Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that we now have a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to George Matejko, a detailee on my personal staff, and Michele Gordon and Rachael Taylor of the Appropriations Committee staff during consideration of H.R. 2361, the fiscal year 2006 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill.

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. President, I would like to take a few minutes to make some remarks on S. 662, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005. I have decided to support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I have heard from Montana's postmasters, rural letter carriers, and customers that the U.S. Postal Service faces several long-term financial challenges that must be fixed.

In the last 5 years alone, first class mail, which accounts for over half of all postal revenue, has dropped dramatically. As different ways of communicating emerge, like using e-mail, the Postal Service will continue to struggle in order to preserve delivery to every address. In other words, if something is not done, the Postal Service will struggle to maintain universal service. This bill guarantees universal service, and as a rural State, Montana relies on this assurance. The Postal Service is the only service provider available in many parts of Montana and allows residents to stay in contact with folks cross the country and the world.

This bill helps resolve the problems with the escrow account. By releasing these funds, the Postal Service would be able to minimize rate increases, help pay off debt owed to the U.S. Treasury, and assist funding health care obligations for their employees.

Recently, a Montanan called me saying, ``If something is not done to preserve the Postal Service, I, along with 3000 Postal employees in Montana, will lose our jobs. We will lose, Montana will lose and most of all, America will lose.'' Mr. President, I agree, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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

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.

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.

I yield the floor.

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.