Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would inquire of the Chair the order of business now is the Interior conference report; is that correct?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference report of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2006 . This bill provides more than $26 billion for the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, and a number of other agencies that play vital roles in protecting our Nation's natural and cultural heritage. Conferencing this bill with the House was not an easy matter, to say the least. The bill, as a whole, is close to $600 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Our conference allocation was $50 million below the Senate's original allocation, and we have had to shoehorn both House and Senate priorities into that reduced amount. To hit our number, we had to eliminate or reduce a number of items in the Senate bill that I would have preferred that we had kept. I suspect the House has similar feelings about some of their priorities, but we made these choices in as fair a manner as possible, both from the House and Senate perspective and the majority and minority perspective. Lest I sound too negative, let me be clear that there are some good things and important things in this bill. We improved upon the budget request in a number of places, such as tribally controlled schools and Indian schools and hospitals and the community colleges that are located on our several reservations across the country. We have increased funding for our national parks. We preserved funding for local park programs. As my colleagues know, that was zeroed out. We have boosted funding for a number of Forest Service programs that received pretty rough treatment from the White House in their budget request. This bill also provides an additional $1.5 billion for veterans health care, funding that is sorely needed to ensure that our veterans receive the kind of care they so richly deserve. Given the continued sacrifices being made by our men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is an honor to have the Interior bill serve as the vehicle for this critically important funding. Finally, I want to thank my ranking member, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota. Not only are we neighbors in our home States, but we are neighbors here also and work in cooperation. Without his leadership, we could not have completed this bill. He has been a tireless champion for the tribally controlled community colleges and Indian health care and a number of other programs in this bill. Throughout the conference report, there is ample evidence of his hard work and his advocacy. Let me also thank the majority and minority staffs of the subcommittees. I do not think we thank our staffs enough. They work long hours, crunching numbers, getting them to balance, and working to figure out where do we take what and put it where. They have been working for weeks producing this bill and then just several hours to produce this conference report. Conferencing with the other body is no easy matter, and I appreciate the staffs' work to get us to this point. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report so we can devote our attention to other spending bills that await us. We have a great deal of work yet to do on appropriations bills, so I am quite happy to get this one out of the way. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes, and more if needed, to the Senator from Texas, who has been a real champion for veterans benefits.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know whether we have any more time remaining. The time has been set aside for Senator Byrd. Seeing no one to speak on this bill, I will yield back the remainder of my time also.

Mr. BURNS. I yield back my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho be granted 30 seconds with regard to the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS. I have no objection to that. I shall not object to it. We had about 30 seconds. I pulled the trigger a little too quickly. Senator Craig is in the Chamber and would like just about 30 seconds with regard to the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. The Senator is correct. The Bureau of Land Management currently does not have the mechanism in place to implement a pilot project like this. However, there are entities in the private sector that have a well-established history of conducting oil and gas lease auctions online. I would encourage BLM in Utah to quickly identify a private sector partner and develop a pilot program in Utah for online oil and gas lease auctions and encourage the director of the BLM to make sure that the necessary resources are devoted to implementing this project in a timely manner.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Dorgan, a bill that addresses a persistent inequity in the agriculture industry. Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement--in fact, even before then--Montana farmers have battled against false barriers to trade that harm their ability to compete in a global market. While most inputs to production agriculture--fertilizer, seed, equipment--can move easily across the U.S.-Canadian border, pesticides remain segmented. The pesticide industry has a vested interest in preserving these borders, because the barriers allow for price distortions that harm producers on both sides of the border. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to tear down these barriers, and begin the process of harmonizing the pesticide registration process. The bill establishes a process by which interested growers can petition the Environmental Protection Agency to require a pesticide to be jointly labeled, if the product is already registered in both countries. See--there's the problem. We are talking here about the exact same chemical, produced by the same company, but priced at very different levels. Because the products have two different labels, the lower-price chemical remains out of reach of U.S. growers. When Montana farmers have to compete against Canadian growers who are getting their pesticides at a substantially lower price, that is an example of free trade gone wrong. In addition, this bill gives EPA the authority needed to require a joint label on a new product that is being introduced into the market. It is important to note that this legislation is not restricted to Canada, so as not to violate U.S. trade agreements. The bill authorizes EPA to enter into negotiations to harmonize regulatory processes and requirements with other countries, as appropriate. The United States and Canada have been working for over a decade to streamline their registration processes, harmonize the requirements, and develop protocols for work sharing and joint reviews. A lot of groundwork has already been done between the U.S. and Canada, so we can move quickly towards development of a joint label between our two countries. And there is no reason not to. Again, we are talking about the exact same product, being sold at two different prices to growers who have to compete against each other in the world market. NAFTA was supposed to tear down borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and yet this barrier remains. It is an irritant to Montana growers who are farming along the border. It is also a problem for Canadian growers, and I look forward to working with Canada to resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial way. There are times when pesticides are cheaper in the U.S., and U.S. growers often have access to a wider variety of products. So there is a shared interest in tearing down this barrier to free trade. A recent study done by Montana State University underscored this point. For 13 pesticides widely used in Montana and Alberta, seven were less expensive in Canada, five were less expensive in the U.S., and one, glyphosate, showed little or no difference in price. False barriers that prevent pesticides from moving across the border are creating significant price distortions in the market, and those barriers need to come down. Certainly, there are a number of factors that impact pricing, but there can be no doubt that trade barriers allow price differentiation, and that's not right. There will always be some price fluctuations-- they exist now, between states, even between communities in the same state. But for a person farming along the Montana-Alberta border, who can see his competitor across that border and knows that his competitor's input costs are lower for no other reason than a trade barrier that should have been eliminated, that's going to bother him. If the guy one town over has better prices on pesticides, I can drive to get those, or negotiate with my local dealer. But if the guy across the border has better prices, I have no options, no bargaining power. That's just not right. This is not an anti-industry bill. Growers need the crop protection industry, and it is important that the research and innovation in that sector continue. This bill will help to streamline regulatory processes and reduce the obstacles to registration, by requiring only one label. It simplifies distribution systems, by allowing companies to have just one label for the same product, even when it is being sold in two countries. So while this bill will address the sort of price distortions that farmers on the northern border find unfair, it also reduces cost to industry, and will ideally result in smoother registration processes. In fact, representatives of the crop protection industry have said that the solution to trade barriers along the northern border is a joint label, and have testified in support of regulatory harmonization before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Since the passage of NAFTA, a technical working group on pesticide harmonization has worked diligently on the development of joint registration and labeling procedures, and has enjoyed the cooperation of the industry in those discussions. This bill accomplishes what both the industry and the producers have said is needed: regulatory harmonization between two nations, joint registration, and joint labeling. This legislation is supported by the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the U.S. Durum Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Montana Grain Growers Association, and the North Dakota Grain Growers Association. It is time these barriers be eliminated. If we are going to have free trade in grain, then we need free train in the input costs for production agriculture. This bill accomplishes that. I ask Members to take a close look at this bill, and consider it seriously. Our growers deserve an end to the practice of artificially inflating the price of pesticides simply to take advantage of false barriers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Dorgan, a bill that addresses a persistent inequity in the agriculture industry. Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement--in fact, even before then--Montana farmers have battled against false barriers to trade that harm their ability to compete in a global market. While most inputs to production agriculture--fertilizer, seed, equipment--can move easily across the U.S.-Canadian border, pesticides remain segmented. The pesticide industry has a vested interest in preserving these borders, because the barriers allow for price distortions that harm producers on both sides of the border. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to tear down these barriers, and begin the process of harmonizing the pesticide registration process. The bill establishes a process by which interested growers can petition the Environmental Protection Agency to require a pesticide to be jointly labeled, if the product is already registered in both countries. See--there's the problem. We are talking here about the exact same chemical, produced by the same company, but priced at very different levels. Because the products have two different labels, the lower-price chemical remains out of reach of U.S. growers. When Montana farmers have to compete against Canadian growers who are getting their pesticides at a substantially lower price, that is an example of free trade gone wrong. In addition, this bill gives EPA the authority needed to require a joint label on a new product that is being introduced into the market. It is important to note that this legislation is not restricted to Canada, so as not to violate U.S. trade agreements. The bill authorizes EPA to enter into negotiations to harmonize regulatory processes and requirements with other countries, as appropriate. The United States and Canada have been working for over a decade to streamline their registration processes, harmonize the requirements, and develop protocols for work sharing and joint reviews. A lot of groundwork has already been done between the U.S. and Canada, so we can move quickly towards development of a joint label between our two countries. And there is no reason not to. Again, we are talking about the exact same product, being sold at two different prices to growers who have to compete against each other in the world market. NAFTA was supposed to tear down borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and yet this barrier remains. It is an irritant to Montana growers who are farming along the border. It is also a problem for Canadian growers, and I look forward to working with Canada to resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial way. There are times when pesticides are cheaper in the U.S., and U.S. growers often have access to a wider variety of products. So there is a shared interest in tearing down this barrier to free trade. A recent study done by Montana State University underscored this point. For 13 pesticides widely used in Montana and Alberta, seven were less expensive in Canada, five were less expensive in the U.S., and one, glyphosate, showed little or no difference in price. False barriers that prevent pesticides from moving across the border are creating significant price distortions in the market, and those barriers need to come down. Certainly, there are a number of factors that impact pricing, but there can be no doubt that trade barriers allow price differentiation, and that's not right. There will always be some price fluctuations-- they exist now, between states, even between communities in the same state. But for a person farming along the Montana-Alberta border, who can see his competitor across that border and knows that his competitor's input costs are lower for no other reason than a trade barrier that should have been eliminated, that's going to bother him. If the guy one town over has better prices on pesticides, I can drive to get those, or negotiate with my local dealer. But if the guy across the border has better prices, I have no options, no bargaining power. That's just not right. This is not an anti-industry bill. Growers need the crop protection industry, and it is important that the research and innovation in that sector continue. This bill will help to streamline regulatory processes and reduce the obstacles to registration, by requiring only one label. It simplifies distribution systems, by allowing companies to have just one label for the same product, even when it is being sold in two countries. So while this bill will address the sort of price distortions that farmers on the northern border find unfair, it also reduces cost to industry, and will ideally result in smoother registration processes. In fact, representatives of the crop protection industry have said that the solution to trade barriers along the northern border is a joint label, and have testified in support of regulatory harmonization before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Since the passage of NAFTA, a technical working group on pesticide harmonization has worked diligently on the development of joint registration and labeling procedures, and has enjoyed the cooperation of the industry in those discussions. This bill accomplishes what both the industry and the producers have said is needed: regulatory harmonization between two nations, joint registration, and joint labeling. This legislation is supported by the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the U.S. Durum Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Montana Grain Growers Association, and the North Dakota Grain Growers Association. It is time these barriers be eliminated. If we are going to have free trade in grain, then we need free train in the input costs for production agriculture. This bill accomplishes that. I ask Members to take a close look at this bill, and consider it seriously. Our growers deserve an end to the practice of artificially inflating the price of pesticides simply to take advantage of false barriers.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to offer some thoughts on the appropriations bill regarding homeland security. Being the shepherd of one Interior bill a couple of weeks ago, I can understand the problems that arise whenever we start into this business of making the appropriations to make our Government work. I congratulate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd and other members of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee because they have changed direction on this a little bit with regard to our borders. Every time I go to my home State of Montana the borders are talked about. I know it is probably one of the most difficult areas over which we are given the command to protect. I have said it before, and I will say it again, we have to secure our borders. Particularly, we know about the situation on our southern border, but we have always been understaffed and underfunded and overlooked on the northern border, even after September 11, 2001. We are faced with the task of patrolling the longest stretch of unprotected international border in the United States, nearly 550 miles of border in Montana. We have the same pressures there from terrorists, drug runners, and criminals. They can cross that border, enter our country, and do harm to our citizens. Make no mistake, we have made some progress. Again, I congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee on this bill. We were able to gain about 500 new Border Patrol agents along the northern border to relieve some facility overcrowding earlier this year in a new appropriation. Meanwhile, however, we have to look at the numbers. Over 500 million people cross our borders each year, 330 million of whom are not U.S. citizens. Where do these people go? The committee has recognized we can no longer allow for the gaps in our national security. It has taken the proper steps to ensure that we have a plan in place to secure our borders. I congratulate the chairman because these bills are difficult at best. But when we start talking about our borders, the security of our country, it takes on a whole new look. So I want to thank the managers of this bill for their work and their recommendations. It is too important to ignore any longer. It is my hope we can get this bill passed with a proper plan in place to secure our borders and get it to the President's desk. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the FAIR Ratings bill. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues, Senators Martinez, Snowe, and Allen. As a former broadcaster, I understand that when TV stations plan their programming, they and their advertisers must rely on the information provided by commercial TV ratings companies. And it is vital that this data be as accurate, fair, and inclusive as possible, because TV ratings ultimately determine what programming ends up on the air. They also help broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations. For these reasons, I feel that it is very much in the public interest for TV ratings to be fair, accurate, and as fully representative of the population as possible. The dominant company that provides TV ratings, and has done so for the last 50 years, is Nielsen Media Research. Nielsen is a great company and a great American institution--no doubt about it. The innovation that Nielsen showed in its early years, and continues to show today in other ways, show that its leading role in the field is well-deserved. Our friends from Nielsen may have already spoken to many of you about this bill, and let me assure you up front that this is not a bill ``against'' Nielsen. It would apply to any other company or new technology whose ratings service determines what we see on TV. But Nielsen will definitely be the most affected party if the bill passes, so let me characterize this instead as a bill to keep Nielsen honest and accountable to its customers, and to the public. Because Nielsen today is pretty close to being a monopoly, any way you look at it. A private, unregulated monopoly provider of an essential public service. And as basic economics and everyday practice show, monopolies have the ability to abuse their power, because they are not constrained by competition--there is nowhere else for a TV station or advertiser to go if they don't like what they get or how they are treated. Barriers to entry are pretty high in that business-- it is not simple or cheap to set up a nationwide TV ratings service. And that monopoly power has been abused in the past. Forty years ago or so, there were a couple of nationwide scandals about TV ratings. I remember that well, and some of you may even have seen the movie. Payola and game shows. At that time, Nielsen's service was found to be mixed up with all that in some way, and was reporting flawed data. And Congress got involved. The Senate had hearings for many months, and at the end of it, there was a report--the Harris Commission report--that called for the creation of an independent, industry-run, private oversight body to audit and accredit Nielsen's ratings measurement systems for accuracy. That body was created in 1964 and is now called the Media Rating Council. It continues to audit and accredit TV ratings systems to this day, consulting closely with Nielsen and its own members, who are the main consumers of TV ratings data. It has long experience and great expertise at conducting audits of ratings data for quality and accuracy. And it has broad industry support and participation. The Media Rating Council's role today, and its relationship with Nielsen, or any other TV rating company that may come to equal prominence in the future, are what concern me and moved me to introduce this bill. Last year, Nielsen introduced a new technology called Local People Meters, which was designed to measure viewer behavior in a more accurate way and to replace the old paper diaries. This system was similar to a technology that Nielsen had introduced in the late 1980s. In both cases, there were big changes in the TV ratings when Nielsen moved from the old system to the new one. To the extent that these changes simply captured viewer preferences more accurately, this was good for the industry and for TV viewers in general. There is no public interest in which channel gets higher or lower ratings, so long as the measurement is accurate. But in certain cases, in four of our largest cities last year, it was not. It turns out that, since the meters operate differently from the diary system, there were flaws in the measurement of the underlying data by demographic group, due to higher ``fault rates'' among certain groups: African-Americans, Hispanics, younger viewers, larger families, and certain others. And here is where the Media Rating Council came in. They had audited the data and examined the people meter system in certain cities in advance, in a trial period, and identified these problems. And they told Nielsen about them in advance. And they told Nielsen that the undercounting should be fixed before it sold the data from this system commercially. And what did Nielsen do? It effectively ignored the MRC's prior findings. It said it would work to fix the system while it was already ``live'' and producing real TV ratings--with those flaws--and would continue to roll out the new technology in other cities before the problems were fixed in the old ones. I chaired a hearing last summer in the Commerce Committee on this issue, and have continued to monitor the situation closely since then. At that hearing, Nielsen indicated that it would have the problems fixed within a few weeks. Now, a year later, they are still not fixed, despite clear instructions from the Media Rating Council. And while Nielsen has been cooperative with customers and critics--to its credit--the fundamental issue of oversight enforcement has not been resolved. Now I agree with Nielsen, and most others do too, that the people meters, when implemented correctly, produce better numbers than the diaries. And we should be glad that Nielsen is devoting the resources to developing new technologies, as it should. The diary system, after all, hasn't really changed much since the 1950s. But it is also clear that Nielsen should not have moved ahead without the full prior approval of the Media Rating Council, which is the expert organization set up--at the behest of Congress--to ensure TV ratings accuracy. It was this action, more than any of the other details of the controversy, that indicated to me that the oversight system was missing some essential teeth. So my bill simply makes prior Media Rating Council accreditation for TV ratings systems mandatory, not voluntary, as it is today. It backstops a system that has been in place for 40 years. It is not a bill about the Local People Meter system. It is not a bill about the ratings of one broadcast company or any group of companies. It is not even a bill about Nielsen, although it will clearly be the most affected company. Further, there is no government role whatsoever envisioned in this bill. It does not create any new government standards, regulation, or bureaucracy: the oversight will be carried out by a private, self- governing, industry body that has already been operating for 40 years. So, I hope we can all agree that accurate TV ratings are in the public interest. I hope we can all agree that private industry oversight, by the entity set up by Congress 40 years ago, is the best way to ensure that. And if we can, I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will support this bill, on behalf of all television viewers throughout the United States.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the FAIR Ratings bill. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues, Senators Martinez, Snowe, and Allen. As a former broadcaster, I understand that when TV stations plan their programming, they and their advertisers must rely on the information provided by commercial TV ratings companies. And it is vital that this data be as accurate, fair, and inclusive as possible, because TV ratings ultimately determine what programming ends up on the air. They also help broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations. For these reasons, I feel that it is very much in the public interest for TV ratings to be fair, accurate, and as fully representative of the population as possible. The dominant company that provides TV ratings, and has done so for the last 50 years, is Nielsen Media Research. Nielsen is a great company and a great American institution--no doubt about it. The innovation that Nielsen showed in its early years, and continues to show today in other ways, show that its leading role in the field is well-deserved. Our friends from Nielsen may have already spoken to many of you about this bill, and let me assure you up front that this is not a bill ``against'' Nielsen. It would apply to any other company or new technology whose ratings service determines what we see on TV. But Nielsen will definitely be the most affected party if the bill passes, so let me characterize this instead as a bill to keep Nielsen honest and accountable to its customers, and to the public. Because Nielsen today is pretty close to being a monopoly, any way you look at it. A private, unregulated monopoly provider of an essential public service. And as basic economics and everyday practice show, monopolies have the ability to abuse their power, because they are not constrained by competition--there is nowhere else for a TV station or advertiser to go if they don't like what they get or how they are treated. Barriers to entry are pretty high in that business-- it is not simple or cheap to set up a nationwide TV ratings service. And that monopoly power has been abused in the past. Forty years ago or so, there were a couple of nationwide scandals about TV ratings. I remember that well, and some of you may even have seen the movie. Payola and game shows. At that time, Nielsen's service was found to be mixed up with all that in some way, and was reporting flawed data. And Congress got involved. The Senate had hearings for many months, and at the end of it, there was a report--the Harris Commission report--that called for the creation of an independent, industry-run, private oversight body to audit and accredit Nielsen's ratings measurement systems for accuracy. That body was created in 1964 and is now called the Media Rating Council. It continues to audit and accredit TV ratings systems to this day, consulting closely with Nielsen and its own members, who are the main consumers of TV ratings data. It has long experience and great expertise at conducting audits of ratings data for quality and accuracy. And it has broad industry support and participation. The Media Rating Council's role today, and its relationship with Nielsen, or any other TV rating company that may come to equal prominence in the future, are what concern me and moved me to introduce this bill. Last year, Nielsen introduced a new technology called Local People Meters, which was designed to measure viewer behavior in a more accurate way and to replace the old paper diaries. This system was similar to a technology that Nielsen had introduced in the late 1980s. In both cases, there were big changes in the TV ratings when Nielsen moved from the old system to the new one. To the extent that these changes simply captured viewer preferences more accurately, this was good for the industry and for TV viewers in general. There is no public interest in which channel gets higher or lower ratings, so long as the measurement is accurate. But in certain cases, in four of our largest cities last year, it was not. It turns out that, since the meters operate differently from the diary system, there were flaws in the measurement of the underlying data by demographic group, due to higher ``fault rates'' among certain groups: African-Americans, Hispanics, younger viewers, larger families, and certain others. And here is where the Media Rating Council came in. They had audited the data and examined the people meter system in certain cities in advance, in a trial period, and identified these problems. And they told Nielsen about them in advance. And they told Nielsen that the undercounting should be fixed before it sold the data from this system commercially. And what did Nielsen do? It effectively ignored the MRC's prior findings. It said it would work to fix the system while it was already ``live'' and producing real TV ratings--with those flaws--and would continue to roll out the new technology in other cities before the problems were fixed in the old ones. I chaired a hearing last summer in the Commerce Committee on this issue, and have continued to monitor the situation closely since then. At that hearing, Nielsen indicated that it would have the problems fixed within a few weeks. Now, a year later, they are still not fixed, despite clear instructions from the Media Rating Council. And while Nielsen has been cooperative with customers and critics--to its credit--the fundamental issue of oversight enforcement has not been resolved. Now I agree with Nielsen, and most others do too, that the people meters, when implemented correctly, produce better numbers than the diaries. And we should be glad that Nielsen is devoting the resources to developing new technologies, as it should. The diary system, after all, hasn't really changed much since the 1950s. But it is also clear that Nielsen should not have moved ahead without the full prior approval of the Media Rating Council, which is the expert organization set up--at the behest of Congress--to ensure TV ratings accuracy. It was this action, more than any of the other details of the controversy, that indicated to me that the oversight system was missing some essential teeth. So my bill simply makes prior Media Rating Council accreditation for TV ratings systems mandatory, not voluntary, as it is today. It backstops a system that has been in place for 40 years. It is not a bill about the Local People Meter system. It is not a bill about the ratings of one broadcast company or any group of companies. It is not even a bill about Nielsen, although it will clearly be the most affected company. Further, there is no government role whatsoever envisioned in this bill. It does not create any new government standards, regulation, or bureaucracy: the oversight will be carried out by a private, self- governing, industry body that has already been operating for 40 years. So, I hope we can all agree that accurate TV ratings are in the public interest. I hope we can all agree that private industry oversight, by the entity set up by Congress 40 years ago, is the best way to ensure that. And if we can, I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will support this bill, on behalf of all television viewers throughout the United States.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues Senator Domenici, Bennett, Dorgan, Murkowski, Bingaman, Johnson, and Salazar, in support of S. 895, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2005. The Rural Water Supply Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a program that ensures that a basic need--the need for a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply--is not neglected. Overall, the bill will guarantee that the Bureau of Reclamation has sufficient authority to address the unique needs of rural and small communities in the West, and it will do so in a manner that respects the States' primary role in water resources management. The U.S. Census Bureau cites that 46 percent of Montanans lived in rural areas in 2000. These people and others in Western States deserve a safe, affordable, and reliable water supply--an essential component of a healthy life. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation for not only Montanans but for all rural citizens in Western States.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the administration's budget requested $9.4 million to deal with phase-1 improvements to the water and wastewater systems at Lake Mead.

Mr. BURNS. Well, let me assure the minority leader that we will look for ways to help fund this long overdue maintenance of Lake Mead's water and wastewater systems. One option we can consider is to find funding for the failing wastewater system this year--I am told this is roughly $2.7 million--since it seems to pose the greatest threat to Lake Mead and its visitors. And we will certainly give the rest of the project the attention it deserves.

Mr. BURNS. The Senator is correct. The Phoenix Indian Medical Center Hospital System is at the top of the priority list for replacement of its inpatient facility. As part of this replacement, three ambulatory clinics will be constructed in the region to provide better health care services to the tribes in the area, including those in Nevada. The amount of $4 million in planning funds for design of two of the center's clinics was provided last year. This year, an additional $8 million for the construction of one of the clinics that is part of that project is recommended in the Senate bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we may proceed with a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration, and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following postal naming bills en bloc: S. 571, S. 775, S. 904, H.R. 120, H.R. 289, H.R. 324, H.R. 504, H.R. 627, H.R. 1001, H.R. 1072, H.R. 1082, H.R. 1236, H.R. 1460, H.R. 1524, H.R. 1542, and H.R. 2326.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 590, S. 867, S. 892, S. 1206, and S. 1207 en bloc, and these bills placed on the calendar.

Mr. BURNS. I ask for the regular order.