Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, as we stand here today, the conflict goes on in Iraq. I was just talking to a friend. He asked me when are we going to make a move and how is it going? We have only been there a week and a half, but one would think from the television coverage that we are in the middle of the Hundred Years War. There will be many stories that come out of conflicts such as this. I want to relate one. SSG Charles Donovan, Jr., is a 27-year-old 8-year Marine Corps veteran, born and raised in Great Falls, MT. On the 17th of February he was deployed to Kuwait for military service with the First Marine Division. He is a communications expert and a towgunner. A towgunner is the one who fires ammunition from the tank. He has been married to his wife Candice for almost 8 years. They met at Camp Pendleton, CA. They served in the Marine Corps together for 4 years. Since his deployment, Donovan has been able to contact his family frequently and recently received the news from his wife that they are expecting their first child. He was able to reply to his wife by e-mail. It is needless to say anything more about the news and the elation that is experienced by this couple. No. 1, he was all right and getting along fine; and, second, the experience of learning of the good news of an expected first child is always great. So my congratulations go out to Charles and Candice. And I have every faith that he will complete his mission and come home. There are thousands of similar stories stemming from this mission, so ably carried out by our men and women in uniform. It is uniquely American and typical of our warriors of freedom. It distinguishes and sets the American military apart from any other nation in the history of man's constant struggle for freedom and human dignity. We see the pictures every day, not of the ugliness of war but of the men and women who carry out the humanitarian acts as war is carried on. We will succeed in our mission. And we look forward to the day when they all come home. Also, I take great pride to stand here today on the Senate floor to recognize and say thank you to the men and women from Montana and all who serve across this land. We have support organizations popping up in just about every State, organizations formed to give comfort to families and provide various programs such as the one I just mentioned. It is happening everywhere, and there are far too many to mention today. I commend the efforts of one program especially because I met with this group in Livingston, MT. They call themselves MOST--the Military Overseas Support Team--made up of people who have family members serving in that area, and they act as a support system for each person. Then there is another one called Operation Clean Socks. It has been set up to collect and send socks to our military men and women in the Middle East. That sounds strange, but to those of us who have worn the uniform of this great country, socks become a big item, especially to us old marines who traveled on our feet. Folks all over this country are rallying their communities to get support for our troops. I am pleased to see so many of them supportive in Montana. Here in Washington we see the images on television. We are thinking about the troops every day. We know how hard it is fighting for the freedoms of those who are oppressed, and we thank you. We thank you for what you are doing and want you to know that our thoughts and prayers are not only with you but also with your families. You are the best and the greatest ambassadors of the American dream. You will succeed in the efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people. I am confident in our military. I know this effort will be accomplished as soon as possible so they all can come home to the welcoming arms of their families, so that every Charles Donovan, Jr., can see his first child enter the world with the same freedoms with which he was born. We think about them every day. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of S. Con. Res. 30 and S. 351, The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. I am pleased to see so many Americans and communities coming together, in support of our troops. Here in our nation's capitol, we think about our troops everyday. We know how hard they all are fighting for our freedoms and for the freedoms of the Iraqi people. We thank them for what they are doing and want them to know our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. My colleagues in Congress and I have the opportunity to lighten the burden service members often encounter while deployed, or upon their return home, with The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003. This act would allow the American men and women serving our country at home and abroad a small, well-deserved thank you in the form of tax benefits and relief. This reward for those who defend our freedom would help to ensure that the men and women who put themselves in harms way when America calls have peace of mind when it comes to things many take for granted, like filing tax returns or collecting travel reimbursement. The provisions of this act will save military families nearly $500 million in taxes over the next ten years. They deserve nothing less. Thousands of activated military, National Guard, Reservists, and their families in my home state of Montana will directly benefit from this act, and the benefit to members of our armed services on a national scale is immeasurable. It is important that we continue to support our soldiers in any way we can, recognizing the sacrifice they make for the security of our great Nation. We have the best fighting force in the world. I remain certain that our troops will succeed in their efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people. I am confident in our military and know that this effort will be accomplished as soon as possible so that all our troops can safely return home to their families.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I also rise to join with my colleagues on the passing of Pat Moynihan. Where does one start when a friend and colleague leaves us? When Senator Moynihan retired from the Senate, where he served our country and his State so well, he really did not leave us. Now in this, his last transition, he will not leave us. He left so much of himself with us. His words will remain with us for years to come. I did not join the Senate until 1989. Being on the opposite side of the aisle--I was one who had not earned his spurs yet--I did not have the opportunity to get to know him until we went on a trip together to the Persian Gulf during Desert Shield in 1990. I can say my life has been richly blessed serving with a lot of men and women who have since retired from this body. He was one of those people. That was a great trip to the Persian Gulf. We spent a lot of hours in flight and spent a lot of hours in conversation, which was truly enlightening to this Senator from a rural State such as Montana. Our relationship grew from that point, and I realized what a marvelous man he really was. He was a man true to his faith and principles. His intellect stood him apart from most men I have ever known, but he coupled that intellect with good old-fashioned common sense and deep wisdom. The subject matter of the conversation did not make any difference. He could relate to anyone on a common ground. The ability to communicate with anybody who is not blessed with the same amount of institutional information or knowledge of any issue that may confront policymakers on a daily basis is a wonderful talent. He was one I held in high esteem, as he was one of the most intelligent men I have ever known. It is unusual to find a person of that caliber to be blessed with a great sense of humor, and to put it on our level. He was quick, and his humor would sneak up on you. A man of his own style, very comfortable with himself, his presentations on the floor, in committee, or in public were strictly Pat Moynihan. We shall miss his voice on the floor of the Senate for several reasons, and printed words cannot describe that distinct sound. I notice my friend from West Virginia is in the Chamber. Senator Moynihan sat only two seats behind Senator Byrd. We can hear him today say: Mr. President, may we have order. That was distinctly a call we all knew, understood, and respected. I shall miss him. I shall never forget him. Whatever accolades he may receive, he earned every one. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 357

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. Yes, we have been conversing and friends ever since the day I got here, he being an old forest firefighter in Montana when he was younger, and his hair was dark. He was a dashing young man on an adventure West. We have also discussed this subject a lot of times in private conversations. Whether it has been on the Big Horn River or on a golf course, I have always enjoyed those discussions. I gave much thought on what I was going to say today. The Senator and I also shared the same uniform, the U.S. Marine Corps, at different times however. He was a good deal ahead of me. We know what goes through the minds of the young men and women who are confronted with war. Of all the options we have in the world, war is the absolute last one. For our young men and women over there, they have to carry the responsibility. But the real weight may be on the shoulders of our Commander in Chief and on the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Blair, for they have stood strong for what is right. We can also call this the commitment of America. It is a commitment to our history. Looking in our history books, we see man can be ruled by many things, by weapons, by sheer military power, by biological weapons, and chemical weapons. But 9/11 taught us something else, that we can be ruled by fear. Fear is still the greatest motivator of man. Americans have always accepted a certain level of risk for freedom. Sometimes we have accepted a high level of risk for freedom. And we are called upon to do that again. It is not a great option, but it is one that America has assumed the responsibility of since the birth of this country over 200 years ago. Mr. President, 9/11 proved that we can be ruled by fear. Even a sniper in the Washington area was a reminder that, again, we are curtailed and ruled by fear. It was by only one person, that person not known. But this one is known. We commend the President. We pray for our troops as they carry out a great tradition. Diplomatically, the timing is never right. It is never right. But I would say this: We could kick this can down the road. Maybe we could have kicked the can down the road in 1940. Would we have forgotten Pearl Harbor as fast as we think some people have forgotten the Twin Towers? No matter what we do, some generation of America is going to have to deal with this cruel man. We stand in support. We stand in prayer for those who lead, those who commit, and those who do. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I don't know exactly where to begin on this particular subject. But I would like for the American taxpayers to understand one thing: We maintain a strategic oil reserve. It is 700 million barrels of oil that is stored in salt caves in Louisiana. It costs us $175 million a year to maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I just want the taxpayers to know what they are paying for. The fact is, part of that oil was purchased by this Government and put in there, but most of it was taken from royalties. They took the oil instead of the money. And that was recovered on the Outer Continental Shelf or from public lands. So it is there: 700 million barrels of oil that costs the taxpayers $180 million a year to maintain. I suggest that we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is not costing the American people a thing. It is still in the ground in North Dakota, found on public lands, where we cannot get to it. It is found in Montana, on public lands, where we cannot get to it. That is because of organizations that deal primarily in fear, not common sense. Abraham Lincoln once said: God must have loved the common man because he made so many of us. Then, when we use the same term in the phrase ``common sense,'' that sort of changes the definition a little bit. That Strategic Petroleum Reserve is also maintained, and it is still in the ground in ANWR. We do not know how big that reserve is. It has been estimated to be anywhere from 5.3 billion barrels upwards. Does it answer the question of our shortage? Does it take care of all of that? No, it does not. We know that. But, on the other hand, it replaces all the oil we buy that is termed ``rogue'' oil--Iraqi oil that we give hard dollars for and that you contribute to every time you fill your tank at a filling station. What is that money used for? We have seen it on television every night for the past month and a half. We know what that money is being used for. We give it to a tyrant who uses that money to subsidize families, to entice them to take one of their children and strap dynamite on them and walk onto a bus and blow themselves up, and for the development of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological warfare. That is what that money has done. And yet we sit here today trying again to ban the use of a resource that is not only one of the major underpinnings to our economy, but also takes away from that $180 million a year we spend to maintain that SPR in case of an emergency. That is 90 days. It wouldn't even last 90 days. We would just go through it, bingo. It defies common sense, what we are doing here. As far as my State of Montana is concerned, I don't know what the impact is. I know during the major exploration and lifting of Prudhoe Bay and the North Slope when it opened up, probably 1,500 families in Montana worked on the North Slope. It provided a lot of jobs. I am not saying that their figure here on the creation of jobs is what some would claim, but it isn't zero, I will guarantee you that. It is going to put a lot of people to work. Maybe jobs only are important to us if they are just in our home state. Maybe it is the welfare of the people if it is just in our State. But the impact it has on Alaska is terrific, on the people who live there, work there, raise their families there, provide services there. If you wanted to put it to a vote in Alaska, this debate wouldn't even be taking place. The Native Alaskans; ask them, take a vote among them, if we really believe in this 50 percent plus 1. It is their income. This is just about all they have. What you see of the pictures over there is a result of a 30-day growing season. Any other time I would look with great interest at a photograph that was being displayed last night of the caribou that was out in the water. They had water clear up over their back going into the sea up there. Do you know why they are standing in that water, folks? It is not to cool off. Because they have mosquitos up there that are big enough to turn over your dog tags and check your blood type. That is what they are getting away from. It is a hostile environment. What are we doing here with the new technology: I mentioned a while ago the jobs of the families who are affected in my State. Those kinds of jobs have moved on. New technology has taken over. We drill differently now. We do it all differently with horizontal drilling practices, with one little area impacted. You may see the wells. It wouldn't be the size of the Chamber of the Senate. It may have a dozen wells. That is the way we do it now. Technology has moved on. I was interested in the words of my good friend, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from California. And by the way, California consumes 12 percent of all of the transportation fuels produced in this country. Yet we cannot drill on the Outer Continental Shelf of California. There is a moratorium on that. There is a moratorium on Florida. They are quick to talk about the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Louisiana and Alabama. We can't drill off the east coast, yet Canada does. When you get north of the border, they drill all the way offshore almost to Iceland. If you want to go east of the United States and the Canadian line and the northern territories off Alaska, you have gas and oil production all across Canada. The largest exporter of energy to this country is Canada, both in crude and in gas. Yet the United States is being denied our own resource in our own country to supply the heat and the transportation fuels for our own people and our own security. And groups would manipulate information on ANWR to deny the American people when common sense tells you it is just the other way. Those of us who live near and some of us on public lands understand what the thinking is. I will tell you this, as we talk about this total resolution. If you want to see something happen, this President has offered a way to stimulate the economy and to have it going when those young men and young women come home from the gulf and they go back into the workforce. Do you want them to come back into a sluggish economy? Is that what we want to do here? Do we want to take a sluggish economy and pound it down further and have no opportunities for them outside of military life, those reservists and also those who serve in the National Guard? We are finding out the cost of 50 percent of our force structure and military is at home now and not found on military bases, full-time soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. This is a part of that growth package. This is a part of a package that shows immediate return to the American taxpayer and also gives us that security, our own home security, if it is ever needed. What is wrong with finding out how much oil we really have? We can't even explore, let alone lift. And we are doing it based on thinking and facts that do not heed common sense. It is groups, little tiny groups that propagate misinformation and do it on an emotional ``green, fuzzy'' resolution. That you would deny people a livelihood, deny them food, deny them the basic needs of education and health care in the State of Alaska based on misinformation, that can't make one feel very good. So if we are looking for job creation, if we are looking for energy security, if we want to do away with this little ticket of $175 million a year just to maintain oil in salt caves, then when you get the bottom line, the answer is pretty clear--let alone the promise that this Congress made to the State of Alaska whenever they passed the land bill there and also created the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. By the way, we are breaking that word, too. That rests on the backs of Congress. So I ask for those who live there, the Natives who were raised there, with their traditions--I will tell you, I don't know if you have ever seen the caribou come across there. The area is not short of wildlife--not from the impact of Prudhoe and North Slope. All the benefits that have gone to Alaska and to America as a result of that tremendous resource--those tremendous reserves, in a part of the world that is fragile, yes; all land is fragile, but it is a land we can take care of and still use the resources it provides. I ask my colleagues to use some common sense. Go through the same figures I have. If you get a different number, you let me know, because I am just a country boy; I count bushels and heads of livestock. But when you get to the bottom line, it is a plus for America, a plus for our security, a plus for jobs, and it is also a plus for the great State of Alaska. Our technology has not gotten us to the point where we can safely and economically do in our transportation fuels, using fuel cells and biomass, anything you want to do. That technology is not there yet, folks. If you want to cut off the oil today, you will see how fast this economy would crumble. But you cannot talk economy, you cannot talk numbers, because this is an emotional debate. It is wrong. It is wrong to do it to the State of Alaska, and it is wrong to do it to America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I, on this issue, yield as much time to myself as I shall need. I ask unanimous consent to do that, and that the time come off the resolution.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, today I rise to honor MSgt. Katherine Barton for her 20 years of service in the U.S. Air Force. She recently retired from the Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base, in San Antonio, TX. Katherine Barton grew up on air force bases all over the country, moving every few years as her father, Lt. Col. William C. Flannigan, was promoted and reassigned. She enlisted in the Air Force in 1979 and began her distinguished Air Force career as a police officer. In subsequent years she became a supervisor in medical administration, where she continued to perform her duties in an outstanding manner, as well as earning her bachelor's degree in History from the University of Houston. MSgt. Katherine Barton's service includes Active Duty assignments in New York and Texas, National Guard assignments in Vermont and Texas, and Air Force Reserve assignments in Louisiana and Texas. MSgt. Katherine Barton and her husband, Keith, are the proud parents of three sons. Like most military families, Keith's support has been instrumental in Katherine's service to her country. While in the Reserves, MSgt. Katherine Barton has been activated in time of war, not once, but twice; in January 1991 for the gulf war and again in October 2001 for the war on terror. When she was needed most, MSgt. Katherine Barton left her job as a teacher, the comforts of her home, and the arms of a loving family to serve her country. Madam President, I congratulate MSgt. Katherine Barton for her 20 years of service to our great Nation. Her contributions to the U.S. Air Force and to all Americans she protected will not be forgotten.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the loss of 11 brave soldiers killed in a UH-60 Blackhawk crash on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 11, at Fort Drum, New York. This tragic accident occurred as the unit was conducting a routine training exercise. One of the young men on board, Pfc. Stryder O. Stoutenburg, was from Missoula, MT. He was only 18 and was assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. The other 10 young men killed are: Cpt. Christopher E. Britton, 27, from Ohio, assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kenneth L. Miller, 35, from California, assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Staff Sgt. Brian Pavlich, 25, from Port Jervis, NY. assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Sgt. John L. Eichenlaub, Jr., 24, from South Williamsport, PA, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Sgt. Joshua M. Harapko, 23, from Peoria, AZ, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Spc. Lucas V. Tripp, 23, from Aurora, CO, assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Spc. Barry M. Stephens, 20, from Pinson, AL, assigned to Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment. Pfc. Shawn A. Mayerscik, 22, from Oil City, PA, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Pfc. Tommy C. Young, 20, from Knoxville, TN, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Pfc. Andrew D. Stevens, 20, from Rockingham, NH, assigned to Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. In addition, two young men were seriously injured--Spc. Dmitri Petrov and Spc. Edwin A. Mejia, both from Charlie Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment. Each and every one of these young men was a patriot and served their country bravely. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these boys. While the cause of the accident remains under investigation, I have asked to be kept informed of any and all developments and am confident that a thorough examination will be conducted. Our brave military men and women fully know the risk they take in doing their duty and they meet this risk head on, to ensure that the rest of us continue to live with freedom. Tragic accidents such as this one truly remind us all of the high price of freedom. I will continue working with my colleagues to make sure our troops have the best equipment, instruction, and supplies to ensure their safety not only on the battlefield, but in training exercises as well. May God bless the young soldiers who died training to defend the values of this great Nation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is not about a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Regardless of one's views on abortion in general, the partial-birth abortion procedure should have no place in a civilized society such as ours. Partial-birth abortion is an undeniably abhorrent procedure, and most physicians believe it is never medically necessary. The American Medical Association, the largest association of doctors in the United States, and the medical community at large, has endorsed banning this late-term abortion procedure. It is time for the Congress to follow suit. Since 1995, at least 31 States have enacted laws banning partial- birth abortion. On June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska statute that prohibited the performance of partial-birth abortions. The Supreme Court determined that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional because it failed to include an exception to protect the health of the mother, and because the language defining the prohibited procedure was too vague. We must not allow the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to be diluted by amendments that would limit the application of this bill to a time after a child is determined to be viable. Such language would allow this procedure to continue being performed as late as the sixth month of pregnancy. Additionally, such amendments would create loopholes allowing this cruel procedure to be used even as late as the third trimester of pregnancy, a time at which many babies can sustain life outside the womb. Passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act would prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother who is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Experts have estimated that the partial-birth abortion procedure is used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and that the vast majority of these procedures are performed on a healthy mother and a healthy fetus. The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition on Truth--PHACT--a group of over 600 physicians- specialists--has spoken out to dispute the claims that some women need partial-birth abortions to avoid serious physical injury. In September 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said: Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both. Banning partial-birth abortion has been addressed in every Congress since the 104th session, and banned in both the 104th and 105th sessions. We now have a President in office who has vowed to sign this Partial-Birth Ban Act when it comes before him without hostile amendments that would allow the continuance of this procedure. It is our moral duty to ban this repulsive practice once and for all, and it is my sincere hope that Congress will be able to finally pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in sponsoring S. 562, which will reorganize the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have been a long-time advocate of splitting this controversial court and my passion was further enflamed when a three- judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. I found this ruling appalling. In fact, I am also a cosponsor of S. Res. 71, which expressed support of the Pledge of Allegiance. This resolution unanimously passed the Senate on March 4. This resolution came as a result of the Ninth Circuit voting not to have the full court reconsider the earlier decision, which I believe was a mistake. The current Ninth Circuit encompasses nine States, two territories, and 14 million square miles. The current population is estimated at 45 million people; however, the Census Bureau has estimated the population to grow to 63 million by the year 2010. In comparison, the circuit with the second highest population is the Sixth Circuit, which contains 29 million people. The Ninth Circuit also seats the highest number of active judges with 28, whereas the Fifth Circuit has the second highest with 17. The average number of judges in each circuit, excluding the Ninth Circuit, is 12.6. The population served by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals needs a change. The liberal, frequently reversed decisions handed down by the Ninth Circuit do not fairly represent the views of my State and many of those in the surrounding region. About half of the judges on the Ninth Circuit are California based and, with all due respect, do not reflect the principles and values of those of us from Montana. The amount of time between filing and disposition on the Ninth Circuit is exorbitant. In 2001, the national average was 10.9 months, while the Ninth Circuit's average time was 15.8 months, nearly a 5- month difference. From 1996 to 2001, the national average has increased by 0.5 months while the Ninth Circuit's average has increased by 1.5 months. The size, unbalanced judgeships, high reversal record, and intracircuit conflicts of the Ninth Circuit, along with the past success of dividing the Fifth Circuit, endorse the notion of division. It was the intent of Congress to create regional courts based upon identity of population and the current Ninth Circuit Court simply does not reflect Montana's unique social, cultural, geographic or economic characteristics. This trend cannot continue. It is time to split the Ninth Circuit and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this reasonable, commonsense bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions also known as the ``Moscow Treaty'' obligates each side to reduce the number of its strategic offensive nuclear warheads to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 by the end of 2012. This treaty is a good beginning and I congratulate the President for making a complete break with past arms control approaches by placing reliance on deterrence and missile defense. The enemies of American must clearly understand that they cannot attack or threaten us with impunity and that our Nation will have a national missile defense in place as soon as possible. President Reagan coined the phrase ``trust but verify,'' This phrase could have no greater meaning than when it is applied to the Moscow Treaty. I recently returned from Moscow where I was deeply impressed by the dramatic transformation underway in that huge country. While there is no doubt that Russia is on the track towards democracy and a free market economy, it is equally clear to me that the Russians are not at the stage where they can be given a blank check to implement the Moscow Treaty. Congress has authorized more then $4.7 billion for U.S. programs aimed at helping Russia and other newly independent states to reduce the threats from their weapons of mass production. The Moscow Treaty does not expressly deal with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program but the objectives of the treaty cannot be achieved without extending this assistance to Russia. The only certainty about future costs to implement this treaty is that the costs are uncertain and that the uncertainty goes toward how much higher costs will be. According to a GAO report issued this week, ``. . . a pilot facility to destroy 14 percent of Russia's chemical weapons over an 11-year period would cost the United States almost $890 million--an increase of about $150 million from the estimate . . .'' Higher program cost uncertainty is compounded by Russia's apparent inability to pay for its agreed-upon share of project costs. Another problem with an effective reduction of weapons of mass destruction is that Russia is not always willing to provide access to its sensitive national security sites. Access is essential to verify that the Parties are living up to their part of the agreement. According to the same GAO report, U.S. inspectors do not have access to the sites in Russia where 90 percent of the materials used in weapons of mass destruction are stored. Access issues largely revolve around trust, and, frankly, this treaty highlights the need for access; it does not solve the problem. Despite its obvious incompleteness and inadequacies, the Moscow Treaty is a step in the right direction of reducing and limiting strategic nuclear warheads. Reliance on a START I verification regime as provided in the treaty is not, of course, satisfactory, but it can provide a block in the foundation for good faith implementation through a genuine verification scheme. President Bush is headed in the right direction in working to build a constructive partnership with Russia. American does not fight wars with democracies. While a reduction in nuclear weapons is an important element on both sides in building the trust and mutual dependence needed for a stable, long-term relationship, I want to stress the importance of maintaining the Nuclear Triad. Our land-base missile systems, in particular, play an essential role in ensuring this Nation's security. With 200 Minuteman III missiles, Malmstrom Air Force Base, in my State of Montana has and will continue to play a critical role in our national security. The Moscow Treaty deserves the advice and consent of the Senate so long as it is seen as the beginning and not the end of the long path we must follow to rid the earth of weapons of mass destruction and threats to our national security.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Being that the Senate is made up of about 65 to 70 percent attorneys--and I not being one of those--that was the longest ``yes, I did not ask him any further questions in written form'' I have ever heard. But we have to contend with that in this body. I watched those hearings with a great deal of interest because I believe, as does the Senator from New York, this is a very sensitive and important part of our role in the Senate. However, I think we have injected a double standard here in this case. And I think that case has been made here. But I would say after----

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from New York. The reason I objected is, that is not the issue at hand on the floor now, and the proper people are not on the floor to strengthen or weaken his argument on Mr. Greenspan. But I have been watching the debate on Miguel Estrada with a great deal of interest. I would agree with my friend from New York in that I have traveled through my whole State--not the whole State, but a goodly part of it--and it is not the first question we are asked in townhall meetings or in an occasional meeting on the street. I understand, though, that the Senator from New York questioned Mr. Estrada for about 90 minutes or so in committee. And I think it is general practice here that if you have more questions, even after the committee hearing is over, you submit written questions. I would inquire of my friend from New York: Did you send Mr. Estrada any written questions after the hearing, after he was voted out of committee and his nomination was brought to the floor?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if my friend from New York will allow a comment, and maybe a followup question.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BURNS. I submit it is snowing inside today also. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank my good friend from New York.

Mr. BURNS. No, a followup question. That is a long way to say, yes, he got a vote. Is it snowing outside today, right now?

Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. BURNS. Yes or no, and I have a followup question.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New York, I did not get questions on homeland security or the economy while I was up there. We will go over those questions later. I understand what the Senator from New York said about Judge Paez, but in the end, did he get a vote?

Mr. BURNS. I object.

Mr. BURNS. You got the right mountains, but you have got the wrong State.

Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator further yield?