcement of a ``roadmap'' toward democratic transition. While this roadmap is sorely lacking, it does point to the tangible effect that our efforts are having inside the country.

Yet since we passed our bill last year, the ruling State Peace and Development Council has failed to make substantial progress toward implementing a democratic government in Burma. The new State Department report indicates that Burma's ``extremely poor human rights record has worsened over the past year, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' Pro-democracy activists remain in detention, the National League for Democracy offices remain closed, and citizens do not have the right to change their government. Security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings and rape, forcibly relocate persons, and use forced labor. The military junta refuses to tolerate any form of political opposition. On top of this, the dismal economic polices implemented by Burma's rulers have led to widespread poverty and the flight of most foreign investors.

Sadly, the picture is clear. So long as this band of thugs rules Burma, its people will be never be free. They will remain mired in poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward.

For this reason I stand in support of the joint resolution that will renew the import restrictions contained in last year's legislation-- sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities. I note, however, that while the American people have spoken with one voice in support of freedom in Burma, it is past time that the leaders of other nations do the same. No other country has yet implemented U.S.-style economic sanctions. The Europeans should reject half measures and join the United States in targeted sanctions against the military regime. China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations uncomfortable with a tougher response to the junta's crimes must understand that diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with the Western democracies.

Mr. President, this week I co-authored with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright an editorial on Burma for the Washington Post. This article enumerates several of the points that I have made here, and illustrates the bipartisan consensus that we must act to promote democracy and human rights in Burma. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

In this article, we quote Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who knows quite a bit about life under tyranny and oppression. The Archbishop said that ``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one supports injustice and bondage.'' Mr. President, today we support justice and freedom.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, April 27, 2004]

A Need To Act on Burma

``Apathy in the face of systematic human rights abuses is

immoral. One either supports justice and freedom or one

supports injustice and bondage.'' So said Archbishop Desmond

Tutu, the South African Nobel laureate and anti-apartheid

leader, who knows something about the struggle for human

freedom in the face of tyranny.

The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to

promote justice and freedom. In few places is this obligation

more acute than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs,

led by Gen. Than Shwe, controls the population through

violence and terror. The regime has a record of unchecked

repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child

soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of

war. Nearly one year ago the Burmese military junta launched

an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung

San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then the

regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists

imprisoned, including elected members of parliament. It

recently sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for

contacting representatives of the International Labor

Organization.

The Burmese junta, with the cynical support of neighboring

governments, has announced a ``road map to democracy,''

beginning with a constitutional convention in May. The

convention is expected to be stage-managed by the junta,

which has offered no meaningful participation to Suu Kyi's

National League for Democracy, no timetable for progress

toward a political transition, no release of political

prisoners and no guarantee that the military will cede

control to democratically elected leaders. Instead, the

junta's proposals seem designed to institutionalize military

control by creating a veneer of civilian authority, while

meeting only the minimum expectations of Western democracies

in order to avoid further sanctions.

The Burmese regime's recent actions demonstrate that years

of international engagement and patience have not made the

dictatorship more humane, reasonable or open to accommodation

with its political opponents. On the contrary, it is only in

response to international pressure that the regime has made

even the smallest moves toward a political settlement with

the democratic opposition. The lesson is clear: The world's

democracies and Burma's neighbors must press the junta until

it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to

democratic rule.

The legitimacy, authority and commitment of Burma's

democratic leaders to govern their country is not in doubt.

But the international commitment to Burma's democratic

transformation remains uncertain. The Western democracies and

Burma's neighbors should immediately take three steps to

bolster Burma's legitimate democratic leaders.

First, Congress should promptly renew, and the president

sign into law, the ban on Burma's imports enacted into law

last July. These sanctions, which are set to expire after a

review period beginning Friday, are supported by Burma's

National League for Democracy. The restrictions have made it

more difficult for the Burmese military to tap financial

assets abroad, travel or accumulate revenue through trade.

The European Union, whose member democracies care deeply

about protecting human rights, and whose trade and

assistance programs give it critical leverage in Southeast

Asia, are set to announce a new Common Position on Burma

on Thursday. As part of this new policy, the EU should

also initiate target sanctions against the regime.

Second, the EU and the United States, with support from

Asian nations, should urge the junta to implement immediately

the provisions of the U.N. Commission for Human Rights and

the U.N. General Assembly resolutions--including democracy,

the rule of law and respect for human rights. The United

States and the EU should also formally place the issue on the

agenda of the U.N. Security Council, and work urgently toward

a resolution threatening credible sanctions against the

Burmese regime unless it initiates meaningful progress toward

democracy.

Third, China, Thailand, India and other Asian nations

uncomfortable with a tougher

response to the junta's crimes must understand that

diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will

profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationships with

the Western democracies. Thailand in particular should

consider this point when it convenes its planned

international conference to discuss what it optimistically

calls ``Burma's progress toward democracy.''

Beyond these steps, the United States, Europe and Asian

countries must demand the unconditional release of Aung San

Suu Kyi and her fellow political prisoners, but make clear

that the releases, while necessary, are insufficient. In

addition, they should continue calls for a political

settlement that reflects the results of the free and fair

elections held in 1990. This settlement must include a

central, determinative role for the National League for

Democracy.

In another era, a dissident playwright named Vaclav Havel

wrote of the ``power of the powerless'' to overcome rule by

fear and force, at a time when such a revolution in human

freedom seemed impossible. The international community today

has the power to help the powerless inside Burma throw off

the shackles of tyranny. It is time to assume this moral

responsibility. It is time to act.

Mr. President, I came to the floor to urge consideration of the Internet Tax Moratorium Act, the proposal, debate, and voting on germane amendments. As I came to the floor, I heard this attack on the President of the United States and the administration. It was pretty rough stuff, calling people chicken hawks and talking about service to the country or lack thereof.

I am sure the statements just made by the Senator from New Jersey reflect the intense partisanship and recent discussions and charges and countercharges on talk shows and cable television and radio all over America. I think it might be an interesting and maybe sometimes entertaining exercise--the little drawing of the chicken hawk was kind of clever. I have to hand it to whoever the artist is.

But isn't it a fact that we are now engaged in a war? Isn't it a fact right now that, as we speak, our marines are attacking Falluja and I am sure incurring casualties, these brave young Americans?

I don't know if they get C-SPAN over in Iraq, but here they are with their lives literally on the line, trying to bring freedom or ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people. They get television--if not C-SPAN, I know they get Armed Forces Television in many of the bases in Iraq-- what do they see? They see us attacking each other about service or nonservice in a conflict that ended more than 30 years ago.

All of us who stand here--I haven't known of an elected or nonelected politician who hasn't said: We are all behind the troops; we are behind the men and women in the military; we support them 100 percent no matter what. What are they supposed to think? Are we really supporting them and are we interested in bringing about a successful conclusion to the Iraqi conflict?

Senator Kerry, the Democrat nominee, says we have to stay the course. He may have different views as to exactly how to do that than the President and the administration, but we are in agreement. Meanwhile, what are we doing on the floor of the Senate? We are attacking the President's credentials because of his service or lack of service in a war that ended 30 years ago, more than 30 years ago.

I think that is wrong. I wish we would stop it. I wish we would just stop, at least until the fighting in Iraq is over.

Second, maybe we could devote some of our time and effort and energy in coming up with a bipartisan approach to this conflict. Yes, there are enormous difficulties. No, things haven't worked out as well as they should have. Yes, I, myself, would have had different approaches to the challenge in Iraq. But we are there. We are in a very crucial moment. Why don't we all join together and sit down and work out, with the administration, both sides of the aisle, a common approach so we send a single message? Not that we are refighting the Vietnam war, but that we are committed to seeing this thing through in Iraq because we cannot afford to fail. We cannot afford to fail.

There will be plenty of time after this conflict is over. We may even have a commission. We have commissions for everything else; why not have a commission after we have democracy in Iraq to find out where we failed in Iraq? That would be fine with me. I wouldn't particularly want to serve on it, but let's have a commission.

But in the meantime, don't you think our focus and attention is misplaced? We are talking about chicken hawks. When the President of the United States is the one whose most solemn responsibility is to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, and to prosecute a conflict that was authorized by an overwhelming vote in this body, and we are calling him a chicken hawk--please. Is that the appropriate time and place for this kind of activity?

I do know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like this. I know my friend Senator Lieberman proposed that we all join together to try to come up with a common approach. I don't know if that is possible in this day and age, but it is certainly something worth consideration. But at least, could we declare that the Vietnam war is over and have a cease-fire and agree that both candidates, the President of the United States and Senator Kerry, served honorably--end of story. Now let's focus our attention on the conflict that is taking place in Iraq, that is taking American lives as I speak on this floor.

I don't want to belabor the subject, but I do want to expand on it a little bit. It is a symptom of the extreme partisanship that exists in this body today on both sides of the aisle.

I am glad to yield to my friend from Nevada.

And the President of the United States.

I thank the Senator from Nevada who is a good and dear friend of many years, who I also know decries this.

Let me repeat one more time that I believe that honorable service was performed by the President of the United States in the National Guard. Almost 40 percent of the forces that are in Iraq today are guardsmen and reservists. They are superb young men and women.

Obviously, I know the Senator from Nevada shares my view that service in the National Guard is honorable service, as is service on Active Duty, as that performed by Senator Kerry, in my view. But it is time to declare a truce.

I would also say to my friend from Nevada, there is nothing we can do about what talk show hosts do, or outside commentators. That is freedom of speech.

I am sorry so much focus is on that, and I don't pretend to say I could do anything about that. But I hope Members of this body could declare a truce on this issue, if I may use that word, and then we could move forward in addressing the compelling issues of the day.

I will be glad to hear the response of the Senator or, if he doesn't mind--I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I would like to leave that particular subject, but say that segues in a very rational way into what we are facing on the floor of the Senate in consideration of this bill.

Yesterday, I was under the impression that we were moving forward with a vigorous and spirited and passionate debate on the issue of an Internet tax moratorium.

Why is this issue of importance? Because the worst thing we can do to small and large businesses in America, around America, is to have an atmosphere of uncertainty.

I think most of my colleagues would agree--this is probably the most partisan environment I have seen in the 18 years I have served in the Senate and the 4 years that I served in the House.

What is happening--and I was a bit sarcastic yesterday, I must admit--is we come to the floor with legislation which is important. The Internet tax moratorium doesn't lend itself to partisanship. In fact, the two greatest opponents of this legislation--Senator Dorgan opposes it with two Members on this side of the aisle. It is not one of those that somehow is a Democrat philosophy versus a Republican philosophy. One of the greatest supporters of the Internet tax moratorium is the Senator from Oregon. Here we are with this issue which is really important to American businesses. Most businesses, obviously, support a tax moratorium. But what they fear most of all is uncertainty. They have to make plans for their businesses and their futures.

What we are in danger of right now as we speak is getting hung up on extraneous issues, as we have on almost every piece of legislation that has come before this body, on extraneous amendments. I understand the frustration of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I served in the minority for the first number of years that I was here. Yet the majority sets the agenda. I have said to the Senator from North Dakota, I want my issue raised, I want a vote on it, and I am ready to go. I have never tried to tie up the Senate on an issue. I have come down here for years and forced votes on line-item vetoes. But I said that I am willing to have a time agreement and a debate on the issue of climate change. Senator Lieberman and I said: Look, we are not going to tie up the Senate. We are not going to impede everything from going forward. We had a vote. We got 43, I am happy to say.

My point is, we shouldn't block the passage of legislation. I think there is a careful balance between proposing an amendment, getting a vote on it, and then allowing the legislation to move on rather than just overloading the legislation to the point where it has to be withdrawn.

I hope we can get a vote on the Democratic leader's amendment on ethanol. I hope we can get a vote on many of these other issues, including minimum wage if necessary. But at some point you cross a line between trying to have your views and your issues and your agenda addressed to the point where we just end up in gridlock.

I think most observers, both inside and outside of this institution, will agree we are basically gridlocked on almost every issue that comes before us. That is not what we are sent here to do. We are sent here to act as legislators and to address the issues that are important to the American people instead of partisan gridlock.

I hope we can sit down on both sides of the aisle and at least make people aware of what the agenda is. I have a very long relationship with both the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from South Dakota who are friends of mine. I would like to know what the agenda is. I don't think it is a lot to ask what I can expect in managing this bill. At least in that way I can try to accommodate the concerns of the agenda of the other side of the aisle.

But to come out here and just spring an amendment I don't think is quite fair, and I don't think I would do that if I were in that position.

I hope we can return to some kind of comity and that way perhaps decide how we are going to dispose of this bill.

I said only half sarcastically yesterday that if we are going to spend all of our time in gridlock around here, some of us would like to go home. It is much nicer in Arizona than in the Nation's Capital. Maybe we could leave a couple of Senators on either side to propose amendments, have quorum calls, and be in gridlock. Some people would be fooled that we are still working. But instead, it is now Wednesday. We are supposed to be out Thursday night, and we have addressed one amendment to this legislation. I don't think this is a fair way to legislate.

I know my friend from North Dakota is here and wants to say a few words, and my friend from Oregon and my friend from Virginia. But I also urge those who have amendments which are germane to please come to the floor so we can debate them and vote on them since I think it is important to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I appreciate the

Senator correcting the Record. I do not mean his opposition to a moratorium but his opposition to the definition of Internet access.

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

I don't know if the Senator from Oregon had a chance to see the article by Senator Allen this morning in the Wall Street Journal. I commend it to all. It is funny because Senator Allen's piece in the Wall Street Journal dovetails with the information we received in the Commerce Committee in the last 2 years about revisiting the 1996 Telecommunications Act and what we need to do in the future.

The issue that came up with all the witnesses this morning and came up yesterday morning was the United States is falling dangerously behind all other nations on DSL. We are now ranked 11th in the view of some, 20th in the view of others. If you would have told me 10 years ago we would rank behind South Korea on almost any technology, as intelligent and hard working and industrious as they are, I would have said: We have a problem.

As the Senator from Virginia points out in his piece, they are trying to tax DSL. Some States are taxing DSL. I am not saying it is taxation of DSL that has caused the serious problem we have fallen behind at least 10--in the view of some, 19--other nations in broadband access. But I am saying, why in the world would we want to lay taxes on them at a time when we need to expand it dramatically rather than lay a tax on it.

May I mention one other point here that is important. To all of these State Governors, the National Governors Association, who keep saying, ``We are losing all this revenue; why don't you stop spending so much,'' revenues have increased in literally every State in America in the last couple of years. Instead they are spending more. For them to tax DSL at a time when it, in the view of almost everyone, is critical to the United States maintaining its technological lead and the growth of business, communications, and politics, is outrageous. It is insulting. It is disgraceful these greedy Governors are so greedy they don't understand the impact of taxation of DSL, which is still only in 28 percent of our urban and suburban residences and 10 percent of rural America. Talk about tunnel vision.

They and their acolytes come over here and start talking about how important it is that they be able to keep taxing and that many of them--as Senator Allen points out in his column, they say: We are not going to tax hamburgers, so they tax the meat and not the bun--have started to tax DSL. It is spreading. Even in our bill, we are going to allow them to continue to do so. We are going to allow them, even though they are not in violation of the letter of the law, but certainly the intent of the law by taxing DSL. Now they want to tax it more. Every witness before our committee--we had the Cato Institute and the Brookings Institute; we had representatives across the spectrum of thought in America--said: You have to increase DSL. You have to increase broadband access. You are falling behind every other nation in the world.

So what do the Governors want to do? They want to tax them. We are going to have them come over here and talk about unfunded mandates and unfairness and fairness. The fact is, if we allow every State in America and every municipality in America to start taxing DSL, it is absolutely inevitable that we will see a slowing of the growth of broadband access. It is obvious if you lay another burden on it.

There are a number of areas, including overregulation and other things. Mr. Notebaert of Qwest pointed out yesterday that in order for his corporation to provide DSL to a home, to have permission to do so required $130,000 in expenditure and X number of days. I think he said something like 24 days. But if a cable company wants to provide exactly that same service, they can provide it in less than 24 hours. Obviously there is something fundamentally and terribly wrong in the regulatory regime, and it needs to be fixed.

I am not blaming our falling behind other nations on DSL and broadband access simply on taxation. But I am saying that increases in taxation--and it would be widespread if we opened the door--will have a substantial chilling effect in the reduction of what should be one of our Nation's highest priorities, as the President of the United

States said in his speech the day before yesterday, to provide broadband access to all Americans no matter where they are.

I again congratulate my colleague from Virginia for an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal. I recommend it to my colleagues.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Virginia has been patient. Briefly, I point out that in the hearing this morning, yes, one witness from Brookings said it would have very little, or not much, effect. The other five witnesses said it would have great effect. All six witnesses said they strongly supported an Internet tax moratorium, including DSL, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, including the one who said there was very little effect. The other witnesses strongly favored it and thought that a tax, particularly on DSL, would have a significant impact.

I think we ought to reflect in the Record the view of all of the witnesses.

I thank my friend.

I point out again, there are a lot of reasons why we are falling behind, probably for the first time I know of in a major high- technology capability. Maybe during the 1970s there was a time we fell behind the Japanese in

certain areas. But this should be of concern to all of us. We should remove any impediment or burden. I think the Senator from North Dakota and the Senators from Oregon and Virginia agree that we have to change the regulatory scheme which has clearly not conformed with these advances in technology.

I point out again, when Dick Notebaert said it costs him $124,000 and X number of days to install a DSL line, and a cable company can do it in 24 hours, something is wrong. Either one is wrong or the other.

But I argue that if I were a small businessperson and I saw looming ahead of me significant taxes on the way I was conducting my business, I would obviously give pause. Small businesspeople have small margins. We all know that. That is always a factor in the decisions that are made. I think we ought to remove that impediment or certainly that cloud of concern that small business in America is considering today.

I thank my friend from Virginia for his patience. I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at this time the Senate proceed as if in morning business until 2:55, and the Senate will recess for approximately 1 hour because Secretary Rumsfeld will be briefing Members in room 407. I amend my unanimous consent request that the Senate reconvene at 4 p.m. today.

Return to consideration of the McCain substitute.

Mr. President, I look forward to discussions with the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Delaware. As they know, we have a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld in 407 in about 20 minutes, and we are going to go back on the bill at 4. I would be glad to have discussions. Meanwhile, I hope there would be some amendments proposed by the opponents of the legislation, and we could dispose of them as we did yesterday with the Senator from Texas, who came forward with an amendment and we debated it. Unfortunately, neither the Senator from Tennessee, nor the Senator from Delaware, nor the Senator from Ohio have chosen to do so.

Usually, I like to do business by amendments, debates, and votes. That is the way we usually like to move forward legislatively.

I look forward to that opportunity and also engaging in any discussions which the Senator would like. I want to assure him I am very confident in the sincerity of his views on this issue and his commitment to the issue. I understand his background as a very successful Governor of the great State of Tennessee which gives him a perspective for which I am greatly appreciative.

We are still in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my statement, which I hope will be done by 2:55. If not, I ask unanimous consent to finish my complete statement.

Mr. President, I was in Arizona recently, and by chance I watched C-SPAN airing the Federal Election Commission hearing on the issue of 527s. Let me assure my colleagues, it was both eye opening and appalling.

Once in a while, we have a public debate in Washington that serves as a perfect metaphor for the cynical way in which business is sometimes done here. The argument over whether and when the Federal Election Commission should regulate new soft money fundraising groups provides us with one of those moments. In it, we can see how badly our election watchdog has served the public and the urgent need to fix it.

The Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith, claims apparently some moral superiority on the issue of 527s because as a Republican he stands in opposition to the Republican Party's effort to ensure 527 groups comply with the law. While some may look upon his views as principles, I can only conclude that they again illustrate the same unfitness to serve on the Federal Election Commission he has shown since he was appointed 5 years ago.

Despite claims that his contempt for the Federal elections laws was merely that of an academic commentator and that he would uphold the laws as passed by Congress if confirmed, Mr. Smith has made no secret since arriving at the FEC of his disdain for the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, as well as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. He has done so once again in the pending rulemaking.

Even after the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC, Mr. Smith has gone out of his way to criticize the Court's decision and the law he is supposed to enforce. In one public speech he said:

Now and then the Supreme Court issues a decision that cries

out to the public, ``We do not know what we are doing.''

McConnell is such a decision.

Further evidence of Mr. Smith's predilection can be found in an article in the May 3 edition of National Review in which he writes:

Campaign reform passed Congress and was upheld by the

Supreme Court because groups hostile to freedom spent

hundreds of millions of dollars to create an intellectual

climate in which free political participation was viewed as a

threat to democracy.

This is perhaps the most inflammatory and inappropriate comment I have ever seen by an individual who is supposed to be enforcing existing law, affirmed in its constitutionality by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. To assert that proreform groups had somehow brainwashed Congress and the Supreme Court is simply pathetic and solidifies my belief that Mr. Smith cannot administer our campaign finance laws in good faith because he is incapable of putting his sworn duties above his personal opinion.

By the way, his treatment of Mr. Nobel, a witness before the FEC, was as bullying and as cowardly as I have ever seen anyone conduct themselves in our Nation's Capital and clearly was an abuse of his authority as Chairman of the Commission.

Mr. Smith's views on the constitutionality of the Nation's campaign finance laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court. Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that the Federal Election Campaign Act and its restrictions on contributions were unconstitutional, and Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that BCRA was unconstitutional. Mr. Smith seems to be incapable of accepting the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States, not Mr. Smith, is the last word on the constitutionality of campaign laws and that it is his job as an FEC Commissioner to carry out, not thwart, the Supreme Court's mandate.

I do not deny that Mr. Smith is entitled to his personal views on the issue of regulating 527s. I am saying, however, that he is failing to fulfill his duties as the chairman of a Federal agency and one who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. Just as we would not tolerate the appointment of a pacifist to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Director of the FBI who believes the whole Penal Code should be null and void, so we should not accept a Chairman of the FEC who opposes campaign laws upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Knowing of his opposition to the laws he was sworn to uphold, I cannot fathom why Mr. Smith would have even accepted his current position in the first place, certainly now that the Supreme Court has proven him wrong and upheld the constitutionality of a law that he stated was ``clearly unconstitutional.'' It makes no sense. It makes no sense for him to be charged with enforcing a law he so publicly opposes on policy and legal grounds.

I know if I were in Mr. Smith's shoes, I would do the honorable thing and resign if I was so determined to carry on a crusade against Federal regulation of campaign finance. I would leave the FEC position to be filled by someone who believed in the job.

If any of my colleagues think I am exaggerating about these FEC hearings, by the way, they should get a tape from C-SPAN and look at it themselves. It was shocking.

One very troubling aspect of the hearings was the way in which some Commissioners and antireform witnesses joined in a chorus of complaint that ``no one knew what Congress intended to do'' when it passed FECA in 1974 and BCRA in 2002.

One witness testified that it took Congress 7 years to figure out what to do about soft money. I am somewhat amazed by such a statement because anyone who was in Washington during those 7 years knows that the main component of our bill--from the very beginning--was a ban on soft money. You can't get much more definitive than a ban. What did take 7 years was convincing our opponents to allow a vote on the measure, and when we finally got our vote, we had clear majorities in both Houses.

Some of the lawyers who testified that no one knows what Congress intended to do in these bills were the very same lawyers who spent years urging Members to vote against BCRA, and argued its unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court. Give me a break. As witnesses to Congressional intent, they have zero credibility. Let me be clear on this: Senator Feingold and I repeatedly told the FEC exactly what we intended to accomplish with our legislation, and the legislative history of FECA from 1974 is equally as clear. The only confusion in this area has been with the FEC itself and those Commissioners who just simply didn't like the actions taken by Congress.

The Commission's hearings centered on the issue of regulation of so- called ``527 groups'' that are raising and spending millions of dollars in soft money in the current presidential election. These groups readily admit that their intended purpose is to influence the outcome of Federal elections. FECA has long required these groups to register as Federal political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance limits. Unfortunately, because the FEC has misinterpreted and undermined the law, we find ourselves in this unenforced regulatory limbo today. The 1974 law requires that any group with a ``major purpose'' of influencing a Federal election, and which spends more than $1,000 doing so, must use the same limited hard money contributions as the political parties and the candidates themselves. In recent years though, the FEC slouched into the feckless and unjustified position of not enforcing the law in the case of groups which avoided the ``magic words'' of ``express advocacy'' but were set up and operated to influence Federal elections. Then, in McConnell, the Supreme Court itself made clear what many of us already knew--that the Constitution did not require an ``express advocacy'' standard, and that such a standard is ``functionally meaningless.'' That's the words of The United States Supreme Court.

But here we are, with these groups openly flouting the law and openly spending soft money for the express purpose of influencing the presidential election while the FEC sits on its hands once again. Like the emperor with no clothes, those Commissioners just do not know what to do now that the Supreme Court has removed their ``express advocacy is required by the Constitution'' rationale for failing to regulate political activity by the 527 political organizations. As a result, these organizations remain busy soliciting and spending millions for the avowed purpose of influencing Federal elections.

That the FEC's lack of action undermines the law isn't just my opinion. The Supreme Court confirmed this in its recent decision upholding the soft money ban. In McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court stated, in no uncertain terms, how we ended up in the soft money crisis to begin with. The Justices placed the blame squarely at the

doors of the FEC, concluding that the agency had eroded the prohibitions on union and corporate spending, and the limits on individual contributions through years of bad rulings and rulemakings, including its formulas for allocation of party expenses between Federal and non-Federal accounts. Regarding the allocation regulations for parties, the Supreme Court stated in McConnell that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress . . . had ever intended'', and ``invited widespread circumvention of FECA's limits on contributions.'' That is a damning indictment of the behavior and performance of the Federal Elections Commission.

Based on the recent hearings, it seems entirely possible that the FEC will once again abdicate its statutory responsibilities and refuse to end this new soft money scheme--or at least put off any action until the Presidential election is over. In fact, FFC Vice-chair Ellen Weintraub recently opposed a rulemaking on 527 activity saying that:

At this stage in the election cycle, it is unprecedented

for the FEC to contemplate changes to the very definitions of

terms as fundamental as ``expenditure'' and ``political

committee'' . . . sowing uncertainty during an election year.

Ms. Weintraub further stated:

I will not be rushed to make hasty decisions, with far-

reaching implications, at the behest of those who see in our

hurried action their short-term political gain.

Ms. Weintraub has no business looking at the election calendar. That is none of her business. What is her business is to enforce existing law according to the law in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding its constitutionality. It should not matter to Ms. Weintraub whether we are in an even numbered year, an odd numbered year, fall, spring, winter, or summer. This is an incredible statement as to how politics affects a Federal commission that is supposed to rule on laws, not on political campaigns.

Of course, it is not that complicated. All the FEC needs to do now is simply enforce existing Federal law as written by Congress in 1974 and interpreted by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, including the McConnell case. It defies the whole purpose of the FEC, to say it should not properly enforce the law in the middle of an election year because such enforcement might affect that election. We want the law enforced. I have never heard of a regulatory agency that has any reference whatsoever to political campaigns.

The fact the FEC has neglected to properly enforce the law correctly in the past is not a reason or justification for the Commission to continue failing to properly enforce the law, now that the Supreme Court has made clear the FEC was wrong. If the FEC fails to act now, the FEC will simply be treading the same destructive path it has followed for a generation.

We know systemic campaign finance abuses have usually begun when one political party decides to push the envelope and the FEC declines to act, leading the other party to adopt the same illegal tactics. In 1988, one party invented the use of soft money to promote their Presidential campaign, evading campaign finance rules. The Commission let them get away with this. This is well documented. The other party followed.

In 1996, the soft money scheme was raised to an art form and the Commission did nothing. You have to ask whether the Commission has learned anything about the consequences of its failure to properly enforce the law. History proves it is imperative that the Commission act now. If it does not, we can rest assured both parties will soon be trying to out-raise each other in this venue, and a whole new soft money scheme will have blossomed.

By the way, the reality is if these soft money 527s are allowed to stand--they are now, we know, largely funded by Democrats. Who in the world doesn't understand if you allow this to stand, then the Republicans will do the same thing, and understandably so? Just as in 1988 one party was allowed to do it, so the other party was able to as well.

Much of the controversy at the Commission has been ginned up by an artfully crafted misinformation campaign designed to persuade the nonprofit community--the 501(c)s--that any FEC action to rein in 527s would have the unintended consequence of limiting their own advocacy efforts. It is true certain campaign finance rules for spending by nonprofits are different than they are for political groups like 527s. There is no immediate campaign finance regulatory problem with the 501(c) groups. I repeat, there is no immediate campaign finance regulatory problem with the 501(c) groups as there is with the 527 groups, and no need--no need to address 501(c) groups in this rulemaking.

Some have suggested the agency do what Congress did when it passed BCRA: Issue a ruling but make the change effective after the election.

What these critics fail to recognize, however, is that Congress was creating an entirely new set of election rules in BCRA. All that is required here is for the FEC to properly enforce law that has been on the books for 30 years, and to abandon its wrong interpretations of the law as made clear in the McConnell decision. To issue new regulations now and make them effective after the 2004 election would be for the FEC to say that ``we know the law has been wrongly interpreted for years but we are going to allow that to continue for the rest of this year, and then next year, we will start interpreting that law correctly.'' This is simply not rational and it is an abdication of their responsibilities.

Finally, it is essential that the FEC act quickly to fix its absurd allocation rules, which govern the mix of soft and hard money a political committee can spend when it is supporting both State and Federal candidates. It is clear that a number of the current crop of 527s exist only to defeat President Bush. But through the absurd FEC allocation formulas, if these same entities also claim to be working in state elections, they could use soft money for 98 percent of their expenditures--a complete end-run around the soft money ban in Federal races.

Despite all the evidence, I am still hopeful the Commissioners will summon the political will to do the right thing now. There are some commissioners who want to do the right thing. I want them to step forward and do it. But even if they do, the agency's structural problems will be the same as they ever were. By unfortunate custom, three Republicans and three Democrats are chosen by their party leadership, usually with the express purpose of protecting their party's interests, rather than enforcing the law. It takes four votes for the Commission to take action--a requirement that has been a recipe for deadlock and bipartisan collusion and gave birth to the soft money problem we're trying to put behind us.

Last month I testified before the Senate Rules Committee on the issue of 527s. During my testimony I stated that one of the problems the FEC faces today is that some Commissioners, and in particular Chairman Smith, refuse to accept the Supreme Court's conclusions in the area of campaign financing. A decision by the FEC to abdicate its responsibility at this politically inconvenient moment will only provide further evidence that it is time to start over. If the Commission has become too hopelessly politicized to do its job, then we must replace it with an agency that will.

The FEC's current difficulty in dealing with an issue as straightforward as these 527 organizations spending soft money to influence the 2004 Federal elections, and the 3-3 ties at the Commission when it recently considered an advisory opinion on this issue, are only the most recent examples of the need for fundamental FEC reform. With my fellow BCRA sponsors, I have introduced legislation that would scrap the FEC and start over, using a new organizational structure and administrative law judges to avoid deadlocks and take some of the politics out of the process. Whether we adopt this or some other basic reform, it is time for a watchdog with some bite.

I thank the President for his patience as I ran over the previously agreed-to time.

This is a very serious issue. We are not going to give up on it. We didn't work for 7 years to get campaign finance reform done and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court to have a group of six people down there who are so politicized that they refuse to enforce a law which was passed by this Congress in overwhelming numbers, finally, and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I want to tell them and all of those other people I watched on C-SPAN who are trying to undermine this law that we will not let you get away with it. American politics and the political process is too sacred for me to allow these stooges of special interests around this town to prevail and prevent us from restoring faith and confidence in the American people and their electoral system.

Again, I appreciate the patience of the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated twenty national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation will be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States.

For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, state and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote, pristine wildlands.

With nearly 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building

a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long-distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated twenty national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation will be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States.

For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, state and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote, pristine wildlands.

With nearly 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building

a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long-distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy.