Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bennett.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, and Senator Frist for their leadership on this particular issue. Both have worked extremely hard. I also commend the Presiding Officer for his leadership for the rights of the unborn. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which is S. 3. This legislation is designed to help protect unnecessary suffering of the unborn child and also to protect the mother. It prohibits a partial-birth abortion, which is a partial delivery of a living baby, the killing of a baby before complete delivery. The bill allows partial-birth abortion except for the life of the mother, and in cases where there is endangerment by physical disorder, illness, and injury. I will go through some of the bill's definitions, which I think say a lot about what this bill is all about. The term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an abortion which, first, ``the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.'' That is the way it is defined in the bill. Further, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an overt act, other than completion of delivery, that ``kills the partially delivered living fetus with this procedure.'' This type of abortion is called a D&X abortion, which would be prohibited, also referred to as a dilation and extraction abortion. The bill defines ``extraction'' as: ``Extraction from the uterus and into the vagina of all of the body of a fetus except the head, following which the fetus is killed by extracting the contents of the skull.'' After the baby's skull tissue is rooted out, then the remains of the baby are removed. I emphasize, this bill does not prohibit other abortions. For example, it does not prohibit what is commonly referred to as D&E, or dilation and evacuation, a procedure which includes dismemberment of the baby inside the uterus, induction of preterm labor with the fetus forced from the uterus, and suctioning of the baby out of the uterus. It does not prohibit suction abortion, which involves scraping the fetus apart from the placenta, or suctioning the baby out of the uterus. It does not prohibit all other types of abortion that might be applied, such as a Caesarian section or a hysterotomy. The bill protects the life and safety of the mother. Partial-birth abortion was never intended to be a procedure to protect the health of the mother. This procedure has become a form of abortion. On the contrary, we need a ban in order to protect the health of the mother. It is a dangerous procedure, it is a fringe procedure, and it is outside the mainstream of routine medicine. The American Medical Association, for example, which is an organization that is committed to medical excellence on behalf of patients and professionals, opposes this procedure. The AMA has described this procedure as unsafe and dangerous. The American Medical Association has stated it is ``not good medicine,'' ``not medically indicated.'' There are some specific exceptions: If the mother's life is in danger. The bill allows abortion if endangered by physical disorders or illness or injury. In the bill, again, it says: Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. I went through a lot of the procedures of the bill just to let the Members of the Senate know how grotesque this procedure is. This bill is necessary and important. This legislation is designed to protect infants. Testimony in committee indicates there is pain to the baby when this partial-birth abortion procedure is conducted. Professor Robert White, who is director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, testified before the Constitution Subcommittee in 1995. These are his exact words: The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subject to such a surgical procedure. The procedure should not exist or be permitted, in my view. It is painful, morbid, inhumane, and simply barbaric. A majority of Americans believe we should end this practice and it should be illegal except if necessary to save the life of the mother. The House and Senate have passed a number of times on this legislation. We passed a partial-birth abortion bill from this body in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. In the 108th Congress, both the House and the Senate passed this ban--with a vote in the House of 181 for, 142 against. It was a bipartisan vote. Again, we had a bipartisan vote in the Senate, where we had 64 for and 33 against. It is important that we pass this particular legislation. The President strongly supports S. 3. President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, asked Congress to: . . . protect infants at the very moment of birth, and end the practice of partial-birth abortion. We need to act now. I again thank my colleagues in the Senate who have been such strong advocates of eliminating partial-birth abortion except in situations threatening the life of the mother. I am pleased we are acting now, and I thank my colleagues for their support of this important ban for the Nation's children.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles amendment and in opposition to the Bayh amendment. I believe in truth in lending, and I think there are some Members of the Senate who think somehow if we talk about this loan, it is going to be acceptable to the American people. Frankly, I believe the loan is going to be a grant. We just need to be upfront with the American people and say that the $20 billion in the President's request is going to be a grant and explain it to the American people. Iraq has a huge debt--from sources I have heard in testimony--of anywhere between $100 billion to $200 billion. We just heard on the news this evening where one of their major pipelines has been blown up so they are not going to have any ability to expect to export oil. The oil they have now will be used for domestic purposes. That is as a result of an attack by terrorists this particular evening as we are debating. Let's be honest; whether this is couched as a loan or a grant, it is going to be a grant. It is something we are going to have to give to the American people in order to move forward with the development of the infrastructure in that country, which I happen to believe is essential if we want to get our troops home quickly. We simply have to get that in place along with security forces. The only way that will happen is if we give the full amount of $87 billion available for the reconstruction and for the security in Iraq. We have heard time and time again about the complications of going the route of a loan. In fact, Ambassador Bremer testified before several committees in the Senate, and he has actually sent a letter to the chairman, the Honorable Ted Stevens. I will read from it. He says: I understand there are various proposals being offered which would convert portions of the funding request to a loan mechanism of some type. Any such proposal would merely add further debt to the already-huge debt currently owed by the Iraqis. As you know from my testimony three weeks ago, I am concerned that, as was the case in the young, fragile democracy in Weimar, Germany, such a situation could destabilize the young Iraqi democracy before it even gets off the ground. Moreover, if the United States makes its contribution in the form of a loan, we will encourage other nations to follow that example at the Madrid Donors Conference next week--further exacerbating Iraq's debt situation, I might add, complicating the eventual process of restructuring the country's overall debt burden. I sat down with a group of people and I visited with Colin Powell. He also urges us, in the strongest terms, to not make this a loan and that we grant these dollars. It gives us an opportunity to maintain control of those dollars. We have to keep in mind that Iraq has established trade agreements with many of those countries that opposed our presence in Iraq. If this goes to a loan, they will control the money; they will be the ones letting out the contracts. I feel their inclination would be to be to disburse it all over the international community. That means that countries such as France, Germany, and Russia will be looked to also to share in the contracting out of the building of the infrastructure in Iraq. The other advantage of a grant is it gives us control of the moneys as they are spent in Iraq. Finally, a loan means Iraq is going to have that control. It means it is going to complicate our ability to work with other countries with the loss of control. We ought to be straightforward with the American people. We need to tell them this is going to be a grant and account for it accordingly and move forward with the rapid reconstruction of the infrastructure in Iraq. That is the best policy. It is a straightforward policy. I believe if we are true and straightforward with the American people, the American people will understand the need to move forward with the full $87 billion the President requested. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand our side is going to move to table the Leahy amendment, and I do support tabling the Leahy amendment. From what I have been able to observe, I think things are going well in Iraq. Certainly, I have no qualms with the way the State Department and the Defense Department are working together. I do not think we ought to upset the apple cart when things are moving in the right direction. I want to take a few moments to talk about the President's supplemental request in total. I ask my colleagues for quick action on the underlying bill. The reasons for quick action are simple. If we want to see a reduction in the number of soldiers in Iraq, we need to fully fund this request. If we want to improve the security in Iraq, we must approve this request. If we want a Democratic Iraq, governed by Iraqis, we must approve this request. No one in this body on either side of the aisle would deny we need additional operational and procurement funds for our military. We all know that. Yet there is a great controversy over the reconstruction funds which in the long-term could be just as important to the safety of the troops as the additional operation and procurement funds. Our troops will benefit from the additional operational funds that are requested in the $87 billion. My view is that if we want to see our forces out of Iraq quickly, we need to have those operational funds because they are essential to moving ahead with Iraq becoming self- sufficient, with Iraq being able to defend itself and being able to assume the responsibilities the U.S. military right now is assuming. My point is that not only are the Iraqis beneficiaries, but our soldiers over in Iraq are beneficiaries, and they are beneficiaries for the reason it is going to be an opportunity for them to move out quicker and get home quicker. That is what we all want to see. Our ability to protect the men and women of the U.S. military is at stake. Since the beginning of hostilities last February, there have been 19 soldiers from Colorado's Fort Carson and five other Coloradans who have died in Iraq. These men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of the freedoms we often take for granted. I would be dishonoring the sacrifice these brave Americans have made and failing to protect those who continue to serve in Iraq if I did not support both the military funding portion of the supplemental and the reconstruction funding. While the $20 billion in reconstruction funds will not end the guerilla attacks on our troops, it will make a difference. Iraq is a dangerous country, and as long as American troops are on the ground there, they will be at risk, as any American who may be in that country. However, the fact remains that the more we repair the old wounds of the Hussein regime, the safer our troops will be in Iraq. Specifically, the money we spend on upgrading the water of Iraq and sanitation services, the oil infrastructure rehabilitation, and the healthcare and education of the Iraqi people will have a direct impact on the safety of our troops. Improving the social conditions of the Iraqi people will reduce hostility and ease the sense of desperation many Iraqis have felt since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, this funding will give Iraqis hope and demonstrate our commitment to not only rid Iraq of terrorists, but also improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Freedom cannot be bought on the cheap. And, as Paul Bremer testified last week, the Coalition Provisional Authority's seven-step program towards Iraqi self-governance hinges on the basic needs of the Iraqis being fulfilled. Without it, democracy will fail. This cannot be allowed to happen. Think back about what has been mentioned before about reconstruction after World War II and how we all realized after World War I that we had troops who were waiting to go home, everybody was excited to go home, but nobody stayed around to help stabilize the countries we defeated during World War I. Consequently, events evolved and we were into World War II. I think we learned our lesson, and that is that there needs to be a reconstruction period. So we had the Marshall plan put into effect. I think we need to not forget that lesson today if we want to see Iraq be a permanent democracy in the Middle East. Perhaps of most importance to our troops in Iraq is the efforts to reconstitute the Iraqi Army and expand the civil police force. The money in the supplemental would help establish 27 battalions for the Iraqi Army and a police force of about 80,000 in the next 12 to 18 months. Let me stress how important these efforts are. To have Iraqi patrols policing their own people will allow a safer environment for our soldiers and show the Iraqi people that we are not occupiers, and that Iraq is their country and their responsibility. In fact, the commander of Central Command, General Abizaid, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the most important part of the supplemental is these security funds. I quote General Abizaid: . . . we can speed up the training of the Iraqi Army-- instead of taking 2 years, take 1, and we can't do that without more money. The general goes on to state: . . . every month that goes by where we don't start those security projects is a month longer before those guys go out and potentially can relieve our troops of some of their duties. If the combatant commander with responsibility for Iraq believes reconstruction efforts and the security of American soldiers is linked, we should certainly heed his advice. I think the additional point has been made in many hours of testimony before the Armed Services Committee that our intelligence will improve dramatically the more we are able to incorporate the Iraqi police force and their assistance in maintaining domestic stability in Iraq. The issue has been also broached about making the reconstruction funds a loan to the already impoverished nation. I object to this idea for two important reasons. First, there are those in the United States, and many more abroad, who protested the idea of going to war with Iraq. A large majority of these critics believed this was a war for oil. They believed our insatiable need for fuel was driving us toward an occupation of Iraq so we could control its oil fields. I am not going to outline why this assumption was flawed in the first place, because you only have to look at the U.N. mandates the Hussein regime ignored and the mass graves of his murdered people. This is an absurd notion but not one we can afford to ignore. However, if we ask for a loan, where will Iraq come up with the money? Nineteen billion is what has been estimated in their oil fields when they get up in production, and when they have a $20 billion loan, that doesn't even service the interest on that loan. How will it look for the United States when we ask the Iraqis to pump their crude to pay us back for the money we loaned them? Perception is important for us in the Middle East and we cannot afford to have an ``oil motive'' attached to our efforts to bring democracy to the region. Another concern would be the example set for the other countries of the world that might contribute to the reconstruction effort. Iraq already owes $200 billion to Russia and France and Germany and others. Are we to ask them to forgive their debt and then demand payment for our generosity? Our negotiators need leverage when they ask for reconstruction funds from the rest of the world. Our leverage would be nullified if the proposed grant to Iraq changes to a loan. Again, perception of asking for help for a burgeoning democracy in the Middle East would be muddied if we have an IOU in our back pocket. A few weeks ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, testified before the Armed Services Committee and remarked that our battle in Afghanistan and Iraq is a battle of wills. He stated: We are going to win as long as we have the continuing will of the American people, and for that matter, freedom loving people everywhere. This supplemental request is a measure of our will, a measure of our commitment to the Iraqi people. Terrorist organizations such as al- Qaida and state sponsors of terrorism like the former Hussein regime have doubted America's commitment in the past. Are we prepared to risk additional attacks against our troops if we fail to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq? Are we prepared to say to the people of Iraq they are on their own? Are we prepared to stay the course? We must act quickly, we must act decisively, and we must pass this funding as requested by the President. The United States must continue to show leadership in the world as we have since our inception. We must not allow our support of democracy and freedom to be compromised. Last year, more than three-quarters of this body voted to support going to war with Iraq with the understanding we would not stop until we were victorious. We are not finished yet. More needs to be done. I ask my colleagues for quick approval of the supplemental funds for the sake of the security of the Iraqi people and the safety of our troops on the ground. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1802

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today on the occasion of the confirmation of Phil Figa to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on Figa's confirmation, a man who represents the very best our legal system has to offer. The Judiciary is a fundamental institution of our democracy; it is given neither force nor will, but merely judgment. Our Constitution dictates that the President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Federal Court. Today we can fulfill this obligation by confirming Mr. Figa. With further commitment to the country's founding principles, we can move toward fulfilling this commitment in regard to all outstanding vacancies. I want to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy for the great speed with which Mr. Figa's nomination has moved through the Senate. Nominated by the President in June, this vote is a shining example of a process that can work when a spirit of bipartisanship triumphs. Chairman Hatch, your leadership is truly appreciated. In light of recent terrorist attacks, it is readily apparent that we face a new age of global unrest, a world in which terror has replaced formal declarations of war as the major threat against freedom and democracy. A necessary component of providing justice to those who would do harm to our nation is to maintain an efficient court system--a court equipped with the personnel and resources that enable it to fulfill its role as a pillar of our constitutional system of governance. Swift punishment serves as a warning to tyranny and a deterrent to evil. By filling this vacancy, America continues to show its resolve in justice and law. Mr. Figa's nomination arose after Judge Richard Matsch, who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing trial, went to senior status. Judge Matsch's departure leaves big shoes to fill. However, after months of background investigations and congressional inquiry, it is obvious that Phil Figa is the right person for the job. For the past several years. I have had the opportunity to get to know Phil's wonderful family. His wife Candy, and their two children, Ben and Lizzie, were able to watch their father's job interview before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. I admire the strong family values so apparent in every member of the Figa family--it was their continued support and encouragement that provided the strength and energy he needed in order to stand steadfast in pursuit of this most worthy endeavor. Together, the family enjoys the Colorado outdoors, spending free time hiking and biking in the mountains. According to Criminal defense lawyer Gary Lozow, Figa is a ``thoughtful and bright person who will make a good Federal judge and is mindful of the awesomeness of taking on that responsibility.'' The two major newspapers in my home State of Colorado agree. The Rocky Mountain News noted, Phil has achieved a rare balance in his life of family, law practice and community activities. The Denver Post, in an endorsement earlier this year, noted that Figa is a good, solid choice for the bench. The Post was encouraged by the fact that Figa's background is in civil litigation, which makes up a high percentage of the cases handled by Federal judges. I am not the only one who believes that his keen intellect and temperament is ideal for the bench. In a letter dated June 10, 2003, Senator Campbell and I wrote to the committee, ``Mr. Figa is highly qualified and will ably serve the people of the United States . . . (he) is well known throughout the Colorado legal community for his credibility, integrity, hard work and firm grasp of the law.'' His supporters hail from across party lines and include a variety of elected officials from all levels of local, State, and Federal Governments. Of the many gracious comments I have heard about Phil, none characterize him better than a statement made by the managing partner at his firm. ``He's a very gracious fellow . . . a very likable person. He's a gentlemanly character.'' In Federalist Number 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that Judges are the guardians of the constitution, ``The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.'' Phil Figa is the guardian we need on the bench of the District Court for the District of Colorado. He will serve our Nation with the utmost of respect to our country and our constitution, and for this, I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on his confirmation. Phillip Figa is somebody who has been reviewed by his peers in Colorado. He has been reviewed by the American Bar Association. He will be a very good individual for the bench and he has bipartisan support. I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, Mother Teresa will soon be beatified by Pope John Paul II in Rome, and I would like to take this opportunity to honor the model that she was for the world by promoting love and respect for all. We in Congress often get overwhelmed with the amount of work and issues that we are faced with each day, but Mother Teresa put into perspective our mission when she said, ``We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean, but the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.'' Mother Teresa embodied the ultimate spirit of public service by giving a 100 percent of herself to her constituents: the poor, the hungry, the homeless and, most of all, the unloved. Her determination to make the world a better place has left its mark on history and humanity. ``It is not how much we do, but how much love we put into doing. It is not how much we give, but how much love we put into giving,'' said Mother Teresa. Let us not forget this valuable wisdom as the world honors Mother Teresa next month.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Air Force, I wish to recognize LTC Timothy W. Coy for his 27 years of dedicated service to our country. In his most recent assignment he served as the Chief, Congressional Inquiry Branch, Congressional Inquiry Division, Secretary of the Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison, where he served as liaison between the Air Force and Congress on their constituent issues. Lieutenant Colonel Coy was born in 1958 at Bolling AFB, Washington, DC. He graduated from Tabb High School in Yorktown, VA, in 1976. He holds a masters degree in public administration from the University of Wyoming, a bachelor of arts degree from Saint Leo College, and a certificate in legislative studies from Georgetown University. He is also a graduate of Air Command and Staff College, the Armed Forces Staff College, Squadron Officers School, Noncommissioned Officer Leadership School, and the Air Force Legislative Fellowship program. In August 1976, Lieutenant Colonel Coy enlisted in the Air Force and completed basic training at Lackland AFB, TX, in September 1976, and performed duties as an administrative specialist. During his 7-year enlisted tour, he attained the rank of technical sergeant, and was assigned to headquarters, Tactical Air Command, TAC, where he held positions in the TAC Directorate of Administration and the TAC Command Section. In 1981, he was selected as one of the first members of the 4450th Tactical Group, Nellis, AFB, NV, the unit responsible for the operation of the ten-top secret F-117A ``Stealth Fighter.'' In 1982, following a short stint as noncommissioned officer in charge, NCOIC, of the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, TFWC Command Section, then-Staff Sergeant Coy was selected for assignment to the USAF ``Thunderbirds'' Aerial Demonstration Team, where he performed duties as NCOIC of Thunderbird administration. After attaining the rank of technical sergeant in 6 years, he received his commission through Officers Training School (OTS) in 1984. Following OTS graduation, Lieutenant Colonel Coy completed Minuteman III training at Vandenberg AFB, CA, as a ``Top Performer,'' and was assigned to the 320th Strategic Missile Squadron at F.E. Warren, AFB, WY. He performed duties as a standardization and evaluation missileer, and following his upgrade to crew commander, was selected to become the aide-de-camp for then BG Arlen D. Jameson, commander of the 4th Air Division. This job took him back to Vandenberg AFB as aide-de-camp and executive officer for Maj. General Jameson at the 1st Aerospace Division. In January 1990, he was selected as one of Strategic Air Command's top missileers for assignments to the TOP HAND Program. Lieutenant Colonel Coy served as launch director and test manager, and was involved in 20 Minuteman III and Peacekeeper test launches. In June 1992, he was selected as part of the initial cadre of personnel in the newly established Headquarters Air Combat Command at Langley AFB, VA, where he served in the deputy chief of staff, Plans and Programs as chief of the ICBM Plans Section. When the ICBM mission moved to Colorado Springs, CO, at the Air Force Space Command in June 1993, Lieutenant Colonel Coy became the force applications mission area planner for the Directorate of Plans. In June 1966, he moved to the 21st Space Wing Plans Office where he became the chief of the Future Systems Branch. His office was responsible for SBIRS planning, the Clear Radar Upgrade, and conducted planning in support of National Missile Defense and other programs totaling over $14 billion. He was then selected for assignment to the Joint Staff J-3 Defense Space Operations Division, DSOD, in December 1997. Lieutenant Colonel Coy assumed his duties in the Theater Missile and Air Defense branch, which included the National Missile Defense program, and participated in development of a common operating picture for the warfighter. He was also a qualified space surveillance officer in the National Military Command Center. In 1998, Lieutenant Colonel Coy was selected as one of nine Air Force legislative fellows, and served as my Air Force fellow in my Washington, DC office. He worked defense issues, specifically space issues. His insight and knowledge was invaluable as a new member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In November 1999, he returned to the Pentagon as the chief of legislative affairs for the United States Joint Forces Command, where he advocated JFCOM programs on Capitol Hill. In July 2001, Lieutenant Colonel Coy was given the additional responsibilities as the director of the Washington Liaison Office, and U.S. liaison officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. On November 1, 2002, he assumed his current position as the chief of the Congressional Inquiry Branch. A master space and missile operator, Lieutenant Colonel Coy's decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, five Meritorious Service Medals, the Air Force Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal with four oak leaf clusters. Additionally, he was awarded the Colorado Meritorious Service Medal by the Adjutant General, Colorado National Guard. Tim was married for 20 years to the late Barbara L. Suiter and has two children; Brian, a sophomore at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA, and Laura, a senior at Woodbridge Senior High School. He has proven himself to be a top officer, loving husband, and a caring father. I am very proud to call Tim ``one of my own'' and wish him the best as he moves on to his next journey.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to introduce today a bill to provide a tax credit for apprenticeship training programs for various construction trades recognized by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), including masonry, electrical contract work, plumbing and heating and a host of other important vocations. There are several reasons why I believe this legislation is necessary for apprenticeship training in these trades. First and foremost, these are highly skilled trades requiring many years of training. Second, there is a significant shortage of workers in these trades; in fact it is my understanding that many contractors often have to look outside the country to find a craftsman trained in one of these particular fields. Third, the average age of some of the workers in these crafts is over 50 and we must make every effort to ensure that we retain and recruit the most capable people in these jobs. And finally, many of these industries are very capital intensive and it makes sense to me to offer small businesses a short term tax credit to encourage productivity and stimulate economic growth and job creation. During the last Congress a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Foley of Florida. Regrettably the bill was not met with a great deal of enthusiasm, primarily due to the price tag attached to it. The legislation I am introducing, the Apprenticeship Training and Education Act of 2003, has been modified to address budgetary concerns as well as the concerns of those in some of the building trades that the apprenticeship training programs were indeed legitimate ones that would ultimately produce certified craftsmen. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the Mason Contractors Association of America and the Independent Electrical Contractors in crafting a bill that is fiscally responsible and credible. I believe this tax credit will go a long way toward encouraging companies with a certified apprenticeship program to hire and train new workers. As the population of these workers continues to age and decline, it is absolutely essential that we look for ways to attract more, younger workers to what I believe to be excellent, high-paying and high skilled jobs in these construction trades. Under my bill, a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year for the first 2 years of a 4-year program would be provided and companies could hire three new apprentices each year. The normal business deduction taken for this expense would be offset by the amount of the tax credit. The bill also specifically targets trades in the construction industry recognized by the BLS and only those programs certified by a State's or the Federal Department of Labor would qualify for the credit. In my view there are many companies across the country that would benefit tremendously from this tax credit. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and urge them to cosponsor it with me. These are jobs and trades to be proud of and I encourage other Members of this body to promote the skills and education necessary to keep them viable in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to introduce today a bill to provide a tax credit for apprenticeship training programs for various construction trades recognized by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), including masonry, electrical contract work, plumbing and heating and a host of other important vocations. There are several reasons why I believe this legislation is necessary for apprenticeship training in these trades. First and foremost, these are highly skilled trades requiring many years of training. Second, there is a significant shortage of workers in these trades; in fact it is my understanding that many contractors often have to look outside the country to find a craftsman trained in one of these particular fields. Third, the average age of some of the workers in these crafts is over 50 and we must make every effort to ensure that we retain and recruit the most capable people in these jobs. And finally, many of these industries are very capital intensive and it makes sense to me to offer small businesses a short term tax credit to encourage productivity and stimulate economic growth and job creation. During the last Congress a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Foley of Florida. Regrettably the bill was not met with a great deal of enthusiasm, primarily due to the price tag attached to it. The legislation I am introducing, the Apprenticeship Training and Education Act of 2003, has been modified to address budgetary concerns as well as the concerns of those in some of the building trades that the apprenticeship training programs were indeed legitimate ones that would ultimately produce certified craftsmen. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the Mason Contractors Association of America and the Independent Electrical Contractors in crafting a bill that is fiscally responsible and credible. I believe this tax credit will go a long way toward encouraging companies with a certified apprenticeship program to hire and train new workers. As the population of these workers continues to age and decline, it is absolutely essential that we look for ways to attract more, younger workers to what I believe to be excellent, high-paying and high skilled jobs in these construction trades. Under my bill, a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year for the first 2 years of a 4-year program would be provided and companies could hire three new apprentices each year. The normal business deduction taken for this expense would be offset by the amount of the tax credit. The bill also specifically targets trades in the construction industry recognized by the BLS and only those programs certified by a State's or the Federal Department of Labor would qualify for the credit. In my view there are many companies across the country that would benefit tremendously from this tax credit. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and urge them to cosponsor it with me. These are jobs and trades to be proud of and I encourage other Members of this body to promote the skills and education necessary to keep them viable in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. I thought I would comment in three areas. First of all, I have had an opportunity to visit our laboratories in the United States. I will talk a little bit about that. Then I would like to review where we are in the overall aspect as far as our nuclear weapons are concerned. Finally, I will talk a little bit about what is in the authorization bill we passed in the Senate earlier on in the year, and talk a little bit about the fact that we have considered most of these amendments already. I don't understand why we are bringing them up for reconsideration, because the Senate has spoken. I had an opportunity earlier this year to go around and visit the laboratories. I began to understand how important it is--that we need to study our nuclear weapons and we need to understand where we are in regard to the strategic nuclear stockpile. Not long ago, several years back, the hope for the strategic nuclear stockpile was that it would work, but there was skepticism in the scientific community. But going around the laboratories earlier this year, those scientists, very capable scientists, very dedicated employees we have in our laboratories--and they want to see world peace and they don't necessarily want to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons--understand the need for us to know what is happening as far as our own strategic stockpile is concerned; that we need to continue to evaluate the threats from our enemies or potential enemies and where we stand in relation to that threat. I was convinced that we need to do studies; we need to do some design thought; we need to bring it up for discussion. Nobody is out here saying we need to go into a nuclear arms race. I think that is overstated. But I think there is a lot of science that needs to be known, still, as far as nuclear weapons. We are going through a period of time where our stockpile is aging. Because it is aging, there are some phenomena that we perhaps do not understand. We want to make sure we understand. We want to make sure we have a safe environment and, from a safety aspect, that we understand what happens with aging. The administration's budget request for fiscal year 2004 included several initiatives to advance their agenda as spelled out in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. The Nuclear Posture Review laid out a plan to reduce the nuclear threshold by making advances in conventional munitions and missile defense capabilities, and in revitalizing our nuclear weapons infrastructure, while at the same time reducing the number of nuclear weapons--reducing the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile from around 6,000 to between around 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear warheads. One focus of the Nuclear Posture Review is to make advances in our nuclear weapons capabilities to deter future threats instead of maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile which was designed to deter past threats. This bill includes funding to support the administration's initiatives. Specifically, the Senate bill provides $6 million for advanced concepts, $15 million to continue a 3-year feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator, which is commonly referred to as RNEP, and $25 million to enhance our test readiness capabilities at the Nevada Test Site. That was mentioned in previous comments on the Senate floor, how important it is in order to meet our 18-month response requirement that this needs to be met. There needs to be money to meet that requirement. And there is $23 million to continue conceptual design efforts for a modern pit facility. Each of these individual facilities will enhance our Nation's readiness and capabilities in support of the Nuclear Posture Review. I think the Members of the Senate need to know the Nuclear Posture Review was analyzed by those people in the know, those people who understand what is happening in other countries, people who understand the science and understand where we are in this country. The advanced concepts initiative will support preconceptual and concept definition studies and feasibility and cost studies approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council. With advanced concepts, we are beginning to challenge our scientists, designers, and engineers to consider what is within the art of the possible. They will be challenged to think, discover, create, and innovate. By supporting the administration's request for the advanced concepts initiative, we will ensure there is an active advanced development program to assess the capabilities of our adversaries, conceptualizing innovative methods for countering those threats, developing weapon system requirements in response to our adversaries, and prototyping and evaluating the concepts. The advanced concepts initiative will also help our experts to design enhanced safety and security aspects for our nuclear weapons, particularly the aging nuclear weapons that we possess. The Feinstein amendment would strike this funding for advanced concepts. The RNEP study is not a new issue for the Congress to consider. Last year, Congress authorized and appropriated $15 million for the first of the 3-year feasibility studies on the robust nuclear earth penetrator. This bill provides funding for the continuation of the feasibility study. It does not authorize the production or deployment of such a capability. The RNEP feasibility study will determine if one of two existing nuclear weapons can be modified to penetrate into hard rock in order to destroy a deeply buried target that could be hiding weapons of mass destruction or command and control assets. The Department of Energy has modified nuclear weapons in the past to modernize their safety, security, and reliability aspects. We also modify existing nuclear weapons to meet new military requirements. The B61-11, one of the weapons being considered for the RNEP feasibility study, was already modified once before to serve as an earth penetrator to hold specific targets at risk. At that time, the modification was to assure the B61 could penetrate frozen soils. The RNEP feasibility study is an attempt to determine whether the same B61 or another weapon, the B83, could be modified to penetrate hard rock or reinforced underground facilities. Funding research on options, both nuclear and conventional, for attacking such targets is a responsible step for our country to take. Admiral James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, confirmed in testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 8, 2003, that not all hardened and deeply buried targets can be destroyed by conventional weapons. Many nations are increasingly developing hardened and deeply buried targets to protect command and communications and weapons of mass destruction production and storage assets. It is prudent to support the study of potential capabilities to address this growing category of threat. What the Senate bill provides funding for is simply the second year of the 3-year feasibility study, nothing more. Should the National Nuclear Security Administration determine through this study that the robust nuclear earth penetrator can meet the requirements to hold a hardened and deeply buried target at risk, NNSA still could not proceed to full-scale weapon production development or deployment without an authorization and appropriation from Congress. We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets and to assess what would be the collateral damage associated with such capability. Then Congress would have the information it needs to decide whether development of such weapons is appropriate and necessary to maintain our Nation's security. The Feinstein amendment would strike funding to continue the ANEP feasibility study. The enhanced test readiness initiative has also been closely considered by the Congress and the administration. The House and the Senate Armed Services Committees required the Department of Energy, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to do a study to determine the optimum readiness posture for the Nevada Test Site. After a thorough review, the optimal test readiness posture chosen by the Department of Energy was 18 months. Against the thoughtful consideration of both the Congress and the administration, the Feinstein amendment would strike the funding to allow our Nation's readiness to be enhanced at the Nevada Test Site. Another important initiative is the continuing efforts to design and construct a modern pit facility to ensure the United States can, once again, manufacture plutonium pits for our existing nuclear weapons stockpile and for future weapons design, if necessary. The United States is the only nuclear power which does not have the current ability to mass produce plutonium pits. Let me restate that. The United States is the only nuclear power that does not have the current ability to mass produce plutonium pits. Although we have limited capabilities to produce a few pits at the Los Alamos National Laboratory since the shutdown of Rocky Flats in my home State of Colorado, the United States has not produced plutonium pits. That is a problem for our aging nuclear weapons stockpile since the pits and those weapons are aging beyond their design life, and as a radioactive material, plutonium continues to deteriorate until the pits can no longer be usable. The Feinstein amendment would strike funding for the modern pit facility. All of the administration's nuclear weapons initiatives are designed to make sure the United States has the best and the brightest scientists and engineers prepared to innovate, create, test, and even manufacture, if necessary, to make sure any adversary is deterred from conducting harmful actions against the United States or its allies. There are protections in the National Defense Authorization Act which provide that, at a minimum, no engineering design work can occur on the robust nuclear penetrator without specific authorization from Congress. We maintain our ability to control any mass production of those nuclear weapons. We already had that debate. We should allow these initiatives to continue. Therefore, I am urging my colleagues to join me in voting against the Feinstein amendment. There are a couple more issues I would like to cover. First, I ask unanimous consent that an op-ed by the Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, from the Washington Post on Monday, July 21, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly point out some of the things we had in the Defense authorization bill as it applied to a number of areas affecting nuclear weapons. The section that dealt with the developing low-yield nuclear weapon--section 3131 of the Defense authorization bill--repeals the ban on research and development of low- yield nuclear weapons. But that same section also includes a provision which states that nothing in this repeal should be ``construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon.'' Also included in that same provision is a section that limits DOE from beginning phase 3. Phase 3 is the full-scale engineering development or any subsequent phase of a low-yield nuclear weapon ``unless specifically authorized by the Congress.'' Finally, also in that same section 3131, a report is to be submitted to determine if the repeal of the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons will affect the ability of the United States to achieve its nonproliferation objectives. On that section of the Defense Authorization Act, we had a number of amendments that we considered on the floor which we have already voted on. Again, one was the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to strike the repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research. The motion to table was agreed to by a vote of 51 to 43. That was the Senate's position supporting the language of the Senate authorization bill on Armed Services. The Reed-Levin amendment was also brought up in that section. They offered an amendment which retains the ban on low-yield nuclear weapon research. This amendment would retain the ban on phase 3 and subsequent phases but allow research on phases 1, 2, and 2A. This amendment was very similar to a House-Senate Armed Services Committee provision. Chairman Warner offered an amendment in the form of a substitute which struck the Reed-Levin amendment and added a limitation which required a specific authorization from the Congress before the Secretary of Energy can proceed with phase 3--which again is engineering development--or any subsequent phases of low-yield nuclear weapons. The Warner substitute passed by a vote of 59 to 38. The Reed- Levin amendment, as amended by the Warner substitute, passed by a vote of 96 to 0. In another section in the Senate Armed Services Committee authorization bill dealing with the robust nuclear earth-penetrator-- commonly referred to as RNEP--there was an authorization for $15 million for RNEP, which was the amount of the request we had in the budget proposal. That was section 1050. Section 3135 also requires DOE to receive a specific authorization from Congress before commencing with phase 3 or any subsequent phase of the RNEP. Time and time again, the Senate has spoken--that there will not be any further procedure on nuclear weapons development and advanced engineering unless there is specific authorization from the Senate. Under the RNEP, there were a couple of Senate floor amendments that we considered. For example, Senator Dorgan offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the nuclear earth-penetrator weapon, and the motion to table was agreed to by a vote of 56 to 41. There was a Nelson amendment on RNEP. That amendment limited the DOE from beginning phase 3--full-scale development--or any subsequent phase of the robust nuclear earth-penetrator without a specific authorization from Congress. Chairman Warner prepared a very similar amendment, and the Nelson amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. We have debated this issue thoroughly. The Senate has spoken on these amendments and on these provisions. The appropriators have language supporting what we have already voted on and what has been passed by this body. I think it is time to move forward. I think it is important that we move forward with the appropriations bill in light of our energy needs in this country. We shouldn't delay. I rise in support of the bill, and I rise in opposition to the Feinstein amendment and ask my colleagues to join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise, as I did 2 years ago, to ponder the terrible events that had occurred only a day before. I rose to express my anger and my sadness, my disbelief, and my disdain for the situation. I rose, as did most of my fellow Senators from both sides of the aisle. I spoke of the strength and resolve of this great Nation. I spoke of the sad reality that thousands of families were directly affected and would never be the same; that some fathers and some mothers would never be coming home again; that some young sons and daughters would grow up to pictures of parents and grandparents lost in New York, Pennsylvania and across the Potomac at the Pentagon. I also spoke of the horror yet to be seen and I spoke of our determination, as a country, to face whatever challenges lay ahead and I spoke of our President and the strength of character he would need to withstand such an attack and keep this Nation strong. I rise today and speak of the same issues and my respect and admiration for the men and women of our military, proud of our President's resolve to stand up to such a challenge and leadership during these 2 years of conflict and proud of our country to rally around the cause of liberty and the defeat of terrorism. I am also proud of this body's dedication to support the ongoing war on terrorism. It was popular and ``good press'' to support the initial tide of patriotism and rise against the actions of September 11, 2001. We all stood and swore to the world we would not be bowed or broken. We rallied to the cause and professed dedication to righting this most egregious wrong. Two years have passed and some among us are starting to lose focus and the resolve necessary to wage this battle--and yes this is a battle. I can understand how that could happen. The more time passes the easier it is to allow other challenges, others programs, and other agendas to take center stage and we get back to the daily business at hand. But we, like our President and our military, must do our part to conquer this foe. We must remember the War on Terrorism does not have one lone face or name attached to it nor is it contained to the field of battle. This war is being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan as we try to wage peace and raise those countries to when they can stand on their own with self-leadership and rule of law by their own people. The war on terrorism is being waged through the financial institutions, diplomatic arena, and the fields of conflict. What this country and this Senate needs is the same kind of resolve to continue to support the efforts of this administration in Iraq and Afghanistan and whatever lands this fight takes us. Let us not be confused, the cost of freedom is high but the loss of our freedom and freedom of all nations is a much greater cost. Our only choice is to wage this battle and wage it fully. Our only choice is to wage this battle no matter where it takes us. Our only choice is to wage this battle through the courts and the banks, through the intelligence agencies and the embassies, through our combat capability and the United Nations. In 2001 I spoke of our President and how he prayed the evening of September 11, 2001. As I close, I offer a suggestion to each of my distinguished colleagues. This evening before bed I will take time to pray. I will pray for all of the victims of September 11, 2001 and their affected families. I will pray for all of the victims of terrorism throughout the world whether by the hands of organized terrorism or random acts perpetrated by despicable men with warped ideas. I will pray for all of the men and women of our military especially those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this Nation. I will also pray that our military is successful in defeating our foes in this war. I will pray for our President that he continue to lead this country during these trying times as he has done so honorably. Lastly I will pray for this body to continue to have the strength of character and fortitude to continue to support this cause through to completion no matter how long it may be. Let this day be a day of remembering and a day of pride as well as sadness. Let this day be the day that we gain renewed resolve, clarity of thought and strength of purpose. May God bless this day and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, are we under managed time?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution of disapproval regarding proposed changes in the media ownership regulations by the Federal Communications Commission. I personally thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership on this issue, as well as the rest of the Commerce Committee for so vigorously exploring the potential impact these regulations would have on the nature and content of the American media. These issues are of vital importance to the public, and I am pleased to be part of this effort, utilizing the congressional review process to ensure that the rulemaking process reflects the public interest. Frank Blethen, the publisher of the Seattle Times, eloquently testified before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this year. Mr. Blethen stated: The America newspaper, large and small, and without exception, belongs to a town, a city, at the most to a region. There is a certain pride and comfort to be taken from the notion that the media that so pervades our lives could be so rooted in focus and accountability. That comment reflects a core value that has led me to the position that I take today, that the Federal Communications Commission has proposed a series of historically broad rules changes that would make it easier for large media corporations to gobble up a greater share of local media, including television stations, in the same market. The Commission, and those who already hold enormous control over the content of the press, claim that this will only enhance the ability of the media to meet the needs of the consumer. The world, they claim, has grown so large and so complex that only vast resources and centralized control can carry important stories across the globe. I respectfully disagree. Consumers benefit from technology more today than in any time in history. In an age of satellite television and the Internet, I am not as convinced as some that the greatest hole in news coverage is the world beyond our region. The Consumers Union has correctly pointed out that the opposite is the case: Satellite provides no independent local news information and is struggling just to make local stations available to subscribers. Radio provides another acute example. Prior to 1996, there was a 40- station national ownership cap in the radio industry. Today, Clear Channel alone owns almost 1,240 stations, and between one-third and one-half of all independent radio stations have been absorbed or run out of business, including many in Colorado. Suggesting allowing increased cross ownership does not strike me as a policy in the greatest interest of the public whom the FCC is chartered to serve. The current generation of Americans has seen the number of independently owned newspapers dwindle from 1,700 to 280. As Commerce Committee Chairman McCain noted this spring, this often equates to a loss of diversity of opinion in the pages of those newspapers with a common owner. I share the Chairman's opinion on this matter and am profoundly concerned with the homogenization of information being funneled in to local communities by multi-market media corporations. As Mr. Blethen stated in his testimony, the secret of the free press and vibrant public discourse depends upon voices in the communities themselves. While those facts stand on their own, it is instructive to examine what we have witnessed in my home State of Colorado in recent years. A number of family-owned newspapers in Colorado have recently been absorbed by a media giant, the Media One Corporation. In Northeastern Colorado both the Ft. Morgan Times and the Sterling Journal Advocate, as well as the Southeastern Colorado paper the Lamar Daily News, have gone from being locally owned family papers to being part of an enormous media machine headquartered far from those who rely on the news and information of those papers. I ask my colleagues, particularly those from States with large rural areas, what will happen to the information available in those communities if the rules are relaxed even further? Will those in Lamar, CO, receive all of their news from newspapers, radio and television outlets owned by the same company? In my community of Loveland, CO, for example, I have seen a locally owned radio station become part of a syndicate of radio stations. We don't have the coverage of the local football games by the radio station anymore. We don't have local newscasters. A new station came in which was created by the city so you can tune into the station to get driving information in that small community in which I live. All of this was provided by a small radio station at an earlier time, before that larger conglomerate bought up that radio station in Loveland, CO. This represents an enormous fiscal impact on large and small businesses as well as individuals, infringing on their ability to reach the consumers they relied upon for years. Those who can still afford to advertise are forced to pass these increased costs to consumers. It is important to note that this is the market today, without the new, more loose FCC regulations in effect. What will happen with newspapers and television stations are owned by the same corporation? That is legitimate question. Capitol Broadcasting Company makes the following estimates for what will happen in Colorado under these proposed regulations: One company could own six Colorado television stations. One company could own an unlimited number of both daily and weekly newspapers in the Denver area or a combination of television stations and a majority of the print media. The local cable company serving every Colorado home could be owned by one company. The issue before the FCC and the Senate is not whether we need to re- debate the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or specific Joint Operating Agreements. The issue today is whether the public will be well served by another round of consolidation, particularly the wisdom of enhancing the ability of a large corporation to purchase broadcast outlets and newspapers in the same market. On several occasions I have contacted FCC Chairman Michael Powell to express my concern over the direction the FCC has taken and the speed with which it has moved. In my opinion the FCC did not give the public nor Congress an adequate chance to comment on changes of such enormous consequence prior to the adoption of the new regulations. I have been impressed and encouraged by the broad coalition of organizations expressing similar concerns over the FCC's press for action. The Consumers Union, National Rifle Association, Common Cause, the Traditional Values Coalition, CodePink Women for Peace, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Future of Music Coalition are just a few of the organizations that share my concern for independent and diverse media in the United States. Given the actions of the FCC, we must carefully consider the prudence of these rule changes and the overall public interest at stake. Reed Hundt, FCC Chairman during the passage of the Telecommunications Act, stated well the intention of the Congress. ``The Commission's goal in this proceeding is to further competition, just as we seek to promote competition in other communications industries we regulate. But in our broadcast ownership rules we also seek to promote diversity in programming and diversity in the viewpoints expressed on this powerful medium that so shapes our culture.'' What we must encourage is locally driven news coverage as opposed to national news that attempts to find a local perspective. National news for the sake of simplicity or sensationalism never gives local communities the in-depth coverage they should have. Do we want top down coverage or bottom up coverage? I opt for local to national. I feel much more comfortable with news stories originating out of my hometown in Colorado and then, on their own merits, rising to the national level. I am not particularly comfortable with national news being created and local stations trying to find a local perspective for the national headline. So I think that the top down is a bad alternative; the bottom up is the best approach. It is my hope that this body will listen to the many voices that are asking us not to chart a dangerous, wholly business-driven course for media and consumers in the coming years. The FCC would have been wise to maintain the existing commitment made to the public, facilitating greater opportunity for Americans to do business, seek information, and enjoy entertainment from a vibrant, diverse, and healthy media. The FCC has failed in doing this by passing a sweeping slate of rules that will do only one thing for certain: put fewer hands in control of the Nation's media. Thanks to the tool at our disposal, the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the opportunity to prevent these rules from going into effect. I urge my colleagues to stand up and send a loud and clear message to the FCC by voting in favor of this resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our fallen heroes of my State and this great Nation. SSG Mark A. Lawton was killed in action while serving our country in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sergeant Lawton served honorably with the 244th Engineer Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve of Grand Junction, CO. He was one of the many citizens soldiers who took up the charge and left family and career when asked to defend the principles of freedom and democracy. Like all reservists and National Guard members, he balanced his responsibilities to his country with those to all that cared for and depended on him. Staff Sergeant Lawton's unit was activated in February and are responsible for constructing roads and bridges, improving irrigation and building playgrounds for the children of Iraq. The 244th is creating a better place for Iraqis, and Sergeant Lawton helped raise the quality of life. Colorado is proud of the actions of Sergeant Lawton, the 244th and all of our servicemen and women serving during this operation. Staff Sergeant Lawton lived in Hayden, CO, with his wife, Sherri, and two sons, Dustin and Tanner. Mr. President, I rise today to posthumously thank Staff Sergeant Lawton for his service and ultimate sacrifice to this great Nation and applaud him as a hero to Colorado and all of the United States.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, for nearly 15 years, our country engaged in a bitter struggle with the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. We argued, negotiated, debated, and compromised with this brutal dictator, and yet the results were always the same: deception, deceit, and lies. In the meantime, thousands of innocent Iraqis were raped, tortured, or murdered. Some disappeared entirely, never to be seen again. Meanwhile, Iraq's enormous wealth was pilfered and squandered by Saddam's cronies who were more concerned about their collection of foreign sports cars than ensuring the Iraqi people had running water and sufficient electricity. It is easy to lose sight of how far we have come. As we constantly hear stories of the guerrilla style warfare, of secret Iraqi resistance groups, and the criticism regarding the pace of reconstruction, we forget about the people we have saved or the freedom we have provided. Iraqis are now truly free, and we must remember that. Change is not instantaneous, particularly when it comes to freeing a people who have been oppressed for over 25 years. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies recently reported, the reconstruction in Iraq will be an enormous task. We cannot and should not expect immediate results: decades of neglect and degradation cannot be overcome by the simple exertion of will. No, rebuilding of Iraq will be a slow and deliberate process. It cannot be rushed, and we must remember that we have only been rebuilding for 11 weeks. The recommendations from the CSIS report were helpful in identifying those areas that we need to work on. For example, the CSIS team found that public safety remains the primary concern for many Iraqis as well as American commanders and recommends quickly expanding the Iraqi civilian defense forces. Another critical recommendation is finding work for unemployed Iraqis who have far too much time to consider their plight. Realistically, I believe agriculture and construction could provide that employment. Though we still have a long road ahead, we should also recognize how far we have come. Saddam's brutal dictatorship is no longer in power, and we have taken steps to track down members of his former regime. The recent killing of Saddam's two sons was an important victory, and it appears that it will only be a matter of time before we catch Saddam. The Iraqi people are starting to realize that Saddam is not coming back to power and that freedom is truly theirs. We have also restored most of the public utilities and improved security. Thousands of Iraqis are joining the country's new civil defense force, which will free up thousands of American troops for other missions. And oil revenue is increasing daily, helping defray the costs of running the country. Perhaps most significantly, Iraq's governing council has convened and the process of developing a formal structure for governing the country has begun. We also must not forget that 85 percent of the cities are now governed by local Iraqi leaders. Despite this amazing progress, some have criticized the administration's approach to Iraq. For example, many have wanted to know when our troops will come home for some time. Unfortunately, the Army was unable to provide a rotation schedule until recently because of ongoing military operations and security concerns. This concern resonated in my home State as well. In Colorado, we have been awaiting word on when the local soldiers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry based at Fort Carson might return since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thankfully, the Army recently announced its unit rotation schedule, which means that if all goes according to plan, many of the units in Iraq, including the 3rd Armored Cavalry, will be home within a year. This information will bring joy to our troops who have served so valiantly over the last several months. It will also give hope to the many families who had been patiently awaiting for information on when their loved ones might return. We should not forget that without their support and sacrifice, our troops would not be able to function. It is their families who give our troops strength. This is why I have been working with nonprofit organizations like the Armed Forces Foundation that have been providing support to these families during this prolonged deployment. During the August recess, for example, I will be joining the Armed Forces Foundation in organizing a fishing trip for the children of the soldiers form Fort Carson. While activities like the children's fishing trip cannot replace a mother or father, they can lift the spirits of these families who have sacrificed so much. Other criticism, however, is completely unjustified at this time. For example, some pushed for cost estimates on our future operations in Iraq, which everyone knows is nearly impossible to predict at this time. Department officials can't look into their crystal ball and pull out the magic number. Future operations in Iraq may cost more than the $4 billion we are currently spending or they may cost less. We just don't know at this time, and we won't know until Iraq is completely stabilized. Another criticism centers on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. Almost all of us believed, and many of us still believe, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And what happened to these weapons is a legitimate question. Our forces have not found these weapons yet, but that does not mean they didn't exist or that we wont' find them in the future. There are few matters that our intelligence agencies have ever conclusively agreed on. One of those was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Last October's National Intelligence Estimate clearly lays out the intelligence supporting this belief. What attracted so much attention, unfortunately, was the use of particular pieces of intelligence in speeches by administration officials. The President's State of the Union Address for example included a statement that the administration now admits did not rise to the level of certainty required for Presidential speeches. While I won't attempt to justify the inclusion of such a statement, I will say that the matter does not deserve the attention it has received. The President's statement was not false, and it was only one statement in a series that laid out Iraq's effort to develop weapons of mass destruction. In fact, British intelligence still stands behind the statement. And no one has questioned the veracity of the other statements in the President's speech. So despite this statement, it seems clear to me that the President laid out a very convincing case that the American people and Congress agreed with. I also remind my colleagues that we voted to force Iraq to comply with United Nations resolutions 3 months before the President's speech. Mr. President, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a spectacular campaign that resulted in the freeing of millions from tyranny and oppression. We should take pride in bringing freedom and liberty to the Iraqi people. Our troops are performing admirably and continue to believe in their mission. We still have much to accomplish, but with patience and perseverance, we will make a difference in this long-troubled region of the world.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last week, the Under Secretary of the Air Force, Peter Teets, announced the Air Force's determination that the Boeing Company had committed serious violations of Federal law by illegally acquiring thousands of documents from its chief competitor, Lockheed Martin. Apparently, the Boeing Company used this information to underbid Lockheed during the billion-dollar Evolved Expendable Vehicle competition. Boeing's illegal activity probably cost Lockheed Martin hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts and did serious damage to the Federal Government's procurement process. As a result, the Air Force has punished the Boeing Company by suspending Boeing's Launch Systems, Services, and Delta business units for an indefinite period of time. The Air Force also reduced the total number of Boeing launches by seven. The Air Force increased the total number of launches for Lockheed by the same number. The Air Force granted Lockheed Martin permission to develop a west coast launch capability at Vandenberg Air Force Base, which will give Lockheed an opportunity to compete for launches from this critical base. This decision will give the Air Force more flexibility in awarding launches in the future. I was pleased by the Air Force's decision. Integrity of the procurement process is essential and nothing less than the highest standards should be expected. Boeing's actions are a major disappointment, and it is my hope that the Air Force's decision will serve up as a wake-up call, not just for this company, but for all companies doing business with the Department of Defense. Boeing must not take measures to ensure that its employees know that this activity is unacceptable. To this end, the hiring of former Senator Warren Rudman to review the company's policies and procedures regarding ethics and the handling of competitive information was a good first step. It saddens me to think that a handful of individuals could have caused such problems for the 160,000 hard-working men and women employed by the Boeing Company. We should keep in mind that the Department of Justice is continuing its own investigation into the criminal activities of these former employees. I will also be requesting through the Senate Armed Services Committee that the General Accounting Office investigate whether defense consolidation has resulted in a situation where the Federal Government's ability to punish those companies that violate the procurement process has been limited. To be clear, I continue to support the Air Force's policy of sustaining two launch providers for the EELV program. Last February, I sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense emphasizing my belief that reliance on only one provider could jeopardize our ability to utilize space. Assured access to space requires sufficient launch capability, which would be lost with the elimination of one launch service providers. And, while redundancy is expensive, I believe we need to ensure space assets are there for our men and women in the Armed Forces when they are needed.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to our colleague and a friend, Strom Thurmond. We were all deeply moved by the recent passing of this gracious gentleman, and I would like to take a few minutes to reflect on his rich life and to honor his memory. Strom Thurmond had a long and distinguished career. Over recent weeks we have heard many descriptions of the achievements of this remarkable man. But Senator Thurmond was distinguished for much more than the length of his Senate service or the number of ``firsts'' he achieved during his life. Rather, Senator Thurmond is distinguished by his love for America. For although Strom Thurmond was perhaps best known as a politician, he was first and foremost a patriot. His military service, his time as a governor, and his tenure in the U.S. Senate were all fueled by his deep and abiding love for America. Just as deep as his love for America was his love for South Carolina and its residents. Senator Thurmond and his staff were well known for their accessability and outstanding constituent service. He believed in hard work and service, and never shied away from his convictions. That same accessability and attitude of service carried over to his interaction with fellow members as well. I was honored to serve with Senator Thurmond on the Armed Services Committee, and I still remember the helpful guidance he gave me as a new member on the committee. His passion for our military members and his concern for their well-being was evident, and I hope that I can emulate that same care. I also remember how generous Senator Thurmond was with his personal time. Obviously as a senior Member of the Senate and the Senate President pro tempore he had a number of responsibilities. However, he still made time to serve this member. Several years ago I was honored when he graciously agreed to speak at the Capitol Conference I hold for Colorado constituents each year. To this day I am deeply appreciative of the time that he spent making remarks, fielding questions, and taking photos with my constituents. Many of the participants later remarked on his wit and vitality, remarkable for any member, but especially for one of his years. Even in their short time with him they were able to see the courtesy and conviction that we witnessed each day. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to get to know Strom Thurmond as the person behind the military hero and political legend. To see the small ways in which he expressed his interest in and appreciation for those around him, such as taking the Senate pages for ice cream. He also expressed personal concern about the health and well being of his staff and Members, which was perhaps necessitated in some part by the candy he was always handing out. I only hope that we can all learn from and retain some part of his charm, confidence, depth of conviction, and commitment. Although Strom Thurmond may no longer be here with us physically, his legacy will live on. The United States Senate and America are better for his strength, service, and self-sacrifice. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to Senator Thurmond's family and friends. He was a proud father, and recently, grandfather. His love for his family was well known, and our thoughts and prayers are with them. My wife Joan and I hope that they are able to find comfort and peace during these difficult days. I am proud to have called Strom Thurmond my colleague and friend, and today I join the rest of America in honoring this great service and mourning his passing.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Foreign Relations Committee for their hard work on the legislation before us. Specifically, I am pleased to see included in S. 925, the State Department authorization, a provision relating to the international military education training and foreign military financing for Indonesia. The committee has seen fit, and rightly so, to deny the release of any of these funds to Indonesia without certification from our President that the Indonesian Government has taken effective measures to conduct an investigation into the August 2002 attacks on American citizens and to prosecute those responsible. By now I know that my colleagues in the Senate are aware of the tragedy that occurred last August in West Papua, Indonesia, which resulted in the deaths of two Americans. Justice has still not been found for Rick Spier or Ted Burgeon, and I am grateful that the Foreign Relations Committee has recognized the need for Indonesia and its military apparatus to determine what has occurred. Hopefully, this provision will demonstrate to the Indonesian Government that the United States Senate will not allow this issue to fall to the wayside, and that we remain committed to finding and punishing those responsible.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as the month of August nears and the remaining summer days dwindle, many Americans are turning their attention to the highway as they plan family vacations and road trips, setting their sights on destinations that may be close to home or several States away. As they plot their travel plans, they must take into account several road-related factors, including, what route to take, which highway to use and how long it will take to get to their. Road safety, highway quality and congestion will undoubtedly be major considerations that will enter this equation. In addition to personal mobility, roads also serve as the backbone of the national economy. Our economic success depends on a sound transportation system that efficiently carries goods to and from the marketplace. We must work diligently throughout the upcoming highway re-authorization to provide a policy framework that facilitates access to both markets for goods and places for people. It is for these reasons, among others, that I rise today to introduce the Freeing Alternatives to Speedy Transportation Act, or for short, the FAST Act--legislation that will ease and alleviate traffic congestion, increase highway capacity, decrease pollution and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans. The legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Kennedy of Minnesota. His bi-partisan version of the bill has gained strong support and momentum, and I thank him for his leadership on transportation matters. It is easy to say how important our roads are to our success. But the question that has everyone stumped is how to pay for it all. We must look to creative policies that place the State in the drivers seat toward ending the transportation funding dilemma--policies that capitalize on user choice and private financing. The FAST Act provides just that--flexibility and innovation to move forward with important Interstate highway expansion projects--projects that would not be possible with out the FAST Act--to ease congestion and alleviate the strain on our roads. The FAST Act removes the obstacles that prevent States from collecting user fees on Interstate highway expansion projects. It allows a State to create an authority that collects user fees to finance expansion lanes on Interstates, while building in several protective measures that boost consumer confidence and protection. The fees are collected only on the expansion land--the existing lanes remain open and free of charge. Fees can be used only for the construction of the FAST lane and accompanying structures--the money cannot be diverted to other accounts or projects. It allows the State to collect, as part of the fee, a maintenance reserve for that lane, and guarantees that the fee will be removed once the project is paid off. In other words, the fee pays for the project, ends, and the FAST lane then becomes available to everyone free of the fee. While I realize this bill is but one avenue in bridging our highway policy needs, the options it opens through user-choice and dedicated funding will promote sound State planning and decision making. The FAST Act has the support of the Colorado Department of Transportation, think tanks, State governments and many others who hope to find new ways to expend highways. Tom Norton, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, wrote in support of the FAST Act, ``With nationwide transportation needs continually increasing, Federal Government, as well as the States, must seek new funding sources to keep up with this demand. This needed legislation provides States the ability to explore a new source in order to fund highway expansion.'' In addition to the backing the legislation has received from the Colorado Department of Transportation, both the Minnesota and Washington DOTs support the bill as well. Earlier this week, the Joint Economic Committee released a white paper, noting ``roads are deteriorating while congestion worsens every year.'' The paper highlights the FAST Act as a new funding mechanism for highways, noting that many economists believe that the new authorization bill should grant the states more flexibility in raising money for funding transportation projects. It concludes by stating that the FAST Act is a modest measure that can help bridge the financing chasm. Numerous organizations and associations across the country have either endorsed the FAST Act or have strong and positive interest in the legislation. These groups include: Americans for Tax Reform, American Highway Users Alliance, Associated General Contractors of America, National Taxpayers Union, Association for Commuter Transportation, and the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials. As the population of the United States continues to surge and miles traveled by automobiles increase every year, transportation planners must find new and innovative ways to expand highway congestion. With today's budget crisis, this task becomes even more formidable as States look for new ways to stretch every dollar. The FAST Act give States one more tool in their battle against congestion. It creates a new source of revenue through user choice. It give them flexibility in managing construction and maintenance, encourages public-private partnerships and speeds traffic through a series of electronic gateways instead of creating logjams at toll booths. It is one more tool in the toolbox of innovative finance options that will lead to a more efficient, safer highway system. I ask unanimous consent that supporting documents and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.