Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the people of Iraq on writing another chapter in the history of their nation. After the coalition forces toppled Saddam's oppressive regime, many believed it would take years until the Iraqis would be in control of their government apparatus. They were wrong. On June 28, 2004, the transfer of power took place and Iraqis became the rulers of their nation. On January 20, 2005, millions of people, including women, risked their lives to choose the members of a temporary Parliament responsible for drafting the new constitution. This past weekend, millions of Iraqis lined up to cast their ballots in more than 6,000 polling places across Iraq. The Iraqi people's vision of a free and stable Iraq led them to an important milestone--voting on a democratic Iraqi-written constitution. Last weekend, through will and determination, more than 60 percent of the eligible voters in Iraq chose to speak up against tyranny and oppression--a higher percentage of voter turnout than in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. What we saw in Iraq on October 15, 2005, proved that even those oppressed for decades will peacefully choose their own future when given a chance to participate in a fair and open electoral process. There had been much speculation that a majority of Sunnis would boycott the referendum. However, until the last few days before the vote, leaders of the Shi'a and the Kurds worked relentlessly to convince their Sunni countrymen and women to vote either for or against the constitution. Their work came to fruition when millions of Sunnis lined up to cast their ballots and decide the future of their country. While many Sunnis voted against the proposed constitution, the referendum sent a clear message that all Iraqis are willing to invest in the democratic process. By casting their ballots, millions of Iraqis also sent a strong message against terrorism. Ideology of hate has no place in the world, no place in Islam, and most certainly no place in Iraq. Terrorists' tactics of striking innocent men and women and children are despicable and cowardly. Terror has not derailed the political process, nor the establishment of the rule of law. Despite fears of retaliation by al- Qaida and other terrorists, millions of Iraqis chose to participate in the process that will decide the future of their nation. The Iraqi security forces have also started to make a significant difference. According to our military leaders and officials on the ground, the Iraqi security forces were clearly in the lead in securing polling sites around the country. Backed by the coalition forces, the Iraqi military presence was increased by 35 percent since January. Press reports indicated that scattered instances of violence were quickly suppressed by the Iraqis. This accomplishment indicates the willingness of the Iraqi security forces to stand up to insurgents and protect their fellow countrymen. With each Iraqi soldier trained and equipped to carry out the mission, Iraq draws closer to be able to stand on its own and protect Iraq's freedom. As they have learned the power of the ballot box, Iraqis will soon be experiencing the strength of the rule of law during the trial of Saddam Hussein that convenes today. Only a couple thousand years ago, thousands of Iraqis--including women and children--were killed, tortured, and wrongfully imprisoned. Nevertheless, the current Iraqi Government fully understands the importance of a fair trial and the precedents it will establish. As a result of these advancements in Iraq, the country's most brutal dictator will face trial by a jury of his peers, a trial that thousands of Saddam's victims never received. The world will pay close attention as the Iraqi judicial system moves forward with this challenge. I am confident the Iraqis will adhere to the highest standard of the rule of law to reach a proper conclusion. Today, the successful referendum in Iraq would not have been possible without our brave men and women in uniform who were called by our Nation's leaders to perform a noble but difficult task. Their commitment and dedication to peace and prosperity around the globe has never been more evident. Nearly 150,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed in Iraq, doing their duty with pride, patriotism, and perseverance. Our success in Iraq and Afghanistan has not come without cost. Those who have fallen have served a cause greater than themselves and deserve a very special honor. My heart goes out to the families whose sons and daughters have made the ultimate sacrifice. The people of Iraq have clearly spoken of their desire for a free and democratic Iraq. The terrorists understand that their only chance is to break the will of the American people and force us to retreat. We will not waver in our support of the Iraqi people. We will not waver in our support of the democratic process and the rule of law. And we will not waver in our cause for freedom in a land that has known nothing but oppression. The lessons learned in previous world conflicts have proven that when the stakes are so high, we must remain firm, resist the enemy, and fight until the war is won.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sam Tatevosyan of my staff be given floor privileges for the duration of morning business today.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize one of the finest Air Force officers on active duty, MG Stephen R. Lorenz. On September 6, General Lorenz left his present position as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget to become Special Assistant to the Air Force Chief of Staff. During his time in Washington, and especially with regard to his work on Capitol Hill, General Lorenz personified the Air Force core values of integrity first, service before self and excellence in all things. Many Members and staff enjoyed the opportunity to work with him on a variety of Air Force issues and came to appreciate his many talents. Today it is my privilege to recognize some of Steve's many accomplishments since he entered the military 32 years ago, and to commend him for the superb service he provided the Air Force, Congress, and our Nation. Steve Lorenz earned a bachelor's degree in international affairs from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1973 and attended undergraduate pilot training at Craig Air Force Base, AL. From 1975 to 1980, he flew the EC-135 as aircraft commander at Ellsworth AFB, SD, and over the course of later assignments to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, and Castle AFB, CA, attained the qualification of KC-135 instructor pilot. General Lorenz demonstrated his skill as an aviator in the T-37, T-38, T-39, UV-18, EC-135A/G/C, KC-135A/R, KC-10A, and C-141B aircraft. He is a command pilot with over 3,300 hours of flying time. From early in his career, General Lorenz's exceptional leadership skills were evident to superiors and subordinates alike as he repeatedly proved himself in numerous select command positions. He has commanded an air refueling squadron, the 93rd Air Refueling Squadron, Castle AFB, CA, a geographically separated operations group, the 398th Operations Group, Castle AFB, CA and holds the distinct honor of four Wing commands; the 22nd Air Refueling Wing, March AFB, CA, the 722nd Air Refueling Wing, March AFB, CA, the 305th Air Mobility Wing, McGuire AFB, NJ, and the 34th Training Wing, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, as the Commandant of Cadets. Under his command, two of those wings were recognized and honored as the ``Best Wings'' in their respective numbered Air Forces. Steve Lorenz excelled in a variety of key staff assignments. These include serving as Director of Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in Europe; Chief, European and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Policy Branch, European Division, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff; Chief, Northeast Asia Branch, Far East/South Asia Division, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff; and Deputy Chief Senate Liaison Office. General Lorenz is also a published author providing articles to military journals on Leadership and the Air Force resource allocation process. During his service to the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, General Lorenz served as our principal budget liaison with the Air Force, providing clear, concise, and timely information on issues affecting sustainment, modernization and readiness of our airmen. Most importantly, he proved an essential conduit between appropriators in Congress and frontline combat operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle, and the global war on terrorism. In his 4 years as Director of Budget, he developed, advocated, and executed over $37 billion of warfighter requirements through supplemental appropriations. General Lorenz's leadership, professionalism, and expertise enabled him to foster exceptional rapport between the Air Force and the Senate, and enabled Congress to better understand Air Force priorities and programs. I was pleased the President nominated and the Senate confirmed General Lorenz for his third star with assignment as Commander, Air University, Air Education and Training Command, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL. This higher grade and command are exceptionally well deserved. I offer my congratulations to him, his wife Leslie, and children, Tracy, Stephen, and Kelly. The Congress and country applaud the selfless commitment of his entire family to the Nation in supporting Steve's military career. I know I speak for my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to GEN Stephen Lorenz. He is a credit to both the Air Force and to the United States. We wish our friend the very best and are confident of his continued success in a new command.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 32 years of outstanding military service LTG John Rosa has given our Nation. General Rosa started his career in the U.S. Air Force in 1973 after receiving his commission from the Citadel in Charleston, SC. As a combat pilot, General Rosa accumulated more than 3,600 flying hours in the A-7, the A-10, F-16, F-117A Stealth fighter, and numerous other aircraft. In 1985, General Rosa received his masters degree from Golden Gate University. In the years that followed, General Rosa served as operations group commander and three times as wing commander. Yet, as I think General Rosa might readily admit, his most difficult assignment began when he became the Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Under ordinary circumstances, overseeing the academic progress and military training of more than 4,000 cadets can be a challenging experience. Unfortunately for General Rosa, he came to the Air Force Academy under anything but ordinary circumstances. Two years ago the Academy underwent a very difficult period in which many current and former cadets came forward with allegations of sexual assault. This scandal was tumultuous and resulted in four senior leaders of the Academy being dismissed from their duties. General Rosa was asked to step into a situation that seemed to be spinning out of control. His senior leadership team was just as new as he was, and the Air Force leadership and Congress were relentless in their demands for results. Despite these circumstances, General Rosa did not hesitate to take action. He invited outside investigative organizations to come to the Academy and review the institution's policies and procedures for addressing sexual assaults. He opened up the Academy and its cadets to the media, to Congress, and to the school's board of visitors. Most importantly, General Rosa admitted that the Academy had a very serious problem and that sweeping it under the rug was not an acceptable response. Less than a year later, General Rosa was again in the spotlight when the Academy found in its cadet surveys that inappropriate religious expression had become a problem. Instead of ignoring the surveys, General Rosa did the opposite. He released them to the public and launched a comprehensive review on how the Academy approached religious expression. He tackled the problem, investigated it thoroughly, and began instituting the changes that were necessary. In his 2\1/2\ years of service, General Rosa made the Academy look in the mirror and see the strengths and weaknesses of the institution for what they are. The Academy is a proud institution, and it is difficult to think that something as terrible as sexual assault and religious intolerance might occur there. Yet General Rosa was never comfortable with the status quo or with a closed-door approach. He pushed and pulled to get better results, and his methods were open and transparent. General Rosa forced the Academy, its cadets, its faculty, and even its alumni to face a reality that some did not want to acknowledge. He forced the institution to make changes that were necessary, justified, and in the best interest of the Air Force. Through this process, the Academy raised its standards and slowly became the model institution that we all have come to expect and American taxpayers require. Under General Rosa's leadership, the Air Force Academy is now a source of guidance for other military academies and universities. Indeed, the Department of Defense is now turning to the Academy for direction on how to formulate the Department's sexual assault and religious expression policies. Although the Academy is not perfect and problems still exist, I strongly believe the U.S. Air Force Academy has, under General Rosa's leadership, become a much better place. I commend General Rosa for taking on this unbelievably difficult mission and for his outstanding service to our Nation. And I also commend his family for standing by him as he worked tirelessly to repair and strengthen the reputation of one of America's premier training institutions. Thank you for the opportunity to honor the service of one of America's finest military officers. I wish General Rosa and his family the best as he begins his new career as President of the the Citadel.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I congratulate my colleague and good friend from South Carolina for a fine statement. I also rise today in support of President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States. President Bush could not have nominated an individual more qualified to be confirmed as the next Chief Justice of the United States. If one were to prescribe the ideal training regimen for a future Chief Justice, Judge Roberts' career may well serve as the model. Judge Roberts has interacted with the Supreme Court in nearly every conceivable capacity. After law school, he held a prestigious position at the Supreme Court as a clerk to Justice William Rehnquist. He then went on to argue 39 cases before the Supreme Court, representing both public and private litigants. He currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit often referred to as the second highest court in the land. In short, he has worked at the Supreme Court, represented dozens of clients before the Supreme Court, and served as a judge on the court that many consider a stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. I cannot imagine someone more qualified to now serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After spending considerable time with Judge Roberts the nominee, I came to be equally impressed with John Roberts the man. He is humble, unassuming, polite, and respectful. In that respect, he shares the values of many of my fellow Coloradans. The humility he exudes is reflected in his view on the role of judges and the courts. Judge Roberts says: [A] certain humility should characterize the judicial role. Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. He describes himself as a ``modest judge,'' which is evidenced in his ``appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that judges are to decide the cases before them, they're not to legislate, they're not to execute the laws.'' This judicial philosophy is imperative to preserving the sanctity of the Constitution that is under attack by a handful of activist judges activist judges who proclaim the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and attempt to redefine the institution of marriage. Unlike these activist judges, Judge Roberts will be on the side of Constitution. As a Senator representing Colorado, I also appreciate the uniqueness of the issues important to Colorado and the West. The departure of Justice O'Connor, and now Chief Justice Rehnquist, marks the loss of a Western presence on the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, I asked President Bush to nominate a judge with an understanding of issues important to Colorado and the West, such as water and resource law. I asked Judge Roberts about his understanding of Western resource and water law. Judge Roberts acknowledged the loss of the Western presence on the Court and assured me that he understands the uniqueness to the West of such issues as water, the environment, and public lands. He shared his experience working on several cases in the State of Alaska, encompassing issues on rivers, Indian law, and natural resources. He also described his practice of traveling to the site of cases when he believes it is beneficial to his understanding of the facts. This practice is demonstrative of his commitment to fully understanding cases from the perspective of both sides. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that he currently has a law clerk from New Mexico. Law clerks sit at a judge's right hand and are integral in the judge's decisionmaking process. I am hopeful that Judge Roberts will continue to surround himself with individuals who have a Western perspective. The Senate Judiciary Committee has reviewed Judge Roberts' record more extensively than any previous Supreme Court nominee. The Administration produced more than 76,000 pages of documents related to Judge Roberts' distinguished career in public service. Judge Roberts testified for more than 20 hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee. During the extensive review process, the country learned a great deal about Judge Roberts' fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. We learned about his judicial philosophy, one which is firmly rooted in the rule of law and unwavering in its reverence for the Constitution. I believe his most telling statement was this: I come before the Committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat. We learned that Judge Roberts subscribes to ``the bedrock principle of treating people on the basis of merit without regard to race or sex.'' His belief in these principles is echoed in praise from several women's and minority groups. The Minority Business Round Table says ``his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court would certainly uphold our core American values of freedom, equality and fairness.'' The Independent Women's Forum applauds Judge Roberts as a ``very well qualified candidate with a reputation of being a strict interpreter of the law rather than someone who legislates from the bench.'' We learned that Judge Roberts recognizes the limitations on the government's taking of private property and the role of the legislature in drawing lines that the Court should not. The Court in Kelo permitted the transfer of property from one private party to another private party to satisfy the Constitution's ``public use'' requirement, essentially erasing this fundamental protection from its text. Judge Roberts says the Kelo decision ``leaves the ball in the court of the legislature. . . . [Congress] and legislative bodies in the States are protectors of the people's rights as well. . . . [Y]ou can protect them in situations where the Court has determined, as it did 5-4 in Kelo, that they are not going to draw that line.'' We learned that Judge Roberts will rely on domestic precedent to interpret the U.S. Constitution, not foreign law. Judge Roberts said, ``as a general matter . . . a couple of things . . . cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent . . . . The first has to do with democratic theory. . . If we're relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no President accountable to the people appointed that judge, and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge, and yet he's playing a role in shaping a law that binds the people in this country.'' Given his keen intellect, impartiality, temperament, sound legal judgment, and integrity, it is not surprising that Judge Roberts enjoyed bipartisan support by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I expect that he will enjoy similar bipartisan support in his confirmation vote tomorrow morning. I want to commend President Bush on the unprecedented level of bipartisan consultation he engaged in with the Senate prior to this nomination. The Constitution grants the power to the President to nominate and the Senate to provide advice and consent. Although Senators can provide input, the Senate does not co-nominate. When the President sends forth highly qualified candidates, this body has an obligation to the American people to provide a timely up-or-down vote. I commend my colleagues on the respectful hearings and expeditious process. The Ginsburg Standard was applied to Judge Roberts fair, respectful hearings; no prejudging of cases likely to come before the court; and a timely, up-or-down vote. With consultations on the next nominee already well under way, and an announcement imminent, I am hopeful that my colleagues will apply the same standards. Judges are not politicians. The Senate debate should reflect that the job of a judge is to review cases impartially, not to advocate issues. Judges should be evaluated on their qualifications, judicial philosophy, and respect for the rule of law. I am confident that President Bush will send forth a highly qualified nominee to replace Justice O'Connor, and I am hopeful that my colleagues will continue to build on the spirit of bipartisanship witnessed during this confirmation process. In conclusion, I cannot imagine a better qualified candidate than Judge Roberts to lead this nation's highest Court into the 21st century. I believe his rhetoric matches his actions. On behalf of the citizens of Colorado, I thank Judge Roberts for his willingness to serve our country. I am hopeful that the fair and respectful hearings accorded to him by this body will serve to inspire the best and the brightest of future generations to make similar sacrifices in the name of public service. I strongly urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of Judge John G. Roberts' confirmation as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of my constituents, Mr. Ralph Curtis. Mr. Curtis has served as manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District for 25 years. He took over the managerial position when the organization was very small, consisting of just Ralph and one other employee. The time and energy that Ralph has given to the Rio Grande Water Conservation District has made this organization the well respected entity that it is within the San Luis Valley and Colorado. Because he grew up on--and later managed--his family's ranch in Saguache, Ralph has long been aware of the importance of water to the San Luis Valley. Under his direction, the district took a leadership role in fighting against the American Water Development Inc. water grab, in water conservation education and in pro-active efforts on behalf of endangered species such as the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Ralph's community contributions have not gone unmarked either. He has been honored with numerous awards such as: the Wayne Aspinall Water Leader of the Year, San Luis Valley Wetlands Stewardship Award, Friend of 4-H, Distinguished Service Award for Conservation of Natural Resources, Support of Colorado Association of Soil Conservations Districts, and he was inducted into the Honorable Order of the Water Buffalo. Ralph has always looked ahead to the next challenge, has always looked forward to the next hill, in order to see where the road will lead him. I would like to wish Ralph and his wife Gloria the very best as they walk down that new road together looking for new challenges.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, another Colorado newspaper, the Pueblo Chieftain, offered its praise for Judge Roberts stating that ``Judge Roberts looks like the kind of justice who would apply the Constitution as it is written,'' adding ``that's as it should be.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the full September 8 editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe Judge Roberts will be an advocate and practitioner of judicial restraint, a Justice who focuses on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution as the Framers intended. In his own words: My obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. I believe he is temperamentally and intellectually inclined to stick to the facts and the law in cases that will come before him on the High Court, and that he will refrain from attempting to legislate from the bench. In his own words, Judge Roberts says: The role of the judge is limited . . . [j]udges are to decide the cases before them. They're not to legislate, they're not to execute the laws. I also believe Judge Roberts' personal views will not determine the outcome of cases before him. In his own words, the ``American justice system is epitomized by the fact that judges . . . wear . . . black robes. And that is meant to symbolize the fact that they're not individuals promoting their own particular views, but they are supposed to be doing their best to interpret the law, to interpret the Constitution, according to the rules of law--not their own preferences, not their own personal beliefs.'' Judge Roberts recognizes the importance of property rights and the role of the legislature in drawing the line in cases of eminent domain. Commenting on the Court's recent decision in Kelo, Judge Roberts explained: What the Court was saying is there is this power, and then it's up to the legislature to determine whether it wants that to be available--whether it wants it to be available in limited circumstances, or whether it wants to go back to an understanding as reflected in the dissent, that this is not an appropriate public use. President Bush has sent forward the name of an excellent nominee. His qualifications to serve as Chief Justice of the United States are even more apparent after his remarkable testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Roberts testified for approximately 22 hours, 10 hours longer than William Rehnquist when he became Chief Justice, 5 hours longer than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and 4 hours longer than Stephen Breyer. During the course of his testimony, Judge Roberts demonstrated an impressive command of the law and understanding of a myriad of legal issues. He provided thoughtful and thorough answers to over 500 challenging questions asked by Senators of both parties. Personally, I admire his commitment to maintaining his judicial independence and ability to rule fairly by choosing not to prejudge cases that are likely to come before him. It is indicative of his undying and lifelong commitment to equal protection under the law. I strongly urge my colleagues to give him a final vote in support of his nomination. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States. It would be difficult to identify a jurist better qualified for our Nation's highest Court than Judge John Roberts. He is a distinguished jurist who enjoys broad bipartisan support. There is good reason for this broad bipartisan support. Judge Roberts' sharp intellect and legal ability are beyond question. In addition, his humility, fairness, and open-minded approach to the practice of law have won him admirers from across the political spectrum. During his career as a practicing attorney, Judge Roberts argued a variety of positions in a number of high-profile cases and has represented criminal defendants, environmental interests, and the State of Hawaii in a dispute over legislation meant to favor native Hawaiians as a group. During the 2001 landmark Microsoft antitrust case before the District of Columbia court, he argued on behalf of the Clinton Justice Department and a group of primarily Democratic State attorneys general that several of Microsoft's business practices violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. In the landmark 2002 environmental case, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, he successfully argued before the Supreme Court in favor of limits on property development and in support of protection of the Pristine Lake Tahoe Basin area. Judge Roberts has been described as ``one of the top appellate lawyers of his generation'' by the Legal Times, and one of the top 10 civil litigators by the National Law Journal in 1999. Colorado's own Rocky Mountain News offered its unequivocal endorsement of Judge Roberts. The Rocky Mountain News stated that ``Roberts is not only well-spoken, he's tactful, amicable and focused'' and ``projects a temperament that should serve a Chief Justice well.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the full September 17 article printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I ask that the clerk report amendment No. 1738.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah will yield, I would like to have an opportunity, with the presentation of my amendment, to speak for 10 minutes, if I might.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining until the next vote?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until the vote be equally divided, with 5 minutes per speaker.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, and I appreciate his leadership. The Government of Japan has maintained an embargo on U.S. beef for more than 20 months. The beef industry is an integral part of the U.S. economy. It is an integral part of the State which I represent, the State of Colorado, and is an integral part of Nebraska's economy, as we just heard from Senator Nelson about concerns that apply to his State. This issue is particularly important for the southern and western parts of the United States. Before the embargo, exports to Japan were approximately $100 million a month. Today, the border closure has cost us over $2 billion. Since the border closure, 10,000 U.S. meat packers have lost their jobs. To address this we came to an agreement with the Japanese on what it would take to open our borders to each other. The United States has worked diligently to meet our end of the agreement and to assure that we can resume trade with the Japanese. Yet even with all of our efforts, Japan's border remains closed. The Japanese Government has made some progress. Yet the process is becoming muddled underneath unnecessary bureaucracy on the part of the Japanese Government. The United States has a long commitment to producing the world's safest food, and they still continue to have that strong commitment. The safety of U.S. beef is assured by sound science based on policy. I emphasize that U.S. beef is both safe and delicious. The time has come for us to express our frustration as a collective body. I, along with a number of my colleagues, met with the Ambassador from Japan to the United States a number of months ago and was assured they were giving serious consideration to the embargo they placed against American beef because of, at that point, one case of mad cow disease in the United States. They were relatively assured that the process was going to move along. We told them at the time that we believed the process was being delayed. They assured us they would move it along. They did move it along. Last week or so, we did get our decision back from this commission in Japan, and it was unfavorable as far as allowing U.S. beef to be imported into the country of Japan. Japan has had a number of mad cow disease cases. We have had only two cases. Both of those have not resulted in any other outbreaks. They have had upwards into the teens of cases of mad cow disease, and yet they are using, in my view, the mad cow disease as a reason to impose an embargo against American beef. We cannot stand aside and lose thousands upon thousands of jobs in the beef industry as a result of this action. It is not based on good science. We have extremely good meat processing procedures that protect human health in the United States, the best in the world as far as I am concerned. I don't think we have anything to be apologetic for. Just because you recognize one or two cases of mad cow disease does not mean you have a problem. It may mean you are doing a good job. I can think of countries that have not had any cases of mad cow disease and may very well have it. It may be they are not doing a good job, that they are not checking for the disease, and if you don't check for it, you are not going to find it. We have a very strict system of surveillance in this country. When we process beef, we hold suspected animals if they show any clinical signs at all, whether it is a temperature or that they show any signs of being uncoordinated that might suggest mad cow disease--if this is the case we take them out of the processing lines until we have a confirmation as to whether they are afflicted or not afflicted. As a result of these frustrations, I offer this sense-of-the-Senate resolution asking that the U.S. borders not be open to Japanese beef imports until the Japanese borders are open to us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from Nebraska and myself are on the same page. We are both greatly disappointed that the negotiations from Japan have not been progressing well at this particular point. I think we need to recognize that the State Department has been working hard on this issue as well as the Department of Agriculture. In fact, I have been told as recently as yesterday that the Secretary of State has had discussions with the Ambassador from Japan. I do think we need to do something on this floor to send a strong message to Japan about our concerns about their continuing to apply an embargo against United States beef. It is blatantly unfair and scientifically doesn't stand up. As far as I am concerned, we can go ahead and adopt the Allard amendment by a voice vote or unanimous consent, however the chairman wishes to proceed. Then these things perhaps can get refined better in conference committee when we work through this process in conference committee.

Mr. ALLARD. I have no objection on this side, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1737, as modified.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, very briefly, what this amendment does is it just allows Colorado State University to lease land from the Agricultural Research Service. It is not a controversial provision. I ask unanimous consent it be adopted.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to honor an exceptional organization. The Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes provides care and support for over 5,000 children and young adults with type one diabetes, including their families. For their dedicated work and unrelenting commitment to excellence, I wish to honor the Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes here today. Since 1980, The Barbara Davis Center has grown to become the largest facility in the Nation dedicated to pediatric diabetes and is now located on the Fitzsimmons Campus of the University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center in Aurora, Colorado. The staff at the Center has worked tirelessly to meet the needs of countless children throughout Colorado and the entire world who suffer from type one, or insulin-dependent diabetes. The Center's clinics received worldwide recognition for their care of those affected with pediatric diabetes, a chronic, life-threatening illness. In addition, the Center is a first- rate teaching and research facility on the forefront of the investigation into the cause, treatment, and elimination of diabetes. The Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes is relentless in its efforts to treat children with diabetes, support their families, and find ways to prevent and ultimately cure this devastating disease. For more than a quarter of a century the Center has proudly served the children of Colorado, our Nation, and the world. Founder Barbara Davis and the staff at the Center have dedicated themselves to enhancing the lives of those affected by diabetes. They are true champions in the fight against childhood diabetes, and I am honored to recognize their work.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we now have the legislative conference report before the Senate.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the legislative branch fiscal year 2006 appropriations conference report. This is my first year as chairman of this subcommittee and I am delighted we'll be able to send the bill to the President prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. I very much appreciate the support of my ranking member, Senator Durbin, as well as the full committee chairman, Senator Cochran, and ranking member, Senator Byrd. In general, I believe this is a fair agreement. It provides $3.8 billion for the Congress and its support agencies. Funding in the conference agreement is $198 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and a reduction of $225 million below the request. While there are very few programmatic increases in the bill, funding is sufficient to maintain current operations in all agencies. Significant increases above the fiscal year 2005 budget are recommended in only a few areas, such as funding to complete the Capitol Visitor Center. Highlights of the bill include funding of $250 million for the Capitol Police, which will enable the Capitol Police to maintain its current staffing level of 1,592 police officers and ensure appropriate levels of security for the Capitol complex. The Capitol Police salaries funding has increased by almost 100 percent since fiscal year 2002, and the number of officers has increased by about one-third. This indicates our support for Capitol Police and all the good work they do to protect this great institution. The recommendation also includes $428 million for the Architect of the Capitol, including $42 million for Capitol Visitor Center construction and $2.3 million for initial operational costs of the CVC. The Architect believes this amount will be sufficient to complete the CVC construction. Also within the AOC budget is storage modules for the Library of Congress at Ft. Meade, totaling $40.7 million. While this is an expensive project, it is critically needed to take care of burgeoning storage requirements at the library For the Library of Congress, funding would total $560 million, including funding for the Library's highest priorities such as the new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center and Congressional Research Service enhancements. Funding for the GPO would total $123 million, including $2 million to retrain staff for the new digital environment; the Government Accountability Office would receive $482 million, and the Open World Leadership Program would be funded at the budget request level of $14 million. I do have some concerns about this conference agreement which I would like to bring to my colleagues attention. First, I am deeply disappointed that the House insisted on the elimination of the Capitol Police mounted unit. I believe, as my predecessor Ben Nighthorse Campbell did, that there are some significant benefits to the Capitol Police having a mounted unit, and the costs are relatively small--about $150,000 a year. The officers who are part of this unit have received extensive training, the horses and attendant equipment have been purchased. This investment will be down the drain just 1 year after the unit became operational. We reluctantly went along with the House only because this bill needs to get done. But I believe it is a short-sighted decision that we will all regret. Another regret I have with this conference agreement is the elimination of Senate language authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to hire an executive director for the Capitol Visitor Center. The CVC project is something I have been following closely, with monthly hearings in our subcommittee. In addition to concerns regarding the management of this mammoth construction project, I am very concerned that the Architect hasn't been given direction and authority to make operational decisions including the hiring of an executive director. GAO has reported it is critical AOC develop a strategic plan for moving from construction to operations. Without an executive director such decisions will surely languish. Despite these concerns, I believe it is a fair and balanced conference agreement and I urge my colleagues to support it.