Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that I and my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, have introduced yesterday. This bill already enjoys strong bi-partisan support--Senator Craig and I are joined by over 50 other co-sponsors, both Democrat and Republican.

This bill will correct a significant injustice that threatens the viability of a lawful United States industry, the firearms industry. An increasing number of lawsuits are being filed against the firearms industry seeking damages for wrongs committed by third persons who misuse the industry's products. These lawsuits seek to impose liability on lawful businesses for the actions of people over whom the firearms industry has no control.

This is just outrageous. Businesses that comply with all applicable Federal and State laws, that produce a product fit for its intended lawful purpose--be it elk hunting, duck hunting, target shooting or for personal protection--should not be subject to frivolous lawsuits that have only one goal--to put them out of business. This an unacceptable burden on lawful interstate commerce.

That's why Senator Craig and I have introduced the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The bill is carefully tailored to bar actions against firearms manufacturers or dealers that are based solely on the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms by third parties. The bill would not block legitimate actions against the firearms industry for cases involving defective firearms, breaches of contract, criminal behavior by a firearm manufacturer or seller, or the negligent entrustment of a firearm to an irresponsible person.

This is only fair and right. The U.S. firearms industry serves America's gun owners and sportsmen well, and provides good-paying jobs for many Americans. They shouldn't be penalized just for legally producing or selling a product that functions as designed and intended.

I would ask all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. It is very important that we take up and pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer, along with Senator Craig, much needed trade legislation. I also want to thank Senators Bayh and Rockefeller for their support for this legislation.

The bill that we are introducing would create a Commission to review decisions of the World Trade Organization.

Why is this legislation necessary? Simply put--we must ensure that the United States is getting the benefit of the agreements we negotiated.

WTO panels have handed down several decisions recently that go well beyond the scope of their authority. These decisions have had a wide- ranging impact, undermining our ability to use antidumping and safeguard laws and calling major portions of the U.S. tax code into question.

Most recently, the WTO ruled that the so-called ``Byrd Amendment'' violates WTO rules. In fact, the Byrd Amendment simply takes duties collected on unfairly traded products out of the U.S. Treasury and redistributes them to companies and workers hurt by that unfair trade.

The Byrd Amendment adds no burden whatsoever on imports. But despite this, a WTO panel has inexplicably ruled that this law imposes an impermissible penalty for dumping.

I would note here that the Administration has proposed repealing the Byrd Amendment. I strongly oppose that. And so does an overwhelming majority of the Senate.

In fact, last month 70 Senators sent a letter to the President in support of this important law.

Another area that I have great concerns about involves the softwood lumber dispute. The WTO currently found that Canada subsidizes its lumber industry, and I applaud that decision.

But then the WTO undercut the benefits of that decision. They ruled that when determining a market price, Commerce must use the subsidy- distorted Canadian timber prices rather than the market-based U.S. prices. This practice is wholly inconsistent with previous WTO practice.

We need to start seriously examining why it is that we are losing these and other cases.

In my view, it is because WTO panels have ceased intepreting our trade agreements and have begun legislating. Instead of following the rules, they are flouting the rules. And they are substituting their own judgment in place of carefully negotiated principles.

In the process, they are eroding U.S. trade laws, taking away rights the U.S. bargained for, and imposing new obligations we never agreed to accept.

Just as troubling, they are doing so mostly under the radar of Congress and the American public.

The purpose of the legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing is to open the performance of WTO panels to public debate.

Under the legislation, the President, in consultation with Congress, would create a Commission by appointing 5 retired federal appellate judges to serve 5-year terms.

The Commission would review WTO decisions adverse to the United States to examine whether the panelists have exceeded their authority. The Commissioners would then report their findings to Congress.

Increasing the transparency of the WTO in this manner is entirely consistent with the Administration's stated objectives. It would also allow us to discuss openly and fairly whether the WTO is working as it should.

The legislation offers something for everyone. If the Commission finds that the WTO is applying the rules properly it will silence critics--and perhaps earn converts.

But if the WTO is in fact straying beyond the carefully negotiated boundaries of our trade agreements, Congress needs to have the oversight in place so that we can remedy the situation.

I understand and support the need for a global trading system. But we need to ensure that the WTO is respecting the limits of its authority and honestly applying the rules under which it operates.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer, along with Senator Craig, much needed trade legislation. I also want to thank Senators Bayh and Rockefeller for their support for this legislation.

The bill that we are introducing would create a Commission to review decisions of the World Trade Organization.

Why is this legislation necessary? Simply put--we must ensure that the United States is getting the benefit of the agreements we negotiated.

WTO panels have handed down several decisions recently that go well beyond the scope of their authority. These decisions have had a wide- ranging impact, undermining our ability to use antidumping and safeguard laws and calling major portions of the U.S. tax code into question.

Most recently, the WTO ruled that the so-called ``Byrd Amendment'' violates WTO rules. In fact, the Byrd Amendment simply takes duties collected on unfairly traded products out of the U.S. Treasury and redistributes them to companies and workers hurt by that unfair trade.

The Byrd Amendment adds no burden whatsoever on imports. But despite this, a WTO panel has inexplicably ruled that this law imposes an impermissible penalty for dumping.

I would note here that the Administration has proposed repealing the Byrd Amendment. I strongly oppose that. And so does an overwhelming majority of the Senate.

In fact, last month 70 Senators sent a letter to the President in support of this important law.

Another area that I have great concerns about involves the softwood lumber dispute. The WTO currently found that Canada subsidizes its lumber industry, and I applaud that decision.

But then the WTO undercut the benefits of that decision. They ruled that when determining a market price, Commerce must use the subsidy- distorted Canadian timber prices rather than the market-based U.S. prices. This practice is wholly inconsistent with previous WTO practice.

We need to start seriously examining why it is that we are losing these and other cases.

In my view, it is because WTO panels have ceased intepreting our trade agreements and have begun legislating. Instead of following the rules, they are flouting the rules. And they are substituting their own judgment in place of carefully negotiated principles.

In the process, they are eroding U.S. trade laws, taking away rights the U.S. bargained for, and imposing new obligations we never agreed to accept.

Just as troubling, they are doing so mostly under the radar of Congress and the American public.

The purpose of the legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing is to open the performance of WTO panels to public debate.

Under the legislation, the President, in consultation with Congress, would create a Commission by appointing 5 retired federal appellate judges to serve 5-year terms.

The Commission would review WTO decisions adverse to the United States to examine whether the panelists have exceeded their authority. The Commissioners would then report their findings to Congress.

Increasing the transparency of the WTO in this manner is entirely consistent with the Administration's stated objectives. It would also allow us to discuss openly and fairly whether the WTO is working as it should.

The legislation offers something for everyone. If the Commission finds that the WTO is applying the rules properly it will silence critics--and perhaps earn converts.

But if the WTO is in fact straying beyond the carefully negotiated boundaries of our trade agreements, Congress needs to have the oversight in place so that we can remedy the situation.

I understand and support the need for a global trading system. But we need to ensure that the WTO is respecting the limits of its authority and honestly applying the rules under which it operates.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to again join with my friend, Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues, in introducing legislation to make a permanent commitment to research-intensive businesses in the United States. This legislation is bipartisan and bicameral. A companion bill was introduced in January in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Robert Matsui.

Every morning we here news of some new product or discovery that promises to make our jobs easier or our lives better. Many of these innovations started with a business decision to hire needed researchers and finance the expensive and long process of research and experimentation. Since 1981, when the R&D tax credit was first enacted, the federal government was a partner in that business endeavor because of the potential spillover benefits to society overall from additional research spending.

Research has shown that a tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&D. The General Accounting Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and others have all found significant evidence that a tax credit stimulates additional domestic R&D spending by U.S. companies. A reported by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, indicates that economists generally agree that, without government support, firm investment in R&D would fall short of the socially optimal amount and thus CRS advocates government policies to boost private sector R&D.

R&D is linked to broader economic and labor benefits. R&D lays the foundation for technological innovation, which, in turn, is an important driving force in long-term economic growth--mainly through its impact on the productivity of capital and labor. We have many times heard testimony from economists, including Federal Research Board Alan Greenspan, that the reason our economy grew at such breakneck speed during the 1990s stemmed from the productivity growth we realized thanks to technological innovations.

There has been a belief that companies would continue to increase their research spending and that the benefits of these investments on the economy and labor markets would continue without end. Unfortunately, that is not the case. New data compiled by Battelle Memorial Institute and R&D Magazine project that for 2003, U.S. company spending on research will be mostly flat for the second year in a row. According to this report, companies plan a 0.1 percent increase in R&D spending in 2003. Spending in 2002 rose a mere 0.3 percent over 2001 levels. This compares to 2001 when R&D spending grew by 5 percent over the previous year. Those numbers should be a wake up call for all of us. As research spending falls, so too will the level of future economic growth.

It is also important to recognize that many of our foreign competitors are offering permanent and generous incentives to firms that attract research dollars to those countries. A 2001 study by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ranked the U.S. ninth behind other nations in terms of its incentives for business R&D spending. Countries that provide more generous R&D incentives include Spain, Canada, Portugal, Austria, Australia, Netherlands, France, and Korea. The United Kingdom was added to this list in 2002 when it further expanded its existing R&D incentives program. The continued absence of a long-term U.S. government R&D policy that encourages U.S.-based R&D will undermine the ability of American companies to remain competitive in U.S. and foreign markets. This disparity could limit U.S. competitiveness relative to its trading partners in the long-run.

Also, U.S. workers who are engaged in R&D activities currently benefit

from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high- skilled jobs in the economy. My own State of Montana is an excellent example of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage of less than $20,000 per year during the same year. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&D credit. While there may not be an immediate rush to move all projects and jobs offshore, there has been movement at the margins on those projects that are most cost-sensitive. Once those projects and jobs are gone, it will be many years before companies will have any incentive to bring them back to the United States.

We continue to grapple with the need to stimulate economic growth and advance policies that represent solid long-term investments that will reap benefits for many years to come. Senator Hatch and I repeatedly have pointed to the R&E tax credit as a measure that gives us a good ``bang for our buck.'' I hope this year we can enact a permanent tax credit that is effective and more widely available. I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort.

As we have in years past, our proposal would make the current research and experimentation tax credit permanent and increase the Alternative Incremental Research Credit, AIRC, rates. This year we take one additional but necessary step.

We propose a new alternative simplified credit that will allow taxpayers to elect to calculate the R&D credit under new computational rules that will eliminate the present-law distortions caused by gross receipts.

There is no good policy reason to make research more expensive for some industries than for others. While the regular R&E tax credit works very well for many companies, as the credit's base period recedes and business cycles change, the current credit is out of reach for some other firms that still incur significant research expenditures. To help solve part of this problem Congress enacted the AIRC in 1996 and now we propose a way to address the rest of that problem.

Under current law, both the regular credit and the AIRC are calculated by reference to a taxpayer's gross receipts, a benchmark that can produce inequities and anomalous results. For example, many taxpayers are no longer able to qualify for the regular credit, despite substantial R&D investments, because their R&D spending relative to gross receipts has not kept pace with the ratio set in the 1984-88 base period, which governs calculation of the regular credit. This can happen, for example, simply where a company's sales increase significantly in the intervening years, where a company enters into an additional line of business that generates additional gross receipts but involves little R&D, or where a company becomes more efficient in its R&D processes.

Our proposal would correct this by allowing taxpayers a straightforward alternative research credit election. Taxpayers could elect, in lieu of the regular credit or the AIRC, a credit that would equal 12 percent of the excess of the taxpayer's current year qualified research expenditures, ``QREs'', over 50 percent of the taxpayer's average QREs for the 3 preceding years. Unlike the regular credit and the AIRC, this credit calculation does not involve gross receipts.

The R&D tax credit has proven it can be an effective incentive. We need to act to make it a permanent part of the tax code that U.S. businesses can rely on. The best thing we can do for our long-term economic well-being is to stoke the engine of growth--technology, high- wage jobs and productivity. I look forward to working with Sen. Hatch and all my colleagues on this important issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act.

Rural America has been experiencing some hard times. Drought, low prices, and an economic downturn have left agricultural producers in dire straits and have left rural economies reeling. Farmers and ranchers are the life blood to rural economies, and when agriculture is hurting, rural America hurts. Small towns are dying, stores on Main Street are closing and farmers are leaving their land.

Congress has worked hard to help our nation's agricultural producers, but with this bill, we are giving them the tools to help themselves. This package includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts, otherwise known as FFARRM Accounts. These farmer savings accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income to a savings account, and deduct it in the same year. FFARRM accounts would be a very important risk management tool to help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that in the really bad times there would be a safety net.

This legislation also reverses unfair IRS decisions on self- employment tax for farmers. Farmers who participate in the Conservation Reserve Program are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pursued by the IRS. The latest 6th-Circuit Court ruling treats CRP as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, but it also discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. The bill also includes a provision to reverse an IRS attempt to apply the self-employment tax on farmers' cash rental income.

Also included in the package is a provision to hold farmers harmless from the Alternative Minimum Tax when they use income averaging. When Congress passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, it neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. This legislation will fix this growing problem.

It also contains an expansion of first-time farmer loans, or Aggie Bonds. This expands opportunities for beginning farmers who need low- interest rate loans for purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits state authorities to issue tax-exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, Aggie Bonds are subjected to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie Bonds share few similarities to Industrial Revenue Bonds and should not be subjected to the volume cap established for IRBs. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program.

Farmer co-op initiatives are also included. Recently the IRS determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value-added practices. The bill also would permit small cooperative producers of ethanol to receive the same tax benefits as large companies.

Another important provision provides tax relief for ranchers that are forced to sell their livestock on account of drought. The bill gives producers the time they need to reinvest proceeds tax-free when drought makes it impossible to feed their herds.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this crucial piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to again join with my friend, Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues, in introducing legislation to make a permanent commitment to research-intensive businesses in the United States. This legislation is bipartisan and bicameral. A companion bill was introduced in January in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Robert Matsui.

Every morning we here news of some new product or discovery that promises to make our jobs easier or our lives better. Many of these innovations started with a business decision to hire needed researchers and finance the expensive and long process of research and experimentation. Since 1981, when the R&D tax credit was first enacted, the federal government was a partner in that business endeavor because of the potential spillover benefits to society overall from additional research spending.

Research has shown that a tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&D. The General Accounting Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and others have all found significant evidence that a tax credit stimulates additional domestic R&D spending by U.S. companies. A reported by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, indicates that economists generally agree that, without government support, firm investment in R&D would fall short of the socially optimal amount and thus CRS advocates government policies to boost private sector R&D.

R&D is linked to broader economic and labor benefits. R&D lays the foundation for technological innovation, which, in turn, is an important driving force in long-term economic growth--mainly through its impact on the productivity of capital and labor. We have many times heard testimony from economists, including Federal Research Board Alan Greenspan, that the reason our economy grew at such breakneck speed during the 1990s stemmed from the productivity growth we realized thanks to technological innovations.

There has been a belief that companies would continue to increase their research spending and that the benefits of these investments on the economy and labor markets would continue without end. Unfortunately, that is not the case. New data compiled by Battelle Memorial Institute and R&D Magazine project that for 2003, U.S. company spending on research will be mostly flat for the second year in a row. According to this report, companies plan a 0.1 percent increase in R&D spending in 2003. Spending in 2002 rose a mere 0.3 percent over 2001 levels. This compares to 2001 when R&D spending grew by 5 percent over the previous year. Those numbers should be a wake up call for all of us. As research spending falls, so too will the level of future economic growth.

It is also important to recognize that many of our foreign competitors are offering permanent and generous incentives to firms that attract research dollars to those countries. A 2001 study by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ranked the U.S. ninth behind other nations in terms of its incentives for business R&D spending. Countries that provide more generous R&D incentives include Spain, Canada, Portugal, Austria, Australia, Netherlands, France, and Korea. The United Kingdom was added to this list in 2002 when it further expanded its existing R&D incentives program. The continued absence of a long-term U.S. government R&D policy that encourages U.S.-based R&D will undermine the ability of American companies to remain competitive in U.S. and foreign markets. This disparity could limit U.S. competitiveness relative to its trading partners in the long-run.

Also, U.S. workers who are engaged in R&D activities currently benefit

from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high- skilled jobs in the economy. My own State of Montana is an excellent example of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage of less than $20,000 per year during the same year. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&D credit. While there may not be an immediate rush to move all projects and jobs offshore, there has been movement at the margins on those projects that are most cost-sensitive. Once those projects and jobs are gone, it will be many years before companies will have any incentive to bring them back to the United States.

We continue to grapple with the need to stimulate economic growth and advance policies that represent solid long-term investments that will reap benefits for many years to come. Senator Hatch and I repeatedly have pointed to the R&E tax credit as a measure that gives us a good ``bang for our buck.'' I hope this year we can enact a permanent tax credit that is effective and more widely available. I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort.

As we have in years past, our proposal would make the current research and experimentation tax credit permanent and increase the Alternative Incremental Research Credit, AIRC, rates. This year we take one additional but necessary step.

We propose a new alternative simplified credit that will allow taxpayers to elect to calculate the R&D credit under new computational rules that will eliminate the present-law distortions caused by gross receipts.

There is no good policy reason to make research more expensive for some industries than for others. While the regular R&E tax credit works very well for many companies, as the credit's base period recedes and business cycles change, the current credit is out of reach for some other firms that still incur significant research expenditures. To help solve part of this problem Congress enacted the AIRC in 1996 and now we propose a way to address the rest of that problem.

Under current law, both the regular credit and the AIRC are calculated by reference to a taxpayer's gross receipts, a benchmark that can produce inequities and anomalous results. For example, many taxpayers are no longer able to qualify for the regular credit, despite substantial R&D investments, because their R&D spending relative to gross receipts has not kept pace with the ratio set in the 1984-88 base period, which governs calculation of the regular credit. This can happen, for example, simply where a company's sales increase significantly in the intervening years, where a company enters into an additional line of business that generates additional gross receipts but involves little R&D, or where a company becomes more efficient in its R&D processes.

Our proposal would correct this by allowing taxpayers a straightforward alternative research credit election. Taxpayers could elect, in lieu of the regular credit or the AIRC, a credit that would equal 12 percent of the excess of the taxpayer's current year qualified research expenditures, ``QREs'', over 50 percent of the taxpayer's average QREs for the 3 preceding years. Unlike the regular credit and the AIRC, this credit calculation does not involve gross receipts.

The R&D tax credit has proven it can be an effective incentive. We need to act to make it a permanent part of the tax code that U.S. businesses can rely on. The best thing we can do for our long-term economic well-being is to stoke the engine of growth--technology, high- wage jobs and productivity. I look forward to working with Sen. Hatch and all my colleagues on this important issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act.

Rural America has been experiencing some hard times. Drought, low prices, and an economic downturn have left agricultural producers in dire straits and have left rural economies reeling. Farmers and ranchers are the life blood to rural economies, and when agriculture is hurting, rural America hurts. Small towns are dying, stores on Main Street are closing and farmers are leaving their land.

Congress has worked hard to help our nation's agricultural producers, but with this bill, we are giving them the tools to help themselves. This package includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts, otherwise known as FFARRM Accounts. These farmer savings accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income to a savings account, and deduct it in the same year. FFARRM accounts would be a very important risk management tool to help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that in the really bad times there would be a safety net.

This legislation also reverses unfair IRS decisions on self- employment tax for farmers. Farmers who participate in the Conservation Reserve Program are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pursued by the IRS. The latest 6th-Circuit Court ruling treats CRP as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, but it also discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. The bill also includes a provision to reverse an IRS attempt to apply the self-employment tax on farmers' cash rental income.

Also included in the package is a provision to hold farmers harmless from the Alternative Minimum Tax when they use income averaging. When Congress passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, it neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. This legislation will fix this growing problem.

It also contains an expansion of first-time farmer loans, or Aggie Bonds. This expands opportunities for beginning farmers who need low- interest rate loans for purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits state authorities to issue tax-exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, Aggie Bonds are subjected to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie Bonds share few similarities to Industrial Revenue Bonds and should not be subjected to the volume cap established for IRBs. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program.

Farmer co-op initiatives are also included. Recently the IRS determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value-added practices. The bill also would permit small cooperative producers of ethanol to receive the same tax benefits as large companies.

Another important provision provides tax relief for ranchers that are forced to sell their livestock on account of drought. The bill gives producers the time they need to reinvest proceeds tax-free when drought makes it impossible to feed their herds.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this crucial piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a young man from Missoula, MT, who was killed when the Army helicopter he was riding in crashed in the remote woods of New York State during a training exercise. PFC Stoutenburg was among the 11 people in his 13-person unit killed in the Black Hawk crash. PFC Stoutenburg was only 18 years old.

Like his fellow men and women in uniform, PFC Stoutenburg dedicated his life to defending our country and upholding the principles it was founded upon. As a member of the 10th Mountain Division based at Fort Drum, NY, he trained not only to defend the United States against aggressors but also to uphold our country's greatest values--freedom, liberty, equality, and democracy.

PFC Stoutenburg's sacrifices for his State and country make all of us proud to be Montanans and Americans. He truly did his part to hold the bright torch during the dark night that will guide the way to a brighter day of democracy and stability around the world. His tragic death is a reminder that our freedom is the result of the courageous men and women who everyday face great risk while defending our country.

PFC Stryder Stoutenburg is survived by his mother Jane; maternal grandmother, Joyce Sleep of Dade City, FL; two sisters, Laurel Miller of Middletown, NY, and Joyce Rodriguez of Harrisonburg, VA; and two nieces and two nephews.

Madam President, I walked over to the floor without realizing we were giving a testament to General Lenhardt. But I could not agree more with the words I heard from Senator Daschle, as well as the words from Senator Reid of Nevada. It is true, as I reflect upon it, that I know of no man who contributed greater service for his country than Al Lenhardt. He is such a professional. He is such a gentleman. He is so good. We trust him so much. We are so lucky that he was our Sergeant at Arms during the tragic times the Capitol family has been through the last couple of years.

I know we are all extremely proud of him and we will have very fond memories of his service here. I say to General Lenhardt, you are a great man, and we appreciate your service.

Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my support for our brave men and women who are on the front lines protecting America as we work to eliminate terrorism. . . . To pledge my support for the United States and all that our country represents: democracy, freedom of speech and religion, independence of thought. . . . And to pledge my support for our leaders and our free and open elections that allow democracy to thrive.

I also rise today to urge and insist that throughout the ongoing situation with Iraq, we remember our underlying goal: To protect our country from weapons of mass destruction and terrorist threats and stop those who provide assistance to terrorist operations. In order to fully accomplish these goals, we need the support and assistance of the broadest possible worldwide coalition of our allies.

It's not in our Nation's interest to establish arbitrary deadlines to force us to act without the support of others. This is not the time to isolate our country by moving into a unilateral war against Iraq.

A war that could result in massive casualties and long term devastation. A war that has the likely potential of increasing terrorist threats against our Nation.

There is no question that the United States has the ability and the right to take necessary action to protect our country. But we should not burn bridges--bridges that we will surely need down the road--in our rush to war with Iraq.

There is no debate that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein must come to an end. He has a long history of attacking and murdering his own people, employing chemical and biological weapons, and continually defying the limits set forth by the UN. There have been reported links between Iraq and terrorist activity, although no link has been established between Iraq and the events of September 11. The Iraqi people and the global community deserve to be free from a cruel dictator and the threat to safety that he represents. The credibility of the United Nations and of America is on the line.

We must take the time to fully weigh the risks and costs associated with unilateral action against the results we will achieve. The threat Iraq poses is not imminent, at least not so imminent that we can't continue with another week, or another month, of negotiations to garner the support of members of the United Nations Security Council.

The clock is ticking, but the alarm has not yet rung. I encourage the administration to continue inspections beyond their self-imposed March 17 deadline. In these final critical minutes, we have the opportunity to lay out hard and fast, mutually agreed upon benchmarks for Hussein to meet--or not meet--to determine his fate. Britain laid out definitive steps yesterday, such as allowing Iraq scientists to be interviewed abroad, destroying banned weapons and providing documentary evidence of any such destruction in the past.

While support for their resolution has not been overwhelming, it is important to continue along this path. Indeed, it is critical. We must both provide assistance to Britain, our strongest ally, while employing every resource at our command to garner Security Council support.

As the world's superpower, it is not only our responsibility, but it is in our best interest to lead. It's our responsibility to walk with and secure the support of our allies. The decisions we make in the coming days will have global reverberations and I am hopeful we won't have to endure the impacts alone.

In the case that unilateral military action is decided upon, the ramifications, lengthy reconstruction process and costs involved must be addressed. There are numerous reports that a war with Iraq will be a relatively short operation. But what follows in a month, in 6 months, in a year?

If the United States chooses to go it alone in Iraq and forsakes the support of a majority of our allies, the hurdles

and pitfalls will be numerous. And the likelihood of long term success and stability will be diminished. If we are successful in our mission to remove Saddam, a successor will need to be determined. The likelihood of Iraq becoming a democracy in our lifetime is unlikely. Even with the ousting of Saddam, we must be prepared and accepting of a moderate Arab government similar to others in the region.

The cost of rebuilding the country will be enormous, both in terms of money and manpower. From ensuring the Iraqi children can obtain clean water to establishing a forum for a free and open government to thrive. Are we willing to take those costs solely upon ourselves?

We must also be ready to focus our resources on the stability of the entire Middle East region and Muslim world. We need a comprehensive policy of economic engagement, one that includes expanded trade.

We should consider a trade benefits program similar to what we currently do for Africa, the Caribbean, and the Andean countries. In order to achieve long-term stability and reduce the terrorist threat, we will need to engage the entire region. And we will need our allies to assist in this engagement.

It's time to face facts. Our country is facing a troubling economy, unemployment, low growth, large national debt. Interest rates can't go much lower.

If we continue to disregard the concerns of other Security Council members and move forward with only a small band of countries that support immediate military action, the lion's share of the costs and military burden will fall on America's shoulders. Where will this money come from. How long must our troops be away from their families-- months, years, decades? We must be fully prepared for this scenario before we move forward.

We are all in agreement that Saddam Hussein is a bad man and the threat he poses cannot be disregarded. While I unequivocally support removing Hussein from power, knowing that he is a peril to the region and the world, I urge that we move forward with a strong coalition of support. The clock is running down, but there is still time to gather our allies. Our long term interests--on every front--will be best achieved by standing together, united behind our common goal of eliminating terrorism and keeping our countries safe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-Russia Trade Act of 2003.

This legislation would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia. However--and I want to be very clear about this point--this legislation would also ensure that Congress retains proper oversight of negotiations to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization.

Congress typically grants PNTR to a Jackson-Vanik country only when that country is about to join the WTO. This is, for example, exactly what Congress did when China joined the WTO.

The Administration and some of my colleagues have suggested that Congress should grant PNTR to Russia

prior to their joining the WTO. If we are going to do down this path, we must ensure that there is adequate Congressional oversight.

This legislation would ensure Congressional involvement in the following way: after negotiations are completed, Congress would be guaranteed a vote on a resolution to disapprove of Russia's joining the WTO, if such a resolution is introduced.

Congress has a key role to play in negotiating an agreement on Russia's entering the WTO. China's WTO accession demonstrates this. The Administration was able to obtain a better deal with China because of Congressional involvement.

And there are some real concerns with Russia. The Russian government has announced that it plans to add additional restrictions on imports of U.S. agricultural products, including poultry, pork, and beef. That's unacceptable, and it is behavior that should not be rewarded.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress continues to have an important role in Russia's accession to the WTO.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-Russia Trade Act of 2003.

This legislation would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia. However--and I want to be very clear about this point--this legislation would also ensure that Congress retains proper oversight of negotiations to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization.

Congress typically grants PNTR to a Jackson-Vanik country only when that country is about to join the WTO. This is, for example, exactly what Congress did when China joined the WTO.

The Administration and some of my colleagues have suggested that Congress should grant PNTR to Russia

prior to their joining the WTO. If we are going to do down this path, we must ensure that there is adequate Congressional oversight.

This legislation would ensure Congressional involvement in the following way: after negotiations are completed, Congress would be guaranteed a vote on a resolution to disapprove of Russia's joining the WTO, if such a resolution is introduced.

Congress has a key role to play in negotiating an agreement on Russia's entering the WTO. China's WTO accession demonstrates this. The Administration was able to obtain a better deal with China because of Congressional involvement.

And there are some real concerns with Russia. The Russian government has announced that it plans to add additional restrictions on imports of U.S. agricultural products, including poultry, pork, and beef. That's unacceptable, and it is behavior that should not be rewarded.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress continues to have an important role in Russia's accession to the WTO.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express a little home State pride. It was described as ``Monte Madness.''

For months, Montanans logged on to the Internet to cast their votes. Billboards hailed his name. Communities rallied around him. Montana's political leaders backed him. And our State beamed with pride on January 1 when the University of Montana's Monte the Grizzly was crowned Capital One National Mascot of the Year.

For the first time, mascots across the country competed in an online election for the right to represent their school in national competition. Monte faced stiff competition from mascots like Penn State's Nittany Lion and the University of Florida's Albert the Gator. In the end, Monte won the distinguished title, earning the UM mascot program $10,000 and a lot of national exposure.

Monte is known for his athletic prowess, his slick dance moves, and his knack for firing up Griz fans. It's easy to understand why Missoula Mayor Mike Kadas declared February 1 as Monte Day.

The highflying mascot is an unsung hero of the University of Montana and a valuable member of the Missoula community. There is no doubt Monte is the hardest working mascot in collegiate athletics. He deserves the national recognition. He is the most spirited, most athletic, hardest hitting, best crowd surfing mascot ever to grace a college campus.

I endorsed Monte during his election because he is a mascot for the right reasons--to win ball games and boost Montana athletics.

But Monte is not only a Montana treasure on the field, he is committed to giving back to our communities. Monte often attends parades, community events, and gives his time to help others. He donated $1,000 he received from the national exposure to Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Missoula.

Monte makes us all very proud to be Montanans. May he wear his crown for all to see and ride his Griz-colored Harley for many years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Carroll College Saints football team and to congratulate them on their NAIA National Championship.

As you can see, Montana has much to be proud of.

Carroll College is a 4-year college located in Helena, MT, and was ranked as the fourth best western regional comprehensive college by U.S. News and World Report.

In a game that became part of Montana sports legend, the Carroll Saints crushed their opponent, the two-time defending national champion Georgetown Tigers 28-7. The Saints pounded the Tigers in Tennessee and the echoes reached living rooms throughout Montana. We love football in Montana and the Saints gave us a team to be proud to cheer for and follow.

Although the game was magical, magic played no part in the Saints' success. Teamwork, amazing leadership from Coach Mike Van Diest, and hard work, in the weight room, on the field, and in the classroom, led this group of honorable young men through a solid season and an incredible string of playoff games.

Montana's college football teams recruit heavily from the state and many Montanan seniors led this legendary team. Darold Debolt from Great Falls, Casey Fitzsimmons from Chestor, Nick Garreffa from Billings, Chris Jones from Helena, Luke Lagomasino from Lincoln, Shane Larson from Miles City, Tyler Maxwell from Helena, Cory Perzinski from Billings, Nick Porrini from Helena, and Heath Wall from Belt, all played their part in creating the unity and teamwork that this team displayed throughout the season.

The National Champion Saints' provided inspiration to all who followed them.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003. The chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, are also original sponsors of this legislation.

This legislation is very similar to the energy tax incentives bill which won overwhelming support on the Senate floor last April and provides a strong starting point for the Senate Finance Committee towards a mark-up of an energy tax bill.

The urgency for this legislation at this point in time is particularly critical. Gasoline prices in the U.S. are at record levels. Low inventories, high crude oil prices, recent cold weather and continuing industry concern about a possible war with Iraq have raised gas prices close to the highest price ever recorded. This situation is not expected to improve in the near future.

To help alleviate this situation, this bill proposes a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. This legislation begins from the premise that we may accomplish energy policy goals by targeting market incentives--in the form of tax deductions and credits--at certain investments. The bill would accomplish this in three ways. First, we create incentives for new production, especially production from important renewable sources. Second, we create incentives for the development of new technology. Third, we create incentives for energy conservation.

Through targeted market incentives we hope to encourage the development of alternative sources of production and technologies, thereby boosting our overall energy resources. This will help promote energy independence in the United States, which will contribute to both greater economic growth and national security. At the same time, by encouraging development of sources of renewable energy and energy efficiency, we will also encourage pollution reduction and improve human health and the environment.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003. The chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, are also original sponsors of this legislation.

This legislation is very similar to the energy tax incentives bill which won overwhelming support on the Senate floor last April and provides a strong starting point for the Senate Finance Committee towards a mark-up of an energy tax bill.

The urgency for this legislation at this point in time is particularly critical. Gasoline prices in the U.S. are at record levels. Low inventories, high crude oil prices, recent cold weather and continuing industry concern about a possible war with Iraq have raised gas prices close to the highest price ever recorded. This situation is not expected to improve in the near future.

To help alleviate this situation, this bill proposes a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. This legislation begins from the premise that we may accomplish energy policy goals by targeting market incentives--in the form of tax deductions and credits--at certain investments. The bill would accomplish this in three ways. First, we create incentives for new production, especially production from important renewable sources. Second, we create incentives for the development of new technology. Third, we create incentives for energy conservation.

Through targeted market incentives we hope to encourage the development of alternative sources of production and technologies, thereby boosting our overall energy resources. This will help promote energy independence in the United States, which will contribute to both greater economic growth and national security. At the same time, by encouraging development of sources of renewable energy and energy efficiency, we will also encourage pollution reduction and improve human health and the environment.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill I had introduced during the 107th Congress, which will provide for the use and distribution of judgment funds awarded to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in northeast Montana.

In 1987, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation brought suit against the United States to recover interest earned on their trust funds while those funds were in Special Deposit and IMPL-Agency accounts. The case was filed in the U.S. Claims court, and docketed as No. 773-87-L.

After the court ruled that the United States was liable to the Fort Peck Tribes and individual Indians for interest on those funds, the tribes and the United States reached an agreement for settling the claims in the case, for the sum of $4,522,551.84. The court approved the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement further provided that the judgment be divided between the Fort Peck Tribes and those individual Indians who are found to be eligible to share in the judgment. On January 31, 2001, the court approved a stipulation between the parties that defined the procedures by which the Fort Peck Tribes' and individual Indians' respective shares in the judgment would be determined and distributed to them.

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation in the case, on February 14, 2001, a portion of the tribe's share of the judgment was deposited into an account in Treasury for the use of the Fort Peck Tribes. As provided by the court-approved stipulation, those funds are to be available for immediate use by the tribe pursuant to a plan adopted under the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, 25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The court-approved stipulation further recognized that the tribe will most likely receive additional payments from this settlement once the work identifying all individuals eligible to share in the judgment is complete and the pro rata shares are finally computed. Those funds, too, are to be available for use by the tribe in accord with a plan adopted under the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act.

As required by the stipulation and the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, the tribe developed a plan for the use of the tribe's share of the settlement. Under the plan, the Tribe's share of the judgment will be used for tribal health, education, housing, and social services programs.

The tribe submitted its plan to the Department of the Interior for review and approval. Public hearings were held during which the views and recommendations of tribal members were heard regarding the plan. The tribe has been advised that the Department of Interior has no objection to the tribe's plan and can approve it. However, although the plan was developed and public hearing held during 2001, the Interior Department did not complete its review of the plan, nor submit the approved plan to Congress within the 1-year deadline imposed by the Tribal Judgment Fund Use or Distribution Act. As a result, in order for the Fort Peck Tribe to make use of the judgment awarded to the tribe, it is necessary for Congress to formally adopt legislation approving the tribe's plan. The proposed bill language, would serve this purpose.

This judgment is based on money that rightfully belongs to the Fort Peck tribes and should be moved expeditiously through Congress. I look forward to working with the Committee on Indian Affairs to move this legislation forward.