Floor Statements

With that, Madam President, I want to announce that yesterday I introduced a piece of legislation that will establish a 24- hour port of entry at the Port of Wild Horse, which is north of Havre,

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about this farm bill. Before I start, though, I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me this time to speak. I certainly appreciate his hospitality.

This farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will vote on this year. Along with the members of the committee, I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss for their hard work on this bill in committee. This farm bill just doesn't affect farmers and ranchers and folks who need nutritional assistance; it impacts all Americans and it ensures that food in this country is secure.

Our agricultural policy has created the most dependable and affordable food system in the world. Americans have incredible choices at the grocery store. We have high quality and safe

food, and our supplies and prices are stable. What makes this stability possible is a comprehensive farm bill that helps set national priorities, keeping our family farms and ranches productive and food on America's tables.

I bring a different perspective to the farm bill than a lot of my colleagues. I am a third-generation farmer. My wife and I farm the same land my grandparents homesteaded nearly a century ago. I have spent a lifetime with my hands in the dirt, and I know how difficult it is to get by in production agriculture, especially in these days. I am proud that Sharla and I are passing that same farm down that my grandparents homesteaded to the fourth generation of our family. If this bill is vetoed as the President has promised, many families won't have the option to pass their farm down, because over the next 5 years, many of them will go broke.

American agriculture is facing very difficult challenges, such as skyrocketing land prices, aging populations in rural America, and the high cost of fuels and fertilizers. The changing global marketplace creates more uncertainties for our producers and challenges when our so-called free markets sometimes come with a high price. America's family farms and ranches have a lot on the line right now. They also have tremendous potential. This farm bill provides new opportunities for rural America.

America's farmers and ranchers can be leaders in energy production as they are leaders in food production. For years, Montana, especially farm and ranch country, has adapted to our Nation's growing energy needs.

The folks who put food on America's dinner tables also have tremendous opportunity in contributing to this country's energy independence through biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and wind power-- just to name a few.

That is good news for rural America, it is good news for our pocketbooks, and it is good for family agriculture.

In Montana, an oil-seed crop called Camelina is being used for biodiesel production. It grows on marginal soils, takes few inputs and doesn't need a whole lot of water. This year Montana started its first biodiesel facility--this farm bill will help this facility get off its feet and supply this country with much needed energy. I hope this plant is the first of many.

We have only scratched the surface of our energy potential--and this farm bill could really tap into it. This bill will put the necessary resources into the production of biofuels, and more incentives for rural wind power projects.

Many folks may not know that the farm bill is perhaps our largest conservation program. Our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land and are constantly working to improve their operations to reduce their impact on the environment.

This bill strengthens our working lands conservation programs to help make our farms and ranches productive and protected.

This bill will finally implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling. May I say it is about time. In Montana, we passed a country- of-origin labeling law in 2005. It is time we implement it at the Federal level.

Whether it is the t-shirt I wear, the truck I drive, or the toy I buy for my grandkids, I can tell where it was made. It only makes sense that we know where our food comes from, too.

COOL is good public policy. Americans deserve to know where their food comes from, and implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling is long overdue.

Part of adequate labeling is the ability for our producers to market their products. I am happy to see that this farm bill will allow for the interstate shipment and sale of beef. Montana has some of the best beef in the world and smaller producers should be able to market their safe, healthy, quality products across State lines.

I don't like shopping all that much--but it is even worse here in Washington. The lines are too long and the prices too high. But I will tell you what, it sure would put a smile on my face to see a t-bone on the shelf with a ``Made in Montana'' stamp on it.

We hope to include in this bill permanent ag disaster assistance. I hear that some of my colleagues don't think this is the best way to protect family farm and ranch businesses but as a farmer I strongly support this measure.

I know what it is like in the good years when you have a crop to put in the bin. And I know what it is like to have no crop. Whether it is hail, drought, floods, grasshoppers, or any other disaster, we need to make sure that our farmers and ranchers are protected. This is a real safety net that will help family farmers get by when disaster strikes.

This disaster assistance program has strict requirements on who may receive assistance and will only help those farmers who have taken steps to mitigate their risk. This program will provide the predictable and consistent safety net that our family farmers and ranchers deserve.

This farm bill makes great strides in acknowledging the importance of organic agriculture in our food system. Organic foods have been growing at a rate of over 20 percent a year for 20 years. This bill offers money for research dollars to support organic agriculture. And it will provide funds to help family farms--if they choose--convert to organics so that U.S. farms can meet the needs of this growing market.

Organic agriculture is really a value-added program. It allows farmers and ranchers to find ways to increase the profitability of their products by consumers driving the marketplace.

As far as nutrition is concerned, of course, the farm bill has a tremendous impact on the underprivileged segments of our society.

The people who use these programs aren't lobbying our congressional offices, or sending thousands of letters, or using influence with the media to shape public policy. They are our children. They are the elderly. They are young, single mothers working two jobs. They are disabled veterans who need nutritional assistance until times get better.

In Montana, nearly 20 percent of our children live below the poverty line. Each month, more than 80,000 Montanans seek assistance through the food stamp program; 20,000 seek supplemental assistance through the Women, Infants, and Children program. Out of a total population of just under a million people this is a big impact on our State.

Montana also has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. We have good schools and college participation. We just can't always make ends meet where there is high cost of living and low wages. These nutrition programs are just the help folks need until they can get on their feet.

In the wealthiest, most-advanced society in the world, no person should go hungry. I am glad that this farm bill has made long overdue increases to our food assistance programs.

This farm bill is something that our Nation can be proud of. It strikes a balance between our different regions, and different interests. It does not have everything we want, but it has what we need.

This is a farm bill that meets the needs of this country's family farmers, and it takes great strides in helping families with a more realistic nutrition component.

Mr. President, I know firsthand how important this bill is for America's producers and America's consumers. This is mainstream, bipartisan legislation that was crafted and passed out of the Ag Committee without a dissenting vote. The farm bill is too important for anyone to obstruct, or to delay, or to play political games with.

American consumers, from all walks of life, living paycheck-to- paycheck, depend on this farm bill. American producers, in every corner of this country, living harvest to harvest, depend on this farm bill.

The Senate needs to debate and pass this legislation, and the President of the United States needs to sign it.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the return of the remains of LTJG Donald F. Wolfe, whose body has finally been returned to American soil.

Lieutenant Wolfe--along with four of his fellow Navy aviators and sailors--was killed on October 8, 1967, when the E-1B aircraft they were flying on crashed near Da Nang in heavy weather. The bodies of these brave Navy servicemen could not be recovered at the time due to weather, terrain and hostile activity.

But today, almost exactly 40 years after this terrible incident, the remains of Lieutenant Wolfe and his colleagues are back home, bringing peace of mind and closure to his family at long last.

One of the great stains on the history of this Nation is the way that many of our Vietnam War veterans were treated when they returned home from war.

We should be honest with ourselves and with our veterans: The way that many of these veterans were treated during this time was wrong, and that kind of treatment hurt our country psychologically, and it hurt our country militarily.

Fortunately, our Nation has learned from that sorry episode. I take comfort in the fact that despite our vigorous disagreements about the Iraq war, all of us in this Senate and in our hometowns and States honor those who serve there.

And today we have an opportunity to make sure that these five men get the welcome home that all our troops deserved. We should stop to honor their memory and their service. It is not too late to say to these men and their families: Thank you.

I intend to observe a moment of silence this afternoon in memory of these men and in memory of all those who are still classified as missing in action. I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to do the same.

There are 1,767 individuals who are still classified as Missing in Action from the Vietnam War. Eighteen of these soldiers are from Montana.

They are: David Allinson, Helena; Richard Appelhans, Dodson; Alan Ashall, Billings; Michael Bouchard, Missoula; Alan Boyer, Missoula; Anthony Caldwell, Missoula; William Christensen, Great Falls; Jack Dempset, Helena; Charles Dudley, Bozeman; Michael Havranek, Missoula; Robert Holton, Butte; James Hunt, Missoula; Edward Letchworth, Libby; Patrick Magee, Alder; Lee Nordahl, Choteau; Victor Pirker, Trout Creek; Dean Pogreba, Three Forks; and Robert Willett, Great Falls.

To them and their families, you are not forgotten.

Will the Senator from South Carolina yield for a question?

Could the Senator clarify how these dollars will be used? Can they be used on the northern border as far as personnel and technological equipment?

I thank the Senator.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute and thanks to Joe Papez, Technical Sergeant, U.S. Army retired. Joe is a veteran of World War II. In fact, he is believed to be the oldest living Purple Heart recipient in the United States, and he is one of the brave men who answered the call of their country and who helped the ``greatest generation'' earn that title.

Joe was injured three times during his stint in the Army, where he served in both Africa and Italy, in the campaigns of 1943 and 1944. He earned three Purple Hearts fighting in Casablanca, on the island of Sicily, and in Italy. But it was his last wound by a German artillery shell during the fierce fighting at Anzio, Italy, that earned him a free ticket back home.

The way Joe tells the story, after he was wounded in Anzio, he was put on a ship and sent home, but he doesn't remember the trip. He woke up in Virginia. After a while, he was shipped to Denver, where he recovered in a hospital. Then he was shipped to Oregon and finally to Santa Barbara.

When he finally got back on his feet, he kept on serving his country by caring for German prisoners of war in Utah, where he remained until the war was over.

Following the war, Joe returned to Red Lodge, MT. Disabled from his war wounds, he was unable to get a job. He made a drawing for a homestead in Powell, WY, but was told he was too sick to have it. However, with help from his brothers and a bank loan, he got into farming and ranching.

On December 19, Joe Papez will turn 100 years old or, should I say, 100 years young. He will turn 100 in the same town in which he has lived for nearly his entire life. Although he was born in Franklin, KS, the State of Montana is proud to claim Joe as one of our own.

Joe's family moved to Red Lodge when he was a year old. Residents of Red Lodge know he is a fixture in the town's Memorial Day parade, he is a regular in the Fourth of July parade, and even at his age, he marches in these parades to remember his brothers in arms with whom he served. And they will always remember him. Fittingly, the Billings chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart is named for Joe Papez.

Joe is spry and healthy and said he would serve his country again if he could. Joe Papez has served his country and his community, and he has done it very well.

So today we give thanks to him and Dorreen, and we pray for more folks just like Joe.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to join with my Democratic colleagues in the freshmen class who are offering amendment No. 2999 today. I wish to give my thanks in particular to Senator McCaskill, Senator Webb, as well as the other six freshmen Senators in the Democratic caucus in offering this amendment that deals with accountability as it applies to contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The nine of us were elected last fall in large measure because the people in this country were tired of the war in Iraq and tired of a lack of accountability for how our tax dollars have been spent in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is, people in Montana and around the country work way too hard to have their tax dollars stolen from them by people who think they can take advantage of an environment where there is little or no oversight or accountability. This amendment will bring some much needed accountability in the way our tax dollars are spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will do it in a way that takes this issue out of the political spotlight.

This amendment will establish a bipartisan commission to review the contracts we have entered into in fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Commission will be outside of Congress and will be outside of the Bush administration. The amendment will also direct this new Commission to review the way new contracts are awarded and overseen. This will give us a chance to prevent future waste, fraud, and abuse.

The Commission will work in consultation with the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which currently oversees only reconstruction contracts in Iraq, to review and investigate logistics, security, and intelligence work that has been contracted out by the Defense Department.

According to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, we have squandered $10 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds due to contract overcharges and unsupported expenses. That means 1 out of every 6 reconstruction dollars spent in Iraq is not accounted for, and only now, after 5 years of war in Iraq, the Army is looking back at nearly $100 million in contracts to determine how these funds have been spent.

I think it is important for folks to understand we are not coming at this with the idea that every contract is a bad one. There are many contractors who are doing a good job and who are being responsible with our tax dollars. But there are others who are not. At a time when we are struggling to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghani people, those who are deliberately overeating at the taxpayer trough, while our troops are fighting and dying in Iraq, are nothing short of treasonous.

Many Americans have questioned how their tax dollars are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have wondered why it is that there are more contractors than troops in Iraq. They have wondered why some companies are enjoying record profits even though so many projects remain incomplete. For too long, the answer from the Government has been a deafening silence. This amendment is a long-overdue response to the cries for accountability and transparency in our contracting process. It should not be and is not a partisan issue. It is about good government. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Webb amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Much has been made about this amendment and the well-being of our troops and their families. Make no mistake, this amendment is about ensuring that we do not do permanent damage to the military's most valuable asset--its people.

Congress must make the health and well-being of our men and women overseas a priority. We know multiple deployments with short periods of rest back home raise the incidence of PTSD. Studies have shown that the likelihood of a soldier being diagnosed with PTSD rises by 50 percent when he or she is on a second or third deployment.

We know multiple deployments are causing a massive strain on our junior officer corps. Earlier this year, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff told Congress these officers are getting out of the Army at nearly double the rate that the Army says is acceptable. That is why until this war, we have always given our active-duty soldiers a ratio of 2 days at home for every day in combat, and we have always given the National Guard and Reserve 5 days at home for every day in combat. That has been the standard until this war.

That is why the National Military Families Association supports this amendment. That is why the Military Officers Association of America supports this amendment. The Military Officers Association says:

If we are not better stewards of our troops and their

families . . . we will be putting the all-volunteer force at

unacceptable risk.

I urge my colleagues to listen to what our officers and their families are saying through their support of the Webb amendment.

As my colleagues know, I am a farmer; I am not a military expert. But I believe and the people of my State believe in no uncertain measure that we need to continue to have the strongest military in the world, not only today, not only 6 months from now, but 6 years from now as well.

The good news is we have a strong military. I represent 3,500 Air Force personnel, more than 300 of whom are serving in Iraq and other places around the world today. I represent another 3,600 Guardsmen, many of whom have spent a tour or two in Iraq. I can tell my colleagues that these people are the best in the world at what they do, and I am proud to represent them.

But the bad news is what I am hearing is we are in danger of losing too many young leaders in our military today who are leading a platoon but whom we will be relying on to lead brigades and entire divisions in the future.

I know some people on both sides of the aisle have raised the question of how this measure will impact the schedule for the surge General Petraeus has outlined. The fact is, even if this amendment becomes law, the Pentagon would still have another 4 months to prepare for the change in policy, and if there is a national emergency, there is an opportunity for even more time. The fact is, this amendment will have a much greater impact on tomorrow's military than it will impact on the military surge.

I believe we need the Webb amendment to ensure that we maintain a strong military today, tomorrow, and for years to come.

I congratulate Senator Webb for this amendment. This has been a good debate. For the most part, it has been thoughtful and respectful. There have been differences of opinion, but it is time to allow this measure to have an honest vote before the Senate. Let's not simply debate whether to debate this amendment. Let's have an up-or-down vote on the measure. Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have a question for the Senator from Oklahoma.

I have a statement that applies to servicemen going off to war in Iraq from the State of Montana, which does not apply to this bill. It is a statement I want to make as in morning business. If the Senator from Oklahoma has something applicable to this bill and he is time sensitive, I would defer to him, if he wishes.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, first of all, I have a few comments to make about the bill. I thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Washington for their great work on this bill. I would hope that the Senate would pass this bill as it is because I think it is a good piece of legislation that fits the needs of our country very well.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to an amendment Senator Coburn is going to be offering in a few minutes. I rise today to say a few words about a construction project this amendment is potentially eliminating. It is a construction project that is generating a lot of excitement and community pride in my home State of Montana.

While campaigning for this Senate seat this time last year, I repeatedly said I support appropriations for projects that improve our Nation's infrastructure--projects such as safer bridges, better water canals, better highways, and improvements to our Nation's economic development. That is why I am following this project in Billings, MT, very closely. The project is a major effort by the people of Billings to reinvigorate their city's economy by rebuilding a well-known landmark--Cobb Field. Right now, crews are already working on the new stadium. Once finished, it will serve as a venue for sports, concerts, and art fairs throughout the year. It will attract visitors from all over the region.

The people of Billings are very proud of Cobb Field and the role it plays in their community. That is why they voted to raise their own taxes by over $10 million to rebuild this stadium. They understand how important it is to be proud of a place where they can gather as families, host visitors, and enjoy American pastimes.

The people of Billings also understand that the new Cobb Field will be a major economic boost. It will be an asset to the entire region. That is why I have requested the Senate invest $500,000 in this project. Believe me, it will go a long way in Billings--a community that has already done its part.

I believe this is a pretty darn reasonable request. The community development fund in this appropriations bill specifically sets aside money for projects that boost economies in cities such as Billings. What is the community development fund for if it is not for good community development projects such as this?

I am asking my colleagues not to remove any Federal funding in this community project. Instead, I stand before you to ask for a small investment in economic development for a growing community to provide jobs, tourism, and overall economic growth.

While running for this Senate seat, I criticized Congress for sneaking in projects in the dead of night, attaching them to spending bills behind closed doors without any accountability. It happened a lot more often than most people think. Our Government spent a lot of money without properly vetting it through Congress.

For the better, times have changed. I stand before you today to vigorously

defend why I requested this funding project in the light of day. I am going to bat for it because Cobb Field deserves the funding. There are no secrets here, there is no waste--just a good, worthwhile community project that will only make a very special place in my home State even better.

I am not going to let Cobb Field strike out. It is too much of an investment by Montana folks who work hard and raise families. They are taking it upon themselves to make their home better, and I will do everything I can to help.

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

Mr. President, I know that over the last 6 years every Senator has had to send some of their sons and daughters in their State off to war, but today is the first time as a Member of this body I have had to see so many members of a squadron in my State deployed. So it is with great pride that I rise to honor the 400 air men and women of the Air Force's 819th RED HORSE Squadron. About one-half of this squadron is deploying today for training in Wisconsin before going to Iraq later this year.

Over the last decade, Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, MT, has been the home of the 819th RED HORSE Squadron. For the uninitiated, RED HORSE stands for rapid engineer deployable heavy operation repair squadron engineer. Basically, these are the men and women who rebuild Air Force facilities overseas, such as runways. They also have spent considerable time in Iraq rebuilding schools and homes. These are men and women who do some truly wonderful work.

In a previous deployment to Iraq in 2005, the squadron was involved in 130 construction projects on 12 different bases in Iraq. The 819th has served in Afghanistan and Qatar. In every place they have taken on complicated engineering projects for the U.S. Government but have also done outstanding work with locals to rehabilitate housing and provide residents with everything from coloring books for kids to new washing machines.

It is a combination of accomplishment, strength, and generosity that represents the best of our Nation.

This afternoon, as the men and women of the 819th begin to train for

the mission that will send them to Iraq, they leave behind spouses, children, and other family members. We know that piano recitals and football games will be missed this fall. There will be an empty chair at too many holiday meals.

The 819th is an Active Associate unit, meaning that it is compromised of both Active-Duty airmen and Air National Guardsmen. For the citizen soldiers of our Air Guard, these deployments can be especially difficult, and I hope all Montanans will keep these airmen and their families in their thoughts and prayers.

And when they return home, we have a moral responsibility to care for the folks who have worn the uniform of our country. Whether they return to Active Duty or reenter civilian life, the Federal Government must support them. Congress has taken numerous steps this year to provide more resources for the VA and to improve the quality of life for our troops. I hope we will continue to make progress in these areas so that when the 819th comes home we are able to welcome these airmen back home with our deeds and not just our words.

Before I get into my remarks, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from California for the leadership they have shown on the WRDA bill.

I couldn't agree more; infrastructure is critically important to this country. Infrastructure that revolves around our water resources may be the most important infrastructure we have. And to invest in that is truly a good investment that benefits our kids and grandkids and generations thereafter.

So thank you both for your work on this bill and, hopefully, it can be passed with a good, healthy vote coming out of this body.

Mr. President, I rise to share some news from my home State. I am anxiously following the wildfires burning across Montana. Over the last few weeks, tens of thousands of acres of the Treasure State have burned. In fact, the top four fires in the West are burning in Montana. Hundreds of folks have been evacuated from their homes. Interestingly enough, today, August 3rd, is traditionally only the third day of the wildfire season. Times are changing.

This past weekend I had the opportunity to visit the front lines of two Montana wildfires, which tell two different fire policy stories. One thing they have clearly got in common: fine, hardworking men and women toughing it out in grueling conditions to protect each other and the public from harm's way. In my State, we are also relying on the hardworking folks in the Montana National Guard. As of today, about 130 guardsmen and women have been called to help fight Montana's fires. Some of these folks cancelled summer plans to answer the call to help. They are working alongside other firefighters to do dangerous, hot, dirty work to protect Montana's people and property.

To all wildland firefighters across this country, I say thank you. We owe them all respect and gratitude. We also owe them policies that will best benefit the landscape they are working so hard to protect.

The two fires I visited both started the same week, in late June. That is really early for Montana. Both are burning in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, a spectacular place where the Rocky Mountains spill onto the plains. The Ahorn fire was 15,000 acres when I visited. It is now over 40,000 acres, burning 30 miles west of the ranching and farming community of Augusta.

The Forest Service is concerned because the Ahorn fire is big and unwieldy. It is burning near a ``fire exclusion'' area, an area that the Forest Service has not allowed fire to burn over the years in order to protect seasonal cabins on private land east near the forest boundary. As a result of the fuels that built up over the years due to suppressing fire, the Ahorn fire is going to do pretty much what the fire wants to do. The Forest Service threw $1 million at it when it first took off, and that ``didn't make a dent,'' according to the fire officials. The agency says it will not be successful in controlling the perimeter of the fire, though it probably will be successful at protecting those cabins.

This has nothing to do with the agency's abilities. It has everything to do with fires that burn hotter and harder now because of a hotter climate and denser forests. To date, the Ahorn fire has cost nearly $5 million.

Last Saturday, I also got a chance to see the Fool Creek fire. That fire was 6,200 acres when I saw it. Today it is about 22,000 acres. The Fool Creek fire is burning west of Choteau, another ranching and farming community. The Forest Service has been managing the Fool Creek fire as a ``Wildland Fire Use For Resource Benefit,'' which means fire bosses have been mostly allowing it to burn for the benefit of the forest. So far, it has been a lot more manageable because it is moving in and around lands that burned in 1988 and in 2000. It is still hot and dry out there and the fire made a big run yesterday, but all told, the fire has been easier to manage than Ahorn. To date, the Fool Creek fire has cost $1.3 million. That is four times less than the cost of fighting the Ahorn fire, with similar outcomes.

It is not very popular to tell the American people that the Forest Service is letting the woods burn. But what we have learned in the last 20 years is: sometimes, it is the right thing to do.

We have another problem in my home State, and that's the holdover from longstanding fights on how to manage our forests. We will never get back to the timber harvest levels of the 1970s, nor should we. But the pendulum has swung too far, and now we are too often fighting in the courts about cutting down trees. Quite frankly, we don't have enough people working out in the woods. That is a problem economically and ecologically. Throw in climate change, thousands of acres of dead, dry beetle-infested trees, and lots of new houses popping up on the edges of our national forests, and we have a perfect storm brewing.

I don't think it is a coincidence that, with all the fuel buildup in our forests and the hottest summer on record, we're in the middle of a whopper of a fire season. Climatologists tell me that this is becoming the new norm. This is what we can continue to expect. Which means we have to get even smarter about when to fight wildfire, and where, and how best to stretch every dollar spent on battling them. And we have to get serious about supporting the Forest Service as it reduces fuels in the forests.

With the Forest Service spending 45 percent of its budget on fire suppression, it barely has the time or the resources to restore our forests to health. With firefighting costs predicted to go even higher, creating a trust fund for fire management makes a great deal of sense to me. It is something we have to do in order to ensure that funds will be available to do the work of restoring health to our forests. Because when we restore our forests, we will make them more resilient to fire. This is something we have to do, and we have to do it fast, especially around our Western towns and communities.

This issue won't go away when fire season comes to an end. The conversation will continue with my colleagues here in Washington and with all folks in. Montana. We'll be talking about fire and forest health and the opportunities they provide us. They are connected, and they are connected to Montana's well-being and economy.

I thank the Senator from Arizona. I think communication and trust is critical if we are going to address the issues in our forests today. I think if we can develop good communication with all parties involved, we will help move our forests to a healthier level.

I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and Baucus to introduce the Organic Conversion Assistance Act to help provide needed technical and conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers converting to organic agriculture. I wanted to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on organic agricultural issues and Senator Baucus for his long-time support for Montana's farmers and ranchers.

My wife and I have spent our careers farming organically on our farm near Big Sandy, MT. Nearly 20 years ago we were struggling to get ahead and trying to decide if we could really make it farming while so many of our neighbors were packing up and moving away. We knew at that time that if we didn't make some changes to our business we would end up like so many of our neighbors leaving rural Montana for jobs in town.

In 1988, we took what was then a risk and converted our farm to organic production. Our motivations were mostly economic but partly for health reasons. We wanted to farm on our own terms and to make more money. When I farmed conventionally I felt beholden to one big company after another from buying fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, to selling my grain to a corporation and shipping it by rail at high prices and we rarely came out ahead. Every season after I would spray for weeds and bugs, I would feel sick for a week afterwards.

Organic agriculture let us take control of our farm and our livelihood. More and more farmers are converting to organics as consumer demand soars. Organics is now the fastest growing sector of the food industry expanding at a rate of over 20 percent a year. In Montana, we lead the Nation in organic wheat production and are a close second in the production of organic barley, peas and lentils. Consumer demand for organic products is growing so fast that we are now importing a significant portion of the organic food that is found in our grocery stores.

In the U.S. we grow the highest quality and safest food in the world. I believe that increased production of domestically produced organic foods will help meet consumer demand, help keep farmers on the land, and because organic agriculture needs fewer inputs it helps conserve our land, and clean up our air and water. But if the U.S. is going to keep pace with imported organic products we need to get more acreage under organic production here at home.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide conversion assistance to farmers making the transition from conventional to organic agriculture. Currently it takes 3 to 4 years to become certified organic, but during that period of time producers cannot receive the higher price that organics fetch in the market place. Furthermore, the shift towards a new way of farming and ranching creates technical challenges for many producers as they change the way they do things. Offering technical and educational assistance as well as cost-share funds for conservation initiatives under a certified organic plan will provide a needed helping hand to farmers. Making the conversion will help keep farmers on the land by putting a bit more money in their pockets and help our rural communities be viable. Many States have already adopted similar assistance programs and agricultural producers nationwide would benefit from having a consistent and available program in years to come.

I would appreciate the support of my colleagues as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and Baucus to introduce the Organic Conversion Assistance Act to help provide needed technical and conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers converting to organic agriculture. I wanted to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on organic agricultural issues and Senator Baucus for his long-time support for Montana's farmers and ranchers.

My wife and I have spent our careers farming organically on our farm near Big Sandy, MT. Nearly 20 years ago we were struggling to get ahead and trying to decide if we could really make it farming while so many of our neighbors were packing up and moving away. We knew at that time that if we didn't make some changes to our business we would end up like so many of our neighbors leaving rural Montana for jobs in town.

In 1988, we took what was then a risk and converted our farm to organic production. Our motivations were mostly economic but partly for health reasons. We wanted to farm on our own terms and to make more money. When I farmed conventionally I felt beholden to one big company after another from buying fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, to selling my grain to a corporation and shipping it by rail at high prices and we rarely came out ahead. Every season after I would spray for weeds and bugs, I would feel sick for a week afterwards.

Organic agriculture let us take control of our farm and our livelihood. More and more farmers are converting to organics as consumer demand soars. Organics is now the fastest growing sector of the food industry expanding at a rate of over 20 percent a year. In Montana, we lead the Nation in organic wheat production and are a close second in the production of organic barley, peas and lentils. Consumer demand for organic products is growing so fast that we are now importing a significant portion of the organic food that is found in our grocery stores.

In the U.S. we grow the highest quality and safest food in the world. I believe that increased production of domestically produced organic foods will help meet consumer demand, help keep farmers on the land, and because organic agriculture needs fewer inputs it helps conserve our land, and clean up our air and water. But if the U.S. is going to keep pace with imported organic products we need to get more acreage under organic production here at home.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide conversion assistance to farmers making the transition from conventional to organic agriculture. Currently it takes 3 to 4 years to become certified organic, but during that period of time producers cannot receive the higher price that organics fetch in the market place. Furthermore, the shift towards a new way of farming and ranching creates technical challenges for many producers as they change the way they do things. Offering technical and educational assistance as well as cost-share funds for conservation initiatives under a certified organic plan will provide a needed helping hand to farmers. Making the conversion will help keep farmers on the land by putting a bit more money in their pockets and help our rural communities be viable. Many States have already adopted similar assistance programs and agricultural producers nationwide would benefit from having a consistent and available program in years to come.

I would appreciate the support of my colleagues as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Surface Owner Protection Act to help protect private property on split estates.

The Western U.S. is experiencing a boom in oil and gas exploration that will contribute to the domestic supply of energy in this country, improve our National security and help control energy costs for American consumers. But if it is not done right oil and gas leasing can be damaging to wildlife, pollute our water, and scar the land. Furthermore, in many areas of the West the land is in split estates where mineral rights are owned by the Federal Government, but the surface is owned by a private land owner. Oftentimes the process of oil and gas leasing and drilling does not adequately involve surface owners or protect their agricultural livelihoods that are disrupted during energy development. Split estates cover 58 million acres in the U.S., and 11.7 million acres in Montana alone. That is just slightly smaller than the size of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware combined.

In states like Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado there has been a rapid increase in the number of leases and the amount of acreage that the Bureau of Land Management is approving for oil and gas exploration. It is expected that coal-bed methane development will bring tens of thousands of wells in coming decades. The rapid growth is causing general unease in some areas because surface owners have few rights when it comes to oil and gas exploration on their land.

Too often surface owners have no idea that their minerals are owned by someone else or when they are going to be leased. The legislation I am introducing today is meant to better involve surface owners in the process of oil and gas exploration by requiring notification to surface owners when their land is going to be leased, require operators to replace any water that disrupts other users, and requires bonding for the reclamation of surface land. Surface owners should have a clear role in each step of the process from the day a lease sale is announced to the time when the rigs are gone and reclamation work is completed.

Critics of this measure will argue that it gets in the way of drilling. I would say that oil and gas drilling should not get in the way of farmers and ranchers going about their business without clear legal guidelines. The protection of private property rights is crucially important as a personal freedom in the U.S. and we must take steps to protect them.

I encourage members of this body to support this measure as we move forward because I believe that we can improve the way we conduct oil and gas leases on split estates. A better balance between oil and gas interests and surface owners is possible, but we need to make sure that we develop our energy resources in an appropriate manner with respect to private property owners.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. The reauthorization of this highly successful 10-year-old program would provide an additional $35 billion over the next 5 years to make sure that more of America's neediest children have access to one of their most basic needs--health care.

In fact, 6.6 million of our most vulnerable children--that is an increase of 3.2 million children--will be covered by this bill. I applaud the efforts of my senior Senator, Max Baucus, for leading the charge to cover more children.

Reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program is the right thing to do. Because of Max Baucus and the good work of the Finance Committee, almost 12,000 more children in Montana will have coverage this year. Montanans know just how well this program works. As president of the Montana Senate, I worked to increase the number of children eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program and pushed through full State funding of the Children's Health Insurance Program for Montana's children, expanding the enrollment from 10,900 to 13,900

children annually. As of this July, Montana's Children's Health Insurance Program is providing insurance for 14,304 children per month in the State of Montana.

It just makes sense. Only children who do not have private insurance are eligible. I am going to repeat that because I have heard contrary stuff on the floor. Only children who do not have private insurance are eligible for this program. No one is double-dipping, no one who has insurance can receive this coverage.

With this reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, we as a country are investing in our most valuable resource--our children. If children have regular checkups and receive the preventive care they need, they are sick less and in school more, and they grow up to be healthy, productive members of our society with less problems in middle age and healthier in their elderly years.

Mr. President, it is tough out there. Millions of children lack health insurance despite their parents' hard work and efforts to keep their heads above water. Many families cannot afford health insurance despite the fact that they have jobs. When it comes time for parents to pay the bills, health insurance comes after rent, food, clothing, utility bills, and gas for their car. Health insurance shouldn't be treated as a luxury, and access to health care shouldn't be a fantasy.

We must be focused on improving the overall quality of health care for low-income children. We know there are more children eligible for benefits than are currently enrolled. In order to find and provide coverage for those children, States should be able to use the information from food stamp programs, free and reduced lunches, and other initiatives in place for low-income families. Up to now, these programs could not share information, so those with the greatest need would have to apply for each program separately.

This Children's Health Insurance Program before us increases funding and outreach and enrollment efforts to find these uninsured kids. This is especially critical in rural States--rural States such as Montana. Rural children are more likely to be poor and less likely to have access to employer-based health plans even though most of their parents are employed. Nearly one-third of the kids in rural America rely upon CHIP and Medicare. The need is clear: Without children's health insurance, they would be uninsured.

There have been a lot of stories shared today on the floor. I want to share another one, of a fellow Montanan. Duran ``Junior'' Caferro from Helena, MT, is a boxer and has been fighting for 10 years. He is ranked in the 125-pound weight class and will compete in the Olympic trials next month in Houston, TX. Duran is also an enrolled member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe. His father, who works with at-risk youth, does not have health insurance and can't afford coverage for himself or his son. Helena has an urban Indian health clinic but not an Indian Health Service hospital, so Duran doesn't have access to emergency and hospital services with his IHS health benefits.

CHIP has allowed him to have a choice in where he receives medical care, and he recognizes the value of this coverage. When asked about CHIP, he said the following:

It is important that I have Children's Health Insurance

Program because I don't have to be afraid to push myself when

I'm training or fighting. It gives me one less thing to worry

about.

If Duran wins this tournament in Houston this summer, he will be a member of the U.S. Olympic boxing team. He will turn 19 soon and will age-out of CHIP. He expects to become uninsured because he and his dad are still struggling and can't afford to buy private health insurance.

Some may doubt the cost-effectiveness of this program, but this bill not only helps low-income children, it also helps middle America. Why is that the case? Because the coverage made available to low-income kids lowers the number of emergency room visits of uninsured children. Emergency room doctors no longer serve as primary care physicians for the uninsured, and that lowers the cost of health care for the rest of America--the middle class--who currently cover the cost of the uninsured emergency room visits.

We all know that the middle class is feeling the pinch too. If we can lower health costs for them and provide health care to more of our kids, it is a win-win.

The way to ensure the continued strength of our country for future generations is to improve the future of our most valuable asset--our young people--and this bill which reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program does just that.

Once again, I thank the senior Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, and the Finance Committee for championing this bill. They did some outstanding work. Hopefully, we will continue that work on the floor here tomorrow. We must pass this bill, and I urge my colleagues and the President to support it.

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