Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of John Bolton to be our next Ambassador to the United Nations. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here yesterday, when another vote was taken in regard to Mr. Bolton's nomination. Had I been here, however, I would have voted in support of Mr. Bolton. Despite recent controversy over this nomination, I still believe that John Bolton is a fine candidate for the position of ambassador to the U.N. I have seen the complaints and the information provided as a result of those concerns, but I still believe that his credentials and background make him a qualified person for the job. His experience with an aside from the U.N. is one consisting of a great deal of reform. He has long been an advocate for U.N. reform throughout his career and has been vocal in proclaiming the need for the United States to take the lead in facilitating the U.N. in its goal of international peace and security. The U.N. is now facing allegations of corruption in the Oil for Food Program and from other senior officials. At this time more than any other, I firmly believe we must send someone who has experience reforming an organization. John Bolton comes to this nomination after years of experience in the international community. He has performed pro-bono work for the U.N. in Africa and worked as the U.N. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations from 1989 to 1992. In the last 4 years, Bolton has been instrumental in urging U.N. agencies to take steps to stop the spread of dangerous weapons, while calling on all member states to criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In the Moscow Treaty, which reduced our operationally deployed nuclear weapons arsenal by two-thirds, John Bolton served as the principal negotiator. As Under Secretary of State, John Bolton helped construct the G8 Global Partnership, a global initiative to focus on safeguards and verification of nuclear programs. The G8 Global Partnership establishes a principle that countries under investigation will not be allowed to serve on the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. In these times of atrocities against humanity, an honest, functioning U.N. is needed. I think John Bolton will help the U.N. head in that direction. I do hope to have an opportunity to work with John in that capacity and know he would serve tirelessly and thoughtfully in the many challenges ahead.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that provides an important clarification to the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000. The water project authorized by that legislation will provide desperately needed drinking water to the residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the communities surrounding the Reservation Dry Prairie Rural Water System. In order to accomplish this, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation and Dry Prairie are set to enter into an agreement, allowing Dry Prairie to use the water. The Dry Prairie allocation will be approximately 2,800 acre feet of water. The agreement is consistent with the provisions of the Tribes' Water Compact. However, to address any possible questions regarding the Tribes' grant of use of this water to Dry Prairie, both the Tribes and Dry Prairie would like the Secretary's authority to approve this water use agreement to be clearly approved by Congress. The legislation I am introducing today provides this clarification. The Project, as authorized, calls for the water to be diverted from the Missouri River at a single location south of Poplar, MT, to an intake system or an infiltration gallery. The estimated amount of annual project diversion is 6,000 acre feet for the entire Project area. The Missouri River at the point of diversion has an average annual streamflow of approximately 7.5 million acre feet. The Tribes, pursuant to their tribal-state water rights compact, one of the first in the Nation, hold a water right to nearly one million acre feet in the Missouri River. This compact has been approved by the Montana Water Court and is binding on all the parties. This Project will finally enable the Fort Peck Tribes to receive critical benefits from its water settlement with the United States and the State of Montana. As a result of this settlement, the Tribes are able to make a significant contribution to the Project: the water that will be used for the entire system. My legislation will provide the legal clarity necessary to ensure this project moves forward as intended.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that provides an important clarification to the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000. The water project authorized by that legislation will provide desperately needed drinking water to the residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the communities surrounding the Reservation Dry Prairie Rural Water System. In order to accomplish this, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation and Dry Prairie are set to enter into an agreement, allowing Dry Prairie to use the water. The Dry Prairie allocation will be approximately 2,800 acre feet of water. The agreement is consistent with the provisions of the Tribes' Water Compact. However, to address any possible questions regarding the Tribes' grant of use of this water to Dry Prairie, both the Tribes and Dry Prairie would like the Secretary's authority to approve this water use agreement to be clearly approved by Congress. The legislation I am introducing today provides this clarification. The Project, as authorized, calls for the water to be diverted from the Missouri River at a single location south of Poplar, MT, to an intake system or an infiltration gallery. The estimated amount of annual project diversion is 6,000 acre feet for the entire Project area. The Missouri River at the point of diversion has an average annual streamflow of approximately 7.5 million acre feet. The Tribes, pursuant to their tribal-state water rights compact, one of the first in the Nation, hold a water right to nearly one million acre feet in the Missouri River. This compact has been approved by the Montana Water Court and is binding on all the parties. This Project will finally enable the Fort Peck Tribes to receive critical benefits from its water settlement with the United States and the State of Montana. As a result of this settlement, the Tribes are able to make a significant contribution to the Project: the water that will be used for the entire system. My legislation will provide the legal clarity necessary to ensure this project moves forward as intended.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation that would significantly reduce the Social Security Disability payment waiting period for people diagnosed with the fatal cancer of mesothelioma. Seventy to eighty percent of all documented cases of mesothelioma share the common denominator of a history of asbestos. While symptoms of mesothelioma can remain latent over many decades, this rare cancer violently attacks its victims, and drastically reduce their life expectancy. The Social Security Administration currently has a mandatory five- month ``waiting period'' for all people applying for disability. The victims of mesothelioma simply cannot wait 5 months for their disability payments to begin. This bill will significantly reduce the waiting period from 5 months to 30 days for victims of mesothelioma. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure and join me in ensuring these victims get their payments in a timely fashion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation that would significantly reduce the Social Security Disability payment waiting period for people diagnosed with the fatal cancer of mesothelioma. Seventy to eighty percent of all documented cases of mesothelioma share the common denominator of a history of asbestos. While symptoms of mesothelioma can remain latent over many decades, this rare cancer violently attacks its victims, and drastically reduce their life expectancy. The Social Security Administration currently has a mandatory five- month ``waiting period'' for all people applying for disability. The victims of mesothelioma simply cannot wait 5 months for their disability payments to begin. This bill will significantly reduce the waiting period from 5 months to 30 days for victims of mesothelioma. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure and join me in ensuring these victims get their payments in a timely fashion. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Online Freedom of Speech Act which my colleague Senator Reid has introduced. This legislation clarifies the campaign finance legislation of 2002 in order to restore freedom of speech to the Internet. The Internet is more than a remarkable new technology. It's a means of bringing people together. I read somewhere that the most important time in a person's development is the first 5 years. Things that happen during infancy have dramatic effects on how that child will develop for the rest of their life. The Internet is no different. It is a technology in its infancy. We are fortunate to live in an exciting time of great technological change. In my State of Montana, cutting-edge technology is creating jobs and industry. But like anything in its infancy, we should be very careful about how we respond to technological infants like the Internet. A wrong step now could affect how it develops for the next 100 years. For this reason, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not identify the Internet as a target of regulation. However, it also did not specifically exclude it. When the FEC decided how to enforce the regulatory measures of the new law, they erred on the side of caution and exempted the Internet from their regulatory scope. The fruits of that decision have been profound. According to a Pew Internet and American Life Project survey, two thirds of adult Americans, or 136 million citizens, use the Internet. For youth, that number is even higher. Over half of the adults who use the Internet used it during the 2004 campaign cycle. They used it to obtain news and determine candidate positions. They viewed websites for campaigns and advocacy groups. They looked for information to register to vote. They followed opinion polls, looked at jokes, and checked the validity of rumors. They emailed one another about the election, and received email newsletters from candidates and advocacy groups. By a 10 to 1 margin, these Americans said that the Internet was a positive addition to public debate in the 2004 campaign. In the past several years, the Internet has become a powerful way for the American People to voice their opinions on everything from car parts to hair styles to political elections. The Internet has been utilized by Americans representing the numerous ideologies of all the political parties. It is not Republican. It is not Democrat. It is not rich or poor. The Internet, like this country, is the mixture of all of those things together. It has become the newest and most dynamic melting pot of ideas. But all this may be threatened because in 2004 a Federal court here in Washington, DC, instructed the FEC to begin regulating the Internet. The FEC has begun working out the details for this new regulatory framework, and right now we can see what that process looks like. I'll tell you this. It's not easy to understand. There are experts who don't understand it all. There are thousands of pages of comments and proposals. The Online Freedom of Speech Act can clean up this entire mess with 8 simple lines of legislation. In 1996, I was a co-founder of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Today, there are 176 members of this caucus from both parties and in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. These members have pledged to uphold the following: Promoting growth and advancement of the Internet; providing a bicameral, bipartisan forum for Internet concerns to be raised; promoting the education of Members of Congress and their staffs about the Internet; promoting commerce and the free flow of information on the Internet; advancing the United States' world leadership in the digital world; and maximizing the openness of and participation in government by the people. I helped found this caucus because I understand the importance of careful treatment of this technology in its infancy. Government tends to want to regulate, and regulation can stunt growth. I am very concerned that without legislation like the Online Freedom of Speech Act, the First Amendment rights of Americans, from Montana and throughout the rest of the county, will be severely damaged. Experts have warned that at the very least, proposed online regulation will subject Internet advocates, like bloggers, to the prospect of FEC investigations. That can mean subpoenas, lawyers, increased government payrolls and bureaucracy. Such investigations are not only a huge commitment for the FEC, but a serious threat to free speech online. One of the things that makes the Internet unique is that it is so broadly accessible. Compared to more traditional forms of publication it is very cheap to publish on the Internet. As little as 20 years ago, the only way for someone's ideas to reach the full Marketplace of Ideas was to secure access to a printing press or broadcast center. But as I said, the Internet is much different, now allowing anyone to promote his or her ideas into the marketplace. Internet media doesn't crowd out other competing media. And since everyone can have their say, the reader is the one who gets to decide what he or she wants to read. We need to be mindful of allowing the government to try to limit the choices of what the consumer can make. Mr. President, as you can see, regulatory standards for the Internet must be much different than for other forms of public communication. The traditional arguments for traditional media do not apply here. Some of my colleagues may think that there must be some regulation of the Internet for some types of political speech. However, before we choose to regulate this infant technology, we need learned-testimony and debate on this issue by discussing this bill. We need to make sure that regulation is the best course of action. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in support for the Online Freedom of Speech Act.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, now that we have established the ``new'' guidelines--which have always been there--confirming or rejecting the appointment of judges to the Federal appellate courts, I have come to the floor today to speak in support of William Myers, who is the President's nominee to the Ninth Judicial Circuit. He, as nominees Owen, Brown, and Pryor, deserves a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. I got a call last night from a constituent in Montana who didn't understand what an up-or-down vote was on the floor of the Senate. So I explained to her that it is a ``yea'' or a ``nay,'' and whoever gathers the most votes wins. That is as simple as I could put it. Of course, she understood. Bill Myers is a native of Idaho and is a highly respected attorney who is nationally recognized for his work. He is an expert in the area of natural resources, public lands, water and water law and, most importantly, environmental law. Mr. Myers has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers my State, along with Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and also Guam and the Northern Marianas--by far, the largest of all of the appellate district courts. It is huge. The caseload is huge. And always the caseload has burdened them to where we don't get a verdict very quickly in the Ninth. Most of us subscribe to the view that justice delayed is justice denied. From July 2001 to October 2003, Mr. Myers served as Solicitor of the Interior, the chief legal officer and third ranking official in the Department of the Interior. He was confirmed by the Senate to serve as Solicitor of the Interior by unanimous consent. Before coming to the Department, Mr. Myers practiced at one of the most respected law firms in the Rocky Mountain region, where he participated in an extensive array of Federal litigation involving public lands and natural resource issues. From 1992 to 1993, he served in the Department of Energy as Deputy General Counsel for Programs, where he was the Department's principal legal adviser on matters pertaining to international energy, Government contracting, civilian nuclear programs, power marketing, and intervention in State regulatory proceedings. He really earned his stripes there. Prior to that, he was assistant to the Attorney General of the United States from 1989 to 1992. In this capacity, he prepared the Attorney General for his responsibilities as chairman of the President's Domestic Policy Council. Before entering the Justice Department, Mr. Myers served 4 years on the staff of the Honorable Alan Simpson of Wyoming, where he was a principal adviser to the Senator on public land issues. Everyone, in my memory, remembers with great fondness Senator Simpson of Wyoming. Mr. Myers is an avid outdoorsman. He is a person who is totally committed to conservation, having served over 15 years of voluntary service to the National Park Service, where he did all the menial jobs--trail work, campsites, and visitor areas, understanding our Park Service and its role in American life. He has also received widespread support from across the ideological political spectrum. For example, former Democratic Governor of Idaho, and good friend, Governor Cecil Andrus, stated that Myers possesses ``the necessary personal integrity, judicial temperament, and legal experience,'' as well as ``the ability to act fairly on matters of law that will come before him on the court.'' Former Democratic Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan endorsed Mr. Myers saying that he ``would provide serious, responsible, and intellectual consideration to each matter before him as an appellate judge and would not be prone to the extreme or ideological positions unattached to legal precedents or the merits of a given matter.'' That is a pretty high recommendation by two outstanding Governors. By the way, they are Democrats and are good friends of mine. In addition, in 2004, Mr. Myers was endorsed by 15 State attorneys general, including the current Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado, as well as the Democratic attorneys general of Oklahoma and Wyoming. These chief law enforcement officers stated that Mr. Myers ``would bring to the Ninth Circuit strong intellectual skills, combined with a strong sense of civility, decency, and respect for all.'' Finally, in 2004, the Governors of Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, and Nevada--five States in the Ninth Circuit--strongly backed Mr. Myers, writing that he had the ``temperament and the judicial instincts to serve on the Ninth Circuit.'' The Ninth Circuit needs more judges just to get their work done, to clear out the backlog. They can use some good old rural common sense on that bench as well. He brings that kind of common sense, that kind of balance, those values that are dear to the West. Out of the Ninth Circuit, we have seen many rulings that have been very troubling to most Americans and some really radical rulings. They are the court that ruled the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional. Now, to a lot of us, that doesn't make a lot of sense. But I will tell you, it was evidenced by the continual overturning of many of the Ninth Circuit rulings. That court has been overturned more than any court in the land. Bill Myers is a man of strong character, who would reestablish balance in the Ninth Circuit by accurately reflecting those commonsense values--in other words, that old country lawyer that came to town who understands people. He will reflect the population from those States, such as my State of Montana, which make up the Ninth Circuit. I am committed to making sure he gets the vote he deserves on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 152, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent the Feinstein amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Utah. He laid out in pretty logical form what is at stake. I have come to the Senate floor today to talk on an issue about which I seldom speak on this floor. I come to lend my voice maybe to break this impasse in which we find ourselves. The Senate has dwelt and droned for endless hours with at times very inflammatory language of which some of us and folks in America, the viewing public, have no doubt become very weary. I just got off an airplane from Montana. When I walked off that plane, I said it is time to act so we can move on to the business of addressing the issues that are pressing the times. We have run out of time and options, and now we must decide, and the hour is now. I cannot remember a time when I read more history of the Senate than on this occasion or in this situation. Some have made statements that this has never happened before in our history. That is wrong because there have been some contentious times facing each and every Congress since our beginning, and Draconian actions were taken to deal with the issues of the dangerous times, times of great peril. We survived them, and we will survive this one also. That is the greatness of this country and the Senate because I think at times we underestimate our own abilities. It just seems to me that in the Senate, we cannot allow a small minority to radically alter longstanding traditions just because it does not like a President or maybe his or her judicial nominees. During the 108th Congress, the other side used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations to the Federal appeals courts. All of these judicial nominees had bipartisan majority support. The Senate would have confirmed them had they been permitted a vote. And never in the history of this country has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied confirmation due to a filibuster. Further, nearly one-third of President Bush's nominations to the courts of appeal were denied up-or-down votes. The Democrats used or threatened to use the filibuster. In that respect, President Bush now has the lowest appeals court confirmation rate for the first 4 years of any modern Presidency. Has each judicial nomination been blocked due to improper qualifications? Everybody on this floor has talked about that, and the answer is no. Rather, each nomination has been blocked by a partisan few who are willing to change Senate tradition and custom of advice and consent imposing a 60-vote requirement on each nomination. Every one of the judicial nominees being blocked by filibuster is of the highest academic and intellectual quality, and each represents a broad cross-section of American society. More importantly, all these nominees have demonstrated that they respect the rule of law. They are committed to interpreting and applying the law as it relates to the Constitution of the United States of America. Those folks who want to say this is a constitutional amendment, go to article II, section 2, and read what it says. The American people should know that for more than 200 years, the rule for confirming judges has been fair on an up-or-down vote. In the heart of every American I know, there is a common sense of fairness. These good people being nominated by President Bush are, at the very least, entitled to receive a vote. Whether you disagree or agree with the particular person being nominated for a judgeship, it is incumbent on this legislative body to provide full and fair open debate on the nomination and to then allow proper democratic procedures to take place. We have heard words such as ``rubberstamp.'' I do not think you could say that. Were minority leaders such as Howard Baker and Everett Dirksen and majority leaders such as Robert C. Byrd and Bob Dole rubberstamp Senators? I do not think so. I have heard the talk of the radical right. I wonder if there is a radical left also that grabs the ears of some folks. Let there be no doubt about this issue--it is as clear as a Montana morning. It is obstructionism that has caused this crisis that looms over us today. During the 108th Congress, 10 judicial nominations were either filibustered or threatened the use of filibuster, and 6 other nominations along with it. All of these nominations were supported by Senators of both parties and opposed only by a partisan minority. In fact, Judge Owen has received four votes in the Senate, and she carried the vote each time. Yet she is not on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Look at William Myers. The President nominated the former Solicitor of the Interior Department for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Myers, a distinguished attorney, is a nationally recognized expert in the area of natural resources and land use law. However, despite his long service as National Park Service volunteer and a lifetime of respect and enjoyment of the outdoors, the other side held his previous clients' positions against him and accused him of being hostile to the environment, therefore blocking his nomination and taking away the Senate's responsibility to give him a vote. We have all heard about Priscilla Owen of Texas. She has already been voted on four times in this body and carried the vote every time. Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court justice, was nominated to the DC Circuit. The first African American to serve on the California high court, Justice Brown received public support of 76 percent of California voters. I think I heard my good friend from Delaware say they have 2 Senators from California, and they each represent over 17 million people. She represented the whole State and got 76 percent. Yet she was denied a vote on this floor. William Pryor, Judge Pryor, has been serving with distinction on the Eleventh Circuit since the President gave him a recess appointment in February of 2004. Previously, he served 6 years as an Alabama attorney general. Although he repeatedly demonstrated his ability to follow the law, he has been blocked by the Democrats' filibuster because he has ``deeply held'' beliefs, taking away the Senate's responsibility to vote for him. One of the country's rising stars in the judicial world, Miguel Estrada, could be described as the finest, the best, and the brightest among his peers. This Honduran immigrant who went to Harvard Law School and clerked for the Supreme Court was debated on this Senate floor for more hours than any other judicial nomination in Senate history. After cloture votes repeatedly failed, he asked the President to withdraw his name from consideration, thereby allowing the other side to prevent the DC Circuit from having a very talented jurist to interpret and apply the law, again taking away our responsibility to vote for him. What are we doing here? Are we dumbing down the judiciary when the best and the brightest have offered themselves to serve after they were nominated by this President? Now we are faced with finding a solution to this so-called crisis. They have already admitted that the filibuster is not about the qualification of the judges. They just do not want these judges. They just do not want judges appointed to the court by President Bush. So if we allow this to continue, it will be acquiescing to the partisan minority's unilateral change in the Senate practices for the last 200 years, a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges when only a simple majority up-or-down vote has been the standard of practice in this Senate for a long time, and is also alluded to in the Constitution of the United States. I would say the Constitution trumps any rule that we may make, that we put in place here for our rules of procedures and conduct. I think the Constitution trumps them. Now we find ourselves in this crisis. No more time. Now is the time to vote. The Senate has demonstrated in the past that it need not stand by and allow a minority to redefine the traditions, rules, practices and procedures of the Senate. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to set its own rules, procedures, and practices, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the continuous power of a majority of members to do so. The exercise of a Senate majority's constitutional power to define Senate practices and procedures has come to be known as the ``constitutional option.'' The constitutional option can be exercised in several different ways, such as by creating precedents to effectuate the amendment of Senate Standing Rules or by creating precedents that address abuses of Senate customs by a minority of Senators. Regardless of the variant, the purpose of the constitutional option is the same--to reform Senate practices in the face of unforeseen abuses. 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 because virtually every Senator would oppose such an elimination. Instead, the constitutional option's sole purpose would be the restoration of longstanding constitutional standards for advice and consent. For more than 200 years, the rule for confirming judges has been a fair, up-or-down vote. For over 200 years, the Senate has honored both the minority's right to debate and the full Senate's right to vote on judicial nominees. No other minority leader in American history has claimed that the right to debate equals the right to prevent the full Senate from exercising its constitutional duty to advise and consent. For over 200 years, Senators did not filibuster judicial nominees. Was the Senate just a rubber stamp for its first 200 years? Did every Senate before the 108th Congress fail to carry out its constitutional duty to advise and consent? The answer is a resounding ``no.'' Further, for 70 percent of the twentieth century, the same party controlled both the White House and the Senate, yet Minority Leaders on both sides of the aisle did not filibuster the President's judicial nominees. The choice is not between being a rubber stamp or filibustering a judicial nominee. For over 200 years, Senators agreed that the proper way to oppose a judicial nominee is to vote ``no.'' They went to the floor and explained why they opposed the nominee. They tried to persuade their colleagues. They tried to persuade the American people. Then, they voted no. They did not filibuster or threaten to shut down the U.S. Senate. Until now, every judicial nominee with support from a majority of Senators was confirmed. The majority-vote standard was used consistently throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries--for every administration until President George W. Bush's judicial nominations were subjected to a 60-vote standard. These good people, being nominated by President Bush, are at the very least entitled to receive a vote. Whether you agree or disagree with the particular person being nominated for a judgeship, it is incumbent on this great legislative body to provide full, fair and open debate on the nomination and to then allow the proper democratic procedures to take place. The Senate has demonstrated in the past that it need not stand by and allow a minority to redefine the traditions, rules, practices and procedures of the Senate. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to set its own rules, procedures, and practices, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the continuous power of a majority of members to do so. Because of this partisan minority, because of this obstructionism and because of the partisan minority's continued actions to take away the Senate's duty and responsibility to vote on the nominations before this great body, we face a crisis that has only 2 remedies: Either the partisan minority allow the Senate to fulfill its duty and responsibility to vote on President Bush's judicial nominations by not continuously invoking the filibuster. Or, the Senate must invoke the necessary and requisite constitutional option to prevent the tyranny of the minority and the radically altering of longstanding traditions of the United States Senate. Accordingly, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to stop the obstructionism and to allow President Bush's judicial nominations receive a fair, up-or-down vote and, therefore, to allow this great legislative body to carry out its constitutional duty of advice and consent--a responsibility that we, as Senators, have been duly elected to uphold by the American people. There is a little housekeeping we might do before my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, chooses to speak. I thank the Senator for that. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be recognized at 5:30 p.m. today; provided further that from 6 to 7 this evening be under the control of the majority leader or his designee, that from 7 to 8 p.m. be under the Democratic control, with time continuing to rotate in that fashion until 9 a.m.

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation to the managers of this legislation for including my amendment relating to commercial driver training programs. The amendment authorizes $5 million to the Department of Transportation for a grant program for driver training schools and for financial assistance for entry-level drivers who need the training. In my State of Montana, and around the country, the trucking industry is a critical component of the economy. In 2000, the trucking industry in Montana provided 1 out of every 13 jobs, paying nearly $900 million in wages each year. Currently, the trucking industry is experiencing a severe shortage of drivers, and my amendment seeks to address that concern by providing funds to get folks behind the wheel. Industry research indicates the number of new truck drivers in the U.S. needs to increase by 320,000 jobs per year over the next 10 years to fill the projected economic growth for that time period. Additionally, another 219,000 new truck drivers will have to be added each year to replace drivers who will be retiring over this period. Those are important jobs, and we need to get folks trained and ready to fill the growing demand for transportation services. The average entry-level driving course can run as much as $4,000. Those tuition costs can serve as a barrier to drivers who need the training, and my amendment would allow training programs to use grant money to provide financial assistance to those who need it. When you are out of work and looking for a job, a $4,000 entry fee can seem a little steep--so this amendment will help folks out, and give them the resources they need to get trained and get trucking. The highway bill before the Senate right now is a jobs bill, plain and simple. By authorizing critical funding for highway programs, we keep people working on our Nation's infrastructure. Construction projects that are currently stalled or deferred, waiting for final passage of a highway bill, can get underway again. My amendment contributes to the job growth encouraged by the highway bill, and I am pleased that it could be included. I commend the managers of this bill for their hard work but know that much more remains to be done in conference. In a State as large as Montana, infrastructure development is essential to our economic growth. This legislation will allocate needed funds to our roads and transit systems. The highway bill is a priority for our country, and I look forward to supporting its final passage here in the Senate.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues, Senator Enzi and Senator Thune in introducing ``The Veterans Road to Health Care Act of 2005.'' Montana veterans are often forced to travel hundreds of miles throughout our great State to receive the healthcare they need. Whether traveling to the only Veterans' Administration (VA) hospital located just outside of Helena at Fort Harrison, or to one of the eight Community Based Outpatient Clinics, CBOCs, the distances traveled by our veterans is great. We have a lot of dirt between light bulbs in Montana. This distance, combined with the increase in gas prices and the cost of lodging for veterans and their families adds up quickly. Many of these folks do not have any other option for their health care, and I think that anything which can be done to help those who are travel eligible would be appreciated. The Veterans Road to Health Care Act of 2005 would help ease this burden by raising the travel reimbursement rate for veterans who must travel to VA facilities for treatment. The current reimbursement rate of 11 cents per mile would be increased to the Federal rate of 40.5 cents per mile. It seems only fair that veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country receive the same compensation as Federal employees. My bill would also allow payment under the Travel Beneficiary Program to veterans who cannot receive adequate care at their VA facility and are thereby forced to travel to another care center for specialized treatment. This referral to another facility for additional treatment often increases the costs for veterans from rural States like Montana, who must make another trip and sometimes travel even longer distances, for medical assistance. It is important that veterans in rural areas receive fair compensation, as they travel to obtain healthcare. I want to acknowledge Senators Enzi and Thune for joining me in support of this bill. Their work on this and all other veterans' issues is to be commended, and I look forward to working with them and my other Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation. We need to do this for veterans in Montana and other rural areas across the country.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this bill conveys 3.4 acres on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest to Jefferson County, MT for continued use as a cemetery. The Elkhorn Cemetery in Jefferson County has been used as a cemetery since the 1860's. Due to surveying errors and limited information when the National Forest boundaries were surveyed in the early 1900's, the cemetery was included as National Forest lands. The cemetery is still in use by local families who homesteaded and worked the mines in the area. However, Forest Service manual direction strongly discourages burials on National Forest lands, placing both the families and Forest Service in an awkward position. It is clear the cemetery should not have been included as part of the National Forest. The County Commissioners and the local public strongly support the conveyance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this bill conveys 3.4 acres on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest to Jefferson County, MT for continued use as a cemetery. The Elkhorn Cemetery in Jefferson County has been used as a cemetery since the 1860's. Due to surveying errors and limited information when the National Forest boundaries were surveyed in the early 1900's, the cemetery was included as National Forest lands. The cemetery is still in use by local families who homesteaded and worked the mines in the area. However, Forest Service manual direction strongly discourages burials on National Forest lands, placing both the families and Forest Service in an awkward position. It is clear the cemetery should not have been included as part of the National Forest. The County Commissioners and the local public strongly support the conveyance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in morning business for the next 10 minutes.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11, 2001 reminded us all that national security is of the utmost importance. Since then, we have worked to ensure the safety of this country. Still, there are gaps in our immigration and identification systems that need attention. Those with ties to terrorist organizations should not be given asylum or permission to live in this country where they can do harm. Barriers on our borders should be enhanced to adequately protect our national security. Driver's licenses and personal ID cards should be secure, and should not be given to terrorists or those who are in this country illegally. There are provisions to address each of these concerns in the REAL ID Act of 2005, which has been attached to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. I have expressed my reservations about possible unforeseen costs to my State of Montana that these provisions could impose, particularly the costs of changing the system of issuing driver's licenses. Ultimately, however, I firmly believe that the fundamental aspects of this bill will make Montana, a border State where homeland security is of paramount concern, and our country safer and more secure in this era where illegal immigration is out of control and the security of our identification systems continues to be lacking. I am confident that any remaining funding issues can be worked out later in the implementation process. Our job now is to move forward, and make sure that these provisions are put into place with the best interest of this country in mind. As I have said before, my State of Montana has one of the largest international borders. A lot of attention has been placed on border security lately, particularly on the northern border. I think we can all agree that the northern border has been historically understaffed and lacks the necessary infrastructure to adequately screen individuals seeking entry into the United States who wish to do us harm. I have always supported increasing the number of border patrol agents along Montana's northern border. It does not make sense for the Department of Homeland Security to heavily staff the southern borders while leaving large gaps wide open on the northern border. The end result is that those wanting to enter the United States illegally may focus on the less secured border regions of the north so that they may cross over undetected. Unfortunately, the grave threat of this happening along Montana's vast border remains a reality. In view of this, during debate on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, I was a cosponsor of the Ensign amendment which was adopted that would increase the number of Border Patrol agents and provide funding for Border Patrol facilities. I am happy to report that the conferees reached a compromise that would provide $635 million for increased border security and enforcement; this includes $176 million to hire, train, equip, and support 500 Border Patrol agents and relieve current facility overcrowding. The supplemental also includes almost half a billion dollars for Immigration and Customs enforcement; $97.5 million of this would be used to hire and train additional criminal investigators and immigration enforcement agents. I will always vote to protect our homeland and the safety of our citizens, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same as the Senate considers the supplemental for final passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, yesterday we introduced a bill that would bring relief to some of the folks in my State of Montana. As you know, in the 1950s, nuclear testing was held in Nevada. Of course, from this testing, there was some radiation drift. The major source of this radiation comes from nuclear explosions from a Nevada test site, which is located about 65 miles north of Las Vegas. In studies by the National Cancer Institute, and a report that was recently released by the National Academy of Sciences, we find that the State of Montana was left out of any compensation that was given to victims of downwind exposure to radiation. In fact, according to the National Cancer Institute, certain areas of Montana have been exposed to the highest dose, ranging from 12 rads to 16 rads. The National Cancer Institute's charts give you some idea of the effects of the nuclear test site in Nevada. Of course, up in our part of the country, we fall victim to southwesterly winds. If you notice, my State of Montana shows up with more darker red areas on the chart than any other region of the United States, which means that we received some of the highest doses of radiation. Montana is home to 15 of the 25 counties with the highest radiation dosage nationwide and the county receiving the highest dose in the country is Meagher County, MT. Individuals who were affected from this nuclear testing are often called downwinders--because the wind carried the poisonous Iodine-131 north, when the gravity finally kicked in and it settled to the ground. People can be exposed to radiation from nuclear testing fallout through external radiation like a plume or a cloud passing over a region. They can also be exposed by radioactivity deposited on the ground and remaining there for long periods of time, or by the internal exposure to radioactivity that accumulates in the body from inhalation or ingestion of plants, meat or milk. Milk is the primary source of Iodine-131 and disproportionately affects milk drinkers. Who drinks milk? Children and babies who are the most vulnerable of our society. This discussion leads us to the topic of thyroid cancer. The thyroid gland will absorb about 30 percent of radioactive Iodine-131 in the human body. Thyroid cancer is slow in development as it takes 10 to 40 years to manifest itself. This means that radiation exposure in the late 1950s might not manifest as cancer until the 1990s. This chart compares the rates of thyroid cancer nationwide and in my state of Montana. Between years 1989 and 2003, the rate of thyroid cancer diagnosis nationwide increased by 38 percent. At the same time, the thyroid cancer rate in my State of Montana increased by a whopping 127 percent. The 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and RECA Amendments of 2000 offer lump-sum payments of $50,000 to civilians who were living in States deemed as downwind from the nuclear testing in Nevada and who contracted a specific type of cancer. States where downwinders can currently receive compensation include Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. It is important to note that Montana was not included under this law. Yet a report just released by the National Academy of Sciences shows that Montana received the highest radiation dosage. Accordingly, a most recent study on this issue shows the absorbed radiation dose to the thyroid of a person born in 1948 who resided for the entire period in Montana is 250 milligrays. This dosage is higher than most, if not all, regions presently eligible for compensation under RECA. My bill, S. 977, would allow Montanans who were adversely affected by this nuclear testing to be counted among those folks currently eligible to receive $50,000 in compensation. Those eligible for $50,000 would also receive compensation in the form of free medical treatments for the diseases they have contracted from the exposure. The fact is, Montanans were involuntarily subjected to increased risk of injury and disease in order to serve the national security interests of the United States, and they deserve our compassion and our support. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support S. 977, to expand RECA to victims in the State of Montana. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in Montana, when someone does something to hurt someone else, they make it right. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because in this State we shoot straight and take responsibility for our actions that's why I'm working to bring some of that Montana ethic to Washington to get the Federal Government to make amends for actions that have caused too many Montanans great pain and suffering. Nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950's threw blooms of radioactive Iodine-131, I-131, high into the atmosphere. Those who were affected are sometimes referred to as ``Down Winders'' because the wind carried the poisonous iodine north to Montana where gravity finally kicked in and the radioactive material settled to the ground. It eventually got into the milk supply--one of the primary sources of Iodine 131--and disproportionately affected milk drinkers. And who drinks milk? Children and babies, who are the most vulnerable in society. Iodine-131 is absorbed by the thyroid--the organ of the body that uses iodine to produce important hormones. It can take between 20 and 40 years, but eventually the damage caused by Iodine-131 manifests itself as thyroid cancer. I've had cancer, and I understand the physical, mental and emotional pain that follows this terrible disease. I know the pain, and it is time that the government made right the harm it has caused to people in my State of Montana. In 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act or RECA was signed into law. This measure provided financial compensation for victims living downwind of the Nevada Test Site to the tune of $50,000 per person. The law covered select counties in Nevada, Utah and Arizona. Later, this Act was amended to include compensation for uranium miners in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. However, Montana, with 15 of the 25 counties with the highest dosage, Meagher, Broadwater, Beaverhead, Jefferson, Powell, Judith Basin, Madison, Fergus, Gallatin, Petroleum, Lewis and Clark, Blaine, Silver Bow, Chouteau and Deer Lodge, single most affected county in the United States, Meagher, is the only State in the affected region to receive no RECA compensation at all. If that doesn't sound right, it's because it's not. Montanans have experienced unbelievably high rates of thyroid cancer. Between 1989 and 2003, the national rate of thyroid cancer increased by 38 percent. In that same timeframe, Montana's rate increased by a whopping 127 percent. And yet, Montana is the only State in the region that is excluded from RECA. In 2000, the rate of reported thyroid cancer in Montana was 17.5 times greater than the national rate. And yet, Montana is the only State in the region that is excluded from RECA. On April 28, 2005, at the request of Congress, a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences. The 500-page report confirms the inadequacy of current RECA compensation. Most importantly, it supports the fact that Montana was one of the worst affected States. The fact is that folks in Montana were involuntarily subjected to increased risk of injury and disease in order to serve the national security interests of the United States. Moreover, they deserve our compassion and support. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the expansion of RECA to my State of Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in Montana, when someone does something to hurt someone else, they make it right. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because in this State we shoot straight and take responsibility for our actions that's why I'm working to bring some of that Montana ethic to Washington to get the Federal Government to make amends for actions that have caused too many Montanans great pain and suffering. Nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950's threw blooms of radioactive Iodine-131, I-131, high into the atmosphere. Those who were affected are sometimes referred to as ``Down Winders'' because the wind carried the poisonous iodine north to Montana where gravity finally kicked in and the radioactive material settled to the ground. It eventually got into the milk supply--one of the primary sources of Iodine 131--and disproportionately affected milk drinkers. And who drinks milk? Children and babies, who are the most vulnerable in society. Iodine-131 is absorbed by the thyroid--the organ of the body that uses iodine to produce important hormones. It can take between 20 and 40 years, but eventually the damage caused by Iodine-131 manifests itself as thyroid cancer. I've had cancer, and I understand the physical, mental and emotional pain that follows this terrible disease. I know the pain, and it is time that the government made right the harm it has caused to people in my State of Montana. In 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act or RECA was signed into law. This measure provided financial compensation for victims living downwind of the Nevada Test Site to the tune of $50,000 per person. The law covered select counties in Nevada, Utah and Arizona. Later, this Act was amended to include compensation for uranium miners in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. However, Montana, with 15 of the 25 counties with the highest dosage, Meagher, Broadwater, Beaverhead, Jefferson, Powell, Judith Basin, Madison, Fergus, Gallatin, Petroleum, Lewis and Clark, Blaine, Silver Bow, Chouteau and Deer Lodge, single most affected county in the United States, Meagher, is the only State in the affected region to receive no RECA compensation at all. If that doesn't sound right, it's because it's not. Montanans have experienced unbelievably high rates of thyroid cancer. Between 1989 and 2003, the national rate of thyroid cancer increased by 38 percent. In that same timeframe, Montana's rate increased by a whopping 127 percent. And yet, Montana is the only State in the region that is excluded from RECA. In 2000, the rate of reported thyroid cancer in Montana was 17.5 times greater than the national rate. And yet, Montana is the only State in the region that is excluded from RECA. On April 28, 2005, at the request of Congress, a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences. The 500-page report confirms the inadequacy of current RECA compensation. Most importantly, it supports the fact that Montana was one of the worst affected States. The fact is that folks in Montana were involuntarily subjected to increased risk of injury and disease in order to serve the national security interests of the United States. Moreover, they deserve our compassion and support. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the expansion of RECA to my State of Montana.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues Senators Cantwell, Craig, Murray, and Smith, in support of S. 206, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act of 2005. Thousands of years ago, Glacial Lake Missoula broke through its ice dam, releasing cataclysmic floods that forever changed the terrain of Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. This natural phenomenon is responsible for the unique beauty of western Montana. However, few people know the history behind our rugged landscape. The Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act of 2005 designates a trail, primarily public roads and highways, from Missoula, Montana to the Pacific Ocean, following the path of the great floods. Through this legislation, the National Park Service is responsible for coordinating public and private sector entities to present the story of the ice age floods to the public. Many folks in my great State of Montana, including members of the Glacial Lake Missoula Chapter of the Ice Age Floods Institute, look forward to working with the National Park Service in a joint effort to educate the public. Additionally, designation of the Ice Age Floods Trail provides a tremendous opportunity for tourism and economic development in Montana. I am also pleased S. 206 takes into consideration the concerns of local citizens and private property owners by limiting Federal land acquisition to 25 acres. These acres will be used only for administrative and public information purposes. As always, it is important to me that private property rights are respected and private property owners do not feel threatened by Federal land acquisitions. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation for not only Montana but the entire Pacific Northwest.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this day is an important occasion for folks in my State of Montana. This afternoon, at 4 o'clock, the National Academy of Sciences will release an extensive report on health effects resulting from nuclear bomb tests that were carried out at the Nevada test site in the 1950s and 1960s. For years now, Montanans and their loved ones have experienced the pain of developing various forms of cancer, most commonly, cancer of the thyroid, caused by exposure to this dangerous radiation. These cancers seemed to be a little too common among people living in certain areas of our State. According to the National Academy of Sciences, these innocent victims--mostly children and babies--who were living in Montana, were exposed to the highest dosages of radiation of any State in the Nation as a result ofthis nuclear testing; even more than Nevada, where the tests were actually conducted. You see, the radioactive iodine is the part that is dangerous. It was blasted high up into the atmosphere and the wind carried it north to Montana where it finally settled on the ground, then into the water and food supply. Thyroid cancer takes around 10 to 40 years to develop. Radiation exposure in the late 1950s might not manifest in cancer until the late 1990s. While the national average for thyroid cancer has remained steady over the past 30 years, the rate of reported thyroid cancer in Montana has increased steadily. In 1980, Montana State had a rate of thyroid cancer 6.2 times the national average. In 1990, that rate had increased to 10.8 times the national average, and in 2000 the rate of reported thyroid cancer in Montana was almost 18 times the national average. The 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, PL 101-426, established the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund for claims for injuries and death due to exposure from the Nevada testing. Under RECA, folks who were residing in parts of the States of Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico during certain times in the 1950s received a substantial amount of compensation from the U.S. Government along with an apology. Research now proves the State of Montana was hit the hardest by this radiation; yet its victims are not eligible for compensation under RECA. Not only do these folks deserve an apology from the U.S. Government, but they deserve this compensation. As a cancer survivor, I cannot begin to tell you the mental, emotional, physical and financial hardship these cancer victims have endured--in order to serve the national security interests of the United States. I strongly recommend that we, as a Congress, apologize to these individuals and amend RECA to compensate folks from my State of Montana as well as other States who have been affected by this tragedy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the Senate begins the important task of debating the highway bill reauthorization, another critical infrastructure issue comes to mind: railroads. In Montana, we rely heavily on both passenger and freight rail for our transportation needs. However, Montana is served by only one major railroad, resulting in shippers being captive to little or no competition for price or service quality. That lack of competition hurts our competitiveness for agriculture and manufacturing. It drives up the cost of electricity, because of the increased costs for coal. Sometimes, it even costs us jobs in Montana. To address the problems faced by many captive shippers, I am introducing today the Railroad Competition Act of 2005. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Rockefeller, Dorgan, Craig, Dayton, Vitter, Thune, Johnson, Baucus, and Coleman. This legislation will extend competition to many captive rail customers and correct problems in the Surface Transportation Board's implementation of railroad deregulation. Specifically, the legislation ensures that rail customers will receive rate quotes for movements between various points on a railroad's system; frees regional and short line railroads to provide access to additional major systems; provides captive rail customers who cannot afford to participate in expensive rate challenge proceedings access to arbitration; and directs the STB to adopt a more realistic and workable rate reasonableness standard. In addition to a lack of competition in many markets, the rail industry in America is badly in need of investment into its infrastructure. To address the infrastructure problem, the legislation increases ten-fold the current Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing program. The legislation also expands who is eligible for the loans and loan guarantees, so that qualified shipping entities can also invest in rail infrastructure. This is about jobs, plain and simple. Last year, when the intermodal hub in Shelby, Montana was closed, over 40 jobs were lost. The Port Authority in Shelby reached out to the railroads to persuade them to keep the hub open, but without competition, the single supplier chose to close. Those jobs are real losses in Shelby, a town of a little over 3,000 people. As high rail rates make U.S. products less competitive, imports flow in to fill the gap--and that costs us jobs. I understand that the rail industry employs a lot of people, and I am glad for those jobs. But we can not let lack of choice and competition in price and service cost us jobs in other areas. Since passage of the Staggers Act in 1980, the railroad industry has experienced significant consolidation, from over 40 major railroads down to 7. Roughly 35 percent of the rail traffic in America is captive, driving up the cost of transportation and placing a heavy burden on shippers. Captive shippers, like my farmers in Montana, have nowhere to go to seek relief. The Surface Transportation Board, the watchdogs over the rail system, is a complicated and expensive mess that hardly provides a fair forum for disputes. To bring a rate reasonableness case, challenging the unfair rates charged to captive shippers, a rail customer must first file huge fees--fees that will double in the coming weeks. Then, the customer must construct a hypothetical railroad and prove to the STB that rail transportation theoretically can be provided at a lower fee. That process can cost over $2 million per case, and take years to see through. At the end, even if the shipper wins, all he gets is a lower fee in the future. Too often, damages for past overcharging are not awarded. Meanwhile, the railroad sits idly by, under no obligation to justify its rates, and continues to collect the exorbitant fees that are under dispute. This system can not stand. The Railroad Competition Act of 2005 directs the STB to address this nonsensical system, and develops a final offer arbitration option, allowing shippers to take their case to a neutral arbiter. These provisions are necessary, not to punish railroads, but to develop a level playing field that keeps my small businesses and agriculture producers in business. Railroads are an essential part of our nation's infrastructure, a vast system that includes our highways, railroads, electric transmission lines, pipelines, and digital infrastructure. In a rural state like Montana, we rely on the rails to cover long distances efficiently, so rail must remain a viable shipping option. We need to achieve affordability, while still allowing sustainability for the railroads. There is a necessary public interest in our shared infrastructure, and the Railroad Competition Act of 2005 is designed to address legitimate public concerns, in Montana and around the nation, about rail operations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this important legislation.