Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. I am a veterinarian by profession, and we have a code of ethics in our profession. I understand we are expected to abide by the code of ethics, and I understand the American Bar Association has a code of ethics for judges. My understanding is the code of ethics says you will not take a position, when you are in the process of seeking a position on the bench, that might prejudice your ability to decide a case. Every one of these individuals up for consideration is highly respected by their peers. I suspect it is because they are honorable and they live by the code of ethics. I am disturbed by the specific questions that come from members of the committee when, in my view, it makes it difficult for the nominee to answer those questions because it would make it difficult for them to be objective in the way they look at a case that comes before them. I wonder if you would share with me about the code of ethics and the question on how is that practical, and do you have any reason to believe these are horrible individuals who would not measure up to the highest standards of the court, based on their peers who recommended them as highly well qualified?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for responding to my question. I have one other followup question. You mentioned jobs and it seems to me we have an efficiently operating judiciary. We don't have a lot of lawsuits that help the economy. That means we need to move out of filibuster and get these nominees voted up or down and get them on the bench, particularly in the circuit courts where we have a lot of pending cases. One of the best things I think we can do is to get these nominees on the bench and fulfilling their duties. Do you agree?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Delaware has a comment. He is trying to catch a train this evening and wants to take 1 or 2 minutes to comment. I ask unanimous consent that we let him speak, if it is OK with the chairman.

Mr. ALLARD. I would be glad to yield for 15 seconds.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank the Chair and note in a public way that it is an honor and privilege to serve with the Chair on the Armed Services Committee. I think it is entirely appropriate that the Chair is having an opportunity to preside in the Senate at the time when we have this important legislation affecting the armed services personnel. The Chair is a hard worker on the Armed Services Committee. I rise to discuss the conference report for fiscal year 2004, the Department of Defense authorization bill. Before I discuss those provisions that I think deserve this body's attention, I believe it is important to note how difficult this particular conference was. In fact, it is only because of the patience and perseverance exhibited by the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia that we even have an authorization bill. Senator Warner has worked tirelessly over the last 4 months to come up with a compromise bill that this body could approve. He acted with integrity and poise despite the difficulties. I commend him for his efforts and thank him for his commitment to the Armed Services Committee and to our men and women in uniform. I believe it is appropriate for this body to consider this important legislation today. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have kept this country free and preserved the peace are owed a debt of gratitude by all others who have the privilege of living in America. We in America are blessed with freedoms unattainable in any other countries, rights inconceivable elsewhere, and liberties guaranteed by our way of life. Our grandfathers fought in World War I hoping their sons would never have to. Our fathers again fought in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam keeping the same hope alive. We have recently fought in Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now again in Iraq. We hope that as we battle the war against terrorism, we can see the end of war as we know it and never have to send our sons and daughters into harm's way again. Until that time, though, the least we can do to respect their service is honor them on Veterans Day. The least the Senate can do is approve this legislation which will do much to ensure our men and women in uniform are well equipped, well trained, and well provided for. The conference report before us authorizes $401 billion for the Department of Defense and Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs. It also authorizes multiyear incremental procurement funding for the Air Force's planned acquisition of 100 tanker aircraft, which I will discuss in greater detail momentarily. The first priority of this bill is to address many of the quality-of- life issues facing our troops today. It includes an average 4.1 percent pay increase and provides higher targeted raises for midcareer service members. The agreement also expands the benefits provided for disabled military retirees. Veterans who are more than 50 percent disabled or receive their disability during combat operations will now be able to currently receive retirement pay and disability compensation. On top of this, the bill authorizes certain special imminent danger and separation pay through next year. I support these benefits and believe they will greatly assist those who are courageously serving our country. Now I will turn to provisions in this bill relating to our country's military service academies. Since last January, I have been heavily involved in addressing the allegations of sexual assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy. This fine institution, which has produced thousands of outstanding Air Force officers, has been seemingly besieged by a culture of indifference. Over the last 10 years, dozens of female cadets have been sexually assaulted but only a few have reported the crime and even fewer have received the kind of support and assistance needed to overcome such a traumatic experience. In fact, some victims said they were punished for reporting a sexual assault and many feared they would be punished if they did report the crime. Nearly 65 female cadets came to my office and met with me and my staff. I cannot express enough my admiration for their willingness to tell their stories and for their determination to change the climate at the academy. I have also been very pleased by the Air Force's response to these allegations. Immediately after I notified the Air Force, Secretary Roche and General Jumper ordered a comprehensive investigation. This investigation discovered a systemic lack of coordination of activities and information, inadequate command involvement, considerable cadet reluctance to report sexual assaults, and failed gender climate surveys. The investigation led to the Air Force's agenda for change, new leadership at the academy, and a renewed emphasis on sexual assault prevention and response. Earlier in the year, Congress also created an independent panel to look into these allegations. That panel, headed by former Congresswoman Tillie Fowler, found that Air Force headquarters needed to better oversee the activities of the academy, that the board of visitors needed to be more involved, and that the Department of Defense inspector general's office should fully investigate the role former academy and Air Force headquarters officials played in creating the climate that permitted these assaults. Both the Air Force's investigation and the Fowler Commission recommended a number of important legislative changes. I am pleased many of these changes have been incorporated in the legislation before us. For example, each service Secretary must now prescribe a policy on sexual assault that promotes awareness of the crime, informs cadets of procedures for reporting, and describes procedures for disciplinary action. Perhaps more importantly, each service is now required to conduct an annual assessment on the effectiveness of the school's sexual assault program. These assessments will help academy and headquarters leaders, as well as the Board of Visitors of each academy, in their effort to measure whether these programs are working. The bill also includes a requirement for an Air Force study on the permanent professors and gives the Air force the authority to appoint a dean from an expanded pool of candidates. I would like to take a moment to thank the chairman, Senator Warner, for his assistance in addressing these problems. From the beginning, Senator Warner worked with me to encourage the Air Force to appropriately respond to these allegations. His interest and dedication to fixing this problem were instrumental and invaluable. I have deeply appreciated his counsel and his willingness to devote the Committee's time to this issue. As chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces with oversight over national security space, strategic weapons, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons, I would like to take some time to discuss some important provisions in this conference report relating to these issues. Before I do so, though, let me first thank Senator Bill Nelson, the ranking member for the strategic forces subcommittee, for working so closely with me throughout the year. While we did not agree on every provision, his assistance and contribution helped make this a better bill. Let me now address several specific provisions. With regard to enhancing U.S. national security space capabilities, the conference report establishes a policy that states that the Nation will have an assured space launch capability, promotes the development of an effective space cadre, and authorizes additional funds for space control initiatives. With regard to protecting our country from a ballistic missile attack, the conference report authorizes $9.1 billion for ballistic missile defense research, development, and procurement. Specifically, the report authorized an additional $100 million for ground-based mid- course system and $90 million for the PAC-3 Patriot terminal missile defense system. With regard to improving the Department of Defense intelligence gathering capability, the conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to establish an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance council to develop a roadmap to fully integrate the ISR efforts of the military services. The report also prohibits the National Imagery and Mapping Agency from spending more than 10 percent of its commercial space imagery budget on other important but unrelated projects. Lastly, the conference report includes a number of provisions that will greatly improve our ability to deter a possible nuclear attack. One provision repeals the ban on research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons. Another requires the Secretary of Energy to achieve and maintain the ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within 18 months. Finally, the report authorizes $21 million for advance concept initiatives, of which $15 million is directed toward continuing a study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator. I again wish to commend Senator Warner, his staff director Judy Ansley, and the rest of his staff for their outstanding work on this conference report. I understand that this was one of the most difficult conferences in which Senator Warner has ever had to participate. I was particularly impressed by the way he addressed the Air Force's proposed lease of 100 tanker aircraft. Like many other Members, I was greatly troubled by the budget implications of this lease. Senator Warner's compromise agreement will get the Air Force the tankers it needs while saving the American taxpayer nearly $4.0 billion. I supported the compromise and see it as another example of Senator Warner's determination to do what is best for our men and women in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chairman. It has been a delight working with him.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I would like to have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. ALLARD. I appreciate that.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important program that significantly assists our men and women who are fighting abroad. The war on terrorism is being fought on may fronts and around the world. Today, there are more than 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many more around the world. Many of these troops served in Afghanistan only to be almost immediately redeployed to fight in Iraq. These extended deployments have been trying for those left behind, But they have stepped up and met the challenge. They have answered the Nation's call with enthusiasm and dedication. In Colorado, the large deployment from Ft. Carson has shown just how difficult it can be for many military families when our troops must be sent abroad. While the military is dedicated to taking care of its own, the current situation abroad means needs of the family will only continue to escalate. To address this, the four relief agencies representing the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force recently combined into one umbrella relief organization in order to better provide assistance. The National Association of Broadcasters and its 1,000 television station and 6,000 radio station members recently produced and disturbed Public Service Announcements that encourage viewers and listeners to contribute to the Armed Forces Relief Trust. Broadcasters have a long history of involvement in this country's national security. I commend them for dedicating airtime to this worthwhile cause. Last year, together, the four relief agencies distributed $109 million to military families in need. I am confident that by streamlining operations into one entity and with help from local broadcast stations to get the word out, the Armed Forces Relief Trust will be able to assist even more military families. We are counting on our brave young men and women in the field. They are relying on the Armed Forces Relief Trust, and the trust is counting on local broadcast stations. Local radio and television stations are performing an invaluable public service through this program, and I salute them. Since today is Veterans Day, I also salute those who have already experienced the hardships of war much like those currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe the most important thing we can do for our veterans is say thank you for their service and sacrifice to our country.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes. I understand we have a lull on the Internet tax bill.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Senator Kohl, is it your intention as well that this funding would be used specifically to improve enforcement of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act?

Mr. ALLARD. I'm grateful to both of you for your help and leadership on this issue.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your help addressing a long- standing concern of mine--the need for greater enforcement by USDA of the Federal law regarding animal fighting. Earlier this year, I and many of our colleagues--a bipartisan group of 38 other Senators-- requested $800,000 to enable USDA's Office of Inspector General to focus on strengthening enforcement of the Federal animal fighting law. I am grateful that you were able, in the committee report, to include this $800,000 for the OIG to improve enforcement in this area. However, I did want to ask the chairman for a bit of clarification on this item, as it was included in the committee report. I noted that the report provides ``an increase of $800,000 for OIG to address violations of the Animal Welfare Act and to coordinate with State and local law enforcement personnel in this effort.'' Would the chairman be willing to clarify that this funding would be used specifically to improve enforcement of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, which deals exclusively with animal fighting, rather than having these funds used to enforce the entire Animal Welfare Act? This clarification could be finalized in conference.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Yes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee and the ranking member for giving me the opportunity to speak on the bill. To accommodate them, if individuals come to the floor willing to offer an amendment, signal me and I will clear the floor and give them an opportunity to offer their amendment. I agree with their goal of getting us out of here quickly and getting the work done. If someone has an amendment, I do not want to hold up the process. I rise in support of S. 1753, commonly referred to as the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. I was pleased to support the bill as a member of the Banking Committee, and I am sure it will receive strong support on the Senate floor as well. I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and his staff for their hard work. This is a balanced, sensible bill and clearly a product of their willingness to listen to all interested parties. Chairman Shelby compiled an extensive hearing record and provided a comprehensive foundation for crafting this legislation. He crafted a bill that provides a balanced approach to the concerns expressed during the hearings and provides significant improvement, I believe, to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I thank him for working so closely with committee members to ensure that our concerns were addressed in this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, and his staff. As I mentioned, this bill received strong bipartisan support in committee, and this is certainly due in part to the diligence of Senator Sarbanes. His effort and his support have made this a stronger and better bill. Reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is vital to the functioning of our Nation's credit markets. I think that goes without saying. Without the FCRA, credit would cost more or, in many cases, simply would not be available to consumers. S. 1753 ensures that the markets will continue functioning smoothly by permanently reauthorizing the Fair Credit Reporting Act. As a former State legislator and a strong champion of States rights, I do not take Federal preemption lightly. In fact, I have a very high threshold for Federal preemption. I believe, though, that FCRA meets the necessary standard. The credit markets truly are national, and a patchwork approach to credit reporting will quickly disintegrate the necessary comprehensive approach we need. When it comes to credit reports, accuracy is in the best interests of both industry and consumers. I believe this bill will help improve accuracy in credit reports. Consumers will have increased access to their credit information and increased tools to combat identity theft. The framework provided in the bill provides sufficient flexibility for the act to adapt with time and changes in technology. I am especially pleased that S. 1753 includes a bill I have worked on with Senator Schumer referred to as the Consumer Credit Score Disclosure Act of 2003. This provision would allow consumers applying for a mortgage to receive a copy of their credit score. Credit scores are increasingly being used in deciding whether to extend credit. Yet consumers do not always have access to this information. What I found out about credit scores and heard in reports back from my constituents about things that affect their credit was that few of them realize that the number of times you apply for a credit card, for example, could impact your credit. It does when you look at the credit score. I always figure as long as you paid your bills on time or your credit cards on time and the more credit cards you had and paid them on time, it just showed what a better job you were doing in managing your finances and would actually enhance your ability to get loans. That is not true. If you got carried away and decided to apply for every credit card you received in the mail, you could actually adversely impact your credit rating, particularly as it applies through the credit score. This provision contained in S. 1753 would ensure that consumers would receive the critical information when applying for a mortgage, which is generally the largest purchase a person will make during their lifetime. In addition to their actual numerical score, the consumer will be entitled to receive information concerning the factors that helped determine their score, as well as ways in which they can improve their score. This provision will empower consumers to shop around and help prevent them from becoming victims of predatory lending. I believe expanding access to credit scores is an important victory for consumers, and I am pleased it has been included in the bill we are considering today. I am hopeful this will be the first step toward giving consumers even broader access to credit scores. As chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, I would also like to make a few comments on the impact, the importance of the Fair Credit Reporting Act as part of the home buying process. Because FCRA gives lenders access to more accurate and more complete credit information, they are able to more accurately price risk. This is important because for most people, a home is the largest purchase they will make. The ability to accurately price the risk as reflected in mortgage rates can make the difference of thousands and thousands of dollars over the life of the mortgage. The availability of credit information stemming from the FCRA has reduced the cost of home ownership for many and opened up previously unavailable opportunities to others. In fact, home ownership rates are currently at record highs. Permanent reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act will help us continue on that path. This is especially important as we work to expand the minority home ownership rates as minorities are disproportionately impacted when credit becomes less available. The Fair Credit Reporting Act has been beneficial to consumers, and the improvements contained in S. 1753 will extend those benefits. I am pleased to add my voice to those in support of the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, hospitals in the United States have enormous responsibility. The Nation's hospitals care for patients, perform surgeries, train interns, research cures to diseases, and provide millions of dollars annually for the uninsured. Their services improve Americans' health and lives and better our communities. I laud their service to Colorado and the Nation. Recently Solucient, a company that provides health care data to improve health care results, published its list of the Nation's 100 top hospitals. Four of Solucient's designees are Colorado hospitals: Saint Joseph Hospital in Denver, Rose Medical Center in Denver, Swedish Medical Center in Englewood, and Lutheran Medical Center in Wheat Ridge. Solucient determines its selection of top hospitals according to hospitals' consistent and superior quality care, financial performance, and efficient delivery of care. According to Solucient, the Top 100 hospitals treat more, and sicker, patients with better survival rates and fewer complications. I am pleased to acknowledge Solucient's selection of Colorado hospitals for its quality service, dedication, and commitment to providing quality health care for Colorado, the Nation, and the world. First, Solucient has recognized Saint Joe's Hospital in Denver in its studies of orthopedic and intensive care units. According to the hospital, Saint Joe delivers more babies than any other Colorado hospital, serves more patients in gastroenterology, general surgery, pulmonology, cardiac care, nephrology and rheumatology than any other acute care hospital in the Denver metropolitan area, and for the past 5 years the hospital has cared for more cardiology and open heart surgery patients than any other acute care hospital in the metro area. Second, Exempla Lutheran Medical Center specializes in cardiology, oncology, orthopedic services, and women's health care. Lutheran Medical also provides special care to the community through its community clinics, special programs and services for the elderly, and hospice care. In addition, Lutheran Medical Center's Emergency Department has the second highest patient load in the Denver metropolitan area. Third, with a mission of commitment to patients, Rose Medical Center in Denver asserts a reputation for high quality health care and quality customer service. Rose Medical Center specializes in women's health services, general surgery, internal medicine, pediatric care, and emergency services. Rose Medical Center also partners with philanthropic organizations to help offer services to the Colorado community. Further, Rose Medical Center is the official health care provider for the Denver Nuggets professional basketball team and the Colorado Avalanche professional hockey team. Fourth, Solucient recognized a teaching hospital in Englewood, Colorado, Swedish Medical Center, which has six ``Centers of Excellence:'' the Colorado Neurological Institute, adult & pediatric trauma services, advanced radiology capabilities, cardiology services, cancer treatment services, and women's and children's services. In addition, Swedish is a Level I Trauma Center and is a leading referral center for neurotrauma. Swedish also offers services for the elderly, emergency medical service education, and has a Family Medicine Residency Program. I am pleased these Colorado hospitals have been recognized as leaders in quality, efficiency, and financial responsibility in institutional health care. I laud their work and am expectant for their continued high quality of care and progress for Colorado and the Nation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding. Today in Colorado we had two fires erupt in the State. One was a grassland fire that probably won't amount to much. The other is a very serious fire that happened north and west of Boulder and Jamestown. We have a school that has been evacuated; 300 people have been evacuated. There is an educational camp in the area that has been evacuated. The reason I bring this to the attention of the Senate at this particular point in time is because Colorado is one of those areas in the western part of the United States where we have a forest/urban interface. That is what the Forest Health Restoration Act is all about, trying to provide a program where we can begin to apply the principles of forest health. Along the Front Range of Colorado, running all the way from Colorado Springs all the way up into Fort Collins, including Boulder, where this fire has broken out, there are a lot of homes being built into the forest. Of course, if you don't practice good forest health, then they become vulnerable to fires that could erupt. The significant thing about what is happening today is this is not the fire season for Colorado. The fire season occurs in September, perhaps the first part of September, August, and July. Here we are, just 3 days from the first of November, and we have a fire that is breaking out with serious consequences in Colorado. This again points out the need for us to move forward with this particular piece of legislation. We need to be addressing this problem immediately in areas such as what we are seeing here in the State of Colorado. Last year during the peak of the Hayman Fire, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains was covered in a thick blanket of smoke and ash that blocked visibility and dropped ash on surrounding towns and cities, creating a winter-like scene in the midst of a Colorado June. The Hayman Fire was the largest in Colorado history and cost $40 million and counting. It burned a little over 137,000 acres, destroyed 133 homes, and 466 outbuildings. The fire burned for 30 days. The Colorado State Forest Service has advised that it will take up to 150 years for the forest itself to be reestablished. Some people ask, Why does it take so long? We are in a semi-arid area. Vegetation does not grow back rapidly. During the Hayman Fire, 142 subdivisions were evacuated along with 85,000 people. Wildfires present a major cause of pollution, triggering severe asthma-related breathing problems and commonly causing death. Wildfires are also a major source of pollution. If we take 1 day out of the Hayman Fire, on June 10, 2002, the CO2 gas emissions from the Hayman Fire surpassed the CO2 emissions from all passenger cars operating in the United States on that same day. So this problem with a lot of undergrowth in the forests and trees being infested with beetles and a lot of dead and dying timber has made our forests extremely vulnerable in the forest/urban interface area. Federal land management procedures are very complex. They should not be so complex that they prevent timely action to address ecological crises on public lands. Forest Service officials have estimated that planning an assessment consumes 40 percent of their time at the national forest level, costing more than $250 million per year. Although much of this work is important, the officials estimate that improving administrative procedures may allow agencies to redirect up to $100 million a year from unnecessary planning to actual forest health restoration where it will improve the ecosystem and protect local communities from catastrophic fires which we see erupting today in Boulder County. The Front Range in Colorado also depends on the mountains to provide drinking water and water for gardens and children. But devastating fires threaten and destroy watersheds that yield this water. Catastrophic blazes consume organic matter in the littler layer of the soil and create a hard pan surface that impedes water penetration. When water flows over this hydrophobic layer, it carries debris, mud, and causes soil loss, clogging municipal water treatment facilities, affecting water quality, flavoring water with ash, and costing millions to rehabilitate. This is the problem we face today from the Hayman Fire which occurred just a year ago. In 2002, there were over 88,000 fires that burned 7 million acres. Thousands of structures were burned: 835 primary residences, 46 commercial buildings, and 1,500 outbuildings. The 2002 estimated suppression costs hover somewhere around $1.6 billion. These unnaturally extreme fires are just one consequence of deteriorating forests and range health that now affects more than 190 million acres of public land, an area twice the size of California. Wildfires destroyed wildlife and crippled watersheds. The Hayman fire occurred in the Cheesman Reservoir area, a primary source of drinking water for the city of Denver. Costs of the Cheesman reclamation have totaled nearly $5.5 million, with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service and the EPA reimbursing Denver Water approximately $2.8 million of that amount. During the Buffalo Creek fire, 600,000 cubic yards of sediment went into Denver Water's Strontia Springs Reservoir. The fact is, there is too much paperwork and analysis and it is killing our forests. The Forest Service recently testified that it had to go through an 800-step decisionmaking process to complete the Upper South Platte restoration project, which took nearly 3 years to complete, and the fire that we see erupting today in northwest Boulder is in the Platte River drainage basin. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic process wasn't complete until a large wildfire ravaged the landscape set to be treated, plundering homes and an important watershed and forcing a number of endangered species to the edge of regional extinction. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a comprehensive plan focused on giving Federal land managers and their stakeholders and partners the tools to respond to this growing forest health crisis. The legislation directs the timely implementation of scientifically supported management activities to protect the health and vibrancy of Federal forest ecosystems, as well as the communities and private lands that surround them. This is why I ask Members of the Senate to join me in supporting the Forest Health Restoration Act. I yield back my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for allowing me to offer this amendment at this time. There is an amendment I have at the desk, No. 1995. I understand I have the right to modify that. I send the modification to the desk.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this amendment, co-sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith, would prohibit International Military Education Training funds for Indonesia. It also gives the President the authority to waive this prohibition for national security reasons. Let me explain why it is important for the Senate to consider and approve this amendment. Nearly 15 months ago on August 31, 2002, 10 Americans living in Indonesia were brutally attacked less than 6 miles from their homes. Hundreds of rounds of ammunition were fired at them for 45 minutes, leaving two Americans dead and most of the other survivors nursing multiple bullet wounds. I have had the opportunity to meet with one of the survivors of this horrible tragedy, Mrs. Patsy Spiers, who, along with her husband Rick, was shot multiple times. While Patsy was fortunate enough to survive this ordeal, her husband was not. In January, Mrs. Spiers was brave enough to sit down with me and walk through her painful experience. The next day I contacted President Bush urging him to press the Indonesian government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack. Immediately after the ambush, an investigation into the ambush was conducted by the Indonesian civil police. The police report implicated the Indonesian military in the attack, but indicated that further investigation into the ambush needed to be done. Shortly after the police report was filed, the Indonesian military exonerated themselves from the attack. Only after diplomatic pressure from the United States did the Indonesian government decide to continue the investigation into the ambush. The Indonesian government also promised to permit the full participation of the FBI. Despite visiting the country multiple times, the FBI has not received the cooperation it needs to determine who was responsible for these brutal murders. At this juncture, there are indications that Indonesian military may have had some involvement in this attack. Yet, despite these continued allegations and lack of cooperation, the Indonesian government and its military still receives U.S. assistance through the International Military Education Training fund. I believe that until a full and open investigation has been completed and those responsible are prosecuted, IMET funding for the Indonesians should be denied. Since my face-to-face meeting with Mrs. Spiers, I have continued to work with the administration, FBI investigators, and colleagues here in the Senate with two distinct goals in mind. The first is to deny the release of funds until the Indonesians have completed the investigation into these murders. The second goal is to ensure that an impartial investigation, with help from the FBI, is conducted into the brutal attack so that those responsible will be brought to justice. In no way should the United States government provide military assistance to Indonesia until this matter is resolved. What kind of message will we be sending to other governments if we provide this assistance without first determining who was responsible? Just as important, what kind of message do we send to the families of Ted Burgon and Rick Spiers who were murdered in the ambush if we continue this military assistance. Are not the lives of American citizens more important than this military assistance? I fear that by our inaction we send the wrong message to the world. What kind of precedent will be set for other Americans who travel overseas? We cannot allow the murder of our citizens to be ignored and the Indonesian government should not let those responsible go unpunished. I appreciate the efforts by the manager of this bill and his staff for their assistance on this amendment. It is my hope that we can quickly resolve any concerns with my amendment so it can be accepted. These American families deserve a resolution and justice. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member on getting agreement on my amendment. I need to get the attention of the floor manager, the Senator from Kentucky, if I might.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont working on this most important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I rise today to speak about an important vote that will take place a little less than 4 hours from now. At 5:30 this evening, the Members of this body will have an opportunity to invoke cloture on the nomination of Governor Mike Leavitt to become the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and to end the months of delay and Presidential politics that have marred his nomination. Tonight's vote is more than a mere procedural formality. It is more than a simple motion. It is a vote about leadership and the health of our natural surroundings. It is a vote that will show the American people we are serious about protecting the environment, about providing the much-needed leadership the EPA has been missing since the departure of the former Administrator. Every ship needs a captain. Every plane needs a pilot. As elected officials representing the greatest people in the greatest Nation, we must provide that captain, that pilot for our Nation's chief environmental department. We can begin by voting tonight to invoke cloture. The politics of delay must end tonight. President Bush has nominated a very worthy candidate to take the helm at the Environmental Protection Agency. I have learned that experience makes a difference. Perhaps no other qualification that Governor Leavitt possesses is as important to me as his experience in the real world. As president and chief executive officer of the Leavitt Group, he has paid taxes and made payroll. Through his business experience, he learned the impact of government regulations on commerce and industry. Moving beyond his time as a private entrepreneur and into the realm of public service, Governor Leavitt is the country's longest serving Governor and has a long history of experience and accomplishments that make him eminently qualified for the position of Administrator. The confirmation of the Administrator must be a top priority for all who care about the environment. I challenge my colleagues to focus on the achievements of our national environmental policy and not on penalties and politics. We cannot ignore the fact that the air we breathe today is cleaner than it was 4 years ago and that the water our children drink is more safe today than ever before. But there is a danger lurking in the formulation and implementation of our national environmental policy. Extremist measures that impose strict mandates and demand compliance through arbitrary means and unclear science could undermine the very institutes of our democracy and of our market economy. Governor Leavitt knows that our system of environmental regulations, environmental mandates and administrative and judicial rulings, work together to protect our most precious resources, and have helped spur environmental recovery in many areas. But he is also aware that these same layers of laws have also created tremendous burdens for municipalities, businesses and the ongoing development and maintenance of our public infrastructure. The evolution of environmental rules and regulations that control so many aspects of life must be realistic goals that are established through a course of open deliberation and sound science. The impact EPA has on individual lives is real, not fictitious. New laws and enforcement decisions cannot be taken lightly. I am pleased that President Bush's approach has been one of reform-- changing command-and-control mandates to innovative, market-based approaches that utilize cutting edge technology to bolster environmental benefits. I know that this type of strong, principled leadership will continue into the future. We must not simply wipe the slate clean and sweep away basic environmental rules, but we can--we must--develop an environmental agenda that protects private property rights while balancing environmental achievement with the need for continued economic progress. Governor Leavitt is the one person who has the intellect, the courage, and the right philosophical temperament to get this job done. Governor Leavitt hails from the western United States. Perhaps no other geographic region in the country has felt the heavy hand of environmental regulation more than the public land States of the West-- be it in the form of forthcoming EPA mercury standards or the Department of the Interior's Endangered Species Act. Many Members of this body do not understand the impact that Federal land ownership has on a State and on its people, and that includes the much publicized battle over RS 2477. At some point today, I have no doubt that opponents may try to attack the Governor on his approach to solving this long standing Federal land issue. As a fellow westerner whose State is also affected by the dispute, I want to clear up the scare tactics and half-truths used by the extremist groups in an attempt to undermine the nominee's credibility. Governor Leavitt has never been involved in secret deals and behind- closed-doors shenanigans to destroy public lands. Instead, Governor Leavitt believes the public is best served through negotiation rather than litigation. His actions to resolve a 30-year dispute over ownership rights of rural county roads resulted in the enactment of a reliable mechanism that will preserve and promote the interests of the public. This is just plain common sense. Governor Leavitt understands the complicated web of environmental rules and the impact that they have on health and property. As a Governor, he has worked hard to increase the well-being of the people in his State, and he has worked diligently to improve the state of the environment. Governor Leavitt understands the fundamental need to protect the environment from irresponsible actors. Just as important, though, he understands the need to protect the environment through policies and programs that generate results and that create incentives to improve land, water and air quality, not just penalties and fines. He knows that heavy-handed action is not nearly as important as the results that can be achieved through cooperation and collaboration. The development of such enlibra principles has received a bipartisan endorsement from the National Governor's Association and deserves a great deal of attention. Governor Leavitt, along with the Governor of Oregon, was one of the pioneers of a concept that they dubbed enlibra. This concept, derived from Latin root words and meaning ``to move toward balance,'' promotes the type of balanced environmental stewardship that I have been talking about and includes eight principles that help on this course. Governor Leavitt has done a great deal to clean up both the air and water and to protect thousands of acres of premier public lands in the State of Utah. In just one example of how he has worked for cleaner air, Governor Leavitt is a co-chair of the Western Regional Air Partnership, also known as WRAP. WRAP is a partnership of 13 States, 13 tribes and 3 Federal agencies. This organization worked to formulate a regulatory commitment to reduce SOX levels by 50-70 percent by the year 2040. But, they didn't just formulate regulations. They also put together a plan to help those affected by the regulations, providing guidance on how to reach these aggressive clean air goals. Under Governor Leavitt's leadership, Utah now meets all Federal air quality standards. But its not just the air that is improved. Seventy-three percent of Utah's streams currently meet Federal water quality standards, compared to 59 percent 10 years ago. This is a remarkable improvement since Governor Leavitt took office. In what undoubtedly will be a common theme today as other members come to the floor to show their support for Governor Leavitt, I would like to point out that our Nation lives today in a cleaner, healthier environment, far more clean than it was when President Bush first took office. In the last 30 years, water quality has improved and emissions of the six principal air pollutants have been cut 48 percent. This progress comes even as the country has experienced a 164 percent increase in gross domestic product, a 42 percent increase in energy consumption, and a 155 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. This improvement has occurred over the course of 34 years, 22 of which came under the leadership of Republican administrations. The environment is not a partisan issue. Success comes through partnership and the desire to take the responsible, common-sense action. As mentioned, the most recent EPA data shows that sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants were 10.2 million tons in 2002, 9 percent lower than in 2000 and 41 percent lower than 1980. NOx emissions from power plants are also lower, measuring 4.5 million tons in 2002. This is a 13 percent reduction from 2000 and a 33 percent decline from 1990 emissions levels. In Colorado, the Bush administration's efforts to clean-up the Shattuck, Vasquez Boulevard and Rocky Flats sites deserve many thanks. The administration continues to prove its commitment to the people of Colorado through responsible stewardship and active protection. Governor Leavitt's accomplishments are not just in the environmental field, however. His environmental principles are getting the most attention and, given the current debate, rightfully so. However, I believe that Governor Leavitt has had other accomplishments in the State of Utah that I believe speak to the kind of person and leader that he is. In the area of education, funding for public education has increased by $762 million in 10 years between fiscal years 1994 and 2004. The number of teachers in the classrooms has increased, teacher pay has increased, student-to-teacher ratios have decreased and, perhaps at least in part to the three previous factors, teacher retention has increased. Student SAT scores, and student scores on other national tests, have also increased steadily. Initiatives introduced or promoted by Governor Leavitt have increased the number of school options as well. Students wanting to attend Utah public schools now have more options, such as: charter schools, high-tech schools and an electronic high school, to enable them to find the educational method that fits them best. Utah schools are also second in the Nation in Internet accessibility. Thanks to an initiative called Technology 2000, 99% of Utah's schools have access to the Internet. Higher education funding has also increased. Again, between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, higher ed funding increased slightly over 73%, a total of $379 million. Student enrollment has increased, as has the enrollment of students in engineering, math and computer sciences. Numerous plans to improve the lives and health of families and children have been implemented. Between the years of 1992 and 2001, immunization rates rose by 73 recent, teen smoking rates fell by 32 percent, and teen pregnancy rates fell by 33 percent. Under HealthPrint, a Leavitt plan to increase the number of State residents who are covered by insurance, the numbers of insured persons increased by 404,000. Of these 72,000 were children. Governor Leavitt was also a leader in the push to get us here in Congress to authorize the Children's Health Insurance plan, or CHIP. The numbers of children covered by CHIP in Utah continue to rise. These remarkable achievements could only have been accomplished by someone who is thoughtful and deliberative, someone who is able to consider all relevant information and make the decision that will be best for the greatest number of people. The strong mark of success the Governor has built in Utah over the past 11 years bodes well for his success at the helm of EPA--an agency that employs 18,000 people across the country and an agency that needs a leader like Leavitt. The commitment President Bush has made to improving the environment is strong, clear and unquestionable. Mr. Leavitt will ably serve the people of the United States as he fulfills his oath to meet these goals. I look forward to this evening's vote and to the confirmation of Governor Leavitt. Let's end this hold-up and do just that. Mr. President, this nomination should move ahead, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for cloture.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided proportionally between the two sides.