Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the chief of police of Loveland, CO, Tom Wagoner, for his distinguished career of service to the people of Loveland. Chief Wagoner was born in Minnesota and raised in eastern Illinois. After spending 2 years in the Army, he became a police officer and joined the Greeley, CO, Police Department in 1979. Having served in several positions in the Greeley Police Department, Chief Wagoner left Colorado in 1987 to be the police chief in Tullahoma, TN. Fortunately, it was not long before Chief Wagoner came back to Colorado to serve as the police chief in my hometown of Loveland in 1989. The city of Loveland has greatly benefited from his leadership. Over the course of his tenure, he made many additions to the department, including a mounted patrol unit, a motorcycle unit, a community policing program, and a new radio system. Chief Wagoner also presided over a move to a new police headquarters in 2002 and has ensured that the Loveland Police Department has received national accreditation since 1992. I thank Chief Wagoner for over 15 years of service to the citizens of Loveland. He leaves behind a difficult set of shoes to fill, and he will be missed.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I inquire what the regular order might be. I was scheduled to speak at 8:15. I am not entirely sure on the regular order.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my time right now as set aside for the majority is now being taken up by this discussion. I would like to have some time reserved for myself in the 30 minutes. Right now we have 6 or 7 or 8 speakers lined up, and so I want to have an opportunity to make my views known at some point in time. I think we need to establish regular order, and if both parties have agreed that it goes back over to the other side at 9 o'clock, I would like to have that extended out so that when we reach 9 o'clock then I can speak from 9 to 9:30.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his kind comments on the judicial nomination process. My thanks extend to all my colleagues tonight for their comments on the judicial nomination process and compromise negotiations. I rise to congratulate the 14 Senators who have indicated through a Memorandum of Understanding that they will no longer support a filibuster on 3 of President Bush's judicial nominees. This is a good first step toward a bipartisan resolution. My statement this evening is based on remarks that I prepared prior to the announcement of the judicial nomination compromise; however, the basic intent of my remarks has not changed even though the filibuster has been broken on three of the President's nominees. Tonight, I will address the qualifications of Priscilla Owen, and how important it is that we allow a yes or no vote on judicial nominees. All I ask for is an opportunity to have a yes or no vote on those judges that are pending before the Senate. I am concerned about the next step in the judicial nomination debate--where are we going to go from here when it comes to the filibuster? I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who wish to move forward and forget about finger pointing and blame--who voted for who, who voted for a filibuster and how many times did they vote against cloture. I just hope we do indeed move forward. I hope we will look at each judge that is before the Senate for confirmation and vote them up or down based on their qualifications. That is what our forefathers had in mind when the advise and consent. I join my colleagues in support of the nomination of Priscilla Owen, the Texas Supreme Court justice who was first nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2001 by President Bush. I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation and allow an up-or-down vote on her nomination. I hope that fairness prevails and that we do indeed proceed with a vote on her nomination, and it looks like that is indeed the way the events have unfolded this evening. I have had the opportunity to meet with Priscilla Owen personally. I don't know how many of my colleagues who oppose or who continue to oppose her have accepted her offer to visit with them, but I hope they will have the courtesy to meet her in person before deciding to refuse to offer her a fair up-or-down vote. If they do, they will quickly learn she is a person of integrity, humility, and possesses a keen understanding of the law. On a personal note, she is a wonderful human being. I was particularly impressed when she told me that growing up she hoped to be a veterinarian. As a veterinarian myself, you can understand why I was impressed. She spoke of growing up and participating in a family cattle ranching enterprise, helping her parents and grandparents during calving season, nursing and branding. There is something special about a person who has been kicked by a cow and swatted across the face with a dirty cow tail. It makes a person more real, more understanding of life and hard work. This is exactly the type of judge we need on the bench, one who understands real life, honest-living and hard-working people. Instead of defaming her, I wish my colleagues would get to know her so that they might recognize the legal skill and value she would bring to the United States as a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Priscilla Owen will uphold the law, not make the law. Some find this to be a problem. I find it to be a blessing. Priscilla Owen has served the law with distinction. A justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 1995, she received overwhelming approval from the people of Texas, 84 percent of whom voted to retain her service on the bench. Unlike many Members of the Senate, including myself, when it came time for the voters to decide whether or not she should remain on the bench, Ms. Owen received the endorsement of every major newspaper in the State of Texas. I ask, does that sound like someone who is too extreme? Priscilla Owen's life has not been limited to the law. She is a decent human being and dedicated community servant. She has worked to educate parents about the effect divorce has on children and worked to lessen the adversarial nature of legal proceedings when a marriage is dissolved. She works with the hearing impaired and organizations dedicated to service animals for those with disabilities. She teaches Sunday school and is committed to the poor and underprivileged. It is clear that she is qualified to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Justice Owen ``well qualified,'' its highest possible rating. She has the support of former Democrat justices on the Texas Supreme Court and 15 past presidents of the Texas State Bar. To say that she is not qualified is utterly ridiculous. Because her credentials are so outstanding, throughout this debate, the other side has relied on hyperbole and rhetoric, accusing her of being ``extreme'' in order to smear her nomination. So the question her nomination presents us, then, is whether she is extreme or qualified? The great thing about the Constitution is that it provides us with a mechanism to make this type of ``advice and consent'' determination on whether she is extreme or qualified--through a simple up-or-down vote. An up-or-down vote is a simple matter of fairness. Every judicial nominee that makes it out of the Judiciary Committee should receive an up or down vote. The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It is merely a parliamentary delay tactic that was relatively unused until modern times. In 214 years, never has a nominee with the majority of support of the United States Senate been denied a vote. Throughout the history of the United States, a nominee who clearly held the majority support of the Senate had never been defeated by the use of the filibuster--until now. During the last Congress those opposed to President Bush's nominees tried to establish a precedent by using the filibuster to block a nomination. Having witnessed what was taking place, I appealed to my colleagues to restore the fairness that this body and the American people deserve. That is why I am so excited about moving forward with 3 of the nominations, which includes Priscilla Owen, so we can have an up-or-down vote. Throughout this debate, I have consistently stated we must reach a compromise that allows an up-or-down vote on all nominees, while affording everybody an opportunity to be heard. This is not a partisan issue or flippant suggestion; it is simply a matter of fairness. If a nominee reaches the floor, then they should receive a vote--up or down. I don't believe there is anything wrong with providing a nominee an up- or-down vote once they reach the floor. Some in this body act as if the filibuster has been used before to kill a judicial nominee. But such actions are simply misguided. Every nominee with a majority of support has received an up-or-down vote-- every nominee for over 200 years. I do not take the confirmation of judicial nominations lightly, nor do my colleagues. But we must not twist the confirmation process into a partisan platform. Our fundamental duty to confirm the President's nominees is not an easy task. It carries with it the weight and responsibility of generations--a lifetime appointment to a position that requires a deep and mature understanding of the law. We were elected to the Senate by people who believed we would accomplish our fundamental duties--as representatives of the people to say yes or no to the President's nominees. I believe Members have a right to express their opinions. I also believe that Members have a right to a vote and that it is wrong to deny others of their opportunity to vote on judicial nominations. The debate is not about numbers. It is not about percentages--how many judges that Republicans confirmed or how many judges Democrats have confirmed. To frame this debate as a numbers fight is not being fair to the American people. We were not sent to Congress to focus on a numerical count, but instead to carry out our constitutional obligations, in this instance the advice and consent clause. Some Senators have come to the floor to argue that the advice and consent clause doesn't mean that we actually vote on nominees. They argue that a vote is only needed to confirm the nominee, but that other tactics can be used to disapprove the nominee. Unfortunately, these other tactics that have been used to kill a nomination have resulted in the obstruction of our constitutional duties. To help address this point, I will turn to a recent article published in the National Review, which discusses the meaning of the advise and consent clause through the eyes of our country's Founders. The article notes the appointment clause is listed as an explicit power vested in the executive. The advise and consent obligation follows this clause but it is in the article addressing executive powers. It is not listed in the article addressing legislative powers. The author believes that this is instructive because it helps us understand that the Founders intended the President to play the main role in the nomination process, not the legislature. Had the Founders intended the legislature to be the fulcrum, they would have listed the advise and consent clause as a fundamental duty in the article addressing legislative powers. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, had the Founders intended a 60-vote supermajority, they would have included the requirement in the Constitution the way they did on the treaty power clause. The clause on the treaty power, after mentioning ``advice and consent,'' requires concurrence by two-thirds of the Senators present. The clause on the appointment of ambassadors and others, including Supreme Court Justices, by contrast, does not. The author then pointed out several other provisions in the Constitution where a supermajority vote is required. In article I, section 3, two-thirds of Members present are required for Senate conviction for impeachment. In article I, section 5, two-thirds are required to expel a member of either House. Article I, section 7 requires two-thirds for overriding a Presidential veto. The fact that the Constitution explicitly requires two-thirds in some contexts indicates that the Senate's consent in article II, section 2 is by majority vote when no supermajority vote is required. The general rule is that majorities govern in a legislative body unless another rule is expressly provided. The article also cited a Supreme Court case noting that more than a century ago, in United States v. Ballin, that ``the general rule of parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. . . . No such limitation is found in the Federal Constitution and, therefore, the general law of such bodies obtains.'' In the author's own words: ``. . . the particular process in the Appointments Clause--of presidential nomination and Senate `consent' by a majority''--was carefully considered by the Constitutional Convention. A number of alternative processes for appointments were thoroughly considered--and rejected--by the Constitutional Convention. And this consideration took place over several months. The Constitutional Convention considered at least three alternative options to the final appointments clause: (1) placing the power in the President alone,(2) in the legislature alone, (3) in the legislature with the President's advice and consent. On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be ``appointed by the national Legislature,'' and that was rejected. Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a ``supermajority'' be required for judicial appointments, but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion ``that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,'' following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time. Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final appointments clause, making the President primary and the Senate alone secondary with the role of advise and consent. I am no lawyer, but to me if a document consistently states when a supermajority vote is required and silent when it is not required, that they meant to write it that way and it was not a mere oversight no supermajority was required for the approval of judicial nominees. Clearly, a supermajority was never intended, but what was intended was an up-or-down vote, a fair nonpartisan up-or-down vote. If a Member of the Senate disapproves of a judge, then let them vote against the nominee. I encourage them to express their dissatisfaction and vote no on the nominee. But do not deprive those of us in the Senate who support a nominee of our right to a vote. Do not deny an up- or-down vote entirely. Let's decide whether the Members of this body approve or disapprove of the nominees, and let's vote. Let's vote to show whether this body believes the nominees are unfit for service or out of the mainstream. I believe they have majority support--majority support from the elected representatives of the people. But let's vote and find out. It is our vote--the right of each Member to collectively participate in a show of advise and consent to the President--that exercises the remote choice of the people who sent us to Congress. Our three-branch system of government cannot function without an equally strong judiciary. It is through the courts that justice is served, rights protected, and that lawbreakers are sentenced for their crimes. Unfortunately, one out of four of President Bush's circuit nominees have been subjected to the filibuster, the worst confirmation of appellate court judges since the Roosevelt administration. The minority cannot willingly refuse to provide an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees without acknowledging that irreparable harm may be done to an equal branch of government. The decision to vote up or down on a nominee or deny that vote entirely pits the Constitution against parliamentary procedure. That is the Constitution versus the filibuster. I urge my colleagues to put their faith in the founding document and not in a filibuster. To do anything else dishonors the Constitution and relegates it to a mere rule of procedure. I am pleased that we have reached a common ground on three of the judicial nominees. I am pleased that we have recognized our duties as Members of this body to uphold the Constitution. But I would ask my colleagues for fairness as we move forward for the rest of the session, for the rest of this Congress, to put partisan politics aside and to fulfill our advise and consent obligations on all nominations. As we move through the rest of the Congress, let's vote up or down and end this debate about filibusters with honor. Mr. President, I am excited that we can now move forward. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it seems as though we need to do closing script, and if the Senator from Iowa will yield to me, I will be glad to do that formality.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1098, introduced earlier today by Senator Kennedy, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, May 24. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and that the Senate then return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; provided that the time until 11:40 a.m. be divided equally between the leaders or their designees, and the time from 11:40 a.m. to 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders; provided further that notwithstanding provisions of rule XXII, at 12 noon, the Senate proceed to the cloture vote on the Owen nomination, with the live quorum waived. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. At 12 noon, we will proceed to the cloture vote on the Owen nomination, and that will be the first vote of the day. Given the events of the day, it is expected cloture will be invoked on this well-qualified nominee. We have had 4 days of substantive debate on the nomination. It is our hope that once cloture is invoked, we can quickly move to a vote on confirmation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Harkin for up to 15 minutes, Senator Boxer for up to 15 minutes, Senator Leahy; provided, that Senator Kyl be also recognized prior to adjournment.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Vermont for speaking up. We certainly did not want to shortchange on his right to speak. I was glad to see when we got to the last part of the iteration we had the Senator from Vermont included.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is with much excitement and anticipation that I, along with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in the House of Representatives, introduce legislation known as ``The Arkansas Valley Conduit.'' This bill will ensure the expedited construction of a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal-Local cost share to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado. First introduced during the 107th Session of Congress and subsequently in the 108th, we have redrafted the legislation for the 109th Session to create a stronger stand-alone bill. Congresswoman Musgrave and I have worked hard to craft it so that it meets the needs of a region of Colorado that has suffered from decades of inadequate drinking water supplies. On the heels of one of the worst droughts in Colorado history, the Conduit will provide a dependable source of water to communities--water that will allow these communities to grow and prosper. By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal Government has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards. Several years ago, in an effort to resurrect the Conduit, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this effort, the people of the valley began to realize that the Conduit may one day be more than just a pipedream, and that Congress was serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Our legislation calls for a 80/20 Federal/Local cost share. This is a sizeable sum, but is a far cry from the estimated $640 million it would take to build new treatment facilities for each of the communities if the Conduit was not built. It requires cooperation of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local project participants. The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens of valley communities and tens-of-thousands of people along the river. Local community participants continue to explore options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the organization that will oversee the Conduit project. I applaud those in the community who have worked so hard for the past several years to make the Conduit a reality. Upon its completion, it will stand as testament to a pioneering vision and commitment to sensible water policy. With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is with much excitement and anticipation that I, along with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in the House of Representatives, introduce legislation known as ``The Arkansas Valley Conduit.'' This bill will ensure the expedited construction of a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal-Local cost share to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado. First introduced during the 107th Session of Congress and subsequently in the 108th, we have redrafted the legislation for the 109th Session to create a stronger stand-alone bill. Congresswoman Musgrave and I have worked hard to craft it so that it meets the needs of a region of Colorado that has suffered from decades of inadequate drinking water supplies. On the heels of one of the worst droughts in Colorado history, the Conduit will provide a dependable source of water to communities--water that will allow these communities to grow and prosper. By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal Government has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards. Several years ago, in an effort to resurrect the Conduit, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this effort, the people of the valley began to realize that the Conduit may one day be more than just a pipedream, and that Congress was serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Our legislation calls for a 80/20 Federal/Local cost share. This is a sizeable sum, but is a far cry from the estimated $640 million it would take to build new treatment facilities for each of the communities if the Conduit was not built. It requires cooperation of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local project participants. The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens of valley communities and tens-of-thousands of people along the river. Local community participants continue to explore options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the organization that will oversee the Conduit project. I applaud those in the community who have worked so hard for the past several years to make the Conduit a reality. Upon its completion, it will stand as testament to a pioneering vision and commitment to sensible water policy. With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. This will be the third consecutive day of debate on this well-qualified nominee. We have had a good debate on the Owen nomination, with a number of Members, on both sides of the aisle, speaking on the issue. As the majority leader announced yesterday, we will be seeking a unanimous consent agreement to set a time certain for a confirmation vote on the Owen nomination. If an objection is raised to a time agreement, a cloture motion will be filed later today. Also, as announced by the leader, there will be no rollcall votes today. The next rollcall vote will be on Monday, and that vote will likely be in relation to a motion to instruct in order to request the presence of absent Senators. Additional votes are possible on Monday, and the leader will update that schedule on Monday.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the retirement of a distinguished member of our military, Col. Kent Murphy, who is retiring this year after a distinguished 25-year career in the Air Force. Colonel Murphy started his career at the U.S. Air Force Academy, graduating in 1980. From there, he went on to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS, and became a doctor in the Air Force Medical Corps. Dr. Murphy served in varying assignments in the United States and overseas while in the Air Force. He has held surgical positions ranging from a F-16 flight surgeon to a staff surgeon in the Air Force Academy Hospital's Department of Otolaryngology, where he later became department head. He has been an adjunct assistant professor at USUHS and the senior otolaryngology malpractice consultant for the Office of the Air Force Surgeon General. Certainly, such a career serving his country as a doctor in the Air Force would be laudable in its own right, but Colonel Murphy went far beyond that. In 1997, Colonel Murphy founded the Center of Excellence for Medical Multimedia at the U.S. Air Force Academy. There, Colonel Murphy pioneered the concept of information therapy throughout the Air Force Medical Service. He developed high-tech programs, using the Internet, video and CD/DVD ROM, that are the cornerstone of Air Force efforts to educate service members, dependents and retirees about important medical conditions such as pregnancy, hypertension and diabetes. Additionally, he served as the chairman of the Prorenata Health Media Foundation to help create access to these innovative programs for underserved populations across the Nation. In August of 2003, he was awarded the Frank Brown Berry Prize by US Medicine magazine--the highest honor in Federal Healthcare. Colonel Murphy is the only Air Force physician to have won this prestigious honor and the youngest recipient to date. I am proud to call Colonel Murphy a friend and thank him today for his service to the Air Force and our country. I would be remiss however if I did not also thank his loyal wife Cindy. As anyone who has been around the military will attest, a good military spouse is vital to the success of the servicemember. As Colonel and Mrs. Murphy head out now into civilian practice, I know that they will continue to make lasting contributions to all Americans.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to honor all law enforcement officers who protect our families and communities against crime during National Police Week 2005. Also, I ask to pay special tribute to Detective Donald R. Young of Denver, CO, and others officers like him who have given their lives in service. Communities readily rely on law enforcement officers to answer the call in times of great need. These men and women serve to enforce not only our laws, but to defend the weakest and most vulnerable among us. I think it is suitable that we salute and recognize these dedicated heroes with a National Police Week. Detective Donald R. ``Donnie'' Young was shot and killed in Denver, CO, on May 8, 2005. He was working off duty at the time, providing security detail at a baptismal event. Detective Young was a 12-year veteran of the Denver Police Department. He leaves behind a wife and two young daughters. Along with Detective Donald R. Young, I ask that we pay homage to all our fallen heroes. Law enforcement officers knowingly put themselves in harms way every day. It is important to take this time to remember their service. We must acknowledge their efforts as some of the bravest among us and share our gratitude for their sacrifice with their families. I rise to humbly pay my respect to law enforcement officers everywhere and honor the legacy that fallen officers leave behind.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I rise in support of the SAFETEA bill. Effective transportation is vital to our Nation, and I believe this bill will be an important step in helping to meet the country's transportation needs. I would like to thank both Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords for working hard on this bill. The people of Oklahoma are blessed with the hard work Senator Inhofe has put forward, both in the Senate and when I had the opportunity to serve with him in the House. This bill has required a lot of hard work and a lot of dedication. He has put forward an effort that I think we all appreciate. Sometimes we forget to say thank you for the hard work that goes into a bill such as this, including the hard work of the staff, I might add. The staff on both sides has been helpful in putting this legislation together. In particular, I express my support for the public transportation title of the bill. While many people erroneously refer to this as the highways bill, it is actually a comprehensive reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs, including transit. A healthy, well-functioning transit network can greatly enhance the effectiveness of other transportation modes, and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Banking Committee, I have had many opportunities to see the difference reliable public transportation can make for both individuals and communities. I also express my thanks to the Banking Committee chairman, Chairman Shelby. For many years he has been one of the leading champions for public transportation in the Senate. I appreciate his dedication. It has been a pleasure to work with him as subcommittee chairman on reauthorization of the mass transit programs. I also recognize and thank Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, and Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee. They have been actively involved in the reauthorization process, and I appreciate the thoughtful perspective they brought to all of our discussions. Together I believe we have been able to accomplish a great deal to improve public transportation in a strong and bipartisan manner. I thank again Senator Inhofe and all the other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee for their hard work and leadership. I miss not being on the committee. I was on the committee when this bill first moved forward. I very much appreciate working with my colleagues. Public transportation is a key component of our Nation's transportation infrastructure and provides safe, reliable, efficient, and economic service. Public transportation can create jobs and stimulate economic development, as well as reduce traffic congestion and pollution. Because I represent the State of Colorado, some people wonder why I care about public transportation. Beyond the national policy concerns, these same people are often surprised when I explain how important public transportation is to my Colorado constituents. Public transportation encompasses a great deal beyond the stereotype of subways and heavy rail. People in the Denver suburbs can now take light rail to their jobs downtown. Students in Boulder often use the bus system to get around town. Sick people on the eastern plains may rely on demand-responsive transit services to go to chemotherapy or dialysis appointments. Public transportation is important to many different types of people in many different locations. This bill will help ensure that all these people have access to reliable public transportation. I believe the Senate passed an excellent transportation reauthorization bill this last year, and I was especially pleased with the transit title. I believe it made important progress in a number of areas while building upon the many successes of TEA-21. Fortunately, we come to the floor with substantially the same package, and I am hopeful this approach will speed things along and allow the bill to move forward with a minimal number of amendments. I am very supportive of the formula changes made in the transit title. These go a long way toward addressing my longstanding concerns with the distribution of transit dollars. As my colleagues may know, one of my top priorities during the consideration of TEA-21 was to bring more equity to the distribution of transit dollars. Senator Rod Grams and I were able to make changes that allowed States such as Colorado to have greater access to this resource. In drafting the reauthorization bill, greater equity has continued to be my top priority. While the traditional transit cities have many important needs, it is time to update the formulas to include other needs. Today's bill strikes a balance by providing for more traditional transit cities and also providing for new needs by creating several new formulas. In particular, I strongly support the new growing States formula. Historically, many of the fastest growing areas in Western and Southern States have had a difficult time obtaining transit dollars. Yet their explosive growth makes transit all the more important. Mass transit can help growing areas reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, as well as increase access to jobs. The new growing States formula will help direct additional resources to the high-growth areas with the greatest need. I also support the new transit-intensive cities formula. This new formula will reward smaller cities that are providing greater than average transit service. In addition to providing an incentive for cities to improve their transit service, I support the formula because it deliberately directs taxpayer dollars to areas that are utilizing them most efficiently. Finally, I support the new rural low-density formula. This formula will help rural areas provide critically needed service. Rural areas and very small towns generally have older and less affluent citizens, the very people who often rely on public transportation. In fact, rural America has an estimated 30 million nondrivers. The problem is exacerbated for rural-transit-dependent populations, as compared to urban dwellers, because they most often travel great distances, and alternate transportation, such as a taxicab, is generally not available. Yet more than 40 percent of residents in rural America have no access to public transportation and another 25 percent have negligible access. Because of low-population density and the distances involved, rural populations can be much more difficult and expensive to serve. However, their need is as real as the need in urban centers. This new formula will begin to help rural States meet those needs. The transit title also places more appropriate emphasis on bus programs. For too long, the mass transit programs have been viewed as rail programs. While we can all agree that rail is vitally important to a select group of cities, the vast majority of Americans rely on bus service. This bill takes a balanced approach, providing resources to expand and improve both bus and rail service. Another way we can help expand the reach of Federal transit dollars is through bus rapid transit. As compared to rail, bus rapid transit is able to deliver similar capacity for a fraction of the cost. I believe we should find ways to not only allow but to promote the use of bus rapid transit. I support the bus rapid transit provisions and believe we should continue to ease the fixed guideway restrictions. In some areas, such as Colorado's mountains, geography or other factors make a fixed guideway requirement cost prohibitive. We must ensure bus rapid transit has sufficient flexibility to make it a viable option for many areas. The Federal Government attempts to strike a balance between accountability and easing administrative burdens within its programs. However, the New Starts Program has gotten out of balance. I believe the Small Starts Program, as proposed in this bill, does strike a better, more appropriate balance. Under this program, all projects will be subject to the review process rather than exempting projects under $25 million. This threshold was causing project distortions and poor estimations in an attempt to deem a project under $25 million. In addition to the incentive to underestimate a project, this approach lacks accountability for the taxpayer dollars at stake. By contrast, the Small Starts Program in the bill will subject all projects to the review process. However, to ease administrative burden, projects under $75 million will be subject to a streamline process. This will ensure that all projects receive scrutiny and will scale the level of scrutiny to be appropriate to the project size. This will also make it easier for smaller cities to add transit to their communities for the first time. While public transit agencies are important in providing transit service, the private sector is also a key partner in providing effective, efficient service. By making a few modest changes, the transit title ensures they will be able to remain a part of the process. Public-private partnerships can benefit all parties, and our bill will help allow and encourage such partnerships. Another important feature of this bill is its use of incentives rather than mandates and penalties. Until now, projects have little incentive to use good planning and forecasting or to stay on time and on budget. By offering incentives, we hope to change that. It is absurd that projects such as TREX in Denver have to return money because they did good planning and stayed on time and under budget. Transit agencies should not be punished for doing a good job. Rather, they should be rewarded. I believe they should be able to keep a portion of that money for other transit uses, and the bill before us today will let them do that. Again I thank Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and my colleagues on the committee for their work in producing the transit title of the bill that is before us today. I believe that under the SAFETEA bill, America's public transportation system will be able to serve more people more efficiently. I am hopeful the Senate will quickly complete action and enact a transportation reauthorization. I reemphasize my sincere thanks to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, for his great work, and the other Republicans and members of the committee working with the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. I am pleased this transportation bill, which is badly needed, is now moving forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Dan Tang, who has been named by the Small Business Administration the Small Business Owner of the Year. Dan was born in China in 1962 and was raised in Canton, China. At 19 years of age, Dan was forced to escape China. After eleven months in a refugee camp, he finally received a visa to travel to the United States. His dream of becoming an American citizen began in California. He worked hard, saved his money and found his way to Colorado. After moving to Aurora, CO, he met up with some friends who owned a local Chinese restaurant. He accepted a job offer to be the dish washer and began working his way up in the business. He went from washing dishes, then bussing tables and eventually was promoted to become a cook. Always working long days and saving his money, Dan was eventually able to open his own restaurant in 1990. The opening of the Heaven Dragon was an enormous achievement for him and his family. Today the Heaven Dragon is one of the best known family owned restaurants in the Denver metro area. His reputation is so well known that on a recent visit to Denver, President Bush requested his speciality, Peking Duck. Dan Tang is a true American success story. He is a role model for hard-working small business owners across the country who are creating their own American dream.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, April 27, 2005, marks an important day for health care, especially personnel involved in public health specialties, because it is the day that I introduced the Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act, VWEA. This bill will create a new competitive grant program in the Department of Health and Human Services for capital improvements to the Nation's veterinary medical colleges. Many Americans do not realize that veterinarians are essential for early detection and response to unusual disease events that could be linked to newly emerging infectious diseases such as monkeypox, SARS, and West Nile Virus, just to name a few. The training and education that veterinarians receive prepares them to address the concerns of bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases, most of which are transmitted from animals to man. In fact, 80 percent of biothreat agents of concern fall into this category. I believe veterinarians should be our first-responders when it comes to these threats. I know that they are uniquely qualified to address these issues because I have received this training myself. I received my DVM from Colorado State University and have kept my license current every year since I closed my clinic and ran for elected office. Veterinarians are a unique national resource, as they are the only health professionals trained in multi-species comparative medicine. As a result of this training, the veterinary profession is able to provide an extraordinary link between agriculture and human medicine. The uses made of this link have been extensive, with multiple benefits to society. Currently, approximately 20 percent, 15,000, of all veterinarians in the United States are I engaged in either private population-health practice with a significant food animal component or public practice in one of its various forms. The need for new graduates entering the field is imperative to preparing the country for the threats of agroterrorism and bioterrorism. If new graduates do not enter these fields, government, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and agribusiness will employ lesser qualified individuals to fill their needs. There is a critical shortage of veterinarians working in public health areas. The Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Public Health Service, veterinary academia, National Research Council, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are unified in reporting that the shortage of veterinarians in the workforce will only continue to worsen. Combined with a rapidly growing population and increased human to animal interaction, there is an urgent need to adequately prepare the Nation's veterinary colleges so they may educate the workforce of the future. The VWEA would allow credentialed schools of veterinary medicine to compete for Federal grant funding under the Department of Health and Human Services. These grants would be for capital costs associated with expanding the existing schools of veterinary medicine or their academic programs in the areas of public health practice. This new grant program will be authorized for 10 fiscal years. At that point, it is my hope and goal that the veterinary medical colleges will be adequately prepared to educate the veterinary workforce for the future. For more than 100 years, veterinary medical colleges have effectively delivered a core educational program that has enabled veterinarians to adapt and respond to evolving societal needs. Being a veterinarian myself, I want to continue this tradition by expanding existing veterinary colleges. I hope that you will join me in my efforts to protect the Nation's public health by providing much-needed support for veterinary medical education.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, April 27, 2005, marks an important day for health care, especially personnel involved in public health specialties, because it is the day that I introduced the Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act, VWEA. This bill will create a new competitive grant program in the Department of Health and Human Services for capital improvements to the Nation's veterinary medical colleges. Many Americans do not realize that veterinarians are essential for early detection and response to unusual disease events that could be linked to newly emerging infectious diseases such as monkeypox, SARS, and West Nile Virus, just to name a few. The training and education that veterinarians receive prepares them to address the concerns of bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases, most of which are transmitted from animals to man. In fact, 80 percent of biothreat agents of concern fall into this category. I believe veterinarians should be our first-responders when it comes to these threats. I know that they are uniquely qualified to address these issues because I have received this training myself. I received my DVM from Colorado State University and have kept my license current every year since I closed my clinic and ran for elected office. Veterinarians are a unique national resource, as they are the only health professionals trained in multi-species comparative medicine. As a result of this training, the veterinary profession is able to provide an extraordinary link between agriculture and human medicine. The uses made of this link have been extensive, with multiple benefits to society. Currently, approximately 20 percent, 15,000, of all veterinarians in the United States are I engaged in either private population-health practice with a significant food animal component or public practice in one of its various forms. The need for new graduates entering the field is imperative to preparing the country for the threats of agroterrorism and bioterrorism. If new graduates do not enter these fields, government, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and agribusiness will employ lesser qualified individuals to fill their needs. There is a critical shortage of veterinarians working in public health areas. The Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Public Health Service, veterinary academia, National Research Council, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are unified in reporting that the shortage of veterinarians in the workforce will only continue to worsen. Combined with a rapidly growing population and increased human to animal interaction, there is an urgent need to adequately prepare the Nation's veterinary colleges so they may educate the workforce of the future. The VWEA would allow credentialed schools of veterinary medicine to compete for Federal grant funding under the Department of Health and Human Services. These grants would be for capital costs associated with expanding the existing schools of veterinary medicine or their academic programs in the areas of public health practice. This new grant program will be authorized for 10 fiscal years. At that point, it is my hope and goal that the veterinary medical colleges will be adequately prepared to educate the veterinary workforce for the future. For more than 100 years, veterinary medical colleges have effectively delivered a core educational program that has enabled veterinarians to adapt and respond to evolving societal needs. Being a veterinarian myself, I want to continue this tradition by expanding existing veterinary colleges. I hope that you will join me in my efforts to protect the Nation's public health by providing much-needed support for veterinary medical education.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to clear up the apparent confusion and misinformation surrounding the confirmation of judicial nominations. I hope to shed some light on one of our most important obligations and express to the American people the truth about the partisan obstruction of our constitutional duties. Article II of the Constitution, known as the advice and consent clause, requires Senate approval of judicial nominations. This obligation is only fulfilled when the Senate allows an up or down vote on a nominee. The vote acts as an expression of the body's ``advice and consent,'' but this expression simply cannot occur if it is blocked by a filibuster. I strongly believe that the use of a filibuster to block judicial nominations is not only unprecedented minority obstruction but an attack on the Constitution itself. The decision to vote on a judicial nomination or to obstruct the nominee pits the Constitution against a mere tool of parliamentary procedure; that is the Constitution versus a Senate rule called the filibuster. I urge my colleagues to put our faith in the founding document, not a filibuster rule. To do otherwise degrades the Constitution and relegates it to the level of an arbitrary rule of procedure. Let me make it clear. I am not going to stand idly by as parliamentary maneuvers run roughshod over the Constitution and centuries of Senate practices. The Republican majority is not establishing new precedent. We are simply trying to restore the rights of the Constitution and the practices that this body has observed for over 200 years. If the Senate allows the filibusters of judicial nominations to continue, it will be acquiescing in a minority's unilateral change to Senate procedure and practices; requiring 60 votes for the confirmation of judges through the rules, undermining the Constitution's requirement for a 50-vote majority. The practical effect is an amendment to the Constitution without the approval of the American people. My colleagues on the other side would have everyone believe that the filibuster is being eliminated. But that simply is not the case. They don't mention that the filibuster never existed on judicial nominations. In fact, it never existed until the Democrats broke with over 200 years of Senate procedure and unleashed the filibuster last Congress to block 10 judges. It was not a usual way of doing business. It was the first time in the history of the Senate the filibuster was used. The Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to change the history of the Senate by blocking judges with the filibuster, rewrite the Constitution by using the filibuster to thwart the advice and consent clause, and then blame Republicans for simply saying, ``let's follow the Constitution and allow votes on judges, lets follow Senate tradition.'' They falsely portray our actions to preserve the advice and consent clause as something akin to minority persecution. But what they don't mention is that the filibuster is not a law. It is not in the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers didn't even envision a filibuster weapon at all. Even more astonishing is the fact that several of the Democrats who are now ardent supporters of the judicial filibuster are the same ones who tried to eliminate the filibuster entirely just a few years ago, not only on judicial nominations but on everything, including legislative actions. It is the Democrats who are altering history. It is the Democrats who are unleashing a weapon that threatens to alter the traditions and precedent of the Senate. It is the Democrats who are revising the history of our Founding Fathers and undermining the three branches of our separate but equal system of Government. For example, from 1789 until 1806 the Senate had a traditional ``motion for the previous question'' in its rules. There was no intention to create a Senate where a filibuster was prominent. The filibuster was not used in any significant way at all until the 1840's, and it was never used for judicial nominations. The Senate's original cloture rule, in 1917, did not even apply to nominations because no Senator had ever used a filibuster to block a nomination. Let me repeat that, up until 1917 the Senate's original cloture rule didn't even apply to nominations because no Senator had ever used a filibuster to block a nomination. The rule did not apply, not because the Senate approved of such filibusters but because Senators never contemplated them. A thorough examination of Senate history clearly demonstrates that there is no precedent for the Democrats' use of the filibuster to permanently block the confirmation of judicial nominations. Some Democrats claim that Republicans want to destroy the filibuster for all matters. This is simply not true. What is true is that the only sitting Members of the Senate on record supporting the elimination of the filibuster are Democrats. In 1995, 19 Senators all Democrats, not one Republican, voted to eliminate the filibuster for all matters, not only judicial but also legislature. Nine of the 19 Democrats who voted for the Harkin- Lieberman rule change remain in this body today. And all of those Senators now support the filibustering of judicial nominations. If it was ok to end the filibuster rule in 1995, why is it not ok today? Let me just share some of the comments made by those Democratic Senators in 1995: For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by the rules of the U.S. Senate. The Democrats also said: [A] filibuster ought to be used to slow down, temper legislation, alert the public, change minds, but should not be used as a measure whereby a small minority can totally keep the majority from voting on the merits of a bill. Now 10 years later, evidently what is good for the goose can forget about the gander. Turning to the issue of Senate rules, the Democrats claim that changing the rules of the Senate is unprecedented, that using the Constitution to end the filibuster is tyranny. Again, let me point out another instance where the goose has left the gander. The constitutional option is grounded in Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution that empowers the Senate to ``determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' The Senate has repeatedly exercised the constitutional option to define minority rights, as long ago as 1977, and it has done so in a Democratic-led majority. The use of a simple majority vote to set precedents is as old as the Senate. In fact, the constitutional option has been exercised in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987. It was used in 1977 to end post-cloture filibusters; in 1979 to limit amendments to appropriations bills; in 1980 to govern consideration of nominations; and again in 1987 to govern voting procedures. In every instance, the Senate acted independently of the Senate rules in order to change Senate procedures in the face of obstruction or abuse by a minority of Senators. History clearly shows that it is the constitutional option that has been used before. It is the use of the filibuster that is an unprecedented expansion of minority obstruction. An exercise of the constitutional option under the current circumstances would return the Senate to the historic and constitutional confirmation standard of a simple majority for all judicial nominations. Employing the constitutional option here would have no effect on the legislative filibuster, ant this is very important. Senators would still have the ability to filibuster any bill, any time. The Constitution calls upon the Senate collectively to determine whether or not a particular nominee is qualified to serve. This determination is made in one vote, the approval or disapproval of the nomination itself. Advice and consent does not mean avoiding a vote on a judicial nominee entirely by employing a filibuster. If a Member of the Senate disapproves of a judge, then let them vote against the nominee. But a filibuster should never be used to deprive the people of the choice selected by their elected representatives. It is the Senate's duty to collectively participate in a show of ``advice and consent'' to the President by voting. It is this act that exercises what James Madison referred to as the remote choice of the people. I sincerely hope we can work through the impasse on judicial nominations. I hope those opposed to the President's nominees will be given the opportunity to vote against them and that they will speak their mind about it. But I also hope that we will be allowed to provide the guidance we are required to provide under the Constitution. The basic decision the Senate must make is this: Either constitutional advice and consent prevails or the filibuster is allowed to change the Constitution. I believe in the Constitution. I believe we should vote on the nominations. As I have said so many times before, ``vote them up, or vote them down, but just vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.