Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.''

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I happen to think we need to take care of those taxes where they are expiring. If we don't deal with them, the rates are going to go up. We have a number of tax provisions that are within the 5-year window of the budget resolution that is before us. Three of them are what we refer to as economic growth, taxes we reduced, investment and job creation incentive, and taxes we reduced. I think one of the most effective taxes in stimulating the economy is reduction of capital gains. It is set to expire within this 5-year window. If you look as far back as the Kennedy administration, he reduced capital gains to create more income during his administration so he could spend on other programs. Because you cut taxes doesn't mean it is going to reflect a decrease in revenue to the Federal Government. We have seen that happen from time to time. It happened during the Reagan administration. It helped pay for defense spending. We have seen it in my State of Colorado. Right now, we happen to have in my State of Colorado a modified national tax where we build off of the Federal tax bottom line form. One time we didn't, and we reduced capital gains in the State of Colorado and, lo and behold, revenues increased to the State of Colorado. We have seen this happen now under the Bush administration with the tax incentives we put in place, which included a 15-percent tax rate on capital gains income, and included a 150-percent tax rate on dividend income, and increased 100 percent the deduction for small business expenses. Having done that, here is what we have seen happen. February's nonfarm payroll growth exceeded analysts' expectations and was broad-based. We saw nonfarm payroll increase 262,000 in February, above the 225,000 median analysts' estimates, according to Bloomberg. It was the largest nonfarm payroll gain since October of 2004 and only the second gain of over 200,000 since last May. We saw 121 consecutive months of job gains, and have added more than 3 million new jobs to the payroll. The unemployment rate declined to 5.4 percent from 5.6 percent a year ago. Now it is below the 1980s peak of 10.8 percent, the 1990 peak of 7.8 percent, and the 2000 year peak of 6.3 percent, according to OECD, which is an international organization that looked at the unemployment rate in the United States and compares it to other countries. According to its rating, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is low again in comparison to our major trading partners. The United States has 5.5 percent, France's unemployment rate is 9.6 percent, 4.1 percent higher than in this country, Germany is 9.8 percent, the Euro area is 18.9 percent. We look at all these figures, and I don't see how anybody can deny the fact that those taxes where we reduced them for the purpose of driving the economy didn't work. It did work. It created more revenue for the Federal Government. We can tax things to the point where you get very little revenue to the Government. I think we have been through an era where spending and taxing both have been on the higher side. When that happens, you decrease production, and the result is you have less revenue. Just raising taxes doesn't mean you automatically are going to get more revenue to the Federal Government. On the other hand, because you cut taxes doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get less revenue to the Federal Government. It depends on where your tax rate is. We have seen time and time again where we took a tax such as capital gains, we reduced it in the Kennedy era, we reduced it in the Reagan era, we reduced it in local States, and we have seen the effects by the adjustments within the States. We have seen it happen recently with the budget tax incentive and, lo and behold, revenues increased to the Federal Government. That is why Members such as myself feel it is important that we keep in the reconciliation process the opportunity to begin to extend these taxes. Obviously, they are not going to be extended permanently. I prefer to extend them permanently. Obviously, that is not going to be possible around here. I am willing to go ahead and extend them again further on a temporary basis and deal with them later. If you are going to stimulate the economy, I think you have to turn to the small business sector. That is the real engine that drives this economy. It is the small business sector. That is where innovation occurs. That is where individuals can own their own business and be motivated to produce. We see that time and time again in this country. I have seen it in my State of Colorado. I am a small businessman myself, having had a veterinary practice. I understand the vital role small business will play in economies of cities throughout this country. We had a 100 percent deduction for small business on expensing. That had a phenomenal impact on revenues to the Federal Government in a positive way. It is one of the taxes that increased revenue to the Federal Government. We saw such a dramatic drop in the unemployment rate. It is important we not do away with the goose that laid the golden egg. We need to look at what has worked historically and we need to continue that policy. If we do that, we will continue to see our economy grow. The President is on the right track. This budget is on the right track to, at the very least, extend out those taxes. There are some Members that would have liked to have seen more in the reconciliation bill. The $70.2 billion that is in here that they are talking about is a bare minimum as far as I am concerned. I wish we had a lot more. I think we could have done more to further stimulate the economy. It is not the government that creates new jobs, it is the small business people out here that are working. They are the ones who really create jobs. It is the free enterprise system in this country that creates jobs. When you create jobs, you can hold down government expenses and you can generate more revenue to the Federal Government. There are other expiring tax provisions that the Finance Committee can look at. They are not what I would classify necessarily as economic growth. They do not stimulate economic growth when you reduce them necessarily, but they help to contribute to the environment that helps our economy grow. I look at some of these that will expire within this window and I hate to turn my back on them, because they are popular, many of them, among the American people. Relief from individual alternative minimum tax; the research and experimentation tax credit; the deduction for teachers' classroom expenses; deduction for qualified education expenses; deduction of State and local sales taxes; cutting the welfare-to-work tax credit, work opportunity tax credit, credit for electricity produced from wind, biomass, and landfill gasses, tax credit for hybrid fuel cell vehicles; the first-time home buyer credit; and expensing of brownfields for mediation. Just a few of those taxes that will be expiring within the 5-year window that is provided for in this budget. My view is if these are worthy programs, we are much better off to reduce taxes in a way that stimulates those programs to grow than to say we will spend Federal dollars and promote these programs and subsidize these businesses. That is the wrong way. We are better off to keep a competitive environment by reducing taxes on some of these programs that are vitally important. I firmly believe the President is on the right track. I firmly believe the tax cuts we have put in place since the President was first elected to office are working, and it would be very disappointing to me and I think it would be a wrong track to somehow or other turn our back on those tax incentives that have proved to do so much for improving the economy in this country and improving revenue not only to the Federal Government but the State governments. The figures are looking better among State and local governments. I for one am going to stand and say, look, we need to have those provisions in the budget because we want to continue to see economic growth so that we can continue to have a strong and competitive economy. If we just turn loose the free enterprise system, the American people will generate the revenue that we need to sustain our economy. We just need to give them the incentive to produce. We do that, we have done that in the past, and we need to extend these out. It is very important. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we will recognize Senator Snowe, and we will recognize her on the Democrats' time.

Mr. ALLARD. Before we work out that agreement, I would like to be able to give those Members in opposition an opportunity to speak. We had this time pretty well set between 7 and 7:30. The time was running when we were waiting. I would like to call on them and see how our time runs. That might be possible.

Mr. ALLARD. We will see how the time goes. I will yield to Senator Grassley first.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe we have two speakers on this side who want 4 minutes apiece. I ask unanimous consent that we have 8 minutes on this side extended out and that we give Senator Grassley another 4 minutes to wrap up his speech, and then another 4 minutes on the time of Senator Hatch, if we might. There have been some cancellations, and we can take it off the time later on.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we give time limits from 7:45 to 8 p.m. for Harkin on his education amendment; from 8 to 8:20 for Ensign-Hutchison on border security; 8:20 to 8:35 for Landrieu on National Guard; 8:35 to 8:50 for Bunning on the AIDS budget process; and, after that time, we are expecting that maybe we are going to have some speakers drop out and we can ask for additional time as we need it.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 25 minutes. I rise in support of the budget resolution that is before the Senate, and I support the leadership of our new chairman. He has shown tremendous leadership on a very tough issue. This budget is about the future. It is about our children and our grandchildren, as is Social Security. I was pleased to hear the Senator from Montana admit we do have a problem with Social Security. We have some Members who apparently do not think there is a problem with Social Security. I would like to go back to Social Security perhaps at a later time. We have before us a budget resolution. We have to keep in mind that this budget resolution is about numbers. We are not getting into the specifics of the program, even though we are going to see a lot of amendments on the floor today that are going to be dealing with specifics of the program. In reality, this is about numbers. It is about the top numbers and how the numbers are allocated among the various committees. But the real decisions about how those dollars are going to be spent will rest, in some cases, with an authorization committee, or it may rest with the Appropriations Committee. If we look back historically at the budget, particularly in the last few years, the growth of the national budget, as reflected in the budget resolution, has been greater than what the growth of the economy has been. This budget is an attempt to reduce the rate of growth. There are some people who are going to try to characterize that as cuts, but if we look at the total figures in the budget, what we are doing is reducing the rate of growth. Even if we look at what we have done to reduce the rate of growth in entitlements, which has covered so much of the discussion throughout the budget debate, the growth in entitlements is greater than the growth in the economy. So we are talking about reducing the rate of growth. I believe this resolution represents a courageous balancing act in trying to bring some sanity to the budgeting process, some fiscal responsibility. We are funding our social and military priorities. The total discretionary budget authority for 2006 is $834.4 billion. Most of that is defense spending. We have about $438 billion, or something like that, that is set aside for discretionary spending in that area. The resolution is consistent with the President's request, plus a generous increase for some educational programs, particularly Pell grants. The resolution assumes full funding of the President's defense request, which is supporting our global war on terrorism, restructuring our U.S. forces, which I believe is badly needed, future threats, and raising the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. We have some tough decisions that have to be made when we are allocating these dollars, and they do have an impact. The resolution funds important existing commitments--certainly the reconstruction of Iraq. Nobody can deny the importance of that. We did not step away from that. That is an obligation we have assumed, and it is important we finish the job. We have a $50 billion reserve fund put up in this particular budget to begin to address the needs of our men and women in the military. In education, I mentioned the Pell grant increase, increases in higher education, No Child Left Behind--the increase in Pell grants of 10 percent or $417 million; we have a $5.5 billion reserve account for the new Higher Education Act, which is money that is going to be available when the HELP Committee acts. The budget features sound and vital mechanisms for fiscal restraint and budget discipline, which is something we have lost here in the last few years. I think we have to regain that. It is important that we do something to reduce deficit spending. This is something that will impact our children and grandchildren, if we do not begin to address it today. And the sooner we address it, the better off we are going be. If a business is having financial problems or any entity is having financial problems, I think everybody recognizes that if you wait until the last minute to address those financial problems, they get unsolvable. But the earlier you address those problems, the better off you are. We do have some Social Security problems. My feeling is the sooner we begin to address them, the less the pain is going to be. There is going to be some pain, but the pain is going to be less. If we wait until the last minute, the pain is going to be unbearable in Social Security. We have the same thing with many of our other entitlements programs. This budget begins to set discretionary budgets for 2006, 2007, and 2008, which is something that is enforced with the 60-vote point of order. It is a way of expecting a higher threshold if you want to increase spending. If we begin to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren, then we are going to require a higher threshold in this Congress to be able to do that, which means the issue has to be that much more important in the minds of Senators and the Congress. We establish points of order against new direct spending totaling $5 billion in any of the next four 10-year periods. The resolution continues sensible mechanisms for nondefense spending, advance appropriations, and pay-go, and it contains recommendations for a review of Federal agencies and their performance to eliminate or reduce wasteful, duplicative, inefficient, outdated, or failed programs. This idea in particular represents a growing sentiment within the body. I believe it represents a growing sentiment that we are seeing throughout the Nation. We have seen some efforts to try to restrain spending in high priorities areas in this Congress, such as defense. We are preparing to go through the BRAC process where we are looking closely at defense installations to see if they still meet the mission of a modern military. We need to have a similar type of scrutiny in the nondefense programs, to see if they continue to meet the mission the Congress intended of them when they first passed the legislation. That is being provided for by GPRA, which stands for Government Progress and Results Act, which measures how agencies do. The President has taken this and modified it to prevail as sort of a detailed roadmap through what he called his PART ratings, which is a roadmap I think Congress should pay more attention to. So he is looking at some accountability within the agencies. Again, we are not talking about anything more than just a reduction in the rate of spending as far as the total budget is concerned. This budget represents a landmark attempt to do something about entitlement spending. The first attempt was 19 years ago when there was an attempt to rein in entitlement spending in a budget resolution. So it has been awhile since we have looked at these. In the meantime these programs have been running on automatic. They have been spending more than what has been happening in the growth rate of our economy. Over time we are going to pay for it. It is going to be our children and grandchildren. The resolution includes instructions to produce mandatory savings of $32 billion over 5 years. This is a very important provision that is being wildly exaggerated. We have to keep in mind that mandatory spending is two- thirds of our total budget. The total budget is running at 2, a little over $2.5 trillion. Figure it out. We are only talking about $32 billion over 5 years. If you want to average it out, it is a little over $6 billion a year out of this 1 year's budget of over $2.5 trillion. So many of these provisions I think are being wildly exaggerated. Mandatory spending would still increase from $1.5 trillion in 2005 to more than $2 trillion in 2010. That is a growth of $500 billion in 5 years. So even though we are cutting back on the rate of spending growth, it is still increasing every year, and it is still increasing at a rate of $500 billion over a 5-year period of time. Some people in this body say that is too many cuts, but I look at these figures and I wonder who they are kidding. The doomsday cuts in this resolution barely add up to a moderate restraint of the stratospheric growth of these programs. Many people agree that entitlement spending is swallowing the budget and we must look seriously at our long-term fiscal health. The Federal Government consumes just under 20 percent of our total economy, and entitlements promise to grow and consume a larger and larger portion of this sizable chunk of our gross domestic product. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimates 65 percent of Federal resources by 2015. We had testimony in the Budget Committee from the Congressional Budget Office which said these were not sustainable--a personal view. I have to agree, when you look at 65 percent of Federal resources by 2015 as far as entitlement growth is concerned, that is a serious problem, and this Congress needs to face up to it. Despite the unanimous agreement that we must do something about it before our grandkids have to bear our policy burdens, I hear nothing from the other side except more money, more and more and more. I don't hear any suggestions on what their budget proposal is. They want to raise taxes, they want to increase spending. That is the only plan we get out of the other side. In some ways there is an analogy on Social Security. The other side is continuing to criticize Social Security, but they don't--and some of them, like Senator Baucus of Montana, agree now that there is a problem with Social Security, but there is no plan they are putting forward. The President has courageously stepped forward and suggested some plans to protect our children and grandchildren. They are very modest. He has done that with the budget. He is doing that with Social Security. Last week's markup I thought was very revealing. We had numerous amendments for additional spending in the Budget Committee and the promise of an alternative budget they said through amendments. That is how they were going to make their budget heard. It is easy to pick out a budget through amendments, but I would like to see a total budget plan presented by the other side if this budget is so bad. But nothing has materialized except more spending and the reductions of the enormously successful tax cuts. And those tax cuts were successful. That is what has created the economic growth we are seeing today. I had some experience in the House being in the minority which the other aisle finds themselves in, and we had the courage to step forward with a total budget and to make tough choices. We were challenged by the majority, by the Democrats in the House at the time I served on the Budget Committee, to come up with our own budget, and we said, yes, in fairness of debate, we ought to have one. So we did put forward a budget, a total budget about where we wanted to see the country be in 5 years, even in 10 years, and we compared that with the majority, the Democrats on the House side during those early years, and as a result of that, I think we established some credibility. My challenge to the other side is, you need to come up with your budget. You need to make the tradeoffs. Just submitting amendments here and there and picking at certain parts of the budget for political reasons or because it is an easy program to pick on or whatever is not the way to put together a budget for this country. So I challenge the other side to come up with a total budget and see what their ideas are and what they are going to do to protect the future generations of Americans, our children and our grandchildren. This resolution makes a minor adjustment to the explosive growth of Medicaid. You would think the sky was falling, and here is the percent of adjustment--.007 percent of Medicaid over 5 years. That is all we are touching. Now, there is still a huge increase going on in Medicaid, as far as I am concerned. We are just reducing that growth from what has been projected out so that there is a .007 percent of Medicaid being impacted over 5 years, which is a reduction. It appears to me that the only option that would be given from the other side is a tax increase without smothering growth and solving the underling problems The clock is ticking. The Budget Committee testimony by the Comptroller General of the GAO revealed estimates that our Nation's unfunded promises over the next 75 years are $44 trillion. In the entire history of the Federal Government we have raised a total of only $38 trillion in revenue. That is astounding testimony. We cannot wish this away. We cannot rely solely on economic growth. And we cannot tax our kids and grandkids into oblivion to solve these problems. Annual mandatory spending is on autopilot, rarely undergoing the kind of examination we give to the issue of steroids in Major League Baseball, for example. And this is much more important. CBO's baseline projects net mandatory spending will grow at an annual rate of 5.8 percent over the next 10 years. That is $5.4 trillion in total growth above 2005 spending levels. This resolution offers a modest reduction in the rate of that growth--a courageous and important step in our thinking around here. The resolution offers a very good start. If someone has a better plan, again, not just a series of constant amendments but a budget, we will be here to discuss it. Provisions to protect the taxpayer and promote growth are in this budget. The resolution includes assumptions focusing on preventing economically damaging tax increases. The President's tax cuts, which were passed by this Congress, have helped the economy grow. They have increased revenues, and not only to the Federal Government. We can see that happening in our States. In my State of Colorado we are beginning to see a change in revenues. Provisions of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Package Reconciliation of 2003 are set to expire after tax year 2008. We need to address that. The budget assumes we will continue the tax cuts that stimulate the economic development that ended our Nation's short recession. Without this budget, capital gains taxes would jump from 15 percent to 20 percent. If there is one tax reduction out there that has been an incentive which stimulated the economic growth, it has been capital gains. We saw that happen during the Kennedy administration. That is one of the tax cuts President Kennedy advocated when he was in office to stimulate revenues in the Federal Government. We have seen that during the Reagan administration. I have seen it happen in the State of Colorado. When we had capital gains adjustments, we saw the revenues improve, as far as State revenues. We have seen it happen again. When we dropped capitol gains rates, we saw the tremendous impact it had on the economy which resulted in more revenues to the Federal Government. Without this budget, taxes on individual income would jump from 15 percent to as much as 35 percent. Incentives for small business owners to invest would be set to expire in 2007. Without this budget, it would dry up. Not extending these tax cuts is like declaring economic war on small businesses and investment. One of the important things we did was focus on small business. That is where most of our economic growth is. We helped them write off more on their expensing. There was a dramatic increase in what we allowed them to write off on expensing. That is one of the things that helped small business and contributed a lot to our economic growth. In my view, small business is the key to our economic growth. Reconciliation instructions in this budget direct the Finance Committee to produce more tax relief--$70.2 billion over 5 years. That means more economic development, more investment, more savings. We do not tell them how they are going to meet these things, but we put the dollars in there and we direct them in that direction. Personally, as many colleagues, I would endorse a larger number of tax relief provisions because I believe it is more money in the hands of business owners, more money in the hands of consumers, more money in the hands of parents and investors. It stimulates greater growth, education, savings--prosperity at every economic level. Not surprisingly, it will likely increase revenues to State and Federal Government. The $70.2 billion is a compromise number. We have already worked on it. Many of us would have liked to have seen over $100 billion. We thought that would be more appropriate to keep our economy growing. But working with the Members of the Senate, the budget chairman, to his credit, has come up with what I think is a reasonable number. It is a number I can support, which is a little over $70 billion, holding down the tax burden. The budget promotes fiscal health and economic development. It holds down the rate of growth in spending and protects the most important national funding priorities we have. It extends expiring tax cuts and reconciles tax cuts that have a known stimulative effect. This budget provides new disciplinary tools for spending restraint. It leads to overall deficit and thus debt reduction. The mark will cut the deficit in half in 5 years, relative to the size of the economy. Under this resolution, the deficit will fall to 2.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007; then, as we move on to 2010, reduce it down to 1.3 percent. Our annual deficits compound our existing debt burden and, long term, there is no greater threat to Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, education--and the taxpayer--or other priorities, than the swelling of the public debt. It is something we must begin to address. I think this budget begins to address it in a serious way. Several years ago I offered the American Debt Repayment Act. It was a suggestion to the Members of Congress that we ought to look at our national debt the way we would the mortgage on our home. We ought to put a plan in place a commitment to begin to pay down that debt. This budget we have before us attempts to put in place a plan that will aid us in getting us out of the deficit, in a position where we can begin to pay down the national debt. It is clear if we leave it to the designs of Congress on the floor, things get out of hand and more spending happens. But if we have a plan on how we are going to pay down the debt, it gives some parameters. This budget provides somewhat of a plan. Congress repeatedly shirks its responsibility when it comes to the debt. So I commend the chairman for doing something in a serious way to deal with our deficit and the debt. Maybe it is time for me to reintroduce the legislation to tie our undisciplined hands. This resolution before us represents a good start, as I said, in restoring such discipline. There is one other thing. We have had some comments here about Social Security and I think Members are beginning to realize we do have a problem with Social Security. Like the budget, this debate on Social Security is very important to our children and our grandchildren. I think we have to keep in mind that what the President is suggesting is not a mandate. If you are under 55 years of age or younger, you don't have to get into private accounts if you don't want to--personal accounts, if you don't want to have them. I prefer to refer to them as personal accounts because what we are doing is we are giving individual taxpayers a choice. People who are going to rely on Social Security will have a choice as to how they would like to structure their retirement account. We don't mandate them to do anything. Do you know what. If we put in place personal accounts, I think the Members of this Senate, particularly people who are opposing personal accounts, would be surprised how many Americans would flock to it. I base my observations on what has happened with Federal employees and State employees. Try to suggest to the Federal employees that somehow or other they ought to participate in Social Security and give up their own retirement plans. It would not be very popular. They have a choice. Federal employees have a choice, as Members of Congress have a choice. They have a choice. Do they want to put their money in the stock market? They don't invest in individual stocks. It goes into a fund that is managed, and these professional investors manage that stock fund. It goes into a bond fund and professional managers manage that. Or it goes into Treasury notes. Those are the choices Federal employees have. Why can't ordinary Americans, everyday Americans who are out here working on Main Street, why can't they have the same choice as Federal employees? One concern I get from State employees in Colorado is: Don't put us in the Social Security system. We have our own retirement system, called RA. We have a choice, as State employees, where we want to put our money for retirement, whether we want it to go into a stock market fund or whether we want it to go into a bond market fund or whether to put it in some type of Treasury note. They have three choices. That is what I understand the President is talking about. When given the choice of whether they want to go into Social Security or they want to go into a similar fund, what we are talking about with personal retirement accounts for Americans, there is a general rejection of that idea. Employees on the Federal level, employees on the State level, don't like that idea because they know Social Security performs so poorly, and when they are given their own choices as to how they want to invest their money for their own retirement plans, they can do a better job than the Government can do. That has been reflected in history. That has been reflected in the experiences we see throughout the States as well as at the Federal level. Members of Congress have the same choices as Federal employees. During the Presidential campaign we heard the candidates talking about: The American people should have the same choices as Members of Congress have in retirement. We can go ahead and give them that. I think this is a good budget. I think it tries to address our budget in a responsible way. So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing a budget. We need to pass a budget. That is the responsible thing, to get a budget passed. Then we can continue the debate. I think this is an important issue and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. I yield my time.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Montana for his response. I appreciate his clarification as far as Federal employees. But the point I would make is in the State of Colorado, our employees in the State don't pay into Social Security. I think a lot of other States do that.

Mr. ALLARD. If I can finish, the point I want to make is we do give choices to Federal employees in their retirement plan. We do it through the 401(k). We give choices to Members of Congress. We give choices to our State employees who do not participate in Social Security. So why can't we give choices to Americans out here on Social Security? We are not mandating them to do this. We give them that choice and give them an opportunity to do that. In my view, by giving them an opportunity to do that, actually who you help is the disadvantaged. The people who are better income earners are able to utilize individual retirement accounts and 401(k) accounts and get the revenue back and do that.

Mr. ALLARD. I guess the Senator understands my point, though. And I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Stabenow amendment. It increases spending and taxes. The total amount of dollars allocated in 2002 to 2005 to the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness was $11.2 billion. The total amount spent is $6.1 billion. That means we have $5.2 billion still available. Only 55 percent first responder grant dollars have been used. Still billions of dollars remain. In the name of fiscal responsibility, I urge you to join me in voting no on the Stabenow amendment.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding 20 minutes. As the Senator mentioned, animals have been an important part of my life. I grew up on a cattle ranch and I have dedicated my life to animals and animal diseases. I rise today to tell my colleagues that I do not believe the policy that is now being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is risky, I do not think it is premature, and I think if we want to protect our cattlemen, we must pursue a policy of opening our borders of free trade. Colorado is one State that has historically benefited from the cattle industry and today it remains an important part of our economy. I will respond to a few specific points that were mentioned by my colleague on the other side. I will talk briefly about the people who became ill as a result of the BSE prion. It is a form of protein, modified virus, in Europe. The diet of Europeans is markedly different than the American diet in the fact that they view brains and spinal cord tissue as a delicacy. Here in the United States and in Canada, as a part of our processing of meat, we discard our central nervous system tissue, so it does not get into the food supply. We have rigorous enforcement in the United States. Canada has rigorous enforcement. As late as February 22, we had a group of scientists go to Canada, and they reported back to us that the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada was very robust, as it is here in the United States. But I think the most important thing we learned from the outbreak in Europe, and what we have learned with time, is that the prion, the organism that causes mad cow disease, occurs as a result of ruminant upon ruminant. By using that terminology, I mean that there are food supplements that are developed from animals, mostly ruminants, that then are fed back, either calcium or phosphorus, to the animal. When that happens that provides a vehicle for the transmission of the prion, the infectious organism. It doesn't transmit directly animal to animal by live contact or by human to animal by live contact. It is passed in the food supply when you have a ruminant supplement from another ruminant being fed. Finally, of the three or four cases that we have in Canada, three of those actually were before the provisions were put in place by Canada and the United States to prevent the consumption of ruminant-on- ruminant feeds--except for one case. But that one case occurred very close to 1997. As a result of more rigorous efforts by both Canada and the United States, I believe beef is a good product, and I plan on eating beef. I do not hesitate for one moment talking to my colleagues about how good I think beef is and how we should not be overly concerned about the health effects of beef in our diet. The closure of our Canadian border has cost Greeley County, CO, which is one of the largest agricultural-producing counties in the United States, alone, $250 million to $300 million over the past year from diminished economic activity due to declining production at one single meatpacking facility. This is a result of the Canadian border closure. Totally, the economic impact of the border closure throughout the United States is $3 billion. The border with Canada should be open based on sound, scientific principles that ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle food supply. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approach to these discussions has been rational and science based. Sound science is critical because it separates fact from myth and ignores mad cow hysterics. Television pictures of seizure-stricken cows are intended to draw viewers but do not represent the truth behind the image. Five other Senators joined me in April of last year in support of the immediate reopening of the Canadian border following these principles. Joining me on a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative were Senators Ben Nelson, Senator Campbell, Senator Murkowski, Senator Hatch, and Senator Brownback. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. The USDA Minimal Risk Region rule should be implemented because it is grounded in solid, sound science and will help end a situation that has wreaked havoc on beef trade for too long. It will protect the integrity of the human supply system and stabilize agricultural trade. Canada meets the requirements of a minimal risk region, based upon a number of its actions. It has prohibited specific risk material in human food, as we do here in the United States. It placed import restrictions sufficient to minimize exposures to BSE. It has built and structured surveillance for BSE at levels to meet or exceed international guidelines, as we do here. And it has enacted a ruminant- to-ruminant feed ban. Finally, the appropriate epidemiological investigations, risk assessment, and risk mitigation measures have been imposed. Opening the border with Canada will help restore the beef industry's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace and protect long-term job stability in the United States. I have a chart that reflects Canadian beef exports. If we look over here to 2003 when the mad cow disease began to impact Canada, we can see, obviously, that there was a reduction in billions of pounds of carcass weight that was exported from Canada. But here we are moving from 2004. Not all the figures are in, but they are indicating we are going to get a pretty steep climb back in exports from Canada. And based on projections for 2005, exports from Canada are going to reach a historic high, despite the fact they have had mad cow disease in Canada. These facts come from a reputable analyst, analyzing firm based in Denver, CO, that traditionally cattlemen have relied on to analyze beef markets throughout the country. Let's look at the chart for U.S. beef imports from Canada. Obviously, in 2003 we saw a reduction in the amount of beef imports from Canada. Again, this is a million pounds of carcass weight over time. What we see in 2004 is that the imports from Canada have exceeded an all-time high, despite the fact that we have mad cow disease. The point is, we are importing Canadian beef at record levels. We need to change that policy because processors are moving their plants to Canada. More and more people are going into the Canadian beef business. As a result, we are at risk of losing our own market share of beef. The Greeley Tribune published an editorial stating that the United States must open its border with Canada. The Tribune is published in Greeley, CO, Colorado's most productive agricultural county. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Many of the supporters of the Resolution of Disapproval argue that because of U.S. policies, U.S. corporations are outsourcing jobs. The border closure has allowed Canada to grow its beef industry and increase its slaughter capacity, making Canada into a global competitor. While U.S. jobs are lost because of an unfair trade policy that allows cheap Canadian meat into the United States, they are being replaced in Canada as it bolsters its beef industry. Estimates will show that Canada will have the industry capacity to replace U.S. beef by May of 2005. Supporters of this resolution support the outsourcing of U.S. jobs. During the past several years, Canada's annual cattle slaughter has been 3.2 to 3.3 million head. This is equivalent to about 65,000 head of cattle slaughtered per week. In 2004, Canadian slaughter was about 30 percent larger than during 2003. In 2005, Canadian cattle slaughter capacity is expected to increase to about 95,000 head per week. Canada is expanding available slaughter capacity in the country so it can be less reliant on the U.S. market to process animals. Reliance on the U.S. market will continue, but Canada will compete effectively against the United States in the world marketplace. According to the Canadian Meat Council, since May 2003, the Canadian beef industry has increased its daily beef capacity by more than 30 percent. The additional Canadian slaughter capacity that is available, or planned, will allow the Canadian beef industry to increase cattle slaughter totals by about 25 percent from 2004 to 2007. Thanks to the border closure, thousands of U.S. workers have been laid off or have had their operations suspended. In Greeley, CO, located in the State's largest agricultural county, nearly 1,000 workers lost their jobs thanks to the closure. Weekly cattle harvests in Canada are up 14 percent, from 72,000 to 82,000 over the past year, and are expected to rise to 95,000 per week by mid-2005, a 25-percent increase over pre-BSE levels. The jobs that go with that increased production probably will never return to the United States. Prior to May of 2003, cattle imports from Canada accounted for approximately 4 percent of the U.S. production capacity. A number of these animals were also a part of the U.S.-Canadian Northwest Cattle Feeder Initiative. By allowing them to increase production capacity, we threaten U.S. production and marketing. The average number of imported Canadian cattle for all purposes, between 1970 and 2003, is 795,563 head per year. The highest level of cattle imports was 1.68 million in 2002, and the lowest was 245,000 in 1986. The Minimal Risk Region rule requires animals to be imported exclusively for slaughter. Dairy, stocker, or other livestock segments are prohibited from importing animals for breeding or other purposes. Frankly, the Canadian border is already open. Boxed beef is coming across the border from Canada in record numbers, numbers higher than they were before BSE was discovered in Canada, creating a public policy windfall for those companies with processing facilities in Canada while punishing those in the United States. U.S. beef imports from Canada set a record in 2004, approaching 1.2 billion pounds, a 12-percent increase over 2002 levels. During 2005, beef imports from Canada are expected to total 1.2 to 1.3 billion pounds. Increased Canadian packing capacity is expected to increase beef production to more than 3.7 billion pounds in 2005 and exceed 4 billion pounds in 2007. The unfair public policy is best illustrated in the following example. Canadian packers can buy a cow for about $17 per hundredweight and sell the processing-grade beef for about $123. He can also buy a fed steer or heifer at about $67 per hundredweight and sell the meat for about $132. In the United States a cow will cost a packer about $55 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $125. The fed steer or heifer would cost about $85 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $135. This imbalance has led, in part, to the layoff of thousands of people in the processing industry across our Nation. Eventually it will affect the cattlemen because our markets will be less available for those who have live fat cattle. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has stated there is no body of scientific evidence indicating there is any potential risk to the American consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 months to enter the U.S. marketplace destined for fattening or slaughter. I have picked up, as a result of my colleague from North Dakota mentioning the Colorado cattlemen's position--I do have a list of the requirements they are requiring. I have read down through those, and those provisions are being met in the United States, and they are being met in Canada. We have just made a call to the National Cattlemen's Association, and they have indicated to us that they support the position of opposing this resolution. So they understand that the rules and regulations that are being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture do protect the American consumer. They do protect, in the long run, the future of the cattle industry. I just wanted to call that to the attention of the Members here, and I also want to again refer to my State of Colorado. There are a lot of States that have their economies built upon beef. In Colorado, on exports in general we have about $154 million in trade. We export $97 million. Most of that is in the beef side. We have $51 million of beef that is exported. We import about $97 million. Some of it is live cattle, but a good percentage of it is breads and pastries and cakes and vegetables. If we do not address this problem, we are going to have a profound impact, in a negative way, on the Colorado beef industry and, throughout the country. Canada is one of our most important trading partners. Agriculture is a fundamental component of U.S. trade. If we cannot rationally restore the beef and cattle trade with our most important trading partner, I ask the question: How will we ever restore trade on a global scale? Some 20 Members of the Senate have joined me in sending a letter to the Japanese Ambassador asking him to reduce his import restrictions on beef from the United States. If we don't--and the other countries throughout the world are watching--what we are doing here? If we don't use good science and if we don't use good sound policy, it is going to have a prolonged impact on our trade policies throughout the world, particularly as it applies to the livestock industry. From what I understand, USDA appears to support the policies of the World Health Trade Organization. In fact, I think it exceeds what is recommended by the World Health Organization. I think Canada has the same policies, and I think they exceed what is required by the World Health Organization. We are setting the standard for the world. I feel comfortable in having beef for dinner. When I am asked the question, What's for dinner? I am not going to hesitate to say beef, because I think we have a quality product in this country. I think what is happening in Canada is comparable to what is happening in the United States. I think they are working hard to bring the regulations and rules into compliance with what we have here. We received a report a week or so ago from a group of scientists who visited Canada, saying they have a robust effort in their rules and regulations, just as we have a robust effort in this country. Again, when asked the question, What is for dinner? my answer is beef. I yield the floor.