Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 982.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman, Senator Kennedy, and the ranking Republican, Senator Enzi, for the bipartisan way in which they have worked in the committee, of which I am a new member. It is the HELP Committee, standing for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I appreciate the opportunity to have offered this amendment in committee, as well the opportunity to offer it on the floor. It is a very important committee. The bill, coming out of committee, can withstand some improvement. I know both Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy have sat down and made many changes that I think will help relieve some of the concerns we have about the bill. That is now in the form of a managers' amendment which is before the Senate. The issue I remain concerned about is an issue that was in the original bill. It remains in the bill, in the managers' amendment, and that is an amendment to the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act passed in 1997. This is an incentive program we put in place for the last decade that says to the pharmaceutical industry that if you would put some effort into getting children's medications, pediatric medications properly labeled for the market, then we will give you, in effect, an extension of 6 months on your patent rights. This has been an extremely successful program. For the life of me, I don't understand why the bill's sponsors feel it is important to put this provision in the bill. This is a chart that reflects the drug studies that have been completed for kids, which equates to more drugs available for pediatricians to use in treating childhood diseases. As one can see, the red square on the chart is with no incentives, and very little effort was being made. But when the 6-month exclusivity provision was provided in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, we can see how dramatic the increase was and how the marketplace responded to this incentive. In my view, we should not be removing or reducing the incentive for any pharmaceutical company to invest in children. Right now, with what the current managers' amendment has in it, it takes the 6-month exclusivity and reduces it to 3 months, and it has it applied to those that are referred to as the blockbuster drugs. In my view, I think we need to make sure everybody understands how very important this program is. If we go messing with it, we are going to reduce the incentives that are in it that have been working so well. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act allows the FDA to grant drug sponsors pediatric exclusivity. This is 6 months of additional market exclusivity--as I said, an extension basically of the patent rights--in exchange for conducting and submitting reports on pediatric drug studies. Current law is working. There is no reason I see to change significantly a program that is working. The goal of the program is to develop additional health information on the use of such drugs in pediatric populations so they can be administered safely and effectively to children. This goal is reflected on this chart as being reached. Also, using pediatric research and development legislation to attack large pharmaceutical companies, in my view, is an abuse of power at the expense of kids. The data shows pediatric legislation has resulted in a substantial increase in pediatric prescribing information on the labels of those products, which have fulfilled the requirements necessary to be granted the pediatric exclusivity extension. Here is what the GAO study on the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act has said about how the program has been working for the last decade. This study was issued on March 22 of 2007, so it is a current evaluation, and here is what they say: Prior to enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, which first established incentives for conducting pediatric drug studies in the form of additional market exclusivity, few drugs were studied for pediatric use. Very few were done, as reflected on the chart. As a result, there was a lack of information on optimal dosage, possible side effects, and the effectiveness of drugs for pediatric use. Almost all the drugs--about 87 percent-- that have been granted pediatric exclusivity under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act have had important labeling changes as a result of pediatric drug studies conducted under this Act. As a result, exclusivity is working. In fact, it is working so well that, in my view, with increased exclusivity we may have even had more research and development in the area of pediatric pharmaceuticals. But that issue is for another day. My amendment doesn't request an increase in what has been working. We merely ask that we return in this piece of legislation to that exclusivity-linked period, which is 6 months, which has been working so very well under current law. Some Members want to try to damage the blockbuster drug companies by reducing the exclusivity for those businesses, but in reality the ones who are really being hurt are our kids because we take away the number of choices a pediatrician has in providing drug therapy for those kids who could be seriously ill. I ask my colleagues to support me in my amendment and to return us to the 6-month exclusivity and away from the 3-month exclusivity period we currently have in the managers' amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming, who is managing the time, has granted permission for me to speak for 5 minutes. Mr. President, I forgot to ask unanimous consent that the following individuals be added as cosponsors on my amendment: Senator Bond, Senator Hatch, and Senator Alexander.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to respond to this concern about drug companies investing relatively little and having huge returns. That doesn't apply to every drug. Obviously, when you are developing a product for the market, there will be some that work out rather easily and the development costs may not be too much. But there are other drugs that require a substantial amount of work and analysis, and a considerable amount of thought has to go into the labeling. When those costs get high and when you hit those, the profit margin is not so large. I hate to see us pick out a few companies that may have had a windfall and then punish our children and say we are going to take away an incentive that has resulted in 80 percent of the children's drugs that have come to the market being approved and getting the proper licensing they require. In my view, we pick out a few outrageous circumstances and then we try and take away an incentive that has been working so well for us. My point, again, is why mess with that incentive when it is working so very well? As I had indicated here on the charts, we had such tremendous results in getting children's pediatric drugs to the market. This allows the pediatrician more choice in selecting therapies for their patients. It means better medicine. I also believe that the more products you have on the market, the more competition you have, and the more competition you have, that then holds down the price of drugs. What we need to do is rely on the markets to control the price of drugs, to control supply. I hate to see the Government or this Congress try to apply any kind of artificial parameters that somehow or other would mean we would have fewer drugs for the treatment of our kids and their ailments. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I understand I have 10 minutes allocated to me. I would like to take 4 minutes and allocate those to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in recognizing the fine work that Senator Dodd has done in the area of children and children's health. He recognized one decade ago how important it was to have incentives in place for drug companies to properly label drugs so they are available and a physician has some guidance when they are putting therapy out. I particularly thank Dr. Coburn for bringing a message to the floor that reflects his practical experience, in a period of time when there weren't a lot of drugs specifically labeled for children, to help him establish the proper dosage and to be aware of the side effects that may happen to various age groups. Also, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his comments. I think I bring a certain degree of practical experience to this debate as a veterinarian. We are frequently put in a position where we have to recommend drugs for therapy without having had research done. You have to extrapolate what you think might happen. The drug companies will do research on those products on which they can make a profit. I am talking about veterinary prescription drugs right now. There is a plethora of medications available in the human market. Many times, in treating eye conditions or some exotic problem in a species where there isn't much of a market, we have to take the scientific literature that we know, and perhaps we know what the reaction may be in humans or maybe in some other species, where the drug company has done the research to reflect what the adequate dosage is, and we extrapolate that and predict as best we can what the reaction and how effective that drug may be at a certain dosage. I think our children's health is too valuable to put a physician in a position where they have to make those sorts of subjective evaluations. I happen to believe the incentives we put in place a decade ago are working. That belief is substantiated by people who have looked at the program--the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act--and what happened as a result of that. I am not the only one who believes that. We had a study by the GAO, whose responsibility it is to look at programs to see whether they are working. They give this program a strong A. It is working. I don't think we ought to be messing with a program that has worked. Three months may be adequate, but there are a lot of other drugs that we have to still get on the market. Several years back, during the Reagan administration--and it might have been President Reagan who said it--there was a general belief in Washington that if it is making a profit, let's tax it; if it is working, let's regulate it to death. Here is a program that is working because we have backed off on the rules and regulations. I don't think we ought to be making a decision, in light of the work that has yet to be done in moving pediatric medications to the market, to mess with this. Maybe 10 years from now it might be even more appropriate; I don't know. This is, to a certain degree, subjectivity. I think we have a huge need in making sure we have adequate medications available to treat children. I agree with many of my colleagues that we should not be messing with a program that works, and we need to support this. I also wish to point out that this doesn't have an impact. There is not a budget point of order on this particular amendment. It doesn't add to the deficit of this country. So it is a program we can move forward on, without increasing the cost to the Federal Government. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this most important amendment because it is very important, it is important to the practitioner who is trying to provide the best care that scientists will allow him to provide to patients--in this case, children. If we don't keep these choices available for the practitioner, then what happens is he doesn't have the options he should have to give the best care to our children? So for our children's health in the future, I think we need to pass this amendment and go back to current law, which has been working so very well for us today.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leigh Ann Ross, a fellow in the office of Senator Thad Cochran, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of Senate debate on the 2007 FDA reauthorization bill.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I understand we are in morning business, is that correct?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I came to the floor today to express my surprise that any Member of this body could attempt to characterize the current political situation as one in which the administration is failing to work with Congress. Any realistic discussion of today's political climate must revolve around the fact that the current majority has refused to work in any meaningful way with the minority party. The most blatant example of this is in the use of cloture by the majority leader to avoid consensus on the consideration of legislation. In the 110th Congress, the majority leader so far has filed 24 cloture motions. During the same timeframe in the first session of the 109th Congress, Republicans had only filed five cloture motions. In the 108th Congress, by this date Republicans had only filed five cloture motions. Just as surprising were the circumstances that surrounded General Petraeus's briefing yesterday. What I found remarkable was the original instinct of the Speaker of the House and our Senate majority leader was to avoid meeting the general here on Capitol Hill. Can you imagine that? The most important issue of our day is Iraq and the man we unanimously approved to lead our efforts is not worth their time to hear from? The only explanation for this is that the disdain felt by the majority in working with the minority and the administration was also extended to working with our military. Of course, once it was clear that there was public outcry in not meeting General Petraeus, they relented. But what was also evident is there was an effort to avoid actually believing anything the general had to say about the situation on the ground. General Petraeus is not giving us information that has been filtered through some political process. He is giving a factual and sobering account of what is happening, block by block, in Iraq. Yet the other side of the aisle, with a few exceptions, wants to cover their ears and not listen to the facts. They would rather pretend they know what is going on in Iraq rather than hear it from the general again. The situation in Iraq is a dynamic and ever-changing one, and after yesterday's briefing, it is more clear to me than ever that we must resist arbitrary deadlines to our fight in Iraq. But my Democratic colleagues would rather play politics with our men and women in the field and score a few points for the far left wing of their party. They would rather play politics on the Senate floor than work to pass meaningful legislation. I ask the majority leader and the other side of the aisle to put politics aside and do the right thing, work in a truly bipartisan manner to do what the American people expect us to do. This obstruction and unwillingness to work in a truly bipartisan effort to provide funding to our troops who are even now in harm's way is outrageous and disappointing. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last night we had our first and only conference committee meeting where all the members from both Appropriations Committees who are on the conference committee, including members on the House side, had an opportunity to come together for their first gathering. I predict it will be the only gathering. Everything else in that supplemental has been worked out behind doors, and a lot of us were not privy to it until legislation was proposed in the conference committee yesterday. I am very disappointed in that piece of legislation. There is a huge increase in the amount of dollars being spent to try to placate some of those who may otherwise oppose the legislation. But my main concern with that legislation is it has timelines and benchmarks in it that are going to tend to micromanage the conflict in Iraq. I think that is a bad idea. In fact, I have indicated I am not willing to sign the conference report that is going to come out of that particular committee because of the language in there that does lay down timelines and benchmarks. That creates a problem for our commanders in the field in Iraq. Mr. President, it was not very many months ago the Senate unanimously approved General Petraeus to head our efforts in Iraq. Many Members have extolled the virtues of the general--his education, his leadership, and his commitment to his soldiers. Unfortunately, we are still confronted with the reality that some want to tie General Petraeus's hands. Confusingly enough, they want to reject the strategy General Petraeus has proposed in Iraq even before he has been given the full opportunity to perform his mission. I ask again: Why would we support him and recognize his stellar career with a unanimous nomination vote but not give him the means to get the job done? For what reason did my colleagues agree to send him to Iraq as the commander of our forces? His strategy in Iraq was made very clear, both publicly and privately, and yet we are not willing to support it. It is vexing. We need to avoid micromanaging the war from the floor of the Senate. Let our Commander in Chief perform his duties, and let our military leaders do their jobs. If we do not support them fully in the supplemental bill, then I must continue to vote against any legislation that sets arbitrary deadlines and thresholds in Iraq--and plead with my colleagues to do the same. We cannot afford to set a deadline and walk away from Iraq. The cost of failure is too great to our future long-term national security. It is in America's security interests to have an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. Too much is at stake to simply abandon Iraq at this point. The price of failure is simply too great. Let me remind my colleagues that we have seen terrible results from political motives being placed above military necessities--the attempt at rescuing the American Embassy hostages from Tehran, or Beirut in the 1980s, and Somalia in the 1990s. Leaving Iraq in the current situation would be like the ending of our efforts in those areas as well. Our withdrawal from these countries embolden the terrorists. Bin Laden himself is on record after these withdrawals criticizing our lack of will and questioning our commitment to fighting these zealots. We have to learn from our mistakes in the past. How have we gotten to this point? Well, many of my colleagues in the Senate continue to beat the drum of the Iraq Study Group Report. They continue to state that their withdrawal proposal follows the report's recommendations. I would simply like to point out something to my colleagues. Unlike the supplemental bill that will soon be voted on--or what I would like to call our surrender document--the Iraq Study Group Report does not call for us to walk away from our mission. They do not call for us to walk away from our mission. In fact, the Iraq Study Group Cochair, James Baker, recently had this to say about artificial deadlines: The [Iraq Study Group] report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. So here we are, a must-pass bill that flies in the face of what the Iraq Study Group has recommended. But the Democratic majority is well aware of what effect slowing down passage of the supplemental means to the Department of Defense as a whole. Particularly, the House of Representatives has dragged its feet in appointing conferees to the bill, knowing full well the President intends to veto this legislation. In fact, just yesterday, President Bush stated he would strongly object to any deadlines, stating that: An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, ``Just wait them out.'' It would say to the Iraqis, ``Don't do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives.'' And it would be discouraging to our troops. He also stated he does not want ``Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.'' I agree with the President wholeheartedly. By placing the President in the precarious position of vetoing this bill, even in the dire financial straits it places the Department of Defense, the other side of the aisle has chosen to play politics rather than fund a clean bill that gives our soldiers in the field the resources they need. The question remains, if the other side truly believes the war is lost, then why not cut off funding for the war entirely? The power of the purse is in our constitutional authority as a Congress. If the majority party wants to dictate Iraq policy to the President, rather than put limitations on our military in Iraq, which would be a disaster, they should attempt to no longer fund our efforts. But I doubt that will happen because they know they do not have the votes or the support for such a precipitous withdrawal. Instead, the ``slow bleed strategy'' will continue from our colleagues in the Senate and the House that will, in my opinion, leave our troops dejected and less safe than before. This ill-advised strategy will clearly hand Al Jazeera its propaganda message. There is no doubt we face extremely difficult challenges in Iraq. We have not made enough progress. Citizens of Iraq must be willing to fight for their own freedom. The President recognizes this, and his new plan is the result of increased commitments from the Iraqi Prime Minister. The President has developed a new plan with new leadership. We should not jerk the rug out from under those we have put in charge in Iraq. I ask my colleagues to reject this bill and let us craft a clean funding bill that will meet the priorities and needs of our men and women in Iraq. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my wife Joan and I were horrified at the violence and bloodshed at Virginia Tech on Monday. I was already preparing to come to the floor today to speak on another tragedy. Today marks the eighth anniversary of the Columbine murders. Next Thursday, it will be 7 months since the shooting at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, CO. April has become a month of awful memories, a month of terrible reminders of the presence of evil and the ability of lost souls to stray far into the darkness. I stood on this floor in April 1999 to express my shock and dismay at what had happened in Littleton. I offered my condolences to all those who lost loved ones, and to those whose loved ones have been wounded, hurt, and terrified. Today I remember them again, but I also must add sympathy and support for those at Virginia Tech. Words cannot adequately convey the deep sense of loss all of us are feeling over this tragedy. But words--these words, and the words of our prayers--are what we have to offer. Yet again, America is in shock. There are far too many of my colleagues who have had this experience--who have watched as news of school violence spread across our country. This week's tragedy was in Virginia, but it is obviously of nationwide concern. Thirty-two lives, most of them young and from the best and brightest in our society, ended Monday by savage violence. Last year, one lost life in Bailey; thirteen lives lost in 1999 at Columbine in Littleton; and there are others lost around this Nation, and around the world, in similar tragedies: Dawson College in Montreal, Gutenberg School in Erfurt, Germany. These are wounds, scars, that will not be removed, and for those who bear the worst of this burden my wife and I offer all our compassion, our sympathy and our prayers. Our Nation continues to grieve with the families and friends of those killed and the injured students and teachers. Although we know exhaustive details of what happened at Columbine, and are learning more from Blacksburg, we are still attempting to understand why. People are trying to cope with the terror that keeps thrusting itself into our lives. It has become obvious at this point that there are no easy answers. We need to examine the problems facing our youth, but it is critical that we take time to carefully consider the solutions being offered. In the coming months there will be time, and there will be a need, for us to commit ourselves to finding a way to attempt to prevent this from happening again. We must ask ourselves how this could happen, and what can be done to prevent it. There is, I am sure, no simple solution. But we must pledge ourselves to doing what we can. After Columbine, the Nation took a serious look at school safety. But Bailey--and the murders in Pennsylvania last year at Nickel Mines Amish School--showed us that it is not always troubled students. Virginia Tech showed us it is not just grade schools or high schools. We need to think about ways to provide a better, more secure future. Watching the aftermath in Blacksburg, I am reminded of the healing Colorado undertook 8 Aprils ago. I remember the memorial service held the weekend after the Columbine murders. Tens of thousands of people attended the memorial service. Among those gathered in sorrow, Joan and I witnessed a strong belief in God. We prayed together and searched for answers. I hope the students, faculty and families of Virginia Tech can find their way to face this terrible time. Again, I offer my deepest sympathy to those who are suffering. And I want to let my colleagues from Virginia, and their constituents, know the people of Colorado will be thinking of you today as we mark the eighth anniversary of Columbine. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify my position on stem cell research. As a veterinarian I understand the need for research and scientific advancement. Current law does not prohibit any sort of stem cell research. In fact, all forms of stem cell research have flourished under current law. I can not and will not support legislation that would drive abortion. Therefore I cannot support S. 5. This legislation would allow for Federal dollars to be used to incentivize the further destruction of human embryos for research purposes. I do not support this use of Federal funds. I will not oppose private industry from doing embryonic stem cell research, but it would be very irresponsible to use Federal taxpayer dollars to fund such a contentious issue. Science is advancing. Over the past weeks and months research using adult stem cells has had many breakthroughs. The use of amniotic fluid and placental stem cells has much of the same potential that embryonic stem cells have, but they are not as controversial. S. 30 provides resources to further research in the area of adult stem cell research. Because of the emphasis on adult stem cell research, I support S. 30 and will vote in favor of S. 30 later today. I not only understand the need for scientific advancement, but also for ethical boundaries. We should not be using Federal dollars to drive abortion, when there are alternative opportunities for scientific advancement that are not as contentious.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish today to commemorate the life of retired Marine Captain Raymond Gerald Murphy. Captain Murphy passed away on April 6, 2007, but left behind a legacy that will not soon be forgotten. His legacy of courage, valor, and commitment to his country will forever remain a part of the history and heart of the United States. Captain Murphy was born and raised in Pueblo, CO. After graduating from Adams State College, he selflessly volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps and was sent to officer training school. At only 23 years old, 2nd Lieutenant Murphy led a Marine platoon to perform an evacuation mission in the hills of South Korea after U.S. troops had sustained months of heavy mortar attack from enemy forces. Lieutenant Murphy bravely commanded a small group of men up the hill to survey the situation. Met by intense enemy fire, Lieutenant Murphy pressed on to rescue wounded and killed marines, while continuing to support combat platoons. Realizing that all platoon commanders had been either killed or severely wounded, Murphy found himself in charge of the attack and began reorganizing his men. Murphy ordered his men to carry the wounded back down the hill for medical attention, and carried many men on his own back. Having sustained a wound to his left side, and shot through his right hand, Murphy refused medical help until all of his men were brought to safety. Wounded, he continued to go back up the hill, facing continued enemy fire, until every injured and fallen marine was carried back down. As the last man down the hill, Lieutenant Murphy left not a single man on that shattered hillside in South Korea. On October 27, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower bestowed upon Lieutenant Murphy the Medal of Honor, the highest award for his courage and heroic action during the Korean War. Lieutenant Murphy's Medal of Honor citation reads, ``His resolute and inspiring leadership, exceptional fortitude and great personal valor reflect the highest credit upon Second Lieutenant Murphy and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' I believe this encapsulates the essence of his service and patriotism as a U.S. marine. I am honored to stand before the Senate today to pay tribute to the life and service of CPT Raymond Murphy. I would like to offer my condolences to his wife Marry Ann and his four children. His family has lost a husband and a father, and this Nation has lost a truly noble man, but may his gallantry and heroism be memorialized forever in the freedoms of this great country.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about an upstanding citizen of Colorado--Lewis Entz. Former State Senator Entz will be receiving an honorary degree from Adams State College at their spring commencement on May 5, 2007. This honor will be bestowed upon him in recognition of the work he has done for the college and, more importantly, the San Luis Valley. Lew Entz is the owner and operator of Entz Farms. He is a licensed pilot, a husband and father of four, and a Marine Corps veteran of the Korean war. Before spending nearly 20 years serving the people of region in the Colorado General Assembly, he was an Alamosa County commissioner for 14 years. I served in the Colorado Legislature with then-Representative Entz for 8 years. We worked together on small airports, agriculture, and water. During all my time dealing with him, I learned enough to heartily agree with the board of trustees of Adams State College in their assessment of his value to his community, region, and State. Lew's vast knowledge of Colorado's complex water laws was incredibly important to his district. Water is the most important aspect of existence in the San Luis Valley. Lew, as a farmer, has a full appreciation of this. Lew tirelessly worked for years to protect this resource for his constituents. There is no one who has served the people of the San Luis Valley more vigorously or better than Lew Entz. I congratulate him on this honor from Adams State College, and want to thank him for his four decades of service to the people of the San Luis Valley and the State of Colorado.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for allowing me to speak and granting me the time right here in my schedule. I rise today to reflect on the current emergency supplemental bill that is before us. I believe, as many do in this body, the current situation in Iraq is not sustainable but that it requires positive change, not defeatism. I think the worst thing we could do would be to give the terrorists of the world an opportunity to declare victory. In the long run, that would make it more difficult to assure Americans will be safe. This bill includes conditions that do not support the commanders on the ground and sets artificial deadlines for troop withdrawal. I have consistently said we should give the President's plan time to work. There are signs it is. I read today General McCaffrey's assessment. While not upbeat, he did find that ``the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved.'' He says we have ``little time left.'' I agree. But ``little time'' is not to set a deadline. Doing so changes the entire strategic picture. If you will forgive me some frivolity, it is the difference between the 2-minute warning and the ninth inning. We do not want to let the insurgents know they just have to let the clock run down. The insurgents might not be actually watching C-SPAN, but they do know what we do here, what we say here and can plan accordingly. This is not the time to micromanage the war from Washington and the Congress. Outside this body, decisions have been made for a new direction in Iraq. The President has laid out his new strategy to the public. ADM William Fallon is in place as CENTCOM commander whose area of responsibility is Iraq. We have a new commander of our forces in Iraq, and that is GEN David Petraeus. Let me remind those who need to hear it that we sent him to Iraq by a vote of 81 to 0 to win, not to withdraw. Soon we will have a new diplomatic team on the ground in Baghdad as well. This shift in strategies also includes something I believe is absolutely imperative to success: a real commitment from the Iraqi Prime Minister to get his Government to play a much stronger role in the destiny of Iraq. The President is confident we now have that commitment. I hope we can move on to more pressing issues in the Senate rather than repeating the same ones time and again. One reason I do not support the withdrawal language is I believe it is based on an assumption that by leaving Iraq Americans will be safer. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear that Iraq is central to their war against the civilized world. They are committed to fighting there and will not stop unless we defeat them. If we have to fight, it is preferable not to fight on our own soil. We are also facing a credible veto threat. This bill is going nowhere--at least nowhere beyond the President's desk, which means we are delaying the needed funds for our military. This is no surprise. The President has been very clear. When he has been this clear, he has not deviated from his described track that he will follow. I hope we can get past this and move on to more pressing issues such as passing a bill that will provide our troops the money they need. Finally, I will not support this bill because the last thing we need to do in Congress is hurt the morale or the mission of our men and women fighting in Iraq, especially when we have adopted the President's plan, which is a brandnew plan to succeed in Iraq. I believe it is the right course for our troops on the ground at this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the service and sacrifice of Officer Doug Byrne. My wife Joan and I were deeply saddened to hear of the senseless death of Officer Doug Byrne while in the line of duty March 26, in Aurora, CO, responding to a man dying of a seizure. It takes a person of great conviction and courage to become an officer of the law. It takes a commitment to community, hard work, and patience. Officer Doug Byrne possessed these very qualities. And unfortunately, Officer Doug Byrne paid the ultimate price. Officer Doug Byrne was the 5th Aurora police officer to be killed in the line of duty. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, more than 17,500 officers have been killed nationwide since 1792, including 236 in Colorado. Doug Byrne was the second Aurora officer to be killed in the past 6 months. Aurora Police Detective Mike Thomas made his ultimate sacrifice last September. A native of Aurora at 37 years of age, Doug joined the Aurora Police Department in 2004, and was known for his dedication to his profession. He served as a field training officer for recruits new to the force. From 1998-2004, Doug served the City of Glendale, CO, Police Department. There he distinguished himself by receiving the medal of valor by rescuing distraught tenants in an apartment complex fire. Officer Doug Byrne is someone who knows what service to country is as well. Doug served his country as a U.S. Marine in the Persian Gulf War during the liberation of Kuwait. Doug was a graduate of Gateway High School in Aurora. The City of Aurora will forever be grateful for Officer Doug Byrne's service and dedication to the safety and well-being of others, and his contributions will be remembered. Officer Byrne is survived by his parents. Doug had many friends and will be deeply missed. I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Officer Doug Byrne. May his bravery and unwavering sense of duty serve as a role model for the future generation of law officers. Thank you for your service, Officer Byrne. Rest in peace, Sir. End of watch: Monday, March 26, 2007.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 521 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that puts in reconciliation language a 1-percent reduction in spending in the mandatory programs that have been identified as having fraud, waste, and abuse. It excludes Armed Services, Veterans, and Social Security. The amendment comes about because of the 2004 budget resolution, where Congress directed the Comptroller General to submit a comprehensive report identifying instances in which the committees of jurisdiction may make legislative changes to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs in their jurisdiction. In compliance with our request, the GAO submitted a 300-plus-page report full of specific examples of legislative changes with potential to yield budgetary savings. This will reduce the debt by $13 billion the first budget year and $71 billion over 5 years.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that we waive the point of order, and I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the budget spends $88 billion over 5 years on ineffective programs and raises taxes by $900 billion to do so. My amendment reduces spending by 25 percent on programs rated ineffective by OMB's program assessment rating tool. PART has evaluated almost 1,000 programs accounting for 96 percent of all Federal spending. Only 26 are rated ineffective in discretionary spending. Chairman Conrad will say the budget resolution cannot tell appropriators how to implement the savings. My amendment simply allows the appropriators, with a great deal of flexibility, to find those savings that are proven to exist. It also tells agencies we expect results from programs we fund. If my colleagues vote for this amendment, we will save the taxpayers $18 billion over 5 years and pay down the Federal debt by $18 billion. I believe if we cannot trim $4 billion out of a $2.9 trillion budget on ineffective programs, we cannot honestly tell taxpayers we are serious about fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for yielding. I appreciate his work and the leadership he brings forward here in the Senate from the great State of Utah. I am going to vote against the budget, and this is the main reason why: It raises taxes by $900 billion over 5 years and a projected $3.3 trillion over 10 years. That translates into a tax increase of $2,641 per household annually over the next decade. It includes 22 reserve funds that could be used to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars more. It increases discretionary spending by nearly 9 percent in fiscal year 2008, and does not terminate one single program. It completely ignores the impending tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs. It encourages rules that bias the budget toward tax increases. I had an amendment earlier today that we voted on which looked at ineffective programs as described by the Office of Management and Budget. This was in response to legislation we passed over a decade ago, and we instructed the agencies to look at setting goals and objectives and then coming forward and seeing how they met these. OMB looked at these and said there were 26 out of over 1,000 programs where they didn't meet those goals. If you took these 26 programs, we were looking at $88 billion over a 5-year period of time. I had an amendment that said: Let's give instructions to the appropriators to go into these various areas and see if we can't come up with $18 billion of reduced spending and programs that have been classified by OMB. These are civil servants working for the Federal Government. They don't have a political agenda, just strictly looking at the program objectively. I was disappointed the amendment did not pass. Tomorrow I plan on introducing an amendment that is going to call for reconciliation for a 1-percent elimination of fraud, waste, and abuse in a number of mandated programs which does not include--does not include--armed services, veterans, and Social Security. The purpose is to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs and to reduce the Federal debt. The other amendment, on the savings we voted on earlier this year, was money that was directed toward reducing the Federal debt. This amendment tomorrow will instruct the authorizing committees to reduce spending by 1 percent by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. The amendment reduces waste, fraud, and abuse in mandatory programs by $13 billion in the first budget year, and $71 billion over 5 years. All of the savings will be used to reduce the debt. This amendment carries across the finish line work that Congress started in 2003. In the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, the Congress directed the Comptroller General to submit a comprehensive report identifying instances in which the committees of jurisdiction may make legislative changes to improve the economy, the efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs within their jurisdiction. In compliance with our request, GAO--again staffed by professionals who do not carry a political agenda--submitted a 300-plus page report chock full of specific examples of legislative changes with the potential to yield budgetary savings. What have we done with that 300- page report that we requested? Nothing, absolutely nothing. My amendment picks up where we left off and encourages the authorizing committees to improve the economy and the efficiency and effectiveness of programs under their jurisdiction. So in my effort to eliminate waste and to bring about good stewardship of taxpayer dollars, I ask the Members of this body to support it. It is not a partisan issue. Oversight is a key function of Congress, and when we set up these pieces of legislation to set up reasonable oversight as Members of the Senate, we need to be prepared to carry those recommendations forward when they come to our attention. I hope this amendment will enjoy broad and bipartisan support. Both amendments were supported by Citizens Against Government Waste. I think it is one small step we can do to at least bring about an effort to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse, and these programs have been clearly identified by both this particular amendment, by GAO, and the previous amendment by OMB. I ask my fellow Senators to join me in voting for this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Utah.