Wayne Allard

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.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. ALLARD. I send amendment No. 1017 to the desk.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, Medicare home health providers are in a paperwork crisis. Current regulations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, requires that caregivers administer voluminous paperwork to patients when they administer care. These paperwork requirements are too excessive for both patients and caregivers. Caregivers must administer numerous forms including data collection, patient privacy information, a plan of care, advance directives, a visit schedule, a comprehensive assessment, and more. One of these requirements, called OASIS, or the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, is 94 questions long and takes a few hours to fill out. Before a nurse or physical therapist administers care, she and the patient must sit down and answer questions and fill out this paperwork. Colorado providers have told me they spend more time filling out paperwork than they do caring for patients. As a result of this excessive data collection and dissemination, home health caregivers are leaving the home health industry. Two weeks ago a home health administrator in Colorado Springs came to share with me the situation in her agency. On her plane trip here, three of her newly- home health physical therapists called to tell her they were leaving the agency because of excessive paperwork requirements. They said they were going to leave the home health industry and return to the hospital industry. We cannot afford this. Home health care is a vital player in health care for seniors and all individuals. If this paperwork crisis continues, home health care will continue to lose caregivers and bloat its current caregiver shortage. Currently CMS requires that home health caregivers administer OASIS to Medicare patients, to Medicaid patients, and to patients who have private health insurance. The problem with this regulation, however, is that the data collected for private health insurance patients is not even used. This data literally sits in the offices of home health agencies with no current purpose. The fact is CMS requires that home health agencies encode the OASIS data for Medicare and Medicaid patients only and to transmit it to their States. Then the information is transmitted into the Federal OASIS Repository. For all private insurance patients, the home health agencies do not have to encode or transmit the data. So these nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and nurse practitioners are required to collect this data for no reason. It is my understanding CMS intends to require the transmission of data for private health patients at some point. But it has been 4 years and they have not done it yet. In the meantime there are still many problems with OASIS. Until CMS issues the improved regulation, caregivers should be allowed to stop collecting unused data that ends up in the filing cabinets of home health agencies. The amendment I am offering with Senators Feingold, Collins, Kohl, and Leahy would suspend the CMS requirement of collecting OASIS data for private insurance patients, non-Medicare and non-Medicaid patients, until an outcome by CMS's two OASIS working groups is reached. Specifically, OASIS would be suspended until the 2 months immediately after HHS issues its regulations about OASIS. The regulations will be based on the information collected from and the recommendations of CMS's two working groups that are determining over the course of 3 years ways to improve OASIS data collection and quality assurance. Our amendment is supported by caregivers in home health who administer OASIS, including physical therapists, nurses, nurse practitioners, occupational therapists, and speech therapists. Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, chairwoman of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means, also strongly supports this amendment. In addition, our language was included in Medicare reform bills in the Senate in the last 2 consecutive years. Further, I commend Senator Feingold for introducing legislation last Congress to reform OASIS and I commend Senator Murkowski and Senator Kerry for their work on the MARCIA regulatory reform legislation, which included an OASIS suspension. My colleagues and I believe OASIS data collection is helpful and should be applied. Even providers and patients, who must comply with the law, believe this. Yet the requirements to collect data should be achievable and inexcessive. I am pleased to offer this amendment and urge my colleagues to support this effort for caregivers and patients.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two additional cosponsors be added to the amendment, Senator Kohl and Senator Leahy.

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, I rise to tell my colleagues about an extraordinary volunteer program that is dramatically impacting the lives of underprivileged, underachieving students in Denver, CO. It is called Whiz Kids and, frankly this program is a classic example of what happens when men and women of faith, who love kids, decide to make things happen. Each week, over 700 volunteers tutor elementary students in the Denver, Aurora, and Jefferson County school districts. Most of the tutoring takes place at urban churches, but at each of 44 sites, Whiz Kids provides books, computers, snacks, club time-spiritual values, a sense of community and, most of all, the love of men and women who care enough about the kids to invest a few hours a week to help them read. The results have been nothing short of fantastic--the average youngster in Whiz Kids improves his or her reading ability by 1-3 grades each year, according to tracking by Denver Public Schools. The target for Whiz Kids is schools and students with scores below average in CSAP, Colorado's statewide student testing program. Whiz Kids is an 11-year-old, nonprofit organization which is supported by over 700 volunteer tutors and more than 80 other key volunteer leaders. Each tutor make a 1-year commitment to the program and the tutor retention rate is an amazing 95 percent with 60 percent of volunteer tutors re-upping from one year to the next. Whiz Kids operates on a shoestring--the total cash budget is only $360,000 per year. But the dramatic results of this tutoring program, and its commendable cost efficiency, have called forth tremendous support from over 150 churches of many denominations. The Colorado business community has also pitched in to help by donating 120 computers and other in-kind contributions and financial support from companies such as AV Hunter, Best Buy, Janis, JD Edwards, Kinder Morgan, King Soopers, Houghton Mifflin, Western Union, and others. Additional support comes from the Anschutz Family Foundation, Coors Foundation, Daniels Foundation, El Pomar, Fund for Colorado's Future, Jack A. Vickers Foundation, PK Foundation, Sam S. Bloom Foundation, the Schlessman Family Foundation, Schramm Foundation and TYL Foundation. The Denver Nuggets donated the entire Pepsi Center to Whiz Kids for a 1-day Slam Dunk Saturday event at which 2,000 mentors and kids gather for basketball clinics and drills. Then, mentors and kids are guests of the Nuggets for the evening game. This is the largest gathering of its kind in the NBA. The Nuggets donate additional tickets for tutors, kids, and their parents throughout the season. The Denver Broncos donate tickets to their kids camp. Whiz Kids has received the Denver Broncos Quarterback Award 2 years in a row. The Colorado Rapids annually donate game tickets for kids and tutors. Each year, Whiz Kids holds its year end Run to Read event at Denver's City Park. More than a thousand tutors and kids gather for games, music, and fun to celebrate achievements of the year. Last year, this event also raised pledges of more than $20,000 from tutors to buy additional supplies for the following school year. From start to finish, kids and tutors have a lot of fun, but the main purpose is completely serious--to get kids who are falling behind in reading back on track. It is a program that is working. Whiz Kids has been called one of the top three faith-based tutoring programs in America by Tony Campbell of America's Promise. And no wonder, it is already being copied in eight other States. I hope my colleagues will take a moment to read a recent letter from the Denver Public Schools which describes why Whiz Kids is such an ``excellent model of collaboration'' between the public schools and the private sector. ``To Whom It May Concern: In support of the Whiz Kids Tutoring Program, this letter shall serve to detail the collaborative relationship between our organizations. Whiz Kids Tutoring operates in partnership with the Denver Public Schools Office of Community Partnerships, as an independent agency providing services to our students. Because of this partnership by acting as the interface between the program and the principals and teachers of our district. At the beginning of each school semester, we assist the program by identifying students and facilitating student participation, and by coordinating the participation of DPS liaison teachers. Our office provides additional salary compensation for liaison teachers, based upon the number of sessions attended in a given school year. This compensation totaled over $29,000 for the 2001-02 school year. In addition, our office provides Colorado Bureau of Investigations background screening for all incoming volunteers to the program, and we assist Whiz Kids with $500 in vouchers for books and other materials for each new study hall session that opens. We also conducted an evaluation of the program (1998/99) in conjunction with the Graduate School of Education at the University of Denver. This study showed us that students engaged with Whiz Kids tutors gained between one and three academic grade levels in reading competencies over a 1-year time frame. ``For their part, Whiz Kids Tutoring provides Denver Public Schools with a wonderful benefit each school year. Nearly 600 of our students receive one-on-one academic support and mentoring each year, making Whiz Kids the largest single provider of such services to the district. The agency provides excellent support and training to its volunteers, which is reflected by the extremely high commitment level the volunteers exhibit. Recruitment, training, and management of all volunteers are provided by Whiz Kids, eliminating any costs to DPS in these areas. Also, by partnering with neighborhood churches and community centers to provide space for group activities, Whiz Kids greatly reduces the overhead costs of the program, which might otherwise be incurred by the district in a school-based operation. ``The relationship between Whiz Kids Tutoring and Denver Public Schools is an excellent model of collaboration and provides a vital service to the children of our district. I appreciate your consideration of the Whiz Kids Tutoring grant proposal and give it my full endorsement as a partner. Should you require additional details regarding our partnership, please feel free to contact me at 303-764- 3580. Sincerely, Christine Smith, Director, Denver Public Schools Office of Community Partnerships and Enterprise Activity.'' Mr. President, Whiz Kids is a great program which enriches the lives of students, provides a fulfilling opportunity for volunteers, and gives them a wonderful opportunity to put their faith into action. Every community ought to have a program like this.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, currently approximately 19,500 Colorado seniors are beneficiaries of Medicare health plans called ``cost contracts.'' Under current law, cost contracts will expire. Along with Senator Wyden, Senator Smith, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, and Senator Coleman, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2003 to refine and to allow seniors to continue using these valued health plans. Medicare cost contracts are managed care plans that are reimbursed at the cost of providing health benefits. Currently, seniors have three Medicare plans to choose from: basic Medicare fee-for-service, Medicare+Choice, and Medicare cost contracts. Cost contract plans offer more benefits than basic Medicare and is available in more areas than Medicare+Choice. Cost contracts also offer lower out-of-pocket expenses and more benefits than supplemental Medigap, such as preventive care and prescription drug benefits. In addition, cost contract premiums cover Medicare deductibles and additional benefits not covered by basic Medicare. Further, for the costs of a normal Medicare fee-for-service copayment, seniors with cost contracts can use any Medicare provider whether they participate in the health plan's network. Cost contracts are especially important in rural Colorado. Of the 19,500 Coloradans with cost contract plans, about 90 percent live in rural Colorado, where few basic Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers operate. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, then thousands of seniors will be forced into these other Medicare programs. Seniors with cost contracts value them. According to the 1999 Medicare Managed Care Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare beneficiaries gave Medicare cost contract health insurers higher ratings than non-cost contract providers. Beneficiaries noted cost contracting HMOs solved problems, provided care, and provided customer service better than the majority of non-cost contracting providers. These ratings demonstrate that cost contract plans provide the quality service seniors want and need. Unfortunately, under current law cost contracts soon will terminate. In 1997, in an effort to refine Medicare+Choice, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Among other provisions, this bill terminated the Medicare cost contract program effective December 31, 2002. To prevent the termination of this valuable plan, in 1999 I introduced legislation to extend cost contracts. That year Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Refinement Act, which extended cost contracts for two years through 2004. Congress should extend Medicare cost contracts further. Legislation I am introducing, the Cost Contracting Extension and Refinement Act, would accomplish this by extending by ten years the cost contract sunset date of December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2014. While the goal of Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to provide an alternative to basic Medicare through Medicare+Choice, Medicare+Choice has not yet met this goal in rural Colorado. Until Medicare+Choice coverage is readily available to rural cost contract recipients, Congress should extend the current cost contract sunset for an additional 10 years. This legislation would provide another reform. It would apply certain existing requirements under the Medicare+Choice program to Medicare cost contract plans in order to allow better administration, education, and protections to patients, providers, and insurers. The legislation would allow beneficiaries to be informed and educated about the option of cost contracts, apply quality assurance requirements, prevent plans from discriminating against certain patients by offering lower premiums, and prohibit States from taxing cost contract premiums. These provisions help refine and strengthen the Medicare cost contract program, and they help streamline the dual administration of Medicare+Choice and cost contracts. Last, the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act would allow certain health plans, called group model health plans, to offer Medicare patients a cost contract plan. These group model health plans have traditionally been shown to provide care efficiently and at a cost lower than the costs that would be incurred if the services are furnished under the Medicare fee-for-service program. Group health plans are health insurers that offer health care through providers that are employed by the insurer, such as the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. If, for example, Kaiser provides Medicare patients the cost contract option, then Colorado's approximate 50,000 seniors, who are now enrolled in Kaiser's Medicare+Choice plans, would be eligible to obtain a cost contract plan. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a choice in how they receive their health care. Congress should allow one of these choices to remain Medicare cost contracts. On behalf of the 19,500 Colorado Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their health care from cost contract plans, I am pleased to sponsor the Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, currently approximately 19,500 Colorado seniors are beneficiaries of Medicare health plans called ``cost contracts.'' Under current law, cost contracts will expire. Along with Senator Wyden, Senator Smith, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, and Senator Coleman, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2003 to refine and to allow seniors to continue using these valued health plans. Medicare cost contracts are managed care plans that are reimbursed at the cost of providing health benefits. Currently, seniors have three Medicare plans to choose from: basic Medicare fee-for-service, Medicare+Choice, and Medicare cost contracts. Cost contract plans offer more benefits than basic Medicare and is available in more areas than Medicare+Choice. Cost contracts also offer lower out-of-pocket expenses and more benefits than supplemental Medigap, such as preventive care and prescription drug benefits. In addition, cost contract premiums cover Medicare deductibles and additional benefits not covered by basic Medicare. Further, for the costs of a normal Medicare fee-for-service copayment, seniors with cost contracts can use any Medicare provider whether they participate in the health plan's network. Cost contracts are especially important in rural Colorado. Of the 19,500 Coloradans with cost contract plans, about 90 percent live in rural Colorado, where few basic Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers operate. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, then thousands of seniors will be forced into these other Medicare programs. Seniors with cost contracts value them. According to the 1999 Medicare Managed Care Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare beneficiaries gave Medicare cost contract health insurers higher ratings than non-cost contract providers. Beneficiaries noted cost contracting HMOs solved problems, provided care, and provided customer service better than the majority of non-cost contracting providers. These ratings demonstrate that cost contract plans provide the quality service seniors want and need. Unfortunately, under current law cost contracts soon will terminate. In 1997, in an effort to refine Medicare+Choice, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Among other provisions, this bill terminated the Medicare cost contract program effective December 31, 2002. To prevent the termination of this valuable plan, in 1999 I introduced legislation to extend cost contracts. That year Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Refinement Act, which extended cost contracts for two years through 2004. Congress should extend Medicare cost contracts further. Legislation I am introducing, the Cost Contracting Extension and Refinement Act, would accomplish this by extending by ten years the cost contract sunset date of December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2014. While the goal of Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to provide an alternative to basic Medicare through Medicare+Choice, Medicare+Choice has not yet met this goal in rural Colorado. Until Medicare+Choice coverage is readily available to rural cost contract recipients, Congress should extend the current cost contract sunset for an additional 10 years. This legislation would provide another reform. It would apply certain existing requirements under the Medicare+Choice program to Medicare cost contract plans in order to allow better administration, education, and protections to patients, providers, and insurers. The legislation would allow beneficiaries to be informed and educated about the option of cost contracts, apply quality assurance requirements, prevent plans from discriminating against certain patients by offering lower premiums, and prohibit States from taxing cost contract premiums. These provisions help refine and strengthen the Medicare cost contract program, and they help streamline the dual administration of Medicare+Choice and cost contracts. Last, the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act would allow certain health plans, called group model health plans, to offer Medicare patients a cost contract plan. These group model health plans have traditionally been shown to provide care efficiently and at a cost lower than the costs that would be incurred if the services are furnished under the Medicare fee-for-service program. Group health plans are health insurers that offer health care through providers that are employed by the insurer, such as the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. If, for example, Kaiser provides Medicare patients the cost contract option, then Colorado's approximate 50,000 seniors, who are now enrolled in Kaiser's Medicare+Choice plans, would be eligible to obtain a cost contract plan. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a choice in how they receive their health care. Congress should allow one of these choices to remain Medicare cost contracts. On behalf of the 19,500 Colorado Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their health care from cost contract plans, I am pleased to sponsor the Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I just received word that a dear friend of mine, the Air Force Academy, and the State of Colorado passed away last night and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize retired Chief Master Sergeant Louis Brown Jr. One of Colorado's finest citizens, CMSgt, Ret., Louis Brown Jr., has made numerous contributions to the young men and women--past, present and future--of the United States Air Force Academy. Chief Brown has been a steadfast proponent and volunteered more than 10 years of service to recruit, advise, interview, and mentor cadets for the Air Force Academy with my congressional office. Additionally, he has spent over 30 years of tireless interaction with some of the Air Force's finest officers and Academy graduates. Chief Brown has made a difference to the Air Force, the Air Force Academy, and to Colorado as a whole. Specifically, he has worked countless hours with members of my staff since my tenure in the United States Congress helping to interview potential candidates to the academy, educating them on the appointment process, and encouraging these young men and women to contribute to the United States armed forces. He has been a mentor and a role model to countless cadets who have gone forward to become Air Force officers. I want to honor the life of Chief Brown who served the Air Force first as an enlisted Airman and later in life as an advocate for recruitment of future officers. His contributions to the State of Colorado and the United States Air Force will not be forgotten. I ask the Senate now to join me in thanking Chief Brown and his family for these contributions and also to pray for his loved ones in their time of mourning.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate will resume debate on the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2004. Under the previous order, there will be 20 minutes remaining for debate in relation to the first- and second-degree amendments which are pending to the Defense bill. Following that debate, the Senate will vote in relation to the Warner second-degree amendment regarding low-yield nuclear weapons. Senators should therefore expect the first rollcall vote to occur at approximately 10 o'clock this morning. Following the disposition of these amendments, additional amendments are expected, and therefore rollcall votes are expected throughout the day. It is still hoped we will be able to complete action on this important legislation during today's session.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. Before I make any more comments, right at the very start, I want to make one thing clear: We are not building new nuclear weapons. We are modifying existing nuclear weapons. Somehow the other side is trying to imply that we are building new nuclear weapons, and we are going to continue to add to the number of nuclear warheads we have. We are continuing to reduce the number of nuclear warheads under the Moscow Treaty. The Senate bill includes an authorization of $15 million to continue a 3-year feasibility study on the robust nuclear penetrator. I repeat, to continue the feasibility study. This is not a new issue for the Congress to consider. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, the Congress authorized $15 million for the first year of the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator which is now under way. This bill authorizes only the continuation of the feasibility study. It does not authorize the production or deployment of such a capability. The RNEP for feasibility--referring to the robust nuclear earth penetrator--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 is the challenge we face. Our potential enemies are trying to avoid any vulnerability to targets by going deeper and deeper underground. In order to destroy deeply buried targets that could be hiding weapons of mass destruction or command and control assets, this new technology needs to be an option, not that we are necessarily going to use it. 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 B-61-11, one of the nuclear weapons being considered for the RNEP feasibility study, was also modified once before to serve as an earth penetrator to hold specific targets at risk. At that time, the modification was to ensure the B-61 would penetrate frozen soils. The RNEP feasibility study is attempting to determine if the same B-61 or another weapon--for example, the B-83--can be modified to penetrate hard rock or reinforced, underground facilities. Authorizing research on both options, nuclear and conventional--and we hope we will never have to use the nuclear; we hope we can continue to advance the conventional technology so that would be the preferred method of choice to go after these deep underground hardened targets--for attacking such targets is a responsible step for our country to take Again, we are not producing new nuclear weapons. We are doing a modification. It is a continuing modification. We have modified the B- 61 before. We are looking at the B-83 to see if perhaps we can't do a modification on that. The sponsor of the amendment made the comment that the United States is setting an example for the rest of the world. We are continuing to set the example for the rest of the world by reducing the number of nuclear warheads. The problem is countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan don't care what we are doing. Despite our best efforts to set an example, they are continuing to develop nuclear warheads. They are doing more than we are today as far as the triggering mechanism for nuclear warheads. If that continues, where will that put us as far as the defense of this country is concerned? I commend President Bush. He has taken the lead in reducing the number of nuclear warheads. It is great that we are able, through these kind of programs, to take covert silos, as my friend from North Dakota mentioned, and we are planting sunflower seeds. We are still doing that today as a result of the Moscow Treaty. Even before the treaty, the President announced that he would take down the Peacekeeper which is buried in silos in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado. That effort is moving forward. We are continuing to do that. The point is, we need to have some flexibility. Times are changing. Our targets are changing. We need to have new technology. We need to study. That is what this provides, a feasibility study of these various options. We simply cannot afford to be caught shorthanded. Too much is at risk. America is at risk. ADM 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. That is his view. Many nations are increasingly developing these hardened, deeply buried targets to protect command and communications and weapons of mass destruction production and storage assets. It is prudent to authorize the study of potential capabilities to address this growing category of threat. What the Senate bill authorizes is simply the second year of the 3- year feasibility study and nothing more. Should the National Nuclear Security Administration determine through this study that the robust nuclear earth penetrator can meet the requirement to hold a hardened and deeply buried target at risk, NNSA still could not proceed to full- scale weapons development, production, or deployment without an authorization and appropriation from Congress. We do the study. Say the study says there is a feasible alternative. Still they cannot move forward until they have the authorization for development and production through authorization and appropriation from the Congress. We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets to assess what would be collateral damage associated with such a capability. Then Congress would have the information it would need to decide whether development of such a weapon is appropriate and necessary to maintain our Nation's security. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Dorgan amendment as it now stands. This is an important issue. We are talking about the defense of this country. A lot is at stake. I think we need to keep in mind that despite the fact we are doing a lot today to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal, other countries are continuing to test. I put in the Record yesterday a whole page of tests that have occurred since we quit testing underground. Other countries are continuing to develop their weapons. We need to continue to use our technology to make sure we have the proper defenses and the wherewithal to protect our troops in the field, to protect America, and to protect freedom. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. ALLARD. There is no objection on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote at 12:30 relative to the Dorgan amendment; that our time be equally divided between both sides; and that after the vote, Senator Byrd be allowed to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. It is my understanding Senator Reid discussed this with the chairman and it was agreed that Senator Byrd would have an opportunity to speak for 20 minutes after the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I renew my request.

Mr. ALLARD. About 2 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Warner second- degree amendment to the Reed amendment in the form of a substitute. The amendment would strike the Reed-Levin amendment, thereby retaining the repeal of the ban on research and development of low- yield nuclear weapons that is in the committee bill. The amendment would also require that the Department of Energy receive an authorization from the Congress for engineering development, and all subsequent phases of weapons development, before commencing with such activities. This amendment would make it absolutely clear that it is the prerogative of Congress to decide on the funding necessary for the administration to proceed with engineering development of a low-yield nuclear weapon, but it will not stop the military planners and weapon designers from considering and proposing such development. Even after repealing the ban, as we did in the committee bill, the administration is still required to specifically request funding at each phase of research and development, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. With this amendment, the Department of Energy would be required to receive an authorization from Congress before commencing with the engineering development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Congress would have another opportunity to review such activities if they are requested by the administration. This amendment provides for appropriate congressional review and oversight without incurring the disadvantages of an outright ban on some portions of research and development. Retaining a ban on development, acquisition, and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons, would continue the ``chilling effect'' on exploration of certain advanced nuclear weapons concepts because few will choose to work on these concepts if their development or production is prohibited. Also, the Department of Defense will not spend precious research dollars on a weapon type they have little chance of fielding. I urge support of this amendment. I believe this amendment addresses in a serious way the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues. This amendment would provide all the transparency required to ensure the administration can proceed with research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, but not until Congress has an opportunity to review the request and affirmatively authorize engineering development activities. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, 2:30 p.m. on TEA-21 Reauthorization, in SR- 253.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226. Panel I: Senators. Panel II: R. Hewitt Pate to be Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Wednesday, May 21, 2003, from 9:30 a.m. at 1 p.m.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``SARS: How Effective Is The State And Local Response?''