Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 165, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill S. 1007 be discharged from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and it be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., tomorrow, Wednesday, June 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with the Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the second half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 47, H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act, and that time during any adjournment, recess or period of morning business count postcloture.

Madam President, if we are required to run the entire 30 hours of postcloture debate time, we will not be able to turn to consideration of the FDA tobacco bill until approximately 5:20 p.m. tomorrow. However, we hope to yield back a

portion of that time so we can begin the legislative process on the bill after lunch. Once we are on the bill, Senator Dodd will offer the substitute amendment and then the bill will be open to further amendments.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Bill Nelson.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise on behalf of consumers in Colorado and across this country who work hard every day, pay their bills on time, and struggle to stay ahead in the midst of an economic recession. In the face of these challenges, the last thing Colorado families need is credit card companies that arbitrarily change terms and charge fees, offering only legalese and print so small you need a magnifying glass to read it.

Some credit card companies have been taking advantage of consumers for years. This bipartisan bill would give cardholders some much needed relief, and I am very glad we are taking it up this week. Why, Madam President? Because after the near financial collapse last year, Congress has worked to meet the needs of banks and financial institutions. I think it is time working families also had someone in their corner. This bill is about them. It is about making sure that families who pay their bills on time and stay within their means can't get charged excessive fees or see their interest rates jacked up without clear notice.

I have come to the floor, as many of my colleagues have today, to urge our other colleagues to support this important legislation.

We know how important short-term credit is to families, and we have all heard stories of people who have been victimized by the kind of unfair dealing that I am talking about tonight. As a longtime supporter of credit card reform, I have met with countless victims of the abusive practices of credit card companies. One of them was a wonderful woman by the name of Susan Wones, and I want to take a minute to share her experience with you tonight.

I met Susan in person last year when she flew from Denver to Washington to testify before Congress about the unfair treatment she received from a credit card company. She has a classic story. She has always maintained a high FICO score, never exceeded her card's limit, and always paid the amount required on time. In short, she is a good customer who plays by the rules and lives within her means. But despite Susan's good standing, one of her credit card issuers doubled her interest rate to 25 percent without notice.

When she later asked why, she was told the rate had been increased, not because she had missed a payment but because this particular credit card company decided her balance on another card was too high. This practice, known as universal default, will no longer be allowed if this legislation passes and is signed into law.

Unfortunately for Susan, this kind of treatment did not stop there. Just before she was prepared to testify in the House of Representatives, the powerful lobbying interests of the banks and credit card issuers insisted she sign a waiver relinquishing her privacy rights to her personal financial information. Then, a month later, after deals were worked out to have Susan return to Washington and finally tell her story without fearing her personal information would be released to the press, that information was released anyway.

While Susan had nothing to hide, the treatment she received is indicative of the abusive treatment American consumers have been subject to at the hands of credit card companies. This kind of treatment has to stop, and that is why we need this bill.

The bill will put in place some commonsense rules that will protect honest, hard-working Americans from unfair and downright abusive practices by credit card issuers. I first introduced similar legislation to protect individual consumers from this kind of unfair treatment by credit card companies back in 2006, as a Member of the House of Representatives. I reintroduced this bill in the House in 2007, and last year I worked with Representative Carolyn Maloney, from New York, to incorporate the principles of my bill in the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights.

I thank and acknowledge Congresswoman Maloney for her hard work and dedication in working on that legislation, which passed the House last year and then again just a few weeks ago.

This year, one of my first steps as a freshman Senator was to join with Senator Schumer in introducing the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights in the Senate. The legislation we are considering today overlaps in every critical category with a bill Senator Schumer and I introduced. I did wish to acknowledge Chairman Dodd for his leadership on this important issue.

Here is what the bill does, in short. It protects against arbitrary interest rate increases, No. 1. No. 2, it prevents cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. No. 3, it bars excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. Finally, it will prohibit the use of universal default clauses, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks.

With all due respect, we know how important the credit card industry is to modern America. For many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience, it is a necessity. You have the parent who uses short- term credit to buy groceries, the small business owner who uses credit to cover expenses. In that regard, a well-functioning credit card industry is absolutely essential to our economy. But this influence should not give the credit card industry the right to abuse customers with an ``anything goes in the name of profit'' approach.

For far too long, the Federal Government has placed the blame of individual's overbearing debts solely at the feet of the American consumer. Most notably, in 2005, the laws governing bankruptcy were fundamentally changed to prevent abuse. But while we passed laws to hold the consumer accountable, too much emphasis was placed on borrowers alone. Just as Congress has cracked down on the predatory lending that spurred the subprime mortgage crisis, Congress must also do more to promote responsibility by the credit card companies that provide this important consumer credit.

In the last several months, the Federal Government has taken extraordinary steps to respond to a financial crisis that has paralyzed the credit markets. This crisis was brought on, as we know all too well, by excessive leverage and risk-taking on the part of the very banks that have treated credit card customers such as Susan Wones so unfairly.

I supported many of those steps to rescue the financial industry, as many in the Senate have done as well--despite my distaste for doing so--because I believed they were necessary to stabilize our economy and get credit flowing again. It is now time we start working to level the playing field for American families who are being asked to pick up the tab.

As I close, I wish to underline that this is a commonsense bill whose time has come. It is time to stand for working families again. This legislation is a big step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of an amendment to this important bill, offered by my colleague Senator McCaskill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, which adds to good language in the bill requiring competitive prototyping. At its heart, this amendment is about our government wisely using taxpayer dollars.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Defense announced a new policy that DOD development programs in their early stages must involve at least two prototypes--to be developed by competing industry teams--before DOD can move forward into the system design and development phase, the longest and costliest part of the process.

The idea behind this policy makes sense: Technologies should be proven before contracts are awarded. Paper proposals alone do not always provide sufficient information on technical risk and cost estimates. But an investment in prototyping up-front can result in greater knowledge up-front, which in turn can lead to better cost and schedule assessments.

It seems to me that DOD had the right idea to resurrect competitive prototyping. The sponsors of this bill--Senators Levin and McCain-- agreed. The bill we are considering today would codify DOD's policy.

The bill would also authorize a waiver for competitive prototyping in the event of excessive cost. This was a change we made in the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I sit. This change reflects DOD's concerns that it can sometimes be cost prohibitive to produce two or more prototypes of a system.

One of the goals of competitive prototyping is to try to reduce costs, not increase them. So I believe DOD should have authority to waive this requirement when producing two or more prototypes of a system would be cost prohibitive. However, we should ensure that this waiver authority is not abused, or casually used as a way to avoid prototyping.

So I support this amendment offered by my colleague today, which will add a layer of fiscal oversight to the sole-source nature of prototyping that can result from these waivers. It would require DOD to report cost waivers both to the Government Accountability Office and to congressional defense committees and require GAO to provide a written review to the congressional defense committees. This amendment is about good government, and I would hope that my colleagues in both parties would support it.

I want to close by addressing the larger issue we are considering today--acquisition reform. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and as a taxpayer, this issue concerns me greatly. There seems to be universal agreement that reform is necessary. The GAO reported this year that DOD's major defense acquisition programs are nearly $300 billion over budget. At a time of economic crisis and uncertainty, we need to work much harder to get these costs under control.

But DOD's acquisition system is complex and there is no shortage of ideas on how to fix it. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I believe it takes important steps in the right direction. It does not try to fix the whole system, but instead focuses mainly on the early phases of the acquisition process, which can often start with ``inadequate foundations.'' As Chairman Levin stated in our committee, the ``bill is designed to help put major defense acquisition programs on a sound footing from the outset.'' I believe this bill will do that. I commend the authors of this bill for their important work and for building bipartisan support for this bill.

I urge support of this bill and of the McCaskill amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, today, I rise to support the confirmation of fellow Coloradan, Tom Strickland, to be the next Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for the Department of the Interior.

As chairman of the National Parks subcommittee, I am particularly pleased to support the nomination of Tom Strickland for Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, because he has had a long history of activism on behalf of protecting national an State parks.

You will excuse me for indulging in a bit of home State pride when I say how great it has been to see so many Coloradans going to work for the Department in the Federal Government that has so much influence on the economic life of the West.

I think it speaks highly of the motivational leadership of both Secretary Salazar and this nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Tom Strickland, that so many of their fellow Coloradans have voluntarily left the best State in the Union to work in Washington.

I know that Tom Strickland will be an excellent Assistant Secretary at the Interior.

He has an exceptional track record of leadership both as an attorney, as a businessman, as a civic leader and as someone dedicated to public service. He also has an extraordinary wife, Beth, who is inspirational in her own right.

Before coming to Interior, Tom worked in both the public and private sectors.

He served as U.S. attorney for the District of Colorado from 1999 through 2001, and has been a partner at several law firms, including Hogan & Hartson in Colorado.

From 1982 to 1984 he served as the chief policy adviser for Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm, advising the Governor on all policy and intergovernmental issues, and from 1985 to 1989, he served on, and chaired, the Colorado Transportation Commission.

Tom graduated, with honors, from Louisiana State University, where he was an All-SEC Academic Football Selection, and he received his J.D., with honors, from the University of Texas School of Law.

I think it is clear that I have known Tom Strickland over many years.

Our work together has largely been in the public arena, where Tom-- working with Secretary Ken Salazar--led efforts in Colorado to pass the historic ``Great Outdoors Colorado'' program, which dedicates State lottery money to the acquisition of public lands for parks, open space and conservation.

Tom is also an accomplished outdoorsman, and while we haven't climbed mountains together--at least not the 14,000 foot kind--we both have a love for the out-of-doors and the history, people, and landscapes of the West.

I think this love for the land is what motivated Tom to public service in the

first place, and sustained his two courageous runs for the U.S. Senate.

I was struck, as I often am, by a comment in a recent Tom Friedman's column. Mr. Friedman reminded us of the value of ``inspirational leadership.''

Mr. Friedman quoted Dov Seidman, the author of the book ``How'' on what makes an organization sustainable:

Laws tell you what you can do. Values inspire in you what

you should do. It's a leader's job to inspire in us those

values.

I mention this because I know that, as the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Tom's job will demand both enforcement of important rules, regulations and laws, and inspired, collaborative leadership.

As one of the country's most successful lawyers, Tom will know how to enforce environmental laws. As a man who draws inspiration from our mountains, plains and waters, he also knows how to motivate and lead others.

With Secretary Salazar at the helm, I believe Tom Strickland will be a strong and effective partner.

As I conclude, I urge all my colleagues to support the confirmation of Tom Strickland this afternoon. There is no question he will do us proud in this new role he is so eager to assume.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Thomas Strickland, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Correct.

Ten minutes maximum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota and thank him for his great work on behalf of this important budget we are going to adopt in short order.

Line-Item Veto

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Budget Enforcement Legislative Tool Act my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, is introducing today.

I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of the Congressional and Line- Item Veto Act, introduced recently by Senator Feingold.

Both bills have my support and the support of other Democrats and Republicans who typically fall on opposite sides of the ideological divide. But while we may disagree with each other on many issues, we agree that a constitutionally sound version of the line-item veto will help increase both fiscal responsibility and congressional accountability--both of which have been in short supply in recent years.

Establishing a line-item veto has long been a goal of mine. Three years ago, I introduced legislation in the House--the SLICE Act--to establish a legislative line-item veto, and I worked with Representative Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, a Republican, in the House to pass similar legislation in June 2006. We reintroduced that legislation in the House again in the last Congress.

As we worked to advance this bill in the House, Senator Feingold and Senator Carper were each working on similar bills in the Senate, and they have again introduced their bills in the 111th Congress. While their bills differ in the details, they are both intended to employ the legislative line-item veto as a tool to help rein in unnecessary spending and begin the difficult work of reducing budget deficits.

These goals have a greater urgency than ever before. Why? Over the last decade, we have seen a dramatic change in the Federal budget--a change for the worse. We have gone from Federal budget surpluses to enormous deficits and from reducing the national debt to increasing the ``debt tax'' on our children.

We know how this has happened: tax cuts that did not grow the economy, wars that have been financed by borrowing, reckless earmark spending, and a deep recession. We know today's economic crisis has required that we stimulate job creation with public sector spending to prevent another Great Depression.

Our challenge is daunting. In the short term, we must spur the economy back to life, even at the risk of incurring historic deficits, and yet still lay the foundation for dramatic deficit reduction in the long term.

We have heard some say deficits do not matter. But this cannot go on forever. The President's own Budget Director agrees that if recent CBO projections are accurate, we could see a deficit exceeding 5 percent of gross domestic product--clearly, a dangerously high level that many economists across the spectrum believe is not sustainable.

No one wants our country, no one wants America, to suffer from the crippling hyperinflation that plagued Germany after the First World War or the combination of economic decline and inflation--which we called stagnation--some of us remember from the 1970s. Again, this means laying a foundation for entitlement reform and deficit reduction. This means using every tool in our toolbox and creating new ones, if necessary, to attack this problem.

I am a strong supporter of the economic recovery package we passed in February. I say to the Presiding Officer, it will be important for our home State of Colorado. But I am also mindful that we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren to save the economy from collapse. That makes it all the more important that the spending we engage in today is wise and necessary.

A legislative line-item veto will give Congress and the President a tool to keep our spending decisions both wise and necessary.

I say to the Presiding Officer, many Presidents from both parties have asked for the kind of line-item veto that can be used by Governors in our home State of Colorado and several other States. In 1996, Congress actually passed a law intended to give President Clinton that kind of authority. However, in 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional--and I think the Court got it right.

By trying to allow the President, in effect, to repeal a part of the law he has already signed and saying it takes a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to restore that part--the Congress of 1996 went too far. I think that kind of line-item veto would undermine the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of the Government.

But the SLICE Act I introduced in 2006 and the bills Senator Carper and Senator Feingold have introduced in this Congress are different. They are practical, effective, and, best of all, constitutional versions of a line-item veto.

Current law says the President can ask Congress to rescind; that is, cancel, spending items. But the Congress can ignore those requests and often has done so. These bills will change that. Under the Carper and Feingold bills, the President could identify specific spending items he thinks should be cut, and Congress would have to vote up or down on whether to cut each of them.

This legislation--don't get me wrong--would give the President a powerful tool, but it would also retain the balance between the executive and legislative branches.

Presidents are elected to lead, and only they represent the entire Nation. These bills recognize that by giving the President the leadership role of identifying specific spending items he thinks should be cut.

But under the Constitution, it is the Congress that is primarily accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be spent. The legislation respects and emphasizes that congressional role by requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President.

Of course, without knowing--and I think the Presiding Officer would join me in this sentiment--what the President might propose to rescind, I do not know, in a speculative fashion, if I could support those proposals. But I do know people in Colorado and across the country believe there must be greater transparency in our decisions on taxing and spending. I know they are also demanding we take responsibility for those decisions. That is the purpose of the Carper and Feingold bills.

If there was ever a time in our history when we needed to reassure the American people that Congress understands the need for reform and integrity in the process of spending taxpayer dollars, it is now. Along with reform of the earmark process and other reform measures, I believe the legislative line-item veto is an essential tool in restoring public confidence and trust in the legislative process.

The American people expect Federal spending will reflect critical national priorities and broader public purpose. Most of all, they expect Congress to pass funding bills in ways that ensure wise use of taxpayer dollars. These are the purposes of this legislation. We must reassure the American people that their dollars--and the debt future generations incur as a result of our spending--will be debated in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for those sentiments. I look forward to working with him on the very important work to balance the needs of this country when it comes to spending but also to make sure we do not pass on unsustainable debt to our children. He has been a leader in this effort, and I look forward to working at his side in the future days and months and years to come.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Charlie Wolf Nuclear Workers Compensation Act. It is a bill designed to improve a program to compensate Americans who are gravely ill because they were exposed to radiation or other toxins while working in our Cold War-era nuclear weapons complex.

This is an issue that is important to many Coloradans because of the work done at Rocky Flats outside of Denver. The compensation program has a number of serious flaws, and I have worked on solutions for several years now.

The bill I am introducing includes a number of provisions that I introduced last session in the House of Representatives with my Colorado colleague, Representative Ed Perlmutter. This year, I expanded on those provisions and added others to help these workers finally get the assistance they deserve under this program.

We named the bill for Charlie Wolf, who was one of thousands of workers during the Cold War era, who risked their health in order to build America's nuclear arsenal. And I believe his story illustrates why we should do better by these workers--and why I have introduced this bill.

Charlie worked as an engineer at Rocky Flats--and before that, at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. He--and the thousands of other workers like him--are Cold War veterans. As controversial as their work often was, they were also patriotic Americans who did more for our country than collect a paycheck.

They believed that their work was keeping the world safe from the Soviet threat--and keeping this country strong. And they were right.

But their work was also dangerous. As a result of radiation and toxins he was exposed to on the job, Charlie developed brain cancer a little over 6 years ago. He was given 6 months to live--but he hung on for 6 years.

During all of those 6 years, he and his family fought with the Federal government to get the compensation that he was promised--and that he deserved.

Charlie's struggles were documented by the Rocky Mountain News in a series of stories called ``Deadly Denial.'' That title, unfortunately, has come to symbolize the troubles with this compensation program.

I have heard from many former workers, who--like Charlie and his family--have been subjected to repeated delays, lost records, complex exposure formulas, and other roadblocks.

We simply cannot--and should not--subject these workers--patriotic people who put themselves in harm's way to help secure our nation-- through these kinds of obstacles and difficulties.

It is shameful and, frankly, enough is enough.

This Congress recognized that we should compensate our Cold Warriors and certain survivors who put their health and life on the line to serve our Nation during the Cold War. We created the EEOICPA program to carry out that compensation.

I was among those who strongly supported the EEOICPA provisions that were finally enacted into law in 2000.

But the next year brought a new administration that, regrettably, did not advocate for the program as the Clinton administration had.

Simply put, the program is not working the way it was intended.

As a result, while many people have received benefits under the program, too many face inexcusable obstacles as they try--often in old age or while struggling with the effects of cancer or other serious illnesses--to prove they qualify for benefits.

More than 9 years after we enacted EEOICPA, workers have died without receiving the health care or compensation they deserve.

In fact, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers from accessing any compensation for their serious illnesses.

I now look forward to working with the Obama administration to correct problems with this compensation program.

The bill I am introducing this week is part of that ongoing effort.

The Charlie Wolf Act is designed to expand the category of individuals eligible for compensation, improve the procedures for providing compensation and transparency, and grant the Office of the Ombudsman greater authority to help workers.

I would like to explain a couple of the provisions in a little more detail.

First, it would revise the part of the EEOICPA law that specifies which covered workers are part of what is known as a ``special exposure cohort'' designation under the law.

The revision would extend this ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contractor employees,

or atomic weapons employees who worked at a nuclear weapons facility prior to January 1, 2006.

Being included in a special exposure cohort would help make it easier for workers to establish that their radiation-linked cancer was the result of working at one of these facilities.

Second, the bill would change the burden of proving that a radiation- linked cancer was the result of workplace exposure to toxic materials.

As the law now stands, before a worker can receive benefits, they must establish that the cancer is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure to radiation.

While that sounds like a reasonable requirement, many workers have learned that we have not adequately documented radiation exposures over the years.

In fact, there were serious shortcomings in the monitoring of nuclear weapons plant workers' radiation exposures and in the necessary recordkeeping. Also, the current administrative process for determining links between exposure and employment is terribly slow.

Many worker exposures were unmonitored or under-monitored over a nuclear weapons plant's history. As such, the current law requires these workers to seek ``dose reconstructions''--essentially using some extrapolated data modeling to re-create the sorts of exposures experienced.

But ``dose reconstructions'' are extremely difficult, slow and arduous for the worker and the agency. The process drags out, while workers like Charlie suffer and wait for compensation they need--in some cases, to help them pay for cancer treatments or care for other deadly illnesses.

This is wrong. We owe these workers better than that.

My bill fixes that problem by presuming that a worker with a covered radiation-linked cancer is eligible for compensation. And it puts the burden of proof on the agency.

So, unless the agency can show--by clear and convincing evidence-- that their cancer was not caused by exposure while working at a nuclear weapons facility, that worker would be eligible for compensation.

It may seem like this is asking to prove a negative, but I believe that it requires the federal agency to prove that the cancer may have been the result of other factors. I think it is more appropriate to place this burden on the federal government--and not the ill worker.

Third, the bill expands the list of cancers for which individuals are eligible to receive compensation. The current law fails to recognize some cancers that could legitimately be caused by exposure to toxic materials at these sites.

The bill also requires the Department of Labor to pay a claimant's estate should a claimant die after filing their claim--but before receiving payment and leaving no survivors.

Finally, the bill makes a number of other changes that are all designed to make this process more user-friendly and helpful to claimants.

It expands the duties of the Ombudsman's Office, providing greater transparency and communication with claimants, and allowing more time to file legal actions should claims be denied.

It also allows claimants who were previously denied to re-file their claims.

Since early in my tenure in Congress, I have worked to make good on promises of a fairer deal for the nuclear-weapons workers who helped America win the Cold War.

That was why enactment and improvement of the compensation act has been one of my top priorities. This is an important matter for our country. It is literally a life-or-death issue for the Coloradans who are sick today because of their work at Rocky Flats.

The Charlie Wolf Act will not remedy all the shortcomings of the current law, but it will make it better.

I hope to work with my colleagues in the Senate, who have constituents who face situations similar to that of Charlie and his family. I hope for swift action from both Congress and the administration to keep our promises to these workers and their families.

Charlie Wolf and his family deserve better, as do all of the Americans who have made similar scarifies and been subjected to similar struggles.

Charlie's widow, Kathy, told me this week that Charlie carried on his fight out of principle because he didn't want other workers to have to fight the country they worked so hard to protect.

I am proud to continue to work on behalf of Charlie's family and his memory. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor or support this worthwhile legislation and honor our Cold War heroes.

I would like to thank Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Charlie Wolf Nuclear Workers Compensation Act. It is a bill designed to improve a program to compensate Americans who are gravely ill because they were exposed to radiation or other toxins while working in our Cold War-era nuclear weapons complex.

This is an issue that is important to many Coloradans because of the work done at Rocky Flats outside of Denver. The compensation program has a number of serious flaws, and I have worked on solutions for several years now.

The bill I am introducing includes a number of provisions that I introduced last session in the House of Representatives with my Colorado colleague, Representative Ed Perlmutter. This year, I expanded on those provisions and added others to help these workers finally get the assistance they deserve under this program.

We named the bill for Charlie Wolf, who was one of thousands of workers during the Cold War era, who risked their health in order to build America's nuclear arsenal. And I believe his story illustrates why we should do better by these workers--and why I have introduced this bill.

Charlie worked as an engineer at Rocky Flats--and before that, at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. He--and the thousands of other workers like him--are Cold War veterans. As controversial as their work often was, they were also patriotic Americans who did more for our country than collect a paycheck.

They believed that their work was keeping the world safe from the Soviet threat--and keeping this country strong. And they were right.

But their work was also dangerous. As a result of radiation and toxins he was exposed to on the job, Charlie developed brain cancer a little over 6 years ago. He was given 6 months to live--but he hung on for 6 years.

During all of those 6 years, he and his family fought with the Federal government to get the compensation that he was promised--and that he deserved.

Charlie's struggles were documented by the Rocky Mountain News in a series of stories called ``Deadly Denial.'' That title, unfortunately, has come to symbolize the troubles with this compensation program.

I have heard from many former workers, who--like Charlie and his family--have been subjected to repeated delays, lost records, complex exposure formulas, and other roadblocks.

We simply cannot--and should not--subject these workers--patriotic people who put themselves in harm's way to help secure our nation-- through these kinds of obstacles and difficulties.

It is shameful and, frankly, enough is enough.

This Congress recognized that we should compensate our Cold Warriors and certain survivors who put their health and life on the line to serve our Nation during the Cold War. We created the EEOICPA program to carry out that compensation.

I was among those who strongly supported the EEOICPA provisions that were finally enacted into law in 2000.

But the next year brought a new administration that, regrettably, did not advocate for the program as the Clinton administration had.

Simply put, the program is not working the way it was intended.

As a result, while many people have received benefits under the program, too many face inexcusable obstacles as they try--often in old age or while struggling with the effects of cancer or other serious illnesses--to prove they qualify for benefits.

More than 9 years after we enacted EEOICPA, workers have died without receiving the health care or compensation they deserve.

In fact, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers from accessing any compensation for their serious illnesses.

I now look forward to working with the Obama administration to correct problems with this compensation program.

The bill I am introducing this week is part of that ongoing effort.

The Charlie Wolf Act is designed to expand the category of individuals eligible for compensation, improve the procedures for providing compensation and transparency, and grant the Office of the Ombudsman greater authority to help workers.

I would like to explain a couple of the provisions in a little more detail.

First, it would revise the part of the EEOICPA law that specifies which covered workers are part of what is known as a ``special exposure cohort'' designation under the law.

The revision would extend this ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contractor employees,

or atomic weapons employees who worked at a nuclear weapons facility prior to January 1, 2006.

Being included in a special exposure cohort would help make it easier for workers to establish that their radiation-linked cancer was the result of working at one of these facilities.

Second, the bill would change the burden of proving that a radiation- linked cancer was the result of workplace exposure to toxic materials.

As the law now stands, before a worker can receive benefits, they must establish that the cancer is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job exposure to radiation.

While that sounds like a reasonable requirement, many workers have learned that we have not adequately documented radiation exposures over the years.

In fact, there were serious shortcomings in the monitoring of nuclear weapons plant workers' radiation exposures and in the necessary recordkeeping. Also, the current administrative process for determining links between exposure and employment is terribly slow.

Many worker exposures were unmonitored or under-monitored over a nuclear weapons plant's history. As such, the current law requires these workers to seek ``dose reconstructions''--essentially using some extrapolated data modeling to re-create the sorts of exposures experienced.

But ``dose reconstructions'' are extremely difficult, slow and arduous for the worker and the agency. The process drags out, while workers like Charlie suffer and wait for compensation they need--in some cases, to help them pay for cancer treatments or care for other deadly illnesses.

This is wrong. We owe these workers better than that.

My bill fixes that problem by presuming that a worker with a covered radiation-linked cancer is eligible for compensation. And it puts the burden of proof on the agency.

So, unless the agency can show--by clear and convincing evidence-- that their cancer was not caused by exposure while working at a nuclear weapons facility, that worker would be eligible for compensation.

It may seem like this is asking to prove a negative, but I believe that it requires the federal agency to prove that the cancer may have been the result of other factors. I think it is more appropriate to place this burden on the federal government--and not the ill worker.

Third, the bill expands the list of cancers for which individuals are eligible to receive compensation. The current law fails to recognize some cancers that could legitimately be caused by exposure to toxic materials at these sites.

The bill also requires the Department of Labor to pay a claimant's estate should a claimant die after filing their claim--but before receiving payment and leaving no survivors.

Finally, the bill makes a number of other changes that are all designed to make this process more user-friendly and helpful to claimants.

It expands the duties of the Ombudsman's Office, providing greater transparency and communication with claimants, and allowing more time to file legal actions should claims be denied.

It also allows claimants who were previously denied to re-file their claims.

Since early in my tenure in Congress, I have worked to make good on promises of a fairer deal for the nuclear-weapons workers who helped America win the Cold War.

That was why enactment and improvement of the compensation act has been one of my top priorities. This is an important matter for our country. It is literally a life-or-death issue for the Coloradans who are sick today because of their work at Rocky Flats.

The Charlie Wolf Act will not remedy all the shortcomings of the current law, but it will make it better.

I hope to work with my colleagues in the Senate, who have constituents who face situations similar to that of Charlie and his family. I hope for swift action from both Congress and the administration to keep our promises to these workers and their families.

Charlie Wolf and his family deserve better, as do all of the Americans who have made similar scarifies and been subjected to similar struggles.

Charlie's widow, Kathy, told me this week that Charlie carried on his fight out of principle because he didn't want other workers to have to fight the country they worked so hard to protect.

I am proud to continue to work on behalf of Charlie's family and his memory. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor or support this worthwhile legislation and honor our Cold War heroes.

I would like to thank Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill to provide additional resources for use by the Federal land-managing agencies to restore lands damaged as a result of legal violations and to promote public education about the use of the Federal lands. This bill is similar to one I introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 110th Congress, H.R. 1463. I would like to thank Sen. Bennet for joining me as a cosponsor.

The large majority of people who use and enjoy our national public lands respect those lands and facilities and do not deliberately damage them. They abide by our laws and regulations that

are designed to preserve and protect these lands and facilities for future generations to enjoy and appreciate. Unfortunately, there are some who violate those laws and regulations and in so doing damage the lands and facilities. Violators who are caught can face fines and penalties. This bill would direct the Federal public land agencies to apply the funds collected as fines to help restore the lands and facilities that may have been damaged due to the violations.

The purpose of this bill is to assist the land-managing agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Interior Department as well as the Forest Service in the Agriculture Department--by allowing the money collected as fines to be used for repairing damage caused by the actions that lead to the fines or by similar actions instead of going to the U.S. Treasury. It would also allow them to use the money to increase public awareness of regulations and other requirements regarding use of Federal lands. It provides that any of the money not needed for those purposes would be credited to the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury.

Allowing these funds to be used in this manner will not likely repair the all of the damage caused by illegal activities in most instances, but it will at least provide some assistance.

The genesis for this bill stemmed from a number of illegal activities that created significant damage to Federal public lands and facilities. Let me highlight just a couple of these.

As many may remember, Colorado experienced one of its worst fires in 2002, the Hayman Fire. This fire torched over 130,000 acres in the watershed of the Denver metropolitan area. It also destroyed 133 homes and forced the evacuation of over 5,000 people. After the fire, which was exceedingly hot and fast moving, a major thunderstorm pummeled the then-barren ground and washed debris and sediment into the Strontia Springs Reservoir, a major drinking water supply for Denver, hampering its capacity. Tragically, one person died of a heart attack during this fire, five firefighters were killed in a car crash on the way to the fire, and two people were killed during the subsequent thunderstorm and flooding. It was later learned that the fire was caused by the illegal actions of a former Forest Service employee. That person was later fined and jailed. This bill would allow the Forest Service to apply those fines collected to help restore the lands damaged by this fire.

Other examples involve off-road vehicles. Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted in an increase in recreational use of our public lands. These recreational uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the public land agencies to adequately control and manage such use. As a result, areas of our public lands are being damaged. These impacts can include: damage to wildlife habitat; increased run-off and sediment pollution in rivers and streams,; damage to sensitive high-altitude tundra, desert soils, and wetlands; creation of ruts and other visual impacts on the landscape; loss of quiet and secluded areas of the public lands; and adverse effects on wildlife.

Recreational off-road vehicle use on our public lands should be allowed to continue, but it must be managed to minimize or avoid these problems by appropriate restrictions and putting some sensitive areas off-limits to vehicle use. Again, most vehicle users are responsible-- they stay on designated roads and trails, they are respectful of the landscape and they endeavor to tread lightly. However, there are a number of such users who do not obey the rules. Given the nature of this use, large, powerful motorized vehicles that are able to penetrate deeper and deeper into previously secluded areas, even a relatively few who violate management requirements can create serious damage to public land resources.

For example, in the summer of 2000 two recreational off-road vehicle users ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land Management land high above Silverton, Colorado. As a result, they got stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the flanks of Houghton Mountain. At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with other vehicles to pull their vehicles out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of years to recover. As noted in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it is helpless against big tires.'' The violators at this incident were fined. Again, this bill would allow those fines to be applied to address the specific damage that resulted.

These are but two examples. Regrettably, there have been many more such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west. These examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would address. This bill would give the Federal public land agencies the ability to apply resources to recover damaged lands from illegal activities.

This is a modest bill but an important one. I think it deserves the support of our colleagues and I will do all I can to achieve its enactment into law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill to provide additional resources for use by the Federal land-managing agencies to restore lands damaged as a result of legal violations and to promote public education about the use of the Federal lands. This bill is similar to one I introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 110th Congress, H.R. 1463. I would like to thank Sen. Bennet for joining me as a cosponsor.

The large majority of people who use and enjoy our national public lands respect those lands and facilities and do not deliberately damage them. They abide by our laws and regulations that

are designed to preserve and protect these lands and facilities for future generations to enjoy and appreciate. Unfortunately, there are some who violate those laws and regulations and in so doing damage the lands and facilities. Violators who are caught can face fines and penalties. This bill would direct the Federal public land agencies to apply the funds collected as fines to help restore the lands and facilities that may have been damaged due to the violations.

The purpose of this bill is to assist the land-managing agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Interior Department as well as the Forest Service in the Agriculture Department--by allowing the money collected as fines to be used for repairing damage caused by the actions that lead to the fines or by similar actions instead of going to the U.S. Treasury. It would also allow them to use the money to increase public awareness of regulations and other requirements regarding use of Federal lands. It provides that any of the money not needed for those purposes would be credited to the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury.

Allowing these funds to be used in this manner will not likely repair the all of the damage caused by illegal activities in most instances, but it will at least provide some assistance.

The genesis for this bill stemmed from a number of illegal activities that created significant damage to Federal public lands and facilities. Let me highlight just a couple of these.

As many may remember, Colorado experienced one of its worst fires in 2002, the Hayman Fire. This fire torched over 130,000 acres in the watershed of the Denver metropolitan area. It also destroyed 133 homes and forced the evacuation of over 5,000 people. After the fire, which was exceedingly hot and fast moving, a major thunderstorm pummeled the then-barren ground and washed debris and sediment into the Strontia Springs Reservoir, a major drinking water supply for Denver, hampering its capacity. Tragically, one person died of a heart attack during this fire, five firefighters were killed in a car crash on the way to the fire, and two people were killed during the subsequent thunderstorm and flooding. It was later learned that the fire was caused by the illegal actions of a former Forest Service employee. That person was later fined and jailed. This bill would allow the Forest Service to apply those fines collected to help restore the lands damaged by this fire.

Other examples involve off-road vehicles. Throughout the west, and especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted in an increase in recreational use of our public lands. These recreational uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the public land agencies to adequately control and manage such use. As a result, areas of our public lands are being damaged. These impacts can include: damage to wildlife habitat; increased run-off and sediment pollution in rivers and streams,; damage to sensitive high-altitude tundra, desert soils, and wetlands; creation of ruts and other visual impacts on the landscape; loss of quiet and secluded areas of the public lands; and adverse effects on wildlife.

Recreational off-road vehicle use on our public lands should be allowed to continue, but it must be managed to minimize or avoid these problems by appropriate restrictions and putting some sensitive areas off-limits to vehicle use. Again, most vehicle users are responsible-- they stay on designated roads and trails, they are respectful of the landscape and they endeavor to tread lightly. However, there are a number of such users who do not obey the rules. Given the nature of this use, large, powerful motorized vehicles that are able to penetrate deeper and deeper into previously secluded areas, even a relatively few who violate management requirements can create serious damage to public land resources.

For example, in the summer of 2000 two recreational off-road vehicle users ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land Management land high above Silverton, Colorado. As a result, they got stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the flanks of Houghton Mountain. At first, they abandoned their vehicles. Then, they returned with other vehicles to pull their vehicles out of the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of years to recover. As noted in a Denver Post story about this incident, ``alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures, nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar radiation, but it is helpless against big tires.'' The violators at this incident were fined. Again, this bill would allow those fines to be applied to address the specific damage that resulted.

These are but two examples. Regrettably, there have been many more such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west. These examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would address. This bill would give the Federal public land agencies the ability to apply resources to recover damaged lands from illegal activities.

This is a modest bill but an important one. I think it deserves the support of our colleagues and I will do all I can to achieve its enactment into law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join today with my colleague and fellow Coloradan Senator Michael Bennet in introducing legislation to create a national veterans' cemetery in El Paso County, CO, and provide a respectful final resting place that our Colorado veterans so deserve.

In a few months, we will honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defending our Nation, as we celebrate Memorial Day weekend. On that weekend, friends and family members of our departed veterans will go to Veterans Affairs, VA, cemeteries throughout the

country to honor the memory of their loved ones. Unfortunately, too many family members will have to travel far too many miles to pay their respects. Even worse, the long distance that some veterans' survivors must travel will prevent them from making the trip at all.

This is true of the loved ones of veterans in southern Colorado, whose population features one of the highest concentrations of veterans in the Nation. The vast majority of veterans in southern Colorado are located far outside of a 75-mile radius of the nearest VA cemeteries, Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver and Fort Lyon National Cemetery in Bent County.

For nearly a decade, it has been a goal of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee, as well as the Department of Colorado Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Colorado chapters of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Association for Service Disabled Veterans, to bring a national cemetery to El Paso County. In the last Congress, Representative John Salazar introduced legislation that would address this issue, and I supported that legislation along with other members of the Colorado delegation.

That bill, H.R. 1660, passed the House of Representatives unanimously by voice vote, highlighting the support southern Colorado veterans have received from the entire Nation for the establishment of a VA cemetery in El Paso County. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on this bill in the last Congress.

I hope--and I know that veterans throughout Colorado hope--that this year will be different. Representative Salazar has again introduced a House bill, and today we introduce the Senate companion. Senator Bennet and I will work hard to raise awareness of the need for a new national cemetery for southern Colorado and get this bill passed in the Senate. We need to ensure that all of our veterans receive the recognition they deserve with a final resting place close to their own communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join today with my colleague and fellow Coloradan Senator Michael Bennet in introducing legislation to create a national veterans' cemetery in El Paso County, CO, and provide a respectful final resting place that our Colorado veterans so deserve.

In a few months, we will honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defending our Nation, as we celebrate Memorial Day weekend. On that weekend, friends and family members of our departed veterans will go to Veterans Affairs, VA, cemeteries throughout the

country to honor the memory of their loved ones. Unfortunately, too many family members will have to travel far too many miles to pay their respects. Even worse, the long distance that some veterans' survivors must travel will prevent them from making the trip at all.

This is true of the loved ones of veterans in southern Colorado, whose population features one of the highest concentrations of veterans in the Nation. The vast majority of veterans in southern Colorado are located far outside of a 75-mile radius of the nearest VA cemeteries, Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver and Fort Lyon National Cemetery in Bent County.

For nearly a decade, it has been a goal of the Pikes Peak Veterans Cemetery Committee, as well as the Department of Colorado Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Colorado chapters of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Association for Service Disabled Veterans, to bring a national cemetery to El Paso County. In the last Congress, Representative John Salazar introduced legislation that would address this issue, and I supported that legislation along with other members of the Colorado delegation.

That bill, H.R. 1660, passed the House of Representatives unanimously by voice vote, highlighting the support southern Colorado veterans have received from the entire Nation for the establishment of a VA cemetery in El Paso County. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on this bill in the last Congress.

I hope--and I know that veterans throughout Colorado hope--that this year will be different. Representative Salazar has again introduced a House bill, and today we introduce the Senate companion. Senator Bennet and I will work hard to raise awareness of the need for a new national cemetery for southern Colorado and get this bill passed in the Senate. We need to ensure that all of our veterans receive the recognition they deserve with a final resting place close to their own communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.