Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I rise today to offer a few words for a friend of mine and a friend of the State of Colorado, Mr. Hal Shroyer. Mr. Shroyer has selflessly served, and continues to serve, both the Nation and Colorado. He has always fought for what is right and just, a warrior in both military and civilian life. Prior to the United States entering World War II, barely 20 years old, Hal Shroyer joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and flew bombing missions over Europe. When the United States entered the war, Hal joined the U.S. Army Air Corps where he piloted bombing missions across the English Channel into occupied lands. While serving in the Army Air Corps Hal met and married his wife Maxine, joining her in a loving union that lasted for more than 50 years. Around 1953 Hal and Maxine moved to Colorado where, day after day, year after year, Hal has given generously of his time and energy to his fellow Coloradans. Among Hal Shroyer's many professional and civic accomplishments stand a few I would mention today. Hal was instrumental in the addition of photographs to Colorado driver's licenses, helping to make the State the second in the Nation to include a picture. More recently Hal Shroyer led the fight for a motor voter program, allowing for voters to register to vote at their local Department of Motor Vehicles. Each of these programs represent the norm today across the United States. Hal Shroyer's tireless dedication to the betterment of Colorado cannot be simply summed up by these examples, but I am pleased to offer them as illustrations of this man's tremendous contributions. As a young man in Indiana Hal Shroyer tried out for his local track team. The track coach told Hal he would never make the team because he walked like a duck. Needless to say Hal made the track team and he has been a dynamo ever since. As Hal Turns 83 years old in the coming days I send him my thanks for his lifetime of service and wishes for joy in the years to come.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, it has been brought to my attention that the Department of Agriculture has put for comment their rules and regulations on animal identification, in particular beef. It is not unusual that by the time Federal agencies in today's environment get around to issuing their rules and regulations, or by the time Congress passes legislation, our technology has moved so quickly that those provisions become outdated. I am concerned this could be happening with the Department of Agriculture promulgating rules on the radio frequency identification, RFID, tag in United States animal identification. It has an internal code structure that identifies a specific bovine, but if something happens to the tag, there is no way of re-establishing the animal's identification. That is, there is no way of re-establishing the animal's identification unless another form of permanent identification is obtained. That is why it is so important to discuss the use of biometrics in animal verification, and more specifically, to fully explore the use of retinal scanning for identification purposes. It is my understanding that the rules and regulations may exclude the use of retinal scanning because the rules that the USDA is considering do not address or allow the use of a ``secure permanent identifier,'' or at the least, they could be interpreted to discourage its use. I have personally viewed such retinal scanning technology and believe that it can be a practical way to identify individual animals, or lots of animals, and that this technology should not be put at a disadvantage because of a policy position by the Department of Agriculture. With the December 23 discovery of a cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, the United States faced a real-life test of our animal identification and tracking system. Identification of livestock is very advanced in the United States, but even with our system, it took days to track that BSE-infected cow to Canada. As part of our efforts to confront, control and eliminate the risk of BSE and to address future animal health emergencies, we should consider putting into place systems that can easily and rapidly identify an animal and tell us where it has been. It must be able to tell us what animals it has been in contact with and where those contacts are now. The system should do this rapidly, securely and without error. I commend the efforts of the USDA and industry who have been working together for some time to design a national animal identification plan. During the intervening period, new technologies have continued to emerge. As the USDA looks at implementing a national animal identification plan, it is important that we utilize the best of today's technologies. For instance, a primary objective of this plan, as proposed, is to trace any animal within 48 hours. With the technology available to us in this country, we can be looking at systems that can locate animals in minutes--not hours--with great accuracy. To assure the American public and our export customers that we have not lost track of any animals, the U.S. animal identification plan should allow use of a secure, tamper-resistant image of the animal's retinal vascular pattern that is more unique than a human fingerprint. Retinal scanning identifies the animal, not the identifier. The majority of the other animal identification systems work on the basis of adding an identifier to the animal, such as a visual or electronic marker or tag and then recording that identifier. Identifiers like this can be lost or changed and are not secure. Some estimates put livestock tag loss in the range of 5 to 8 percent--an unacceptable scenario when considering the ramifications that this could mean to the beef industry. I hope that the national animal identification plan does not preclude the use of new technologies introduced since the plan's inception, especially when these technologies exceed the proposed plan's performance objectives. Several U.S. companies are not waiting for the USDA, but are rapidly installing retinal imaging technology in their own plans to significantly improve their ability to track livestock. These companies should not be forced to also adopt a poorer performing technology because the plan mandates a certain, specific technology. It is critical that the plan's systems be audited for performance and reliability to verify that they are actually working. We must be able to measure and document how many animals are misidentified or lost. Since retinal scanning technology uses secure, tamper-resistant, retinal patterns, it is currently the only available method against which to verify the performance of any tag-based system. We should be using the most current technology available--the Global Positioning System, GPS. By linking the Global Positioning System to a secure identifier such as a retinal scan, the time, date, and location of the animal can be captured when the eye is scanned, proving beyond a doubt that ``this animal was at this place at this time.'' Furthermore, the use of GPS coordinates provides USDA with the means to audit and verify the accuracy of any identification numbering system. The United States has the most competitive livestock sector in the world. But we are at risk of falling behind countries in Europe, South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, nations that are all exploring more modern technologies for identifying and tracking livestock. Not only can the U.S. take a leadership role in this area, we can take identification and traceability ``off the table'' as a possible trade barrier by introducing technologies that leapfrog existing country requirements. I would like to close by reminding my colleagues that it is only when you combine identity with location that you get traceability. And in order to build a secure, tamper-resistant system to trace livestock, you must begin with a secure, tamper-resistant identifier. I believe we have the technology to do this in a practical, economically feasible way that will allow United States producers to meet the concerns expressed by our trading partners when managing diseases like mad cow disease. I believe retinal scanning combined with the GPS system can be the most practical option if the policy of this country is to require an identification system of each animal or even for tracing batches of live animals because it is technology that can be easily used in the field and is very accurate, reliable, and precise.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation that would amend the United States Constitution identifying and reaffirming the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The language I submit today is brief and simple: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. This language is simple, direct and to the point. This union is sacred and must remain so. This resolution is a starting point for a more comprehensive discussion. I look forward to having an involved, informed debate with the other members of this chamber. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Jeff Sessions who are original cosponsors of this Resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this Resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation that would amend the United States Constitution identifying and reaffirming the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The language I submit today is brief and simple: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. This language is simple, direct and to the point. This union is sacred and must remain so. This resolution is a starting point for a more comprehensive discussion. I look forward to having an involved, informed debate with the other members of this chamber. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Jeff Sessions who are original cosponsors of this Resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this Resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding the balance of his time. Mr. President, first I want to compliment Majority Leader Bill Frist, from Tennessee; Chairman of the Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley; and the Conference Committee on working diligently and in good faith toward a workable prescription drug program for elderly citizens. Some have come to this floor and proclaimed it is about politics. I couldn't disagree more. President George Bush, Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Chairman Grassley have not only talked about the need for a prescription drug program but have worked hard for several years toward a workable program. It is the Democrats who have demagoged this issue. We just have to look at last year when the prescription bill was brought to the floor by the Democrat majority leader, without having it debated and reported out of committee. I believe that it was their hope that they could embarrass Republicans in an election year. Instead, it only helped point to the failures of a Democrat-led Senate that couldn't even pass a budget because they did not want to deal with the tough votes they would have to face on this floor. I believe this Republican-led Senate is wrapping up one of the most successful sessions since 1994. There have been long hours and a lot of hard work that has paid off, despite filibusters on judges and attempts to slow down and kill many provisions, such as the budget. But Republicans passed a budget. Republicans are still working hard to pass an energy bill that was blocked through the efforts of key Democrats, and the Republicans are now working hard to pass a description drug benefit that is facing a possible filibuster on the Senate floor by the Democrats. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that we have had to face all this obstruction on the floor, despite the concerted effort to work responsibly and respectively through the Senate committee system, then bringing the prescription drug bill to the floor and passing it. Now, here we are again, facing a threatened filibuster by the Democrats. Mr. President, we need to have an up or down vote on this conference report. Again, I know that the conferees worked hard in a bipartisan way. I plan on voting for cloture because I want to see the conference report on Medicare voted on the floor of the Senate. I have stated that I am undecided on final passage. That is because, as a general rule, in the process of negotiations, legislation doesn't get less expensive, it gets more expensive through spending to attract more support and votes. I hope to act as a counterbalance with the clear message that, if spending gets out of hand, I will not vote for the bill. I am not happy with creating a new program that could lead to a monstrous program in the future. That is why I opposed the bill as it left the Senate, because it was not limited to just the most needy and I felt it broke the budget. It was later proved that I was right in the assessment that it would break the budget, and with more accurate budget figures the conference committee set to work to reduce the scope of the program to keep it below $400 billion for 10 years and within the parameters of the budget. This, in effect, forced the conference committee to means test the program and keep certain provisions that would hold the user accountable by forcing that patient to participate with a deductible and the so called ``donut hole.'' In my view, it is very difficult to have a third party pay system and yet maintain accountability. Users feel that they have already paid for the system and are going to utilize it to its maximum to get their just return, and providers feel that it has already been paid for and creates no particular hardship on the individual so they charge with little restraint the third party. So utilization is regulated. And we end up with regulations like we have now in the current Medicare system, which prevents a patient from paying for their own medical care if they want, and it prevents the physician from receiving cash outside the system that could reduce the burden on taxpayers. It ends up creating a system where the close patient-doctor relationship is disrupted to where the patient can't use whomever they desire to care for their medical needs. So what we have today is a Medicare system that is not actuarially sound and, if not reformed, will lead to much higher payroll taxes and huge demands on the general budget. That is why I was pleased to see some reform proposals on medicare emerge from the conference committee, such as health saving accounts. When I served in the Colorado State Senate, I sponsored, with State Representative Phil Pankey, a bill to put in place an individual medical saving account; and Colorado became the first State to have such a program. Unfortunately, in an effort to pass the bill, we allowed the program to become so limited that the risk pool became too small to function as insurance against future liabilities. Consequently, when Colorado moved to a modified flat tax, this program became a victim of tax reform. This Congress puts forth a health savings account that will work. Individuals can put in $5,000 a year or a family can put up to $10,000 per year and save on their taxes. The income builds up within the health savings fund without tax liability and, finally, can be pulled out to pay for the family medical needs without paying additional taxes. This is wonderful reform because it reestablishes the doctor-patient relationship and makes individuals responsible for their own health care with much fewer regulations, and it brings common sense to the decisionmaking process. It builds upon previously enacted medical savings accounts that have been limited to small business and the self- employed by Congress. One other attractive feature in this bill is that the elderly are not forced to participate. It is voluntary. It also tries to prevent large businesses and local governments from dumping their current prescription programs into the Federal system to save themselves future liabilities and further burden the Federal prescription drug program. The other side has repeatedly made the claim that this bill is full of giveaways to Republican contributors. This is simply not true. That is simply more absurd ``medi-scare'' tactics by the opponents of a bipartisan drug benefit for our Nation's seniors and the disabled. The argument I find most amusing is the claim that this bill will lead to increased drug company profits. The reason this bill is so desperately needed is because our Nation's seniors and the disabled, particularly those with low incomes, are unable to afford their prescriptions today. Let me stress that again. The reason this bill is so desperately needed is that our Nation's seniors and the disabled, particularly those with lower income, are unable--unable--to afford their prescriptions today. Today they are forced to choose between food and rent and taking their medicine. We have all heard the stories of seniors cutting their pills in half to get by and in so doing taking a lower dose than their doctor prescribed. When this Medicare prescription drug benefit goes into effect, they will be able to get their prescriptions filled. Of course, this is going to lead to increased drug sales. Surely, this is no surprise to anyone. With new technologies and new medications, invasive procedures become less likely. Any prescription drug bill that works is going to lead to increased drug sales. That is just common sense. Where are the medicines supposed to come from except the manufacturers of those medicines? Every single medical prescription drug bill introduced by these naysayers would also increase drug sales and the bipartisan conference report has the same basic drug benefit structure that passed the Senate by a vote of 76 to 21. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the competitive approach in this bipartisan drug benefit will do better at controlling drug costs than other proposals. To suggest that no one should support a Medicare drug benefit because it will lead to increased drug sales turns logic on its head. If this were our basic principle, then we should not have food stamps because this will lead to increased profits by grocery stores and farmers. How about housing subsidies? This might lead to profits by construction companies and utility companies and increased sales of lumber, bricks, and nails. This is just an absurd issue, and it is easy to see why. I am here to tell you that this bill will strengthen and improve the Medicare Program. The spending on this bipartisan prescription drug bill goes to better benefits for America's seniors and the disabled. As I draw to a conclusion, unfortunately, those who want universal health care and the big Government solution to drugs, making people more vulnerable to Government control, are vehemently opposed to this conference report. The conference report lays out a plan for Medicare reform and a way to help the most needy. It is a balance that does not come easily and not without a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle. We should at least have a vote on the bill. It is time to put partisan obstruction aside and think about what is good for America. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting yes on cloture to stop the filibuster and to help hold down costs to within the budget limits. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I have a question I would like to ask of Senator Dorgan, if I might.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the fine Senator from Utah.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the fine Senator from Utah for yielding. Many papers in the State of Colorado have expressed a concern that we are not voting on judicial nominees, along with many papers throughout the country. I have three papers that expressed a view. I would like to have the chairman respond to the comments made in these three papers. Many people throughout Colorado wonder what the impact might be on having a filibuster and how that will affect the Federal judiciary. Many of them live in the great city of Pueblo. In fact, the Pueblo Chieftain observed, ``some liberals are trying to create a second legislative body,'' referring to the judiciary, ``that will pass measures which they cannot get passed because they're often opposed by a majority of Americans.'' The paper fears this will lead to ``a serious erosion of the separation of powers.'' Does the Senator from Utah share those concerns?

Mr. ALLARD. That is correct. I thank the chairman for responding to those comments made in those three major papers in the State of Colorado. We do need to move on for a vote. They express the view of many in Colorado. I thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to ask the question.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ALLARD. I wonder if the Senator from Washington would yield for a question and we would divide the time against each of us; time would go against her in responding to the question and my asking the question would go against the Republicans.

Mr. ALLARD. That was just a suggestion, but obviously she does not want to respond to the question. Mr. President, today my colleagues and I are trying to put an end to the nomination logjam. All we are asking is for a simple up-or-down vote on these highly qualified nominees now. Carolyn Kuhl, Priscilla Owen, and Charles Pickering must receive a vote. Today, our Nation is facing a judicial crisis. Currently, there are 22 emergency judicial vacancies and 12 of these are on the court of appeals. It is simply irresponsible for us to ignore this growing crisis. Sticking our heads in the sand like an ostrich and ignoring it, as some of my colleagues would like us to do, will not diminish the seriousness of this crisis and make it go away. I have an article from the Washington Post written by George F. Will on February 28, 2003, entitled ``Coup Against the Constitution.'' I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Now some of my colleagues have proudly said they have acted on 98 percent of the judicial nominations sent to the Senate for confirmation. I would just simply like to point out that if we would only accept a 98 percent success rate, say, on flight safety, there would be 1,740 flights a day that would not land safely. Five hundred major organ transplants would be performed incorrectly and more than 4 billion letters would be mishandled by the U.S. Postal Service this year. Ninety-eight percent, when we are talking about district as well as circuit court, simply is not good enough. On a personal note, I ask my colleagues, what would they want from their veterinarian performing a 98 percent success rate on their pet? My colleague is a veterinarian from Nevada. I am a veterinarian. That would not be acceptable to my colleagues. At that particular rate, I do not think we would be in business very long. Some in this body may believe 98 percent is good enough, but clearly it is not good enough. I point out one example of the new judicial nomination double standard in the Senate that resulted in an outstanding nominee, Miguel Estrada, not being given a fair up-or-down vote. In March of 1995, President Clinton nominated Carlos Lucero to be the first Hispanic judge to be on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Carlos Lucero was a Coloradan, the State I represent. After only 3 months, Mr. Lucero was nominated, confirmed, and was seated on the bench of the Tenth Circuit. Prior to his confirmation, Mr. Lucero had no judicial experience yet enjoyed a well qualified rating from the American Bar Association. Miguel Estrada was considered well qualified. He was to be the first Hispanic ever to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Court. He argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, was a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy, and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Let us compare Carlos Lucero's nomination to Miguel Estrada's nomination. President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to be the first Hispanic judge to be on the District Circuit Court of Appeals in May of 2001. He received a highly qualified rating from the American Bar Association, yet he waited more than a year for a hearing. After waiting for more than 2 years for a vote, he finally asked that his name be withdrawn. The point I am making is, how can we expect well qualified judges to be willing to serve on the Federal court if they have to go through a 2- year process and they have to put their careers on hold at the time? Now tell me that this is not a double standard. Tell me that in a case where there are two nominees equally qualified, with the same rating by the ABA, there was not a double standard being imposed by Democrats on Miguel Estrada. This double standard has been recognized in my home State of Colorado. On a chart beside me, I have two editorials, one from the Denver Post, a newspaper that endorsed Al Gore for President, and the other from the Rocky Mountain News. The Denver Post said: The key point-- Talking about Miguel Estrada-- is that there should be a vote. . . . A filibuster should play no part in the process. The Rocky Mountain News says: The Democrats have no excuse. . . . Keeping others from voting their consciences on this particular matter is simply out of line. I also have an editorial from the Chicago Tribune entitled ``Squandering Miguel Estrada,'' on September 7, 2004. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to vote on these four highly qualified nominees. I now yield to the esteemed Senator from Idaho to make a few comments.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALLARD. I am happy to extend an additional 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will wrap things up on our side. Before I do that, there are a couple of questions I would like to pose to my colleagues who are now in the Senate. I understand they are going to take some time to speak on their side of the aisle. First, I pose a question to Senator Dorgan, who is the Senator from North Dakota. Senator Dorgan stated there would be no foot dragging on President Bush's nominees.

Mr. ALLARD. I am speaking under my own time.

Mr. ALLARD. That is, he quoted that we are moving expeditiously on the President's nominees, refusing to return in kind the foot dragging delay of so many of President Clinton's nominees. I ask him to respond to that question under his own time. I also have a question to pose to the Senator from Iowa and give him an opportunity to respond on his own time. That question is, What has happened to change your view, when he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome? I quote: If you want to vote against them, let them vote against us. That is their prerogative. But at least have a vote. This was made September 14, 2000. I ask both Members to respond to those statements. I ask them what has changed since those comments were made. When they get their time, they can respond to those questions. Let me wrap this up. I had a press conference this morning at 3:30, maybe 4 a.m., with the small business interests of this country. The point was made that delay in the judicial process is a problem for small business. How the courts function does have an impact on our economy. Lawsuits have an impact on our economy and how rapidly the courts respond. We have a crisis in the circuit courts, the courts of appeal. We need to fill the vacancies so cases that go before the circuit courts such as civil rights cases dealing with racial discrimination, sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, and the Americans With Disabilities Act can be handled in an expeditious way. These are cases impacting small businessmen in this country. We need to have our commercial disputes resolved in the circuit courts. There are contract disputes, insurance coverage disputes and trademark infringement issues in those courts. There are a lot of regulatory cases, for example, in the DC Courts, on environment, health, and safety standards, labor court enforcement, challenges to the Federal rules. In the DC Court, the crisis we have on the DC Circuit Court is especially important as it applied to the small business community in this country. We do have a crisis. We have a crisis in the DC Circuit Court, which is 25 percent slower than 2001, another 58,000 days more than 2001, a crisis in the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth, and the Fifth Circuit. The point is we need to get these nominees to the circuit courts passed through the Senate. It is unprecedented. Never in the history of the Senate have we not moved forward on judicial nominees when we had the majority of the Senators supporting that nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated, and the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ALLARD. Then I object to his request.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. I will make it short. The question I have for the Senator from Iowa, my good friend--and we have worked together on many issues-- is, Will you now support the Frist-Miller proposal? It is a bipartisan proposal, a step in the direction that you proposed several years back.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?