Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Harkin for up to 15 minutes, Senator Boxer for up to 15 minutes, Senator Leahy; provided, that Senator Kyl be also recognized prior to adjournment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Vermont for speaking up. We certainly did not want to shortchange on his right to speak. I was glad to see when we got to the last part of the iteration we had the Senator from Vermont included.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. This will be the third consecutive day of debate on this well-qualified nominee. We have had a good debate on the Owen nomination, with a number of Members, on both sides of the aisle, speaking on the issue. As the majority leader announced yesterday, we will be seeking a unanimous consent agreement to set a time certain for a confirmation vote on the Owen nomination. If an objection is raised to a time agreement, a cloture motion will be filed later today.

Also, as announced by the leader, there will be no rollcall votes today. The next rollcall vote will be on Monday, and that vote will likely be in relation to a motion to instruct in order to request the presence of absent Senators. Additional votes are possible on Monday, and the leader will update that schedule on Monday.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the retirement of a distinguished member of our military, Col. Kent Murphy, who is retiring this year after a distinguished 25-year career in the Air Force.

Colonel Murphy started his career at the U.S. Air Force Academy, graduating in 1980. From there, he went on to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS, and became a doctor in the Air Force Medical Corps. Dr. Murphy served in varying assignments in the United States and overseas while in the Air Force. He has held surgical positions ranging from a F-16 flight surgeon to a staff surgeon in the Air Force Academy Hospital's Department of Otolaryngology, where he later became department head. He has been an adjunct assistant professor at USUHS and the senior otolaryngology malpractice consultant for the Office of the Air Force Surgeon General. Certainly, such a career serving his country as a doctor in the Air Force would be laudable in its own right, but Colonel Murphy went far beyond that.

In 1997, Colonel Murphy founded the Center of Excellence for Medical Multimedia at the U.S. Air Force Academy. There, Colonel Murphy pioneered the concept of information therapy throughout the Air Force Medical Service. He developed high-tech programs, using the Internet, video and CD/DVD ROM, that are the cornerstone of Air Force efforts to educate service members, dependents and retirees about important medical conditions such as pregnancy, hypertension and diabetes. Additionally, he served as the chairman of the Prorenata Health Media Foundation to help create access to these innovative programs for underserved populations across the Nation. In August of 2003, he was awarded the Frank Brown Berry Prize by US Medicine magazine--the highest honor in Federal Healthcare. Colonel Murphy is the only Air Force physician to have won this prestigious honor and the youngest recipient to date.

I am proud to call Colonel Murphy a friend and thank him today for his service to the Air Force and our country. I would be remiss however if I did not also thank his loyal wife Cindy. As anyone who has been around the military will attest, a good military spouse is vital to the success of the servicemember. As Colonel and Mrs. Murphy head out now into civilian practice, I know that they will continue to make lasting contributions to all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to honor all law enforcement officers who protect our families and communities against crime during National Police Week 2005. Also, I ask to pay special tribute to Detective Donald R. Young of Denver, CO, and others officers like him who have given their lives in service.

Communities readily rely on law enforcement officers to answer the call in times of great need. These men and women serve to enforce not only our laws, but to defend the weakest and most vulnerable among us. I think it is suitable that we salute and recognize these dedicated heroes with a National Police Week.

Detective Donald R. ``Donnie'' Young was shot and killed in Denver, CO, on May 8, 2005. He was working off duty at the time, providing security detail at a baptismal event. Detective Young was a 12-year veteran of the Denver Police Department. He leaves behind a wife and two young daughters.

Along with Detective Donald R. Young, I ask that we pay homage to all our fallen heroes. Law enforcement officers knowingly put themselves in harms way every day. It is important to take this time to remember their service. We must acknowledge their efforts as some of the bravest among us and share our gratitude for their sacrifice with their families.

I rise to humbly pay my respect to law enforcement officers everywhere and honor the legacy that fallen officers leave behind.

Madam President, I rise in support of the SAFETEA bill. Effective transportation is vital to our Nation, and I believe this bill will be an important step in helping to meet the country's transportation needs.

I would like to thank both Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords for working hard on this bill. The people of Oklahoma are blessed with the hard work Senator Inhofe has put forward, both in the Senate and when I had the opportunity to serve with him in the House.

This bill has required a lot of hard work and a lot of dedication. He has put forward an effort that I think we all appreciate. Sometimes we forget to say thank you for the hard work that goes into a bill such as this, including the hard work of the staff, I might add. The staff on both sides has been helpful in putting this legislation together.

In particular, I express my support for the public transportation title of the bill. While many people erroneously refer to this as the highways bill, it is actually a comprehensive reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs, including transit. A healthy, well-functioning transit network can greatly enhance the effectiveness of other transportation modes, and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Banking Committee, I have had many opportunities to see the difference reliable public transportation can make for both individuals and communities.

I also express my thanks to the Banking Committee chairman, Chairman Shelby. For many years he has been one of the leading champions for public transportation in the Senate. I appreciate his dedication. It has been a pleasure to work with him as subcommittee chairman on reauthorization of the mass transit programs.

I also recognize and thank Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, and Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee. They have been actively involved in the reauthorization process, and I appreciate the thoughtful perspective they brought to all of our discussions. Together I believe we have been able to accomplish a great deal to improve public transportation in a strong and bipartisan manner.

I thank again Senator Inhofe and all the other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee for their hard work and leadership. I miss not being on the committee. I was on the committee when this bill first moved forward. I very much appreciate working with my colleagues.

Public transportation is a key component of our Nation's transportation infrastructure and provides safe, reliable, efficient, and economic service. Public transportation can create jobs and stimulate economic development, as well as reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

Because I represent the State of Colorado, some people wonder why I care about public transportation. Beyond the national policy concerns, these same people are often surprised when I explain how important public transportation is to my Colorado constituents.

Public transportation encompasses a great deal beyond the stereotype of subways and heavy rail. People in the Denver suburbs can now take light rail to their jobs downtown. Students in Boulder often use the bus system to get around town. Sick people on the eastern plains may rely on demand-responsive transit services to go to chemotherapy or dialysis appointments. Public transportation is important to many different types of people in many different locations. This bill will help ensure that all these people have access to reliable public transportation.

I believe the Senate passed an excellent transportation reauthorization bill this last year, and I was especially pleased with the transit title. I believe it made important progress in a number of areas while building upon the many successes of TEA-21. Fortunately, we come to the floor with substantially the same package, and I am hopeful this approach will speed things along and allow the bill to move forward with a minimal number of amendments.

I am very supportive of the formula changes made in the transit title. These go a long way toward addressing my longstanding concerns with the distribution of transit dollars. As my colleagues may know, one of my top priorities during the consideration of TEA-21 was to bring more equity to the distribution of transit dollars. Senator Rod Grams and I were able to make changes that allowed States such as Colorado to have greater access to this resource.

In drafting the reauthorization bill, greater equity has continued to be my top priority. While the traditional transit cities have many important needs, it is time to update the formulas to include other needs. Today's bill strikes a balance by providing for more traditional transit cities and also providing for new needs by creating several new formulas.

In particular, I strongly support the new growing States formula. Historically, many of the fastest growing areas in Western and Southern States have had a difficult time obtaining transit dollars. Yet their explosive growth makes transit all the more important. Mass transit can help growing areas reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, as well as increase access to jobs. The new growing States formula will help direct additional resources to the high-growth areas with the greatest need.

I also support the new transit-intensive cities formula. This new formula will reward smaller cities that are providing greater than average transit service. In addition to providing an incentive for cities to improve their transit service, I support the formula because it deliberately directs taxpayer dollars to areas that are utilizing them most efficiently.

Finally, I support the new rural low-density formula. This formula will help rural areas provide critically needed service. Rural areas and very small towns generally have older and less affluent citizens, the very people who often rely on public transportation. In

fact, rural America has an estimated 30 million nondrivers. The problem is exacerbated for rural-transit-dependent populations, as compared to urban dwellers, because they most often travel great distances, and alternate transportation, such as a taxicab, is generally not available. Yet more than 40 percent of residents in rural America have no access to public transportation and another 25 percent have negligible access.

Because of low-population density and the distances involved, rural populations can be much more difficult and expensive to serve. However, their need is as real as the need in urban centers. This new formula will begin to help rural States meet those needs.

The transit title also places more appropriate emphasis on bus programs. For too long, the mass transit programs have been viewed as rail programs. While we can all agree that rail is vitally important to a select group of cities, the vast majority of Americans rely on bus service. This bill takes a balanced approach, providing resources to expand and improve both bus and rail service.

Another way we can help expand the reach of Federal transit dollars is through bus rapid transit. As compared to rail, bus rapid transit is able to deliver similar capacity for a fraction of the cost. I believe we should find ways to not only allow but to promote the use of bus rapid transit. I support the bus rapid transit provisions and believe we should continue to ease the fixed guideway restrictions. In some areas, such as Colorado's mountains, geography or other factors make a fixed guideway requirement cost prohibitive. We must ensure bus rapid transit has sufficient flexibility to make it a viable option for many areas.

The Federal Government attempts to strike a balance between accountability and easing administrative burdens within its programs. However, the New Starts Program has gotten out of balance. I believe the Small Starts Program, as proposed in this bill, does strike a better, more appropriate balance. Under this program, all projects will be subject to the review process rather than exempting projects under $25 million. This threshold was causing project distortions and poor estimations in an attempt to deem a project under $25 million.

In addition to the incentive to underestimate a project, this approach lacks accountability for the taxpayer dollars at stake. By contrast, the Small Starts Program in the bill will subject all projects to the review process. However, to ease administrative burden, projects under $75 million will be subject to a streamline process. This will ensure that all projects receive scrutiny and will scale the level of scrutiny to be appropriate to the project size. This will also make it easier for smaller cities to add transit to their communities for the first time.

While public transit agencies are important in providing transit service, the private sector is also a key partner in providing effective, efficient service. By making a few modest changes, the transit title ensures they will be able to remain a part of the process. Public-private partnerships can benefit all parties, and our bill will help allow and encourage such partnerships.

Another important feature of this bill is its use of incentives rather than mandates and penalties. Until now, projects have little incentive to use good planning and forecasting or to stay on time and on budget. By offering incentives, we hope to change that. It is absurd that projects such as TREX in Denver have to return money because they did good planning and stayed on time and under budget. Transit agencies should not be punished for doing a good job. Rather, they should be rewarded. I believe they should be able to keep a portion of that money for other transit uses, and the bill before us today will let them do that.

Again I thank Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and my colleagues on the committee for their work in producing the transit title of the bill that is before us today. I believe that under the SAFETEA bill, America's public transportation system will be able to serve more people more efficiently. I am hopeful the Senate will quickly complete action and enact a transportation reauthorization.

I reemphasize my sincere thanks to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, for his great work, and the other Republicans and members of the committee working with the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. I am pleased this transportation bill, which is badly needed, is now moving forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Dan Tang, who has been named by the Small Business Administration the Small Business Owner of the Year.

Dan was born in China in 1962 and was raised in Canton, China. At 19 years of age, Dan was forced to escape China. After eleven months in a refugee camp, he finally received a visa to travel to the United States. His dream of becoming an American citizen began in California. He worked hard, saved his money and found his way to Colorado.

After moving to Aurora, CO, he met up with some friends who owned a local Chinese restaurant. He accepted a job offer to be the dish washer and began working his way up in the business. He went from washing dishes, then bussing tables and eventually was promoted to become a cook. Always working long days and saving his money, Dan was eventually able to open his own restaurant in 1990. The opening of the Heaven Dragon was an enormous achievement for him and his family.

Today the Heaven Dragon is one of the best known family owned restaurants in the Denver metro area. His reputation is so well known that on a recent visit to Denver, President Bush requested his speciality, Peking Duck.

Dan Tang is a true American success story. He is a role model for hard-working small business owners across the country who are creating their own American dream.

Mr. President, April 27, 2005, marks an important day for health care, especially personnel involved in public health specialties, because it is the day that I introduced the Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act, VWEA. This bill will create a new competitive grant program in the Department of Health and Human Services for capital improvements to the Nation's veterinary medical colleges.

Many Americans do not realize that veterinarians are essential for early detection and response to unusual disease events that could be linked to newly emerging infectious diseases such as monkeypox, SARS, and West Nile Virus, just to name a few. The training and education that veterinarians receive prepares them to address the concerns of bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases, most of which are transmitted from animals to man. In fact, 80 percent of biothreat agents of concern fall into this category. I believe veterinarians should be our first-responders when it comes to these threats. I know that they are uniquely qualified to address these issues because I have received this training myself. I received my DVM from Colorado State University and have kept my license current every year since I closed my clinic and ran for elected office.

Veterinarians are a unique national resource, as they are the only health professionals trained in multi-species comparative medicine. As a result of this training, the veterinary profession is able to provide an extraordinary link between agriculture and human medicine. The uses made of this link have been extensive, with multiple benefits to society.

Currently, approximately 20 percent, 15,000, of all veterinarians in the United States are I engaged in either private population-health practice with a significant food animal component or public practice in one of its various forms. The need for new graduates entering the field is imperative to preparing the country for the threats of agroterrorism and bioterrorism. If new graduates do not enter these fields, government, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and agribusiness will employ lesser qualified individuals to fill their needs.

There is a critical shortage of veterinarians working in public health areas. The Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Public Health Service, veterinary academia, National Research Council, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are unified in reporting that the shortage of veterinarians in the workforce will only continue to worsen. Combined with a rapidly growing population and increased human to animal interaction, there is an urgent need to adequately prepare the Nation's veterinary colleges so they may educate the workforce of the future.

The VWEA would allow credentialed schools of veterinary medicine to compete for Federal grant funding under the Department of Health and Human Services. These grants would be for capital costs associated with expanding the existing schools of veterinary medicine or their academic programs in the areas of public health practice. This new grant program will be authorized for 10 fiscal years. At that point, it is my hope and goal that the veterinary medical colleges will be adequately prepared to educate the veterinary workforce for the future.

For more than 100 years, veterinary medical colleges have effectively delivered a core educational program that has enabled veterinarians to adapt and respond to evolving societal needs. Being a veterinarian myself, I want to continue this tradition by expanding existing veterinary colleges. I hope that you will join me in my efforts to protect the Nation's public health by providing much-needed support for veterinary medical education.

Mr. President, April 27, 2005, marks an important day for health care, especially personnel involved in public health specialties, because it is the day that I introduced the Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act, VWEA. This bill will create a new competitive grant program in the Department of Health and Human Services for capital improvements to the Nation's veterinary medical colleges.

Many Americans do not realize that veterinarians are essential for early detection and response to unusual disease events that could be linked to newly emerging infectious diseases such as monkeypox, SARS, and West Nile Virus, just to name a few. The training and education that veterinarians receive prepares them to address the concerns of bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases, most of which are transmitted from animals to man. In fact, 80 percent of biothreat agents of concern fall into this category. I believe veterinarians should be our first-responders when it comes to these threats. I know that they are uniquely qualified to address these issues because I have received this training myself. I received my DVM from Colorado State University and have kept my license current every year since I closed my clinic and ran for elected office.

Veterinarians are a unique national resource, as they are the only health professionals trained in multi-species comparative medicine. As a result of this training, the veterinary profession is able to provide an extraordinary link between agriculture and human medicine. The uses made of this link have been extensive, with multiple benefits to society.

Currently, approximately 20 percent, 15,000, of all veterinarians in the United States are I engaged in either private population-health practice with a significant food animal component or public practice in one of its various forms. The need for new graduates entering the field is imperative to preparing the country for the threats of agroterrorism and bioterrorism. If new graduates do not enter these fields, government, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and agribusiness will employ lesser qualified individuals to fill their needs.

There is a critical shortage of veterinarians working in public health areas. The Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Public Health Service, veterinary academia, National Research Council, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are unified in reporting that the shortage of veterinarians in the workforce will only continue to worsen. Combined with a rapidly growing population and increased human to animal interaction, there is an urgent need to adequately prepare the Nation's veterinary colleges so they may educate the workforce of the future.

The VWEA would allow credentialed schools of veterinary medicine to compete for Federal grant funding under the Department of Health and Human Services. These grants would be for capital costs associated with expanding the existing schools of veterinary medicine or their academic programs in the areas of public health practice. This new grant program will be authorized for 10 fiscal years. At that point, it is my hope and goal that the veterinary medical colleges will be adequately prepared to educate the veterinary workforce for the future.

For more than 100 years, veterinary medical colleges have effectively delivered a core educational program that has enabled veterinarians to adapt and respond to evolving societal needs. Being a veterinarian myself, I want to continue this tradition by expanding existing veterinary colleges. I hope that you will join me in my efforts to protect the Nation's public health by providing much-needed support for veterinary medical education.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to clear up the apparent confusion and misinformation surrounding the confirmation of judicial nominations.

I hope to shed some light on one of our most important obligations and express to the American people the truth about the partisan obstruction of our constitutional duties.

Article II of the Constitution, known as the advice and consent clause, requires Senate approval of judicial nominations. This obligation is only

fulfilled when the Senate allows an up or down vote on a nominee.

The vote acts as an expression of the body's ``advice and consent,'' but this expression simply cannot occur if it is blocked by a filibuster.

I strongly believe that the use of a filibuster to block judicial nominations is not only unprecedented minority obstruction but an attack on the Constitution itself.

The decision to vote on a judicial nomination or to obstruct the nominee pits the Constitution against a mere tool of parliamentary procedure; that is the Constitution versus a Senate rule called the filibuster.

I urge my colleagues to put our faith in the founding document, not a filibuster rule. To do otherwise degrades the Constitution and relegates it to the level of an arbitrary rule of procedure. Let me make it clear.

I am not going to stand idly by as parliamentary maneuvers run roughshod over the Constitution and centuries of Senate practices.

The Republican majority is not establishing new precedent. We are simply trying to restore the rights of the Constitution and the practices that this body has observed for over 200 years.

If the Senate allows the filibusters of judicial nominations to continue, it will be acquiescing in a minority's unilateral change to Senate procedure and practices; requiring 60 votes for the confirmation of judges through the rules, undermining the Constitution's requirement for a 50-vote majority.

The practical effect is an amendment to the Constitution without the approval of the American people.

My colleagues on the other side would have everyone believe that the filibuster is being eliminated. But that simply is not the case.

They don't mention that the filibuster never existed on judicial nominations. In fact, it never existed until the Democrats broke with over 200 years of Senate procedure and unleashed the filibuster last Congress to block 10 judges.

It was not a usual way of doing business. It was the first time in the history of the Senate the filibuster was used. The Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to change the history of the Senate by blocking judges with the filibuster, rewrite the Constitution by using the filibuster to thwart the advice and consent clause, and then blame Republicans for simply saying, ``let's follow the Constitution and allow votes on judges, lets follow Senate tradition.''

They falsely portray our actions to preserve the advice and consent clause as something akin to minority persecution.

But what they don't mention is that the filibuster is not a law. It is not in the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers didn't even envision a filibuster weapon at all.

Even more astonishing is the fact that several of the Democrats who are now ardent supporters of the judicial filibuster are the same ones who tried to eliminate the filibuster entirely just a few years ago, not only on judicial nominations but on everything, including legislative actions.

It is the Democrats who are altering history. It is the Democrats who are unleashing a weapon that threatens to alter the traditions and precedent of the Senate.

It is the Democrats who are revising the history of our Founding Fathers and undermining the three branches of our separate but equal system of Government.

For example, from 1789 until 1806 the Senate had a traditional ``motion for the previous question'' in its rules. There was no intention to create a Senate where a filibuster was prominent. The filibuster was not used in any significant way at all until the 1840's, and it was never used for judicial nominations.

The Senate's original cloture rule, in 1917, did not even apply to nominations because no Senator had ever used a filibuster to block a nomination.

Let me repeat that, up until 1917 the Senate's original cloture rule didn't even apply to nominations because no Senator had ever used a filibuster to block a nomination.

The rule did not apply, not because the Senate approved of such filibusters but because Senators never contemplated them.

A thorough examination of Senate history clearly demonstrates that there is no precedent for the Democrats' use of the filibuster to permanently block the confirmation of judicial nominations.

Some Democrats claim that Republicans want to destroy the filibuster for all matters. This is simply not true.

What is true is that the only sitting Members of the Senate on record supporting the elimination of the filibuster are Democrats.

In 1995, 19 Senators all Democrats, not one Republican, voted to eliminate the filibuster for all matters, not only judicial but also legislature. Nine of the 19 Democrats who voted for the Harkin- Lieberman rule change remain in this body today.

And all of those Senators now support the filibustering of judicial nominations. If it was ok to end the filibuster rule in 1995, why is it not ok today?

Let me just share some of the comments made by those Democratic Senators in 1995:

For too long, we have accepted the premise that the

filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no

constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And

if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent

with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of

the Constitution by the rules of the U.S. Senate.

The Democrats also said:

[A] filibuster ought to be used to slow down, temper

legislation, alert the public, change minds, but should not

be used as a measure whereby a small minority can totally

keep the majority from voting on the merits of a bill.

Now 10 years later, evidently what is good for the goose can forget about the gander.

Turning to the issue of Senate rules, the Democrats claim that changing the rules of the Senate is unprecedented, that using the Constitution to end the filibuster is tyranny.

Again, let me point out another instance where the goose has left the gander.

The constitutional option is grounded in Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution that empowers the Senate to ``determine the Rules of its Proceedings.''

The Senate has repeatedly exercised the constitutional option to define minority rights, as long ago as 1977, and it has done so in a Democratic-led majority.

The use of a simple majority vote to set precedents is as old as the Senate. In fact, the constitutional option has been exercised in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987.

It was used in 1977 to end post-cloture filibusters; in 1979 to limit amendments to appropriations bills; in 1980 to govern consideration of nominations; and again in 1987 to govern voting procedures.

In every instance, the Senate acted independently of the Senate rules in order to change Senate procedures in the face of obstruction or abuse by a minority of Senators.

History clearly shows that it is the constitutional option that has been used before. It is the use of the filibuster that is an unprecedented expansion of minority obstruction.

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, ant this is very important. Senators would still have the ability to filibuster any bill, any time.

The Constitution calls upon the Senate collectively to determine whether or not a particular nominee is qualified to serve. This determination is made in one vote, the approval or disapproval of the nomination itself. Advice and consent does not mean avoiding a vote on a judicial nominee entirely by employing a filibuster.

If a Member of the Senate disapproves of a judge, then let them vote against the nominee.

But a filibuster should never be used to deprive the people of the choice selected by their elected representatives.

It is the Senate's duty to collectively participate in a show of ``advice and consent'' to the President by voting. It is this act that exercises what James Madison referred to as the remote choice of the people.

I sincerely hope we can work through the impasse on judicial nominations.

I hope those opposed to the President's nominees will be given the opportunity to vote against them and that they will speak their mind about it.

But I also hope that we will be allowed to provide the guidance we are required to provide under the Constitution.

The basic decision the Senate must make is this: Either constitutional advice and consent prevails or the filibuster is allowed to change the Constitution. I believe in the Constitution. I believe we should vote on the nominations.

As I have said so many times before, ``vote them up, or vote them down, but just vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today for the second year in a row to recognize the recent achievement of the University of Denver Hockey Team. On April 9, 2005, almost a year to the day that they won the 2004 Men's NCAA Division I Championship on the frigid ice of a Boston arena, the Pioneers repeated their amazing feat capturing a second national title in Columbus, OH at this year's Frozen Four. On this particular evening the University of Denver Pioneers defeated the North Dakota Fighting Sioux by a score of 4-1, clinching a seventh overall hockey championship.

At the helm of the University of Denver hockey team for the last 11 years has been coach George Gwozdecky. Coach Gwozdecky came to DU in 1994 and has compiled an impressive record at DU, including his 400th win as a coach a few short weeks ago and his 405th win in the national title game. Coach Gwozdecky has shaped the Pioneer program into one of the elite programs in all of collegiate sports, and he is the only NCAA coach to win a national hockey title as a player, assistant coach, and head coach.

Later today the University of Denver campus will host a rally in honor of the Pioneer hockey champions. While I regret that I can not be there in person to commend this fantastic team, I would like to honor just a few of the great players that made this repeat championship possible. Freshman Peter Mannino, named the Most Outstanding Player of this year's Frozen Four, made an astonishing 44 saves in the championship game including a 23 shot barrage in the third period. Forward Paul Stastny scored two of the Pioneer's four goals with Jeff Drummond and Gabe Gauthier each adding one. Five Pioneers, Forwards Gauthier and Stastny, Defensemen Matt Carle and Brett Skinner, and goalie Mannino were named to the All-Tournament Team.

Today I share my congratulations with the entire University of Denver community. Winning a national title is a rare and precious accomplishment. Winning two championships in a row is all the more rare. This achievement reflects the hard work and dedication of many people. Congratulations to all the DU Pioneers. Congratulations to Chancellor Daniel Ritchie, Provost Bob Coombe, President Mark Holtzman, Interim Director of Athletics Stuart Halsall, Coach Gwozdecky and his staff, and especially the Pioneer players, students and fans. You have made us all very proud.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to address one of the most important obligations that we, as Members of the Senate, are bound to fulfill--the approval or disapproval of the President's judicial nominations.

Perhaps no other constitutional duty vests as much responsibility in the executive, or this body, than article II, articulating the President's power of appointment, a power that is only realized when the Constitution works as it was intended to, when we fulfill our obligation as laid out in the clause requiring this body's advice and consent.

This fundamental duty carries with it the weight and responsibility of generations, a lifetime appointment to a position that requires a deep and mature understanding of legal thought, and a solemn oath to uphold the law.

This debate is not about numbers. It is not about percentages, how many judges that Republicans confirmed or how many judges Democrats confirmed. To frame the debate as nothing but a statistical argument is to betray the American people.

We were not sent to Congress to focus on a numerical count but instead to make sure that limited government allows for opportunity and promise without stifling individual freedom and liberty.

We were sent here to build a stronger Union and to uphold our obligations under the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers referred to judges as ``the guardians'' of the Constitution and gave to the President the responsibility to appoint them.

Alexander Hamilton once wrote that, in order to maintain the health of the three branches of government, all possible care is requisite to enable the judiciary to defend itself.

It is frightening to think that a minority in the Senate is eroding the foundation of the third branch by perpetuating obstruction and endangering the citadels of justice.

No where does the Constitution give Congress the ability to ignore the appointment process.

By refusing to give judicial nominations an up or down vote, it is nothing more than a Congressional veto with a fancy name.

James Madison characterized the appointment of judges as the remote choice of the people.

Failure to provide an up or down vote deprives the people of the United States the choice selected by their representatives, denying choice to the very same people who elected us to office and the same people who live under the Constitution that we have sworn to protect.

The legal prowess of a nominee is obviously an important factor to consider when confirming a judge.

The Constitution calls upon the Senate collectively to determine whether or not a particular nominee is qualified to serve. This determination is made in one gesture, the approval or disapproval of the nomination itself.

In 2003 and 2004, a series of votes were held on various nominees. Some were approved, while others were denied a vote altogether, even though they were clearly supported by a majority of Senators.

Procedural processes do not fulfill the advice and consent requirement. Advice and consent does not mean avoiding the question on a judicial nominee entirely by employing a filibuster.

If a Member of the Senate disapproves of a judge, then let them vote against the nominee. But do not deprive the people of the right to support a nominee through their elected representative.

It is our vote, the right of each Member to collectively participate in a show of ``advice and consent'' to the President, that exercises the remote choice of the people.

The burden of obstruction is borne by the American people. Empty seats on our highest courts delays the recourse and justice guaranteed by the Constitution.

As so many of my colleagues have stated before me, such justice delayed is justice denied.

In the shadow of September 11, 2001, we now recognize the efforts being made by the enemies of the United States to destroy the liberties and freedom of our great Nation. The most basic of our country's values and traditions are under attack.

Congress responded by enacting new laws and by providing financial assistance to businesses, families and defense; we acted swiftly to suffocate terrorists and destroy the hateful organizations that work to undermine our society.

Through strong and courageous leadership, the President has stood firm against terrorist and terrorist regimes.

But our government cannot function without an equally strong judiciary, the third branch of government. It is through the judiciary that justice is served, rights protected, and that law breakers are sentenced for their crimes.

The Senate cannot willingly refuse to provide an up or down vote on judicial nominees without acknowledging that irreparable harm may be done to an equal branch of government.

Judges must take an oath to uphold the law, regardless of their personal views.

Time after time, a nomination has been blocked by a minority of Senators because they feel that they are better judges of a nominee's ability to fulfill that oath than a majority of the Senate.

The result of this obstruction is a broken nomination process.

I sincerely hope we can work through the impasse on the judicial nomination process.

I hope those opposed to the President's nominees will vote against them and speak their mind about it. But I also hope that we will be allowed to provide the guidance we are required to provide under the Constitution.

As I have said so many times before, ``vote them up or vote them down, but just vote.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I request 15 minutes to speak on the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. I commend Senator Cochran, the manager of this bill and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for the way he has put together this bill. His leadership was critical in ensuring that provisions in this bill are truly emergencies and are vital to our troops in the field.

I also acknowledge the work done by Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Most of the funding in this bill comes from his subcommittee, and I know he has worked hard to ensure every penny will be wisely spent.

Both Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens have also gone out of their way to assist me and Senator McConnell in tackling an important issue related to our nation's chemical weapons stockpile. I will discuss this issue in greater detail in a moment.

The bill before us includes critically-needed funding for our men and women in uniform. It also ensures that the operations against the global war on terror is not interrupted. It provides certain benefits for our troops, including an increased death gratuity, life insurance extensions, and hazardous pay. I strongly support these provisions and believe they will greatly enhance the effectiveness of our military forces.

The bill also includes several provisions related to the Department of Defense chemical demilitarization program. These provisions seek to force the Department of Defense to move forward with the design and construction of two chemical weapons destruction facilities at Pueblo, CO and Blue Grass, KY.

Since the program's inception, the Department of Defense management has been dismal and ineffective. The program is behind schedule and over-budget. In 1986, Congress was told that the program was going to be completed before 2007 at a cost of approximately $2.1 billion. And now, we are told the program could possibly cost as much as $37 billion and be completed as late as 2030.

The Department of Defense has consistently failed to provide sufficient funding for this program, forcing those who run it to make programmatic decisions that pit demilitarization sites against each other.

The Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate program management. It has repeatedly stopped and restarted design work and operations, adding huge start-up costs and considerable schedule delays.

The department has failed effectively to communicate its intentions and plans to the States in which permitting is necessary, nor to local communities whose support is essential.

An example of these failures is the department's handling of the destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile at the Pueblo Depot in Colorado. In 2002, the department accelerated the destruction of the weapons at Pueblo with the goal of completing its work by the 2012 Chemical Weapons Convention deadline.

However, in 2004, the department changed its mind. Without telling Congress, the State of Colorado, or the people in Pueblo, the department unilaterally decided to cease all design work and assign the project in Pueblo to in care-taker status for the next 6 years.

After six months of no activity, the Department of Defense changed its mind again. It ordered a study on whether the stockpile in Pueblo should be relocated to an operational incineration site, even though such an option is illegal under current law and has already been studied at least three times in the past.

A month after that, the department changed its mind again by ordering the start of preparatory construction and the redesign of the facility.

Today, the future of the project still remains uncertain and judging by the department's past performance, it seems likely that the project will be changed many more times.

I am frustrated, and the people of Colorado are frustrated. Try as we might, we cannot seem to get straight answers from the department. One day I was told by department officials that the stockpile would not be relocated outside of Colorado. The very next day, the department ordered the study of transportation options.

In an Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, the only answer we could get out of department officials was that they needed to conduct more studies on the technology and more studies on transportation options. From my perspective, we can study this issue into eternity and never get anything done. It is time to move forward with destroying these weapons. It is time to eliminate the danger these weapons pose to the local communities. And, it is time for the department to recognize the necessity of complying with our international obligations.

I am very troubled by the Department of Defense's apparent willingness to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty this body ratified. I believe the United States has a moral obligation to comply with it. Our Nation's reputation and moral standing are at stake.

If we are not careful, we will find it impossible to hold others to this treaty and to other treaties as well.

The department seems to be on a path towards blaming Congress for its future non-compliance. Yesterday, a DoD official actually told the Armed Services Committee that it would be the fault of Congress if the department could not meet the treaty deadline. This official seems to believe that relocating the stockpiles in Pueblo and Kentucky to operational sites would solve the problem.

I strongly reject that line of thinking. Congress is not to blame for the department's bungling of this program. The fact is that the Congress has been more than willing to provide the funds and political support to get this program done. Last year alone, the Congress added $50 million for the project at Pueblo. I am certain that if the Department of Defense requested additional funding for the overall program, Congress would be more than willing to support its request.

The fact of the matter is that the department has been trying to destroy these weapons since 1986, nearly 20 years, and has spent billions upon billion of taxpayer's hard-earned dollars. And yet we have destroyed less than 40 percent of our Nation's stockpile, which is no where near the 100 percent requirement of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Let us also be clear that Congress has been very up front about the transport of chemical munitions across State lines. The law that prohibits this activity has been on the books since 1994. Nothing has changed since then. In fact, such a proposal would be dead on arrival if the department ever offered it in this Congress.

Let there be no mistake about it: I will fight this proposal.

The department should heed the words of Congress and get on with the business of destroying these weapons. Conducting more studies is a waste of time and money. We need to move forward, and we need to move forward now.

I believe it is important at this point to mention I am not alone in this fight. The senior Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell has been pushing the department to destroy our chemical weapons stockpile for nearly two decades. Over this time, he has led the fight in forcing the department to work with State and local communities to get this program off the ground.

There is no doubt in Senator McConnell's mind or in my mind that the department has been inconsistent and unreliable regarding this program. We both strongly believe that it is past time for Congress to intervene.

That is why we worked with Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens to include four provisions related to the Chemical Demilitarization program in this bill. These provisions will require the department to stop dragging its feet and move forward with the design and construction of the chemical demilitarization facilities in Pueblo, CO, and Blue Grass, KY.

Specifically, the provisions in this bill will require the Department to do the following:

transfer within 30 days all previous funding appropriated for the Pueblo and Blue Grass facilities to the program manager of the ACWA program;

require the Program Manager to spend at least $100 million within 120 days;

prevent the department from using the funding appropriated for the Pueblo and Blue Grass for any other purpose; and

prohibit the use of appropriated funding from any study pertaining to the transportation of chemical weapons across state lines.

These provisions prevent the department from dragging its feet and requiring more studies. The treaty deadline is fast approaching and cannot be ignored. The department must move quickly if we are to comply with the treaty, and I assure you today that we intend to hold them to it.

I thank the chair for the opportunity to speak on the supplemental appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and get this funding to our troops as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I bring to the Senate's attention the importance of Freedom Park in Edwards, CO, to commemorate the sacrifices of our Armed Forces and emergency services personnel.

Similar to many other memorials, an American flag stands waving at its center, reflecting in the clear blue waters of a mountain lake. Yet this monument differs from most in that it recognizes not only our Armed Forces but our emergency services. The liberties that we as citizens hold dear today have been protected both abroad and domestically, and this monument is a faithful reminder of all Americans who have dedicated their lives to serving freedom.

The concept of Freedom Park began with local veterans in Edwards, CO, but soon grew into a valley-wide, grassroots effort. Citizens from all walks of life have come together to accomplish this noble goal, including military veterans and their families, emergency service members, business professionals, local government officials, and countless others. The fruit of their labor will be recognized for generations to come in the name of commemorating American liberty.

From the Revolutionary War to the global war on terrorism, Freedom Park uniquely honors those who have given their lives in the line of duty throughout America's history. Clearly displayed at every entrance to the park, these words are posted: ``The greatest tribute we can give them is to become wiser through their legacy.'' This quote demonstrates the founders' goal, which is two-fold: to memorialize those who have served in the name of freedom and to teach future generations the meaning of the sacrifices that were made.

Freedom Park memorial appropriately holds the dedication of our men and women in the Armed Forces and emergency services in great esteem so that we may honor their dedication to our Nation and learn from their sacrifices.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the retirement of a Colorado native from the U.S. Army, LTC Julia Cook.

Lieutenant Colonel Cook has distinguished herself with exceptionally meritorious conduct while serving in key positions of ever increasing responsibility as an Army quartermaster and human resources officer, culminating her career as a legislative liaison for Secretary of the Army, Office of the Chief Legislative Liaison. During her years of superlative service, Lieutenant Colonel Cook consistently demonstrated exceptional leadership, resourcefulness and professionalism while making lasting contributions to Army soldiers and families, readiness and mission accomplishment. Lieutenant Colonel Cook's 20 years of dedicated and faithful service enhanced the soldiers and the units to which she was assigned and reflects the greatest credit upon herself and the U.S. Army.

Lieutenant Colonel Cook was commissioned a second lieutenant through the ROTC program, Quartermaster Corps, after graduating from the University of Colorado in December 1984. Her first assignment, following the quartermaster officer basic course, was to Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, from 1985 to 1986, serving as XO for an AIT company that trained 63Bs and 64Cs and as an assistant brigade S4. She volunteered to serve in Korea from 1986 to 1988, distinguishing herself as tech supply platoon leader in 595th Maintenance Company, K-16 Air Base and as battalion S1, 227th Maintenance Battalion, Youngman. Following her tour in Korea, she completed the quartermaster officer advance course and was assigned to Ft. Carson, CO, from 1988 to 1993. Again she served superbly in a variety of positions, as the 4th ID DISCOM support operations officer; the S2/3, 704th Main Support Battalion; as commander, Company C, 704th Main Support Battalion; and as the division equal opportunity officer. She also deployed on a 6-month rotation to JTF-B, Honduras, serving as the logistics plans officer. From 1993 to 1997 she performed her duties as a soldier assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Army Materiel Command, AMC. She served in a variety of positions including, logistics operations officer in the Emergency Operations Center, staff action control officer for the Secretary of the General Staff, executive officer for the Chief of Staff, special project officer to Project Manager Soldier, and team executive officer for the Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual Harassment after the Aberdeen Proving Ground Sexual Harassment scandal.

After graduation from the Command and General Staff College, she was assigned to the 21st Theater Support Command, Kaiserslautern, Germany, from 1998 to 2001. While overseas, she served as chief, Distribution Management Center, where she developed supply distribution initiatives for a command supporting over 65,000 soldiers in European-based units. Lieutenant Colonel Cook's work enabled the Command to reduce shipping costs through the air challenge process by $2 million for the first two quarters of fiscal year 1999. She served as executive officer of the 191st Ordnance Battalion, Miesau, Germany, and was responsible for internal operations of a 600-soldier battalion consisting of a headquarters and headquarters company, an ammunition company, a quartermaster rigging detachment, and two explosive ordnance disposal companies, all while exercising oversight of a $2 million annual budget. Lieutenant Colonel Cook finished her career serving with the Army's office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison from August 2001 to May 2005 where she was the staff action officer and legislative assistant to the Undersecretary of the Army and the Sergeant Major of the Army. She prepared the Undersecretary and Sergeant Major for all interactions with Congress including hearings, office calls, and phone calls. Finally, she served in the program division as the Army legislative liaison between the U.S. Congress and the Army staff for all issues related to logistics.

Through these assignments, Lieutenant Colonel Cook has provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to both the Army and Congress. Her actions and counsel were invaluable to Army leaders and Members of Congress as they considered the impact of important issues. Lieutenant Colonel Cook's dedication to accomplishing the Army's legislative liaison mission has been extraordinary. She is truly an outstanding officer who displays superb professional leadership skills and is totally dedicated to mission accomplishment in the highest traditions of military service, and I thank her for her service to this great Nation.

Mr. President, I was unable to be present for today's vote honoring His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. At the time of the vote, I was in Colorado attending my father-in-law's funeral service. Having been an original cosponsor of the resolution, I would have supported the measure if present.

As we mourn the passage of Pope John Paul II, we also pause to reflect on the many blessings his life bestowed upon the world, This great man was not only a defender of his faith, but of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. He will be remembered, without doubt, as one of the most significant and influential figures of the 20th Century. His influence transcended the Roman Catholic Church and has had an impact on everyone's relationship with the Creator. I humbly pay my respects and honor the legacy that he leaves behind.