Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding some time to me so I can respond to a number of issues that have been brought up. First of all, I would like to say that the information we have on the food contents is older information. The newest information we have is from a group of scientists that went to Canada to check on their rules and regulations, on their enforcement. These scientists reported back to us on about February 22 of this year, saying that the rules and regulations are being enforced robustly in Canada. That includes the ruminant on ruminant food regulation where you prevent the consumption of ruminant byproducts by other ruminants. I have confidence in these trained scientists who know what they are looking for and have given us the most recent report on what is happening as far as the food on food regulation. I would also like to go over some of the positions by the Colorado Cattlemen Association as well as the National Beef Association. They support a minimal-risk region classification, and they support it on the following conditions: No beef or beef products will be imported into the U.S. from cattle over 30 months of age. That is in place. All imported feeder cattle must be harvested previous to 30 months of age, and the verification processes must be implemented to track and validate harvest age and location. They are doing that with earmarkings as well as brands. All cattle direct to harvest must be 30 months of age or younger. That is being done. It is a provision in the rules and regulations. Minimal-risk regions must meet all processing techniques and regulations relating to BSE as set out by the U.S. That is what those scientists were reporting to us as of the 22nd of February. Adherence and implementation of a U.S. equivalent ruminant to ruminant feed ban. That is a requirement. That is what the scientists report back, that they are complying with the rules and regulations, and we should not have a concern about it. And then: The Colorado Cattlemen's Association is committed to normalizing global trade based on [good] science that protects the health of the beef industry. And they express that: Once our concerns have been adequately addressed, CCA will reconsider our position on opening the Canadian border. The Colorado Cattlemen Association currently supports the minimal- risk region rules that have been put out by the Ag, and the Colorado Farm Bureau currently supports the Canadian reopening. The Colorado Livestock Association supports the reopening, and the National Cattlemen's Association, which is headquartered in Colorado, supports the Department of Agriculture's provision on minimal risk.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, since the floor manager is not here, I yield myself 5 minutes to respond further.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to emphasize again how very important it is that we proceed on this matter using good scientific evidence. I appreciate the statement that was made by the Senator from Montana. He is right in many regards that we need to be sure that we use good science. I feel good about the enforcement of the rules and regulations based on the visit by scientists who just reported back in February. It is the most recent report that we have on the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada. They are very competent scientists, very dedicated scientists. And what they reported back to us is valid. From a trade standpoint, we need to do something for our cattlemen. I believe strongly that what we need to do for the cattleman is get the borders opened because we are importing Canadian beef today. It is boxed beef. The reason that is coming in is because our plants can't economically make it. They are having to pay high prices for beef. They only have a limited supply of beef, and so they are not up to capacity. In the meantime, the processing plants, the beef that they are getting is lower cost beef. And then they are putting that on the world market. They are importing that into the United States. The result is that we see an expansion of the beef industry in Canada. They have got plans to build more processing plants. They are in the process right now of building more processing plants. That means there are going to be more people raising cattle in Canada. That means if our processors here don't make it like the one in Colorado, we lose our local markets. We lose an opportunity for our cattlemen to readily get their beef to market. That costs in shrinkage and extra transportation costs, particularly when we look at the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel. So this is a problem that needs to be resolved quickly. We need to move forward with the guidelines that were laid out. By the way, the principles laid out in the guidelines have been used by the cattle industry in this country to control livestock disease, which also affects humans. The principles are laid out here, things like brucellosis. We know in cattle country what that is all about. We have States classified as brucellosis-free, and there are those having problems with that. The movement of cattle back and forth begins with addressing brucellosis in those States. Using those principles, we have been able to reduce the incidence of brucellosis in this country. It works. They are the same principles we are using on BSE and asking for Canada and the world organizations to apply, where we take minimal-risk countries, such as Canada and the United States, and apply those provisions in a good, scientific way. That is only part of it. The other part is that during the process you don't increase the risk by handling the processes improperly. No. 1, you don't want to circulate the food and feed it back to the cows, the byproducts. That is a policy that has been adopted here and in Canada, and it is something we have learned since the outbreak in the European Community. So, again, I also compliment Secretary of Agriculture Johanns for his efforts in trying to protect the beef industry and to use good science. He comes from Nebraska. That is a big beef State, as are many of the other States. But the important thing is to recognize that free trade is a benefit of agriculture. It has benefited particularly the beef industry. We want to make sure we get the border open, and we need to use good science in opening it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, questions were raised earlier about the accuracy of dentition; in other words, looking at the eruption of teeth to identify when the animal is 30 months old. That is pretty exact science. It is very reliable; not to say maybe one or two cows will slip through that are off a month or two. That is why the 30-month period was selected, because this is a disease of slow onset, and when they are under 30 months, we ordinarily do not have to worry about them. Let us suppose somebody has some concerns about an animal that may be infected with BSE coming across a border. What happens is there are certain rules and regulations where one transfers from Canadian regulation over to American regulation. We only have certain points of entry into the United States, and when that animal comes into the United States, it is very adequately marked. They have ear tags and they are branded so that if something should happen to the ear tags, they still have the brand on the animal. The only thing that can happen to that animal is it moves into an approved feedlot, it is isolated in that feedlot, for the purpose of slaughter. So that animal then is processed for slaughter. In the processing procedure, all of the central nervous system tissue--the brain, spinal cord--is discarded. It is not used for consumption. If there is a temperature on that animal, it is not slaughtered. So when one takes into consideration the final steps of the process, they can understand I do not hesitate to suggest that people ought to eat beef. Our beef is safe and the beef processed in this country is safe. I have a letter dated March 3. It was sent to me and is from Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He states flatly that this resolution should be opposed for the following reasons, and he gives six reasons. He says this resolution should be opposed and in its place would urge the Senate to support an effort to open the Japanese, South Korean, and additional markets for U.S. cattle producers. I thank those 19 Senators who joined me in writing a letter to the Japanese Ambassador to open their markets to American beef. Mr. McAdams states that the failure to open these markets has cost the U.S. cattle producers $175 per head and a cumulative loss of nearly $5 billion in income. We need the full attention of the Senate to act on this issue, not to act to block science-based trade policies. Then No. 2 states: The resolution supports blocking a science and risk-based analysis and phasing in opening of the Canadian borders. This action does meet the real needs of U.S. cattle producers, as it will give excuses for other countries to block our exports. Point No. 3 in the letter opposing the resolution: The resolution should be opposed and in its place, we urge the Senate to support action to ensure the Canadian government eliminates their blue tongue and anaplasmosis trade barriers for all classes of U.S. cattle exports to Canada. Think about that. The resolution will allow maintaining the status quo with Canada further accelerating the shift of the packing, processing capacity, and jobs from the U.S. to Canada, and hurting U.S. cattle producers. The resolution ignores the fact that beef is safe. Analysis of the reports by industry and government clearly indicate that Canada, just like the U.S., has taken the necessary steps to ensure that their beef is safe. This resolution perpetuates fear mongering over nonexistent safety concerns and misrepresents well-documented science doing a disservice to the cattle industry and U.S. consumers. The USDA has already addressed prior producer concerns of this rule, to the extent that USDA has withdrawn the section of the final rule regarding beef from animals over thirty months. We urge you to vote NO on this resolution.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I join my colleague from North Carolina in expressing my condolences to the family, and express how much I respected Tillie Fowler. I had an opportunity to say hello to her a little over a week ago. She was so happy and vibrant. Her sudden passing was very much a shock to me. It reminds all of us just how fragile life can be. I had an opportunity to get to know Tillie Fowler when I served in the U.S. House of Representatives with her. She was a wonderful person and highly respected in the House of Representatives. I do not recall one person in the whole body, whether they opposed or supported her, who had cross words to say to Tillie Fowler. She was always well prepared, always courteous, and always somebody you admired when you served with her and got to know her. I worked closely with her on a number of defense issues because that was her life's love. I had a chance to get to know her more closely when we had an issue in Colorado with the Air Force Academy. As you may recall, when we set up a commission, which she chaired, it was called the Fowler Commission. I reflect on the type of respect she garnered from everybody who was around her. When we put her on that commission, we knew she would do a good job. We named the commission after her because of the respect we had for her. It was a difficult task. She did it with honor. She was very hard working and pursued it vigorously. She did a great job. I join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to the family, and express how much we all loved her. We will miss her. May God bless.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we are in Republican- allocated time on morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, for the last 4 years, the United States has been locked in combat with the forces of terror. These extremists do not understand freedom and are trying even to this very day to spread their message of hate and oppression. America did not fire the first shot. Those killed on September 11 were innocent and did not deserve to die. They should be with us today. The forces of terror remain determined to defeat our Nation. They believe the United States will abandon Iraq and Afghanistan. They question our will to fight. They doubt our courage and our fortitude. They are wrong. Our Nation has stepped up to fight and has never looked back. Under President Bush's leadership, our country has taken the battle to the enemy. As the President said in his State of the Union Address: Our country is still the target of terrorists who want to kill many and intimidate us all, and we will stay on the offensive against them until the fight is won. In less than 3 months after September 11, United States and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban regime, a brutal theocracy shielding al- Qaida and other terrorists. A year after September 11, the President challenged the United Nations to confront another protector of terror, Saddam Hussein. This cruel dictator threatened his neighbors, his people, and our country with his support for terror and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. He lied, cajoled, intimidated, and murdered. Our Nation did not stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. Our forces have sought out the enemy, cut off his funding resources, and disrupted his plans. We have captured thousands of terrorists, destroyed their networks, and prevented new attacks. There have been many successes in this war, and we should be encouraged and strengthened by our progress. Our men and women in our Armed Forces are the real heroes in this conflict. They have fought and sacrificed for our country. Tragically, some have paid the ultimate price. Today nearly 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed in hotspots around the world. They continue to take the fight to the enemy and defeat him wherever he appears. Our men and women in uniform are determined and ready. I visited our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have seen with my own eyes their commitment and determination. It is phenomenal. They believe in what they are doing. They know they are making a difference. I am reminded of those who have already sacrificed much but yet have not given up and remain committed to their duty. Soldiers such as Army CPT David Roselle have been an inspiration to me and many other Coloradans. While on patrol last year in Iraq, Captain Roselle lost a leg when an antitank mine went off nearby. After several surgeries and intense physical therapy, Captain Roselle rebuilt and retrained his muscles. He conducted 4-hour sessions of daily exercise, including mountain biking, weight lifting, swimming, and climbing. Six months after his last surgery, Captain Roselle was skiing down the slopes of the Colorado Rockies. But the story does not end there. Now just over a year later, Captain Roselle is still in the Army, and commands the headquarters company of the 3rd Army Cavalry and is preparing to deploy with the unit this spring. It is Captain Roselle's relentlessness, his call to duty, and his determination to defend our great Nation that tells me that our forces are strong and victory remains the only option. Our men and women deployed in combat are not the only heroes. I cannot fully express my admiration for the families of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. For months at a time, military families are asked to hold everything together and support their loved ones overseas. They have done this and have done it with pride. Organizations such as Colorado's Home Front Heroes have also stepped up and supported our troops. Home Front Heroes has provided family support when none was available and sent thousands of care packages to our soldiers deployed overseas. The organization led the drive to get the State of Colorado to designate March 29 Support Our Troops Day. And in one case, Home Front Heroes actually paid for family members to travel to Germany to visit their wounded loved ones. I see it all over Colorado. There is a steely determination to see the global war on terrorism completed and victory achieved. That is why it is more important than ever for Congress to do its part. This week the Senate will receive the President's request for supplemental appropriations. This money is critical to continuing the war on terror and ensuring our troops have the necessary equipment, training, and information to succeed on the battlefield. While some may argue that this money should be included in the budget or that certain items are not emergencies, none of us would argue that the money is not needed. We know our troops need improved protection. Our chief of staff for the Army has testified that much of the Army's equipment is worn down and should be replaced. We owe it to our military families to provide the increased death gratuity. As we consider this important appropriation, let us remember our successes so far. Fifty million people in Afghanistan and Iraq have tasted freedom and for most were able to cast a vote for the first time. Cities are being rebuilt and market economies are being developed. Terror networks have collapsed and funding for these networks is drying up. The war is not over, but we are making a difference. Congress must do its part. Now is the time for Congress to act. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand now we are on the Republican time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about Social Security and the challenges that face this Congress in order to save Social Security for future generations. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, the United States of America was a very different place than it is now. By looking at this chart, which shows an example of a family in 1935 and an example of a family in the year 2005, you can see that a lot has changed. Now, I ask my colleagues to keep this picture in mind, taken 70 years ago, as we go through the debate on how to save Social Security. A lot has changed since 1935. Social Security was a great deal for the Government in 1935. Workers would pay the Government a portion of every paycheck. The Government would keep these funds and could use them to pay other Government liabilities. It was unlikely that many of the beneficiaries would reach retirement age. From the employees' standpoint, in 1935, Social Security was a big gamble. Employees would be required to participate in the program, contributing a percentage of their income for their entire adult working life. This program would be a retirement safety net, but would only yield a small percentage rate of return. The employee could not access it or use it for any other reason. If they happened to die prior to receiving the benefits, their family could not inherit the account. And even if they were diagnosed with an expensive terminal illness, they could not draw on the Social Security account to cover the costs. Times have changed in ways far beyond the hair style, the fashion, and the entertainment that is reflected on this chart. Demographics have radically shifted, necessitating that we update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century. Life expectancy has changed dramatically over the past 70 years. In 1935 the average person lived to be 63 versus 77 years of age in 2004. This difference becomes even more dramatic when we look at the differences between men as compared to women. Looking through the Social Security lens in 1935, this was excellent for the system's financial stability. Men paid into the system but because of life expectancy generally did not live long enough to receive benefits. While women generally lived longer than men, in 1935 the few women who did participate in the workforce still did not generally receive many benefits based on life expectancy. As this next chart shows, an American who turns 65 can expect to live longer now than they did in the past. Instead of living an additional decade, seniors can now expect to live about 17 more years. In 2040, when Social Security is nearly bankrupt, senior citizens can expect to live even more additional years. For example, a woman who turns 65 in that year is expected to live another 21 years. Without permanent reform, this woman will not be able to depend on Social Security for her retirement. We need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security so she can have that security for the remaining years of her life. This chart further shows how elderly Americans are rapidly becoming a larger percentage of the country. As Americans are living longer, they are increasing in number and rapidly becoming a larger percentage of the population. For example, in 1950, less than 10 percent of Americans were age 65 and older. Within a decade, seniors will make up 15 percent of the population, and in 25 years, seniors will comprise more than 20 percent of the population. We can expect that percentage to continue to grow. In 1935, when the Social Security system was created, the Government did not need to prepare for the possibility of a depleted system. Seniors made up a very small percentage of the population because most people who were owed benefits simply never reached retirement age. As seniors become a larger portion of our population, we need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century. Workforce distribution, as you can imagine, has also changed dramatically over the past 70 years. One of the more remarkable characteristics in the past century was the increase of women in the workplace. In 1935, approximately 24 percent of women worked outside the home and generally in a very limited number of professions, such as nursing and teaching or domestic service. Today, slightly less than 60 percent of women work outside the home in a variety of professions. Women make up 46.5 percent of the workforce today versus approximately 23 percent in 1935. In 1935, when women did not usually work outside the home, they also did not pay into the Social Security system as men did. Even though there are now more people paying into the system as they retire, there will be a greater number of people drawing on the system a longer period of time. As it was structured in 1935, the Social Security system was not designed to support elderly people for a long retirement such as we enjoy today. As female workforce participants continue to retire and draw benefits, we need to update and modernize the system in order to save Social Security for the 21st century. As we all know, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, meaning current retiree benefits are paid with existing employee payroll taxes. As times change, the payroll tax rate has been increased a number of times in an effort to keep up with the demographic changes. Referring to this next chart, you can see that payroll taxes have increased dramatically over the past 70 years. They were a lot less when the Social Security system was enacted. Workers were taxed only 2 percent, and that was only on the first $3,000 of their income; whereas today workers are taxed 12.4 percent, and on the first $90,000 of income for Social Security. Americans pay a significant amount of their money toward Social Security. This amount is still not enough to compensate for an aging population that may spend more than 15 or 20 years in retirement drawing benefits from a system that was never designed to support them for that length of time. Unless we plan to continue the payroll tax hikes of the past, which is not a prospect I would support, we need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century. As I mentioned, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, with current workers paying taxes to support current benefits for retirees. This means there must be enough workers paying taxes to provide for retirees. The ratio of workers to retirees has been steadily declining, and this is possibly the most telling comparison showing the need for reform. As this next chart shows, in 1945, there were 42 workers paying taxes for every single person receiving benefits. In 2005, 3.3 workers pay for each beneficiary, and soon there will be two workers paying for every single person receiving benefits. As the baby boomers retire, the workforce cannot support the aging population. Since we have such a large number of retired citizens, the Social Security system will be depleted in the not so distant future. We need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century. Realities have changed in many different ways since Social Security was created in 1935. People live longer. Seniors make up a larger percentage of the population. Women make up more of the workforce, and the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is falling. Unless Congress faces up to these realities, the long-term outlook for Social Security is very bleak. In conclusion, let me point to my last chart, which shows that in 2018, Social Security costs will permanently exceed revenues, as the lines cross at this point. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like us to believe that doing nothing is the best course of action. I happen to believe differently. I stress to my colleagues that the cost of doing nothing is a serious detriment to the Social Security system for future generations. Time is running out. This problem will not go away. This Congress, this year, we must update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to William ``Bill'' Sinclair. Bill is a cum laude alumnus of St. Martins College in Olympia, WA and he has done graduate work in Finance and Administration at Emory University in Atlanta. Bill is currently self- employed as a consultant in fundraising for churches and other nonprofit corporations in the western United States. Throughout his life, Bill has given his time generously to worthy causes, dedicated to the betterment of our community and nation. Bill has been heavily involved in the Colorado Springs community. He is the past president of Downtown Rotary Club. He is a 1982 graduate of Citizens' Goals for Colorado Springs Leadership Training. He served on the Board of Directors of CHINS-UP from 1983 to 1987. In 1987 the El Paso County Commissioners appointed him to the Board of Directors of the Pikes Peak Center, where he served until 1993 and was chairman of the board. He is past president of the board of directors of the Pioneers Museum Foundation and past president of the Pikes Peak Chapter of the Retired Officers Association. Bill has been active in the political arena since retiring from the military. He is a graduate of the Republican Leadership Program, class of 1990. Bill is also a member of the El Paso County Republican Men's Club, and is a graduate of the Colorado Republican Campaign School. He was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002. Term limits is the reason he isn't running again however, he isn't about to sit still and do nothing. The governor recently appointed him to the State Board of Veterans Affairs. As a member of Veterans Affairs his goal is to create a veterans cemetery in El Paso County. Mr. Sinclair has lived in Colorado Springs, CO, for 30 years. He and his family moved there upon retiring from the United States Air Force as a colonel. He is a command pilot and a combat veteran of three wars--World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Bill and his wife, Barbara have two children where they attended Colorado Springs schools and Colorado universities. Bill and Barbara have five wonderful grandchildren and spend as much time with them as they possibly can. It is not often that we are able to pay adequate tribute to our Nation's community leaders. I truly believe that Bill Sinclair is an exemplary citizen and worthy of our thanks.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 and take a moment to explain why this legislation is critical to our national security. Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of soldiers at Fort Carson have trained in relative isolation. With few current residents nearby, the Army has been using Fort Carson's ranges for large-scale training exercises, weapons testing and live fire. This training often occurs at night, a vital capability given the Army's preference to conduct military operations in darkness. The 140,000 acre Army installation and training facility was once miles from Colorado Springs and Pueblo. As both cities grow closer to the base's fence line, Fort Carson is facing constraints on its training flexibility, impacting military readiness. The issue of training at the post is particularly relevant considering nearly 15,000 soldiers based at Fort Carson have been deployed or are currently employed to Iraq. The situation is not getting better. Over the last two decades, real estate and industrial development along Colorado's front range has exploded. Hundreds of thousands of people have moved to the Centennial State and settled along the 1-25 corridor. I remember the days when it was possible to drive for miles along the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains and encounter few if any residential areas. Today, there seems to be development all along Colorado's front range. Yet, military readiness at the post is not the only thing at risk. The post's fragile prairie habitat is also in danger. Fort Carson has always prided itself on its conservation of the public trust. Mountain Post has a special office just to ensure environmental compliance and protect the post's biodiversity. The mountain plover, the black-tailed prairie dog, the Arkansas River feverfew, and the Pueblo goldenweed are among the many rare species protected at Fort Carson. Over the last 3 years Fort Carson has partnered with the Nature Conservancy on a unique plan to address the rising encroachment concerns. This forward-thinking plan calls for the purchase of conservation easements of lands south and southeast of the base for a small number of willing sellers. If implemented, I believe the plan will preserve the military utility of key Fort Carson training areas while conserving important short grass prairie at a landscape scale, along with the ranching community that sustains it. As much as 82,000 acres of uninhibited, precious prairie would be protected, including four globally rare plant species. The Army fully supports this plan and has consistently described it as its number one priority under the service's Compatible Use Buffer program. This plan also enjoys widespread support from the local community, including the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce. The Colorado Department of Transportation, the Great Outdoors of Colorado, and the Nature Conservancy all support the plan as well. I be1ieve we need to act now to protect unique training facilities like those at Fort Carson before it is too late. This program makes sense for the soldiers training at Fort Carson who require an isolated environment to conduct their maneuvers. This program makes sense for the environment. This plan makes too much sense for Congress to pass up. That is why I am introducing the Fort Carson Conservation Act. I am pleased that Congressman Joel Hefley is introducing this landmark legislation in the House of Representatives today as well. The Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 would require the Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot project that creates a buffer zone out of the property bordering Fort Carson. The objective of this pilot would be to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing conservation easements and leases to limit enroachment and preserve the environment. Under the pilot project, the Secretary of the Army would enter into agreements with one or more willing sellers to purchase conservation easements. These agreements would be founded on the authority already provided in section 2684a of title 10 of the United States Code. The pilot project would expire when either the project is completed or within 5 years. From my perspective, this pilot project is only the beginning. By working closely with the Army and the other military services, the Nature Conservancy has planted the seed for the expansion of this project. I strongly support the Conservancy's effort and believe that key military installations like Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Fort Huachuca, Fort Stewart, and Eglin Air Force Base will soon be in a position to benefit from this proactive conservation effort. Mr. President, it is a little known secret that the Department of Defense is one of the best stewards of our environment. Almost 350 endangered and threatened species live on military bases across the country--that is more than are found on land managed by the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In an era of rapid growth and urban development, military training areas have become, in many respects, the last refuge for many endangered species. Creating natural buffer zones that protect fragile habitat and ensure our military readiness is a win-win proposal. It is the right thing to do for the environment. It is the right thing to do for our Nation's Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support the Fort Carson Conservation Act. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 and take a moment to explain why this legislation is critical to our national security. Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of soldiers at Fort Carson have trained in relative isolation. With few current residents nearby, the Army has been using Fort Carson's ranges for large-scale training exercises, weapons testing and live fire. This training often occurs at night, a vital capability given the Army's preference to conduct military operations in darkness. The 140,000 acre Army installation and training facility was once miles from Colorado Springs and Pueblo. As both cities grow closer to the base's fence line, Fort Carson is facing constraints on its training flexibility, impacting military readiness. The issue of training at the post is particularly relevant considering nearly 15,000 soldiers based at Fort Carson have been deployed or are currently employed to Iraq. The situation is not getting better. Over the last two decades, real estate and industrial development along Colorado's front range has exploded. Hundreds of thousands of people have moved to the Centennial State and settled along the 1-25 corridor. I remember the days when it was possible to drive for miles along the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains and encounter few if any residential areas. Today, there seems to be development all along Colorado's front range. Yet, military readiness at the post is not the only thing at risk. The post's fragile prairie habitat is also in danger. Fort Carson has always prided itself on its conservation of the public trust. Mountain Post has a special office just to ensure environmental compliance and protect the post's biodiversity. The mountain plover, the black-tailed prairie dog, the Arkansas River feverfew, and the Pueblo goldenweed are among the many rare species protected at Fort Carson. Over the last 3 years Fort Carson has partnered with the Nature Conservancy on a unique plan to address the rising encroachment concerns. This forward-thinking plan calls for the purchase of conservation easements of lands south and southeast of the base for a small number of willing sellers. If implemented, I believe the plan will preserve the military utility of key Fort Carson training areas while conserving important short grass prairie at a landscape scale, along with the ranching community that sustains it. As much as 82,000 acres of uninhibited, precious prairie would be protected, including four globally rare plant species. The Army fully supports this plan and has consistently described it as its number one priority under the service's Compatible Use Buffer program. This plan also enjoys widespread support from the local community, including the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce. The Colorado Department of Transportation, the Great Outdoors of Colorado, and the Nature Conservancy all support the plan as well. I be1ieve we need to act now to protect unique training facilities like those at Fort Carson before it is too late. This program makes sense for the soldiers training at Fort Carson who require an isolated environment to conduct their maneuvers. This program makes sense for the environment. This plan makes too much sense for Congress to pass up. That is why I am introducing the Fort Carson Conservation Act. I am pleased that Congressman Joel Hefley is introducing this landmark legislation in the House of Representatives today as well. The Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 would require the Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot project that creates a buffer zone out of the property bordering Fort Carson. The objective of this pilot would be to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing conservation easements and leases to limit enroachment and preserve the environment. Under the pilot project, the Secretary of the Army would enter into agreements with one or more willing sellers to purchase conservation easements. These agreements would be founded on the authority already provided in section 2684a of title 10 of the United States Code. The pilot project would expire when either the project is completed or within 5 years. From my perspective, this pilot project is only the beginning. By working closely with the Army and the other military services, the Nature Conservancy has planted the seed for the expansion of this project. I strongly support the Conservancy's effort and believe that key military installations like Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Fort Huachuca, Fort Stewart, and Eglin Air Force Base will soon be in a position to benefit from this proactive conservation effort. Mr. President, it is a little known secret that the Department of Defense is one of the best stewards of our environment. Almost 350 endangered and threatened species live on military bases across the country--that is more than are found on land managed by the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In an era of rapid growth and urban development, military training areas have become, in many respects, the last refuge for many endangered species. Creating natural buffer zones that protect fragile habitat and ensure our military readiness is a win-win proposal. It is the right thing to do for the environment. It is the right thing to do for our Nation's Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support the Fort Carson Conservation Act. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, first, I would like to say straight out that I thought the President gave a great speech yesterday. I thought it was forward looking, positive, and I think he issued a challenge to Members of Congress. It is a challenge we should face up front. I rise today to talk about the President's State of the Union Address. The President last night reminded us of our freedom and liberty, our personal responsibilities, and solemn obligations. Freedom and liberty--no two words have given more to those blessed by them and damned more those who have taken them away. The President's address reminded us that the march of freedom continues throughout the world. The success of the elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and the Ukraine clearly demonstrate a desire for liberty and democracy, a desire that was revealed to the world this week by an ink-stained finger, an understated expression of mankind's inalienable right. Tyranny has no place in the world. We must oppose it with great determination and diligence wherever it appears. The election in Iraq in particular showed that people are willing to risk their lives to bear the privilege of freedom and the mark of democracy. Recent success does not mean our obligations are fulfilled. As the President articulated, our Nation must continue to root out tyranny wherever it resides. We must oppose extremism, whether it be religious or ideological. We must assist those who are in need, those who live in desperate poverty, and those who are suffering from deplorable disease and epidemic. Sadly, freedom comes at great expense. We have witnessed the cost of liberty, first at the birth of our Nation and later at the salvation of our Union. Today we see the price of liberty as freedom-fearing terrorists lash out against the builders of democracy. The sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has been great. I cannot fully express my admiration and respect for those willing to serve our Nation, protect our country, and defeat those seeking the return of oppression. Their commitment to freedom is an inspiration to me, to the people of Colorado, and to the Nation. To these men and women, we owe our solemn obligation, our pledge to not waste the blessings their sacrifice has bestowed. The President also spoke of the future, our obligations to elderly generations, and the duties owed to our youngest children. The President has chosen reality over popularity and will address the growing threat of insolvency, ensuring stability for all Americans. Those resistant to the reality of a losing system claim that Social Security is not broken. They want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend the looming bankruptcy will go away. But the reality is this: In three short years, the baby boomers will be eligible for Social Security. At that point, the balance in the Social Security trust fund will begin its permanent decline. Even if President Bush were to sign the necessary reforms into law this year, it would most likely take at least a couple years to implement. If we do not act, we will shortchange the American people. I believe, that the time to act is now. Social Security was created in 1935 under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. At that time, the average life expectancy was 63 years of age, most women did not work outside the home, most adult males did not live to reach retirement age, and payroll taxes were only 2 percent on the first $3,000 of income. Today the average life expectancy is 77 years, men and women work outside the home, both are likely to reach retirement age, and the payroll taxes are 12.4 percent on the first $90,000 of income. The American people deserve a system that has been modernized to reflect 21st Century realities. The President is not using scare tactics--Social Security is safe for today's seniors. Let me repeat that. Social Security is safe for today's seniors. But it is in serious jeopardy for our children and our grandchildren. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system with today's workers paying to support today's retirees. But each year there are more retirees receiving benefits and fewer workers to support them. In the 1950s, there were about 16 workers for every beneficiary. Today there are about three workers for every retiree, and eventually, there will be only two. Social Security's source of income is rapidly disappearing. If the program continues under current law, younger workers will face a 26-percent cut in benefits when they retire. Congress must act now to save this valuable program for future generations. In the 1990s, President Clinton advocated reforming Social Security. In his 1999 State of the Union Address, President Clinton stated: First, and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century. At the time, Democrats wholeheartedly agreed. The current Democratic leader said on Fox News Sunday on February 14, 1999: Most of us have no problems with taking a small amount of Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector. Many other Democrats agreed. The current Democratic whip said: Due to the increasing number of baby boomers reaching retirement age, Social Security will be unable to pay out full benefits. . . . But the sooner Congress acts to avert this crisis, the easier and less painful it will be. But Democrats are now trying to convince Americans there is not a problem, that reform is not necessary, and this simply is not true. I worked with President Clinton and Senate Democrats to try to reform the Social Security system in the 1990s. I am now pledging to work with President Bush in making sure the American people have a long-term secure Social Security system. Social Security reform is a bipartisan issue. Some groups oppose the President's push to reform Social Security by claiming that personal retirement accounts are not a necessary addition to the Social Security system. One such group is the American Association of Retired Persons, commonly referred to as the AARP. On January 3, 2005, they announced they were beginning an advertising campaign in 59 newspapers across the country, and these advertisements are intended to warn the public that basing the Social Security Program on private investments poses serious risks. I would agree with the AARP if this were, in fact, true. However, to my knowledge, that proposal has never been on the table. Rather, the President has discussed adding the option for younger workers to build a nest egg in a personal account. The AARP offers its employees a generous benefits package, including a pension and 401(k) plan similar to the very option they now oppose. Many other employers offer these plans to their employees as well. How can it be that personal retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s, are good enough for the AARP, Members of Congress, and a good portion of the country, but, according to the AARP and the Democrats, they are not good enough for all Americans? Some reform opponents have suggested that simply raising or eliminating the taxable income cap of $90,000 will fix the problem completely. By doing this, we would only postpone Social Security trust fund deficits by 6 years, and this is why: Under the current structure, the more you pay into Social Security, the more you get back upon retirement. President Bush has said that benefits for current beneficiaries are not to be cut or are in any way at risk. The President would like to offer the option, not requirement, for workers to invest a portion of their own paycheck into a personal retirement account. This account would travel with workers from job to job as opposed to a 401(k) plan that is with one single employer. It is possible that this personal account could even be passed on to future generations. This option would benefit all Americans, and give them more choices for their retirement. If reforms take place soon, retirees could begin retirement with a nest egg far larger than what Social Security can offer. It would be irresponsible for any elected official, regardless of party, to oppose reform. As we head into this debate, I hope that everyone will enter with an open mind in forging new ideas on how to solve this very pressing problem. Social Security cannot be fixed with minor alterations. Social Security is a valuable, successful program from which our country's retired citizens benefit. However, unless Congress fulfills its duty and obligations to protect its solvency, it will not be around for my children's retirement--or yours. Addressing Social Security is not divisive--it is responsible. The 109th Congress will be long on debate, but we must all work together to make sure that it is also filled with accomplishments for the American people. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the House as we pursue a policy of hope and empowerment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today in support of the President's nominee for Attorney General, Judge Alberto R. Gonzales. Judge Gonzales is an honorable man who will bring great integrity to the office of Attorney General. Few nominees have come before this body who have demonstrated the intelligence, commitment, and virtue of Judge Alberto Gonzales. The biography of Judge Alberto Gonzales reads like a blueprint of the true American success story. He was born August 4, 1955 in San Antonio, TX. The second of eight children, a young Alberto was raised in a warm, family environment. His parents, a scant 8 years of formal education between them, taught their kids the value of hard work and persistence. It was in Humble, TX, a small town north of Houston, that Alberto Gonzales watched his father Pablo, a migrant worker, and two of his uncles build the two-bedroom house in which he and his siblings grew up. It is the same house in which his mother resides today. Gonzales graduated from public high school in Houston in 1973. Having never considered college a realistic possibility and full of desire to learn and see the world, Alberto Gonzales enlisted in the Air Force. He was assigned to Ft. Yukon, AK, where he became inspired to apply for an appointment to the United States Air Force Academy. Special arrangements were made for Gonzales to take his ACT and the Academy's required physical examination while still stationed in Alaska. Gonzales was rewarded with orders to report to the Academy at Colorado Springs, CO in 1975 to pursue his dream of becoming a pilot in the United States Air Force. Alberto Gonzales excelled in his first year at Colorado Springs but found he was more interested in politics and law than the engineering and science curriculum required by the Academy. After much deliberation and consideration of the effort put forth to earn his appointment to the Academy, he decided to pursue a career in the law. Gonzales started at Rice University his junior year of college, graduating from Rice in 1979. After Rice, Gonzales attended Harvard Law School where he graduated in 1982. Gonzales returned to Houston as an associate at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins where he later became one of the firm's first two minority partners. While in private practice, Gonzales also taught as an adjunct law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and was actively involved in numerous civic organizations. It was at a meeting of Houston area minority leaders in 1994 that Alberto Gonzales first met President George W. Bush during the President's first gubernatorial campaign. Several weeks after being elected Governor, Bush asked Gonzales to join his administration as his General Counsel, where he served for 3 years. On December 2, 1997, Gonzales was appointed Texas' 100th Secretary of State, serving as chief elections officer, the State's leading liaison on Mexico and border issues, and senior adviser to the Governor. Gonzales was appointed to the Texas State Supreme Court in 1999, and was elected to a full 6-year term on the court in 2000 with 81 percent of the vote. In January of 2001, Alberto Gonzales again heeded President Bush's call to service and was commissioned as counsel to the President. This is an incredible journey from Humble, TX, to Ft. Yukon, AK, to the Air Force Academy in Colorado to the Ivy League. From private business and civil leadership in Texas to being recruited to serve in the administration of President Bush, Alberto Gonzales has led a life full of challenge, accomplishment, and great success. As if this weren't enough, Alberto Gonzales has given back to his community and his fellow Americans along the way. Alberto Gonzales was a trustee of the Texas Bar Foundation from 1996 to 1999, a director for the State Bar of Texas from 1991 to 1994, and President of the Houston Hispanic Bar Association from 1990 to 1991. He was a director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. Gonzales was Special Legal Counsel to the Houston Host Committee for the 1990 Summit of Industrialized Nations, and a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He served on the board of directors of Catholic Charities, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and the Houston Hispanic Forum. Judge Gonzales has been the fortunate recipient of many professional and civic honors, including his 2003 induction into the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Alumni Hall of Fame, and the Good Neighbor Award from the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce for his dedication and leadership in promoting a civil society and equal opportunity. Gonzales also received in 2003 the President's Awards from the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the League of United Latin American Citizens. In 2002, he was recognized as a Distinguished Alumnus of Rice University by the Association of Rice Alumni and was honored with the Harvard Law School Association Award. Gonzales was recognized as the 1999 Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association, and he received a Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. He was chosen as one of the Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994, and as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas by the Texas Young Lawyers Association in 1992. Gonzales was honored by the United Way in 1993 with a Commitment to Leadership Award, and received the Hispanic Salute Award in 1989 from the Houston Metro Ford Dealers for his work in the field of education. When I began my remarks I suggested that Alberto Gonzales was one of the most accomplished and qualified individuals ever to stand before this body for confirmation. In recent weeks this body, and particularly the Senate Judiciary Committee, has engaged in a rigorous, often exaggerated, examination of Judge Gonzales life, his work, and character. Like all things that take place inside the beltway, this examination has bordered on the dramatic, the overblown, and the overtly political. Most of the criticism Judge Gonzales has endured has not been related to his background, academic and professional accomplishment, or his competency to serve as this Nation's highest law enforcement official. Indeed, the criticism has focused on very recent American history. Judge Gonzales, like countless millions of Americans, was effectively called to service in a way previously unimagined when a small group of radical murderers attacked this Nation on September 11, 2001. September 11, 2001 was an act of war by a group of men who recognize no law and represent no nation. Terrorists who would attack innocent people around the world and Americans here at home sign no treaties, engage in no civil discourse, and disregard all bodies of democratic government. This is an ugly thing. These are difficult times. We are engaged in a war without borders against a foe that knows no bounds in its cruelty. Innocents killed for going to work on a sunny September morning, kidnap victims beheaded for publicity and fear, an entire civic system indicted for having the nerve to believe in the liberty of the individual. I find it hard to believe, but Judge Alberto Gonzales is being treated by some in this chamber as if he was somehow responsible for the senseless and violent acts of terrorists. More reasonable yet equally baseless are the criticisms that Judge Gonzales somehow supports the use of barbaric and medieval treatment of those apprehended by the United States and suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. A good example of the ludicrous criticisms of Judge Gonzales, and one my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn has rightly sighted in recent floor statements, is the flimsy assertion that Judge Gonzales in advising President Bush to deny prisoner of war status to al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists is somehow a violator of the human rights principles so essentially a part of the American ethic. In his role advising the President on legal matters in the war on terror Alberto Gonzales has never provided council regarding prisoners without insisting that their treatment be humane in all instances. According to the very Geneva Convention these critics pretend to defend, only lawful combatants are eligible for POW protections. Lawful combatants must pass the smell test. They must look like combatants. They do not hide their weapons or their affiliations. They wear uniforms and they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Civilians are to be treated as innocents. No stretching or distorting of this definition can turn terrorists in to lawful combatants. In their eagerness to demean Judge Gonzales his critics fail to acknowledge that neither al-Qaida nor the Taliban militia are legally entitled to the Convention's protections. They do not adhere to the required conditions of lawful combat and are not a party to the Geneva Convention. This is not some arbitrary and convenient conclusion. This is based in the very text and structure of the text, the history of the convention, and has been affirmed by several Federal courts across the country. And this is what they offer as evidence that Judge Gonzales is somehow unfit to serve as Attorney General? Judge Gonzales and President Bush have repeatedly affirmed their respect for the humane but aggressive prosecution of the war this country was dragged in to. Specific to the Geneva Convention Judge Gonzales testified, ``honoring the Geneva Conventions wherever they apply . . . I consider the Geneva Conventions neither obsolete or quaint.'' The administration has fully applied the Geneva Conventions' protections in Iraq because Iraq is a High Contracting Party to the Conventions. There was never any question about whether Geneva would apply in Iraq, Judge Gonzales testified recently, so there was no decision for the administration to make. Yet in committing to the legal study of engagement with the Taliban militia and al-Qaida fighters somehow Judge Gonzales is labeled as a radical and accused of maliciousness only fairly attributed to the enemies of America. But the truth is not enough when there are political axes to grind. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others have loudly asserted that the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib somehow represents U.S. and administration policy. Like everyone else in this Chamber I was startled by the photographs of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib, but again we see a logical failure in connecting this incident of abuse with any policy set by the Department of Justice, Judge Gonzales or the President. ``I have been deeply troubled and offended by reports of abuse,'' Judge Gonzales testified. ``The photos from Abu Ghraib sickened and outraged me, and left a stain on our Nation's reputation.'' Judge Gonzales testified at length on this matter and the administration has been nothing but clear that these isolated acts were those of a small group of misguided soldiers. These acts were wrong and completely inconsistent with the policies and values of this country. The Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations found that the abuses depicted in Abu Ghraib photographs were not part of authorized interrogations but a representation of deviant behavior and a failure of military leadership and discipline. And still the critics of Judge Gonzales demand he be linked to these roundly condemned and isolated acts. While I am proud to rise in support of Judge Gonzales, I am dismayed at the atmosphere in which this nomination has been made and received by the Senate. As millions of Americans know, in recent years we have witnessed a historical hijacking of the President's power to appoint judges. While controversy may not be new to the appointment process, the unprecedented filibuster of judges in this Chamber last year flies boldly in the face of both the Founders' intent expressed in Article II, Section II of the Constitution, as well as a distortion of the Senate's rich tradition of providing advise and consent without filibuster. In my opinion the tenor of this confirmation process reeks of last year's series of senseless cloture votes on nominees of high stature. Unfair and unsubstantiated claims have been made and half-truths and lies of omission have dominated the rhetoric of those opposing Judge Gonzales. I am not here today to impugn those who have contributed to this false advertising, though it is worth saying that the nature and intensity of these false arguments in light of this nominees extraordinary record and dedication may reveal more about the opponents than the nominee. Upon his confirmation Judge Gonzales will become the first Hispanic American to serve in this high post, yet another historic appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gonzales is a man of great character who has and will continue to serve this Nation with distinction. I urge my fellow Americans to look at Judge Gonzales's record and draw their own conclusions as to why some in this body find him to be so disagreeable to their aims. It is clear to me what has been happening here, just as it is clear to me that Judge Gonzales will be confirmed despite the overtly political and shallow opposition he faces. I am proud to rise in support of Judge Alberto Gonzales. His record of service is indicative of the character, integrity and energy he will bring to the demanding and thankless job of Attorney General. I look forward to working with Attorney General Gonzales, and I thank my colleagues for their time. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 2, 2005, at 4 p.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on training of Iraqi security forces.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 10 a.m. on the U.S. Tsunami Warning System and S. 50, Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a legislative hearing on S. 131, ``The Clear Skies Act of 2005''. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on the Long Term Outlook for Social Security.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session for its organizational meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 10 a.m., to consider the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., on ``Asbestos: The Mixed Dust and FELA Issues.'' The hearing will take place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, first of all, I thank the chairman and ranking member for moving forward with the confirmation of Jim Nicholson to be the new Secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I congratulate them both on assuming their responsibilities as chairman and ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of President Bush's nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Jim Nicholson. I have known and worked with Jim for years in the State of Colorado, and I am proud President Bush has nominated him for this post. As a West Point graduate, Army ranger, highly decorated combat veteran, and almost 4 years of service as the Ambassador to the Holy See, Mr. Nicholson is well prepared and highly qualified for the duties as the head of the VA. He brings a strong work ethic to his new responsibilities. Born during the Great Depression, as the third child of seven, Jim Nicholson grew up on a tenant farm in rural Iowa. Both he and his older brother Jack earned appointments to West Point while struggling as a farming family in the Midwest. Prior to Jim's appointment, his brother returned home from school for the summer, and his family could not find enough money to send Jim back to New York for the start of his new term. In order to solve this problem, a 15-year-old Jim Nicholson took it upon himself to find a job building railroads through his home State of Iowa. By working as long as 19 hours some days, Jim was able to not only earn enough money to send his brother back to West Point, but also was eventually able to buy his father a used car so he could look for work. These virtues that Jim displayed as a youth--work ethic, self- sacrifice, and determination--are the very qualities which will allow him to excel in the President's Cabinet. As a West Point graduate and decorated veteran, this former Army ranger also has the personal experience in the Armed Forces that will serve his new constituency well. During his service in the Army, Mr. Nicholson fought in the Vietnam war and was a highly decorated soldier. He was awarded the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantry Badge, a Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry, and two Air Medals while spending 8 years on Active Duty and 22 years in the Army Reserve before retiring as a colonel. Clearly, Senator Nicholson's qualifications after his Army career are just as impressive, including his advanced degrees, starting a successful real estate business, numerous community volunteer efforts throughout Colorado, and finally culminating in his service as an Ambassador to the Holy See. This is a man who has been asked to serve his country in a new capacity and who will answer that call with his own sense of duty and honor. I urge my colleagues to confirm Jim Nicholson as our next Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of considerable importance to the people of southern Colorado. For nearly 50 years, the people of southern Colorado have lived with the knowledge that within a few miles of their homes, schools, and places of business lies one of the largest stockpiles of chemical munitions in the world. The Pueblo Chemical Depot was built during World War II and continues to this day to serve as an ammunition and material storage facility. Since the mid-1990s, the primary mission of the depot has been to protect the 780,000 chemical weapons being stored there. As required by the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Department of Defense in 1997 launched an aggressive program to dismantle the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile. The program has since repeatedly stumbled and has not met the expectations of the international community, Congress and, most important, the people who live near these stockpiles. The costs of the program have risen from $15 billion in 1997 to $24 billion in 2001, an increase of $9 billion in 4 years. Some have estimated that the program will cost as much as $30 billion by the time it is completed. The time schedule has experienced unconscionable delays. Last year cleanup of Pueblo was expected to be completed by 2011. The Department's latest budget decision has pushed the date all the way back to 2021, 9 years after the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty deadline. Numerous safety incidents have occurred at operational sites, shutting down one facility for 9 months. Poor contracting has resulted in the shutting down of another facility, which is now costing the Federal Government $300,000 a day to keep operationally ready. It was hardly a surprise then when the President's own management assessment last year labeled this program as ineffective. On top of these numerous problems, the Department of Defense has failed to fully communicate its intentions to either Congress or the local community. Last week, for instance, Senator Salazar, my colleague from Colorado, and I met with two Department of Defense officials to discuss this program. At that meeting we requested that the Defense Department answer some questions and were promised a written response from Under Secretary of Defense Michael Wynne within 3 days. That meeting was held over a week ago, and we have yet to receive a response. At least we in Congress can get a meeting. Members of the local community in Pueblo, CO have been trying to get an official from the Defense Department to meet with them to discuss the Pentagon's plans for weeks. Despite the fact that the Defense Department is trying to unilaterally shut down the design work at Pueblo, the Pentagon has not taken the time to meet with the residents who, if the Pentagon gets its way, will be forced to live for another 15 years near an aging stockpile housing three-quarters of a million chemical weapons. The latest and most frustrating Pentagon effort in this program is to study once again the possibility of transporting the 2,600 tons of mustard gas across the State of Colorado to an incinerator site out of the State. Never mind that this option has been studied at least three times in the past decade, and never mind that current law prohibits the transport of chemical munitions across State lines, and never mind that transporting these weapons out of State would violate the agreement the Defense Department made with the people in Pueblo. This study is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I don't know how simpler we can make it. I have already been told by Pentagon officials that the study is going to conclude that the transportation of chemical munitions across State lines is not practical. If that is the case, why do the study? Why waste $150,000 to study the feasibility of an option that is against the law and has already been determined by the Pentagon to be impractical? With the Department wasting money on meaningless studies, it is no wonder that this program is over budget and behind schedule. I think it is time we took a stand against the Pentagon's wasteful actions. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that will stop this study and force the Department of Defense to recognize that the only option for destroying its chemical munitions is to build a disposal site in Pueblo. I am pleased to announce that my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ken Salazar, has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I wanted to mention, though, that Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Bunning, and Senator Shelby have also agreed to cosponsor. We should not forget that Senator McConnell in particular has been fighting the Department on this issue for over a decade. In many respects, Senator McConnell's hard work has paved the way for the legislation I am introducing today along with my colleague from the State of Colorado, Senator Salazar. I urge my other colleagues to join us in putting the Department on notice that this kind of wasteful, meaningless effort will not be tolerated. I believe it is time the Pentagon took a good look at its chemical demilitarization program. Our country cannot afford to throw away our scarce defense dollars into a program that continues to be so incredibly mismanaged. Nor should our Nation's diplomats be put in the position of having to explain why we can't meet our treaty obligations to the likes of China, Iran, or France. Most importantly, we cannot forget the thousands of innocent Americans who continue to live near these sites. They bear the burden of the Pentagon's mismanagement. It is not fair to them when all they have asked for is that these munitions be cleaned up in a manner that is safe and does not harm the environment.