Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, with much reservation, I rise today in support of the Feingold amendment. On August 31, 2002 several Americans in West Papua--Indonesia were brutally attacked by heavily armed assailants. Two Americans--Rick Spier and Ted Burgon--were murdered during the 35 minute ambush and many others were seriously wounded. Last week, I met with Rick Spier's wife, Mrs. Patsy Spier, who was also shot three times during the attack. She described with much emotion the circumstances of the attack and the horrific result. I was saddened by her loss and angered by the Indonesian Government's failure to bring the perpetrators to justice. Following my meeting with Mrs. Spier, I contacted the Department of States and later received a detailed briefing from Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Daley. I also contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and expressed my interest in meeting the agents charged with investigation this case upon their return from Indonesia. Following these meetings, I wrote to President Bush to express my strong views about this matter. I urged the President to press the Indonesian Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack. I further wrote that if the Indonesian Government fails to act, a severe diplomatic response, including the suspension of funding for the International Military Education Training Program for Indonesia, should be considered. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks my letter of January 16 to President Bush.

Mr. ALLARD. I am pleased that Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, has included strong report language on Indonesia. As I noted in a colloquy with Senator McConnell, the references in the report language to the Americans murdered in West Papua and the demands that justice be served for these crimes were warranted and much appreciated. The amendment before us would limit Indonesian military personnel to participation in the IMET program only, absent a presidential determination that the Indonesian government and armed forces are ``demonstrating a commitment to assist United States efforts to combat international terrorism'' and ``taking effective measures, including cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to bring to justice any member of the Indonesian Armed Forces or Indonesian militia'' whom might be involved in the August 31 killings. I understand that the Department of State opposes this amendment, which it believes would damage important U.S. foreign policy interest in Indonesia. In a letter sent to Senator McConnell, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly wrote: . . . the President has directed that we [the Department of State] emphasize to the Government of Indonesia that there must be a credible investigation and process of justice to avoid damage in our entire bilateral relationship. He further wrote: In response to our repeated demarches, the Indonesian government has agreed to a new investigation of this crime to include FBI participation. FBI agents will arrive in Indonesia on January 22 to explore the terms of their participation in the investigation. While I applaud the administration for its involvement in this issue and am encouraged by Indonesia Government's agreement to conduct a new investigation, I strongly believe that the murder of innocent Americans is unacceptable and demands serious action on our part. We cannot be seen as rewarding the Indonesian government for covering up the killing of Americans. Such an action would set a frightful precedent and give other nations the impression that the murder of Americans would not warrant a serious response on the part of the United States. Clearly, the IMET funding in this bill sends the wrong signal at the wrong time. Therefore, despite serious reservations, I will vote in support of the Feingold amendment. Like many of my colleagues here in the Senate, I will continue to monitor this situation very closely, and should the Indonesian Government conduct a full and fair investigation, I will consider supporting new funding for Indonesia in the future. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, January 16, 2003. Hon. George W. Bush, President, the White House, Washington, DC. Dear President Bush: I am writing to express my growing concern about the lagging investigation into the August 31, 2002 attack on several Americans in West Papau, Indonesia. Three people were killed, including two Americans, during the attack, and eight others were seriously wounded. As you may know, the Indonesian police completed its preliminary investigation last fall and concluded that the Indonesian military may have been responsible for the attack. Despite being informed of the results of the police investigation, the Indonesian military has failed to look into this matter. In fact, press reports suggest that the Indonesian military may have exonerated itself of any responsibility. I understand that senior officials at the Department of State have expressed the concerns of your Administration about the dogged pace of the investigation to the Indonesian government. Your effort to determine who was responsible for this brutal attack is commendable. However, more must be done. I urge you to press the Indonesian government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack. Such an investigation should include active and meaningful participation by United States law enforcement agencies who should have complete access to evidence and witnesses. The murder of innocent Americans overseas warrants a serious response on our part. If the Indonesian government fails to act, severe diplomatic actions, including the suspension of IMET funding for Indonesia, should be considered. We cannot afford to overlook further delays in this important investigation. Again, thank you for your efforts, and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, let us commend the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for the strong report language on Indonesia. I particularly appreciate the reference to the Americans murdered in Papua in August 2002, and the demands that justice be served for these crimes. I share this sentiment completely and believe that inaction by Indonesia on these murders will result in a negative reaction by both the congress and the Administration.

Mr. ALLARD. I understand that the Federal Bureau of Investigations may be in Indonesia in the very near future to assist in investigating this crime. Does the chairman share my support for the FBI's involvement in this case?

Mr. ALLARD. The Foreign Operations bill strikes an appropriate balance between our national security interests in that vast archipelago and the realities of a developing Indonesia. I want to be on record that I will continue to closely follow the investigation into the murder of Americans in Papua last year and I encourage the Chairman and all my colleagues to pay attention to that case. I also recommend that the administration report to Congress on a regular and ongoing basis into the progress the Government of Indonesia is making into resolving these murders.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. We are in morning business?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, ordinarily I do not come to the Senate floor and involve myself in a lot of the issues that are going on at the leadership level, but I have to say I really am disappointed the leaders of the Democratic Party are continuing to obstruct the Republicans' effort to organize and to move forward with this Nation's agenda. In the last session, we could not even pass a budget. We have appropriations bills that are waiting to be acted on as we move into this new year. My hope is we could put aside our partisan differences and move quickly forward with these pressing issues, deal with the people's business. After we finish the unfinished business of the last Congress, and after the State of the Union address, then we could go ahead and begin to move forward with the business of this new year. Historically in the Senate, the majority party has moved ahead very quickly on the organizing resolution. It has been a standard process where two-thirds of the funding goes to the majority party and a third to the minority party. I was interested in the reference by my colleague from Utah who mentioned there was an e-mail floating around, which he quoted, that this was actually a planned effort by the Democratic party to obstruct the agenda. I have been informed there have been previous e-mails that if the Democrat party had been in control in the Senate, they were planning to push the two-thirds/one-third breakout on funding because that has been the tradition of the Senate year after year; that is what has happened, the majority party has had the two-thirds and the minority party has been one-third. Now we find the majority party has tried to use last year's abnormal type of session--there was nothing normal about last year's session we can use as a standard for moving forward from this point on, but the fact is historically this has been a rather standard process. I hope we can put aside this type of partisan bickering that does not have anything to do with the people's business and move forward with what historically we have done in the Senate. Last year, Congress started with Republican control, then went back to the Democrat Party because a Republican changed parties--went from a Republican to an Independent. And then after this election, technically, we could have been back in the majority again--after the vote in Missouri. It was decided we would hold that aside and just move forward with this year's agenda. As we enter the second week of a new year, the second week of the 108th Congress, the business of the Senate is once again seeing obstructionist politics blocking the Nation's business and our work from moving forward, getting something accomplished. I don't see any legitimate reason for this delay. The Senate, over its many years, has abided by the clear precedent I referred to earlier, with an organizing resolution quickly agreed upon, and then we move forward with our routine business each year. Now we have the Democrats wanting to change the world since they did not get their way in November. I had one of the more contested races in the Nation, in Colorado. It is clear to me the people of Colorado are disappointed that we did not pass a budget last year; that we did not get our work done in the last Congress. I don't think anyone wins with obstructionist politics. The big losers are the citizens of this country. We are not able to address their problems and move forward with real solutions. The people of the United States made clear whom they chose to lead the Senate. It was the same argument all over the country as in my race. Yet the minority party refuses to step aside and let the duly elected party move forward. We have a clear majority in this Congress to deal with the business of the people and the business of the country. They refuse to relinquish the power the people of the United States said they no longer wished them to hold. We face challenging times in our Nation. Grave threats against our national security continue to damage economic confidence. Spending bills that should have been approved last year are still pending. That is right, 11 spending bills that provide funding for parks and research failed, under the leadership of the Democrats, to proceed. And they are not passing now because of the Democrats' persistence in obstructionist politics. Last year, for the first time in decades, we did not even pass a budget. Yet the Democrats still want to control. I stand by our newly elected Majority Leader Frist and the people of the United States. Let our work proceed. Let the will of the people stand victorious and let the continuing resolution move forward according to the clear precedent that we have in the Senate. Newspapers across the Nation continue to report that the obstructionist politics of the Democrats have delayed the confirmation hearing of Tom Ridge, the President's choice to run the new Department of Homeland Security. My question is, Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly believe the people of the United States would rather see obstruction than move forward with the Department of Homeland Security, with the effort to try to restore economic growth in this country, to finish the unfinished business we had left over from the last Congress because of obstruction politics? The New York Times reported that until Senators adopt a so-called organizing resolution, committee chairmanships will rest with the Democrats despite the November elections that gave Republicans a 1-vote majority. The impasse creates delays in the Senate business, not only of Mr. Ridge's confirmation but also the confirmation of John Snow as Treasury Secretary, as well as consideration of the appropriations bills left over from last year. In addition, the 11 freshman Senators cannot receive their committee assignments until the dispute is settled. Obstructionist politics of the 107th Congress continue: No committee assignments, no chairmen; newly elected Members of the Senate remain without the right to participate in discussions because of heavy obstructionism. In my view, we must end the stalemate and get back to work. I come to the floor to reemphasize how important it is that we move forward and get the Senate's business accomplished.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the beginning of the 108th Congress marks a pivotal moment in the management of one of the most complex water systems in the world. Complex both hydrologically and legally, the river is managed through a series of agreements that are collectively known as the ``law of the river.'' and it is the ``law of the river'' that brings me to the floor today. For years, the State of California has consumed far more than its annual allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. Instead, the State has pursued a path of overuse--often drawing more than 1 million acre-feet of water a year over its allocation. With the turn of the new year, and just as Colorado enters the fourth year of the most severe drought in 300 years, I am pleased that Secretary Norton and the Department of the Interior have taken strong action to force California into compliance with the decades-old agreements that dictate the amount of water that the State is entitled to consume, thereby ending its abuse of the river. This watershed decision to enforce the 4.4 million acre-feet allocation reveals a welcome determination to ensure confidence in the law through decisive action, demonstrating to all parties that abuse of the ``law of the river'' will not be tolerated. ``The law of the river'' has evolved over 80 hard fought years; every precious drop of the river means life or death to the people of the basin States. Secretary Norton has now made it clear that every party to the compact will be held accountable, and that these agreements will stand as precious as the water itself. No longer will States be able to ignore the ``law of the river.'' In Colorado, our citizens must abide by the doctrine of prior appropriations. Other States govern water under a hybrid or riparian rights system. These time-tested theories have one constant principle-- a user cannot take more water than its legal share. This strong sentiment is reflected in a recent Denver Post editorial that I would like to share with you today. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ALLARD. California has had ample opportunity to meet its legal obligation; agreements outlining baby steps toward compliance with the 4.4 limit have been in existence since the 1990's. Even though the State has consumed far more than its fair share for years, it has had plenty of opportunity to live within its allocation. Yet in the end, with the water shutoff, I hope California will recognize its legal obligations. To Secretary Norton and my colleagues from the basin States, I urge you to continue to force all members to abide by their allocation and to protect the law. Secretary Norton's fair action has demonstrated that this administration will uphold the ``law of the river,'' and when the law is not adhered to, those in violation will be held accountable. I have remained in close contact with Colorado Governor Bill Owens throughout the ordeal, and would like to share with you an insightful comment made by the Governor in a conversation we had shortly after the decision to shut off the water was announced Governor Owens said, ``In the West, our word is our bond. As Colorado suffers from the worst drought in its history, we cannot and will not support so-called `surplus' water deliveries to California, unless California keeps its word to us.'' I certainly agree. I commend the Secretary for her action, and hope this will serve as a clarion call that the law of the river is indeed a law that must be obeyed. Exhibit 1 [From the Denver Post, January 4, 2003] The Law of the River Nevada shouldn't be surprised. Two weeks ago, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton said California couldn't take more than its legal share of Colorado River water. This week, she told Nevada the same thing. Her actions were proper. All seven states that share the river and tributaries must abide by the Colorado River Interstate Compact, the 80-year-old agreement known as ``the law of the river.'' California hogs 5.2 million acre-feet of river water a year, far more than its legal share of 4.4 million acre-feet. But Nevada has been slurping more than its share, too. The pact entitles Nevada to 300,000 acre-feet annually, but it uses an extra 37,00 acre-feet a year, or 11 percent over its legal share. California had wanted Norton to declare a surplus of water in the Colorado River, thus letting it continue using more than its legal allotment. But such a declaration would have been absurd during an ongoing, record-breaking drought. After telling California ``no,'' Norton had to apply the same standard to other states. Although Nevada's excess water use is a drop in the bucket compared to California's wastrel ways, Nevada also must follow the law of the river. Colorado doesn't use its entire share of river water, however. The river flows on the Western Slope, but our population lives mostly on the Front Range. The dispute is over preserving Colorado water rights for future generations. Colorado is supposed to get 51.75 percent of the river's water. The interstate pact assumed the Colorado River would, on average, flow 7.5 million acre-feet a year. But the pact was signed during an exceptionally wet era in the West, so it overestimated how much water the river usually has. Still, the optimistic scenario entitled Colorado to 3.85 million acre-feet of river water in an average year. In reality, the Colorado River averages about 6 million acre-feet a year, allowing Colorado 3.1 million acre-feet under the formula. But Colorado consumes only 2.65 million acre-feet from the river in a normal year. So, depending on how the river's average flows are calculated, Colorado lets 500,000 to 1.2 million acre-feet of its share flow out of state. Much of that water supplies vegetable farms and fruit orchids in California's agriculturally rich Imperial Valley. To recapture its lost water, Colorado leaders have floated ideas to build new dams or pump thousands of acre-feet from the Utah line to metro Denver. But any of the plans would cost billions of dollars and create ecological woes. If Colorado's population continues growing, our state someday will claim its share of Colorado River water. When it does, California and Nevada could rights demand that Colorado and other upper-basin states--Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico--follow the pact's strict limits, too. The law of the river must be enforced, for everyone. And water conservation must become a way of life in the West.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments about legislation I am introducing today. I also will talk briefly about some of the agenda items I have been looking at for this year. Obviously, having just been sworn into office today, we are putting together our agendas and beginning to think seriously about what kind of issues we would like to put forward. The people of Colorado understand that, as we move into this session, my priority is the cleanup of a number of our Superfund sites in Colorado, staying on track with the cleanup of Rocky Flats by 2006, cleaning up the Shattuck waste site, as well as the cleanup of Pueblo Depot. I will also be working on transportation issues which are important to States such as Colorado, Wyoming, the home State of the presiding officer, as well as throughout the country. Transportation will be a big issue as we move into this session. Another issue I have spoken about is housing, which we will be dealing with in this session. I also plan to focus on missile defense and judiciary nominations. The legislation I rise today to introduce is called the Community Choice In Real Estate Act of 2003. I am pleased to have Senators Clinton, Shelby, Feingold, Burns, Sessions, and Harkin join me in introducing this bill. This is something I am doing as part of the effort to keep the housing markets competitive and strong. The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 is the continuation of an effort that I began in the 107th Congress. This bill would clarify Congressional intent that real estate brokerage and management are not financial activities and would therefore retain the separation of commerce and banking that we intended during consideration of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act closed the unitary thrift loophole that allowed a single savings and loan to be owned by a commercial entity. This clearly established that banking and commerce were not to mix. Congress explicitly defined several functions to be financial in nature or incidental to finance to clarify the separation. Real estate management and brokerage services were not defined as financial activities. Congress already established a clear position regarding banks' involvement in real estate management and brokerage activities, and the bill I'm introducing with my colleagues would reiterate that prohibition. I believe that we should not permit federal regulators to preempt the intent of Congress. The real estate and banking industries have served America well, and I believe that the current system provides consumers with many important options. I know that the regulators received many letter during the comment period. I commend them for taking the time to allow all interested parties to comment and for their pledge to carefully review all comments. I intend to continue to work with them to ensure that Congressional intent is followed in this matter. Realtors play a vital role in our economy, and housing has been one of the bright spots in our otherwise slow economy. Realtors are an integral part of the housing industry share in the credit for this positive economic news. Additionally, Realtors help fuel the economy as small businesses. As a small businessman myself, I can appreciate the challenges of starting and running a small business. As a U.S. Senator I have worked hard to reduce rules and regulations hindering small businesses, as well as excessive taxes. The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 will ensure that small real estate businesses are able to continue to thrive. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to promptly consider this matter, and I would 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we also are in morning business; is that correct?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. ALLARD pertaining to the introduction of S. 98 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this week our Nation honored our veterans; the men and women who have served the United States with distinction. Although we take one day of the year to recognize what veterans have done for us, it is understood that we are in constant debt to those who defended our country's liberty. It is said that ``Freedom is not free''. There is a cost, and this cost has been paid by America's veterans. They have sacrificed for our country, and increasingly for our world. Around the globe, from Asia to Europe to the Middle East to right here at home, the millions of men and women who have served in our armed forces deserve as much honor and respect as we can give them. Knowing this, there is not one member of this body who would not want our veterans to receive benefits that they have earned. Unfortunately, the House and the Senate have chosen not to give full concurrent receipt to our veterans, and for this reason I did not sign the Conference Report to the Defense Authorization. While I applaud the inclusion of a special compensation for some categories of war veterans, I believe that more work needs to be done and I will continue to push for these benefits in the future. The withholding of my signature to the Conference Report should not, however, be seen as my disapproval for the entire bill. In fact, overall I am very pleased with the outcome of the defense authorization for this year. I believe that the work we have done will continue to ensure that our men and women in the armed forces have access to the tools they need to perform their critical missions across the globe. Also, we should not overlook the impact that increasing basic pay will have on our military personnel, any commitment that Congress shows to our armed services in this regard is a positive gain for the American people. As I have stated on this floor many times before, it is abundantly clear more and more each day how important missile defense is to our country. The development of this program is central to homeland defense and the protection of our friends, allies and deployed forces against threats that are serious and growing. The authorized levels of funding for critical ballistic missile defense systems and their components is an outstanding accomplishment for this Congress. As the ranking member of the Strategic Subcommittee, ensuring full support of missile defense is my most important priority and it will continue to be as we begin work in the 108th Congress. The Defense authorization conference also provided for a number of developmental programs critical to space-based systems and technologies. The Network, Information, and Space Security Center will facilitate cooperation for protecting information and information systems, which is becoming increasingly important in the face of cyberterrorism threats from around the world. The Center for Geosciences is a leading-edge environmental research center continuously improving weather forecasts for our military forces around the world. TechSat 21 will demonstrate the technical and operational feasibility of microsatellites, a truly transformational approach to space-based systems. And finally, the GPS Jammer Detection and location System will enable our military commanders to rely on GPS and GPS- supported systems such without the threat of interference or jamming by the enemy. One of my particular interests for several years has been the use of commercial imagery to help meet the Nation's geospatial and imagery requirements. I do not believe that the Department of Defense has been aggressive enough either in crafting a strategy or in providing funding for this purpose. I am gratified that we have included a substantial increase for commercial imagery acquisition, and some very helpful words in report language that I expect will drive the Department toward establishing a sound relationship with the commercial imagery industry. Closer to home, I know that my constituents in Colorado are pleased that we not only fully funded the Rocky Flats Environment Technology Site and its cleanup activities but also added an extra $18 million for included security costs at the site. I also appreciate the support of the new Department of Energy environmental cleanup reform initiative that will incentivize cleanup sites to do their important work faster and more efficiently. The accelerated cleanup initiative will reduce risk to the workers, communities and the environment, shorten the schedule by decades, and save tens of billions of dollars over the life of the cleanup. Let me make it very clear that I chose not to sign the Defense Authorization Conference Report because of our failure to include the full Senate provision for concurrent receipt, but I strongly support the bill for providing the technology and resources our military men and women need to protect our national security.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to bring the Senate's attention to the importance of energy literacy to a national energy policy. The National Energy Policy Development Group recommended an energy literacy project in the May 2001, National Energy Policy. You can find it on the first page of Chapter Two, entitled ``Striking Home.'' The recommendation states, ``The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of Energy to explore potential opportunities to develop educational programs related to energy development and use. This should include possible legislation to create public awareness programs about energy. Such programs should be long term in nature, should be funded and managed by the respective energy industries, and should include information on energy's compatibility with a clean environment.'' The legislation currently under consideration in the House/Senate conference addresses a lot of important issues but these are tactical issues relating to energy. In order to better solve the Nation's long- term energy security or energy needs we must address public education. One of the best ways to go about this would be with a broad based education program as recommended in chapter two. Today's public is far better informed about their energy choices than the public of even a decade ago, but there is always more room to learn. A highly informed public will be able to make better energy choices and will demand a long-term, far-reaching energy policy. This will require broad based national, and international, public education and information programs on energy issues, including conservation and efficiency, the role energy plays in the economy and the impact energy use has on the environment. There must also be a focus on the interlocking relationship of what are referred to as the 3 Es: energy, economy, and environment. It is important that all 3 Es be considered simultaneously in order to have credibility and to recognize this interlocking relationship. It is also important that any effort that tries to achieve a cultural change in how society views energy recognize its importance in the public's economic well-being and its role in the public's quality of life. An excellent example of this is being conducted by the Energy Literacy Project, ELP. The ELP is currently supporting an ongoing research effort at the Colorado School of Mines to identify programs that offer educational material about the interlocking nature of Energy, the Economy and the Environment, the 3 Es. The ELP is a non- profit 501(c)(3) corporation whose goal is to see a cultural change in how society views the role energy plays in its economic well-being and in its quality of life. They have an excellent web site that explains much of their work located at www.energy-literacy.org. The public wants and deserves sound, reliable information. A sustainable energy policy will be much more easily attained with a knowledgeable public that can make informed, well-reasoned decisions about its choices and a sustainable energy policy.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to show my support for the election reform proposal that will shortly be approved. There are a litany of provisions too numerous to outline that are extremely positive steps toward ironing out very serious problems in our current voting system. My thanks go out to Senators McConnell and Dodd, their counterparts in the House, and all of the other conferees who fought long and hard during the last few months to help ensure the electorates' right to vote. Secondly, and with much more remorse, I believe that many of the shortcomings that our men and women in the military face as potential overseas voters have not been fully addressed in the underlying conference proposal. I have stood in this body many times since the 2000 election and have pushed for election reforms that would show those who defend our way of life that their vote will not be cast-off for technicalities through no fault of their own. Of course, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that some focus was paid to military voters in this bill. I am pleased that early submission will no longer be grounds for refusal of registration or absentee ballots. The focus on requiring the Department of Defense to have more support for Voting Assistance Officers and emphasis on including postmarks on all ballots mailed is also favorably noted. However, the House has thrown up roadblocks to other important overseas voter measures, while the Senate as an institution has continued to show leadership in this effort. I hope that we will continue to do so in the future. That being said, it is time now to look ahead. My support for the election reform bill will not sway my feelings that there are still many egregious errors in the process of overseas military voting. I promise to continue the fight and protect the rights of those men and women who would give their lives for the country that they dearly love. The underlying election reform bill is a step in the right direction, and I hope that congress can continue to follow that path.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, after many long months of negotiation, the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations will finally come to a close today. I add my strong support for this bill and would like to thank Senators Inouye and Stevens for their work to ensure our continuing support for the men and women in the United States Armed Services. At the very beginning of his administration, President Bush made it a priority to rebuild our military after 8 years of substantial and dangerous levels of operation and maintenance funding shortfalls under the previous administration. Those of us in the Senate have also heeded this call and I am pleased that we are about to take the next step in maintaining a military fully capable of defending our Nation and meeting our foreign policy goals. While some balked at the largest defense budget increase in nearly 2 decades, I support the President in his efforts to transform our military. His reasoning for this increase is firm, and I quote the President for his two reasons behind the plan: I sent up to Congress the largest increase in defense spending since Ronald Reagan was the President. I did it for two reasons. One, any time we commit our troops into harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best equipment, and the best possible training. And secondly, the reason I asked for an increase the size of which I did is because I wanted to send a message to friend and foe alike that when it comes to the defense of our freedoms, we're not quitting. There's not calendar on my desk that says, well, we've reached this time, it's time to stop. That's not how I think. That's not how America thinks. We want our friends understanding that. We want the enemy to know it, as well--that when it comes to the defense of our country, comes to defending the values we hold dear, it doesn't matter how much it costs, it doesn't matter how long it takes, the United States will be firm and resolved. We owe that to our children, and we owe it to our children's children. Specifically, I would like to point out some very important programs that have a great deal of bearing on the safety of our country. As the ranking member on the Strategic Subcommittee, I have made it abundantly clear how important missile defense is to not only our defense, but also our close allies. The most advanced cooperative military project between the United States and Israel is the Arrow missile defense system--a theater wide missile defense system capable of shooting down ballistic missiles fired at Israel or U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. The Arrow system is operational, providing Israel with a functioning defense against surface-to-surface missiles. The appropriations conferees agreed on this priority and have provided $70 million to continue funding this very important program. This funding will ensure that Arrow remains capable of providing reliable protection against evolving threats, such as decoys and faster and longer-range ballistic missiles and also speed production of additional Arrow missiles. Likewise, I am encouraged by the $15 million allocated to purchase commercial satellite imagery. Three high-level DOD commissions, the Space Commission, the NRO Commission, and the NIMA Commission, all stated that DOD needs to better utilize commercial imagery. The NIMA Commission suggested that a new OSD account should be established with an initial budget of $350 million for the first year. The Space Commission stated that the ``U.S. Government could satisfy a substantial portion of its national security-related imagery requirements by purchasing services from the U.S. commercial imagery industry.'' I am convinced that there is yet more untapped potential with commercial space imagery, and I believe this is a good first step. This Defense Appropriations bill also provided funding for a number of developmental programs critical to space-based systems and technologies. The Network, Information, and Space Security Center will facilitate cooperation for protecting information and information systems, which is becoming increasingly important in the face of cyberterrorism threats from around the world. The Center for Geosciences is a leading-edge environmental research center continuously improving weather forecasts for our military forces around the world. TechSat 21 will demonstrate the technical and operational feasibility of microsatellites--a truly transformational approach to space-based systems. And finally, the GPS Jammer Detection and location System will enable our military commanders to rely on GPS and GPS- supported systems such without the threat of interference or jamming by the enemy. While we find ourselves at the end of another legislative year, the Senate and our colleagues in the House have taken a solid step toward the transformation of the United States military. While much work remains to be completed in the coming years, it bodes well for our men and women in the armed services that Congress will continue to support them in the defense of our country.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, animals and small children do not have an adequate voice to speak for themselves. They often cannot tell a parent or an owner that they don't like what they are doing or let them know that they are unhappy or in pain. That is why organizations that aid such vulnerable members of our society are so important. For this reason, I rise today to recognize the American Humane Association. Today marks the 125th anniversary of the founding of that organization. I could not be more proud to report that the American Humane Association, a Colorado organization, has made a solid career of furthering the welfare of children and animals. The American Humane Association is the only organization in the country that is dedicated to the protection and support of both animals and children. They have organized events such as Be Kind to Pets Week and Tag Day, to educate the public about the need to treat animals humanely and the need to be sure that pets can be easily identified if they are lost, to the Front Porch Project, a program to educate the public on how to protect children in their communities from abuse. American Humane also works to educate the public about the link between violence to people and violence to animals. For 125 years, the American Humane Association has worked, through programs such as these and others, to assure that the interest and well-being of children and animals are fully, effectively, and humanely guaranteed. I, for one, am grateful to the American Humane Association for the work that they do, and have done, and wish them another 125 years of success.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. I say to the Senator from Maryland, I did have a question. I just finished a bipartisan press conference with the Secretary of State. He said the diplomats, our negotiators at the United Nations, felt they needed the strongest position possible in order to make their negotiations end in a successful way. I was struck by your comments and your support for the Levin amendment. I wonder if you could respond to his comments that we just had, about 12:30 or so.

Mr. ALLARD. I would agree with that. But I think the point was being made, if we have a strong resolution, it would be less likely we would be out there by ourselves. If we had some weaker position, and we went in----

Mr. ALLARD. I am talking about Secretary Powell and our diplomats negotiating within the United Nations, negotiating with members of the Security Council. The feeling is we need to have a strong resolution in order to make those negotiations successful.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will now yield to the Senator from New Hampshire, a good friend, and somebody who does a great job. I yield to him 20 minutes.