Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New Hampshire for a very fine statement. I notice that our colleague from North Carolina has arrived in the Chamber, and we have Senator Jeffords scheduled to speak at 3. I ask the Senator from North Carolina, does he need a minute or two to make a comment?

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

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Mr. President, today, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 46, the bipartisan joint resolution to authorize the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq. First, I want to praise the President for his leadership and for reaching out to all Members of this body. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 46 with Senators Lieberman, McCain, Warner, Bayh, Domenici, Helms, Hutchison, Landrieu, and Miller. These Senators are leaders of the Senate, and I am proud to be associated with them on this important matter. Also, I want to commend the leadership of the other body for their leadership in brokering this agreement between the administration, the Senate, and the House. I know this debate will be vigorous in nature and serious in tone, which is exactly how such a debate should take place. One of our most solemn duties as Senators is when we are called upon to cast a vote on whether to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way. Quite simply, this is one of the most serious votes any Member will make. I remember, as a new Member of Congress in 1991, one of my first votes was whether to go to war in the Persian Gulf. Just like in 1991, voting on this resolution will be a tough vote. But that is why we are here--to take a stand, state what we believe, and make the tough votes. In the end, I hope this debate will show that the Senate, despite any disagreements, is united in its resolve against Saddam Hussein. Mr. President, the United States has basically been at war with Iraq ever since the Persian Gulf conflict. In April 1991 and August 1992, the northern and the southern no-fly zones were established in order to enforce United Nations Resolution 688. Since then, U.S., British, and coalition aircraft patrolling these no-fly zones have been fired upon by Iraq more than 2,500 times and over 400 times this year alone. However, despite the daily threat in the no-fly zones, our pilots have only fired back in response 44 times. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly defied sixteen United Nations resolutions which were designed to ensure that Iraq would no longer be a threat to international peace and security. Plus, the United Nations Security Council has issued 30 statements regarding Saddam Hussein's violations of these 16 resolutions. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a list provided by the White House of the 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions and a list of Council statements regarding the violations be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. After the Persian Gulf conflict, the international community levied economic sanctions and established the ``Oil for Food'' program. However, these sanctions have largely eroded due to the lack of resolve by the international community and the reality of Iraq's substantial illicit trade. Turkey and Jordan import Iraqi oil via truck routes, Iran escorts oil tankers through territorial waters, an Iraq-Syrian pipeline is the largest export method of Iraqi oil, with an Iraq-Jordan pipeline scheduled to be operational in 2005. The United States attempted to garner support for ``Smart Sanctions'' in early 2001, but this attempt met tepid reception by the international community. Russia, China, and France have negotiated substantial contracts with Iraq which would be executable upon lifting of U.N. sanctions. Under the Oil for Food program, food import levels exceed and oil revenue is comparable to pre-Gulf war levels. The program experiences periodic progressive adjustments in its export ceiling in response to growing international concern about the Iraqi humanitarian condition. However, Saddam Hussein consistently circumvent's the economic sanctions and attempts to thwart the oil for food program. Saddam's regime has exported thousands of barrels of oil each day in violation of UN resolutions and he completely disregards the humanitarian well- being of his own people. By illegally exporting this oil, he has deprived the Iraqi people billions of dollars in food and medicine which would have been allowed under the program. The living conditions of the Iraqi people are intolerable. Saddam Hussein has expanded his violence against women and children, withheld food and medicine from his own citizens, and violated the basic human rights of the Iraqi people. Mr. President, some have blamed the oil for food program and the economic sanctions for these conditions. But let us be very clear, the reason for these intolerable conditions and why we are debating this topic today lay at the feet of Saddam Hussein and his regime. To quote Secretary of State Powell from a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on September 26, ``Iraq stands guilty. It convicts itself by its actions.'' The threat of Saddam Hussein is real and is growing. Iraq enjoys a sizable military advantage over all Gulf States except Iran. Iraq's 424,000 military personnel outnumber the combined personnel total of all U.S. Gulf allies. Iraq continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and is attempting to acquire a nuclear capability. According to recent reports, it is estimated that if Iraq were to obtain fissile material then Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months. United Nations Special Commission has identified gaps in accounting for Iraq's current chemical stockpiles and capabilities and has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and 1000's of delivery warheads. UNSCOM also reported that Iraq has understated their declarations regarding the extent of its biological agents. Again, I would like to quote Secretary Powell from the same hearing, when he stated: We can have debates about the size and nature of the Iraqi stockpile. We can have debates about how long it will take them to reach this level of readiness or that level of readiness with respect to these weapons. But no one can doubt two things: one, they are in violation of these resolutions-- there's no debate about that; and secondly, they have not lost the interest to develop these weapons of mass destruction. Whether they are one day, five days, one year or seven years away from any particular weapons, whether their stockpile is small, medium or large, what has not been lost is the interest to have such weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell also made it clear that we aren't alone in our concern regarding the threat of Saddam Hussein. Referencing Arab leaders and their thoughts regarding Saddam, Secretary Powell added, ``There is no question in their minds that he's a threat to regional stability and peace. There is no question in their minds that he is a threat to the region and has demonstrated previously his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. And there is no doubt in their minds that he continues to have the intent to develop these weapons of mass destructions.'' So what now--what do we do? Do we hope that Saddam Hussein goes gently into the night or do we finally stand up to this dictator and let the world know that Saddam Hussein can no longer thumb his nose at the international community. We only need to go back a few weeks to see Saddam's duplicity. On September 16, 4 days after the President's speech at the U.N., the Iraqi government announced it would unconditionally allow the return of U.N. inspectors. However on September 20, Iraq backpeddled on its previous announcement by stating that the definition of ``unconditional access'' means no ``presidential sites'' and 24 hours notice before any inspection.'' My reaction to this new definition of ``unconditional'' by Iraq is best summed up in an October 3 Denver Post editorial when it stated, ``Saddam, there you go again.'' I ask unanimous consent that the entire article entitled ``Saddam Must Open Palaces'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to quote a few passages from the editorial: Any inspection of Iraq must be unfettered. Otherwise, what's the point? It's simply Saddam trying to stay one step ahead of the United States, with catch-me-if-you-can stall tactics. Later in the editorial it states: President Bush was right in going to the United Nations to remind its members how Saddam has consistently and brazenly laughed off its rules. It was a big step toward building a much-needed world consensus for striking Iraq. But if getting U.S. Security Council approval requires us to work under old rules, such as those where palaces are off limits, the world, and those three countries (France, China, and Russia), must know the United States will act without them. The U.N. can't fall for Saddam's old tricks. I hope the United Nations Security Council will devise a new tough resolution which will demand ``unconditional and unfettered'' access to all sites. I do not want to have to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. However, I also will not allow the United Nations or any permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, to control our national security policy. And that is why I support this resolution. S.J. Res 46 does not advocate force, but it does not preclude it. It uses force as the last resort, the very last. The resolution basically states that the President is granted authority to use force if he determines that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. I believe Secretary Powell clarified the administration's position even further regarding the use of force during the September 26 hearing by stating, ``Yes, he [the President] wants the authority to carry out those resolutions where he believes force is the appropriate way to get implementation of those resolutions. I think it unlikely the President would use force--if he [Saddam Hussein] complied with the weapons of mass destruction conditions, it seems very unlikely that anybody would be using force to comply with any of the other resolutions.'' Much of this debate is about when to pass this resolution. Should we pass a resolution before the United Nations acts or should we wait until after the United Nations acts? I believe this Senate should act prior to the United Nations to show that we speak with one voice in the importance of disarming Saddam Hussein. I agree with Secretary Powell and former Secretary of State Albright when they both stated that the United States would be in a much better position to prevail in the United Nations if the administration had a congressionally approved resolution in their pocket. Passing this resolution in no way precludes the United Nations from acting, nor should it lessen the resolve of this administration to gain such support, but I believe a vote on this resolution will show our resolve to the world that we want the United Nations to act. However, if the United Nations is determined to follow the same course it has over the last 10 years, then Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States will act alone. On August 20, 1998, President Clinton addressed the Nation and said, ``The risks of inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact.'' I do not want us to use force, but I also cannot and will not sit idly by and hope that Saddam Hussein does nothing while the U.N. talks, and talks, and talks. I believe President Bush summed up our task at hand during his speech last night in Cincinnati when he stated: We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. By our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day. Mr. President, I end on a personal note about this Senate. As I look across the aisle and see the ``Conscience and Historian of the Senate'', the wonderful senior Senator from West Virginia--with whom I find it a honor to serve--and as I see Members of this Senate debate and disagree on this resolution, it is during these debates I am in awe of this great country and this great institution. Unlike so many other nations, we can debate war and peace and at the end of the day there is no fracture in the fiber of democracy that makes America great. It is this which we all wish for Iraq and for the Iraqi people. I look forward to the day when real democratic elections occur and when the voices of the Iraqi people, which have been silenced for too long, will be heard. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont who is speaking next.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut will speak for the next 10 minutes or so, and then we will be on schedule for our 3:30 speaker.

Mr. ALLARD. Will my friend yield?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding. Madam President, I wish to express again my appreciation for his leadership on this very important subject. He is recognized in the Senate as somebody who is an expert on Middle East affairs, and a lot of us lean on his opinion as we go through these debates. I am sure the President appreciates the Senator from Connecticut sitting down and working with him in a bipartisan manner. I compliment the Senator publicly for his fine work on this resolution.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will make a few brief comments. I associate myself completely with the statement made by the Senator from Connecticut. I thought they were thoughtful comments. I also think Senator Nickles from Oklahoma, who spoke prior to him, did a nice job of laying out for the Senate this issue, whether we should move forward with the resolution the President has requested. I believe the President seeks to avoid conflict. I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who wants to see us go into a conflict as a first option. We are very much concerned about the lives of our men and women who serve in the military. We certainly do not want to put them at risk unnecessarily. The question occurs, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, are we prepared to use force? I look at it this way. Historically, if we look at Iraq and what has been happening, I don't think anyone can deny there is a buildup. We either address it now or we address it later. I am of the view the sooner we address this problem, the less the risk will be. If we continue to let the problem grow, it increases the risks to our men and women in the military who may be called into battle as a result of noncompliance with Iraq. Hopefully we do not reach that point. I compliment the President on his leadership. It is the kind of leadership we need at this time. It is a judgment call. It is what every Senator has to make a decision about in his own mind, whether this is the right thing to do. The longer we hold this up, the risk is magnified. That puts the neighbors of Iraq at risk, it puts countries all around the world at risk. There is no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein has the capability of using weapons of mass destruction. He is capable mentally of doing that. He has done it before. He has used it on his own. If he can use it on his own, he would certainly be willing to use it any place else. If we look at biological weapons, there is not much doubt he has the capability to use biological weapons. Their threat is extremely serious. That is another threat that will continue to grow. We know he is out there trying to develop nuclear capability. That expands even more my concerns about an expanding risk as we continue to delay action. We need to move forward. We need to move forward quickly. The sooner we get this resolved, the sooner we get the support from the United Nations, we can move forward, give the President that option, a final option, that, if necessary, he will go in, even unilaterally, to protect the interests of the United States, to protect the Americans, and, if necessary, protect our friends and allies in the Middle East. There is a quote in the President's speech last night I will restate. He says approving this resolution does not mean military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only choice is full compliance. That is key. The time remaining for that choice is limited. We need to act quickly. I am glad we have this before the Senate. We should have had it earlier than this week, but hopefully we will get it out this week and move forward. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, at a time when many Americans have witnessed the loss of their life savings and millions of others face difficult decisions regarding their personal finances, the need for competent, ethical financial planning is greater than ever. It is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. As of today, CFP Board has announced that 40,000 financial planners now hold the CFP certification. This outstanding, Colorado-based, nonprofit regulatory organization has been working since 1985 to foster professional standards so that the public values, has access to, and benefits from, competent, ethical financial planning. The organization also works closely with 17 affiliates of the International CFP Council, whose nearly 31,000 additional certificants are helping to elevate standards for the financial planning professional globally. The CFP certification is based on the 4 E's: Education, Examination, Experience and Ethics. CFP Board has registered 234 education programs at 151 accredited U.S. colleges and universities to help CFP certification candidates develop competency in financial planning. CFP Board administers a comprehensive, 2-day, 10-hour examination and requires certificants to meet rigorous standards for continuing education developed by its subsidiary board of examiners. Every candidate must demonstrate at least three years of relevant experience. Those individuals who then qualify for certification must agree to abide by CFP Board's Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, as well as the Financial Planning Practice Standards. Among the many provisions contained in these documents is the overriding principle of placing the client's interests first. CFP Board's subsidiary Board of Professional Review strictly enforces ethical compliance. To fulfill its mission to the public, CFP Board publishes extensive printed and online materials to educate consumers regarding topics such as the financial planning process, selecting financial planning professionals and the rights of financial planning clients. Several of these publications have been reviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and are available through the Federal Consumer Information Center. Through the Web site www.CFP.net, consumers can quickly and easily determine whether financial planners hold the CFP certification and have been subject to public disciplinary action by CFP Board. Earlier this year, CFP Board completed implementation of the Financial Planning Practice Standards, establishing what clients are reasonably entitled to expect during financial planning engagements and providing a blueprint for recently deregulated and other financial services firms that wish to offer their clients comprehensive financial planning. CFP Board continues to proactively address public concerns such as disclosure of compensation and possible conflicts of interest on the part of financial planners. CFP Board's continued efforts to protect and educate our nation's citizens should not go unnoticed. For that, we owe CFP Board our recognition, gratitude, and congratulations. I urge my colleagues to join me in paying special tribute to Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. for 17 years of protecting the public.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, over the course of the day, we have heard from my colleagues many of Senator Jesse Helms' remarkable accomplishments over the course of his life. He is a husband, a father, a Senator, a Navy veteran, a defender of freedom, and a good friend. But above all, Jesse Helms is a man of God. I should also add that he is a man of the people. Senator Helms has seen more Senators, staffers, and pages in his tenure than most Members, and he treated all of them like they were from his own family. He is constantly noted for his friendly demeanor to those strangers who meet Jesse for the first time, but go away from their meetings feeling like a personal relationship has just formed. Senator Helms has always been willing to take those precious extra few minutes when meeting someone to make personal connections that endure him to many. Rarely do people keep their convictions as strong as Jesse Helms, especially facing the type of scrutiny that politicians do in the spotlight. Throughout his 30 years in the Senate, Senator Helms has fought hard for the commonsense values that he brought with him from the great State of North Carolina. He has stood for the vision that our Founding Fathers imagined when they framed the Constitution. I cannot help but think that North Carolina and indeed our country is indebted to Senator Helms for his service to our country. It has been a privilege to stand with the Senator on so many of the issues that are important to the United States. I am proud to call Senator Helms a colleague and a friend, and we all know how much his leadership will be missed in this institution. Thank you, Jesse, for your continued dedication not only to the Senate, but also your country which is so near and dear to your heart.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize a woman who last week went to work like she does every day, but returned home as a hero. Debbie Fowler serves at the Veterans Administration Medical Clinic in Colorado Springs as the Homeless Program Assistant. On Tuesday, September 24, Debbie made a call to a VA clinic in Arizona trying to locate some hospital records of a gentleman who had just checked into Debbie's place of work. Her phone call confirmed that the man who had just entered the clinic was wanted for at least 14 sexual assaults in Arizona, California, Oklahoma, and Nevada. Knowing the type of criminal that was in her midst, Debbie was told by U.S. Marshals over the telephone to keep him in the clinic. With remarkable poise, Ms. Fowler was able to persuade the man to stay. Local police soon arrived at the clinic and apprehended the man, and commended Debbie for a job well done. Families of the victims have called Debbie a hero for what she did, and I concur. Although this women humbly declined that title, I would like to thank Ms. Fowler for her efforts and her bravery.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my good friend and colleague, Strom Thurmond. I am proud to be his colleague and friend. What a great American. After my election to the Senate, he was there to greet me. When we think about institutions, we think about established organizations that are dedicated to public-service and advancement of science or culture. Institutions are created not by single people, but rather by the collective group that share ideals and values which are inherent to their cause. But while institutions are defined by the ideas that created them in the first place, it is individuals that truly identify the institution. Just as John Glenn personifies the achievements of NASA, just as Martin Luther King Jr. embodies the Civil Rights movement, just as Albert Einstein represents the science of physics, the U.S. Senate is symbolized by Senator Strom Thurmond. Today we honor the gentleman who has spent nearly half his life in the Senate, a man who people cannot help but mention whenever the Senate is brought up in conversation. While his accomplishments in this body merit enough attention, what took place before his foray into national politics is just as noteworthy. From graduation at Clemson University, to becoming a State Senator in South Carolina followed by confirmation as Circuit Judge, Senator Thurmond dedicated his life to public service. After signing an age waiver so that he could parachute onto the beaches of Normandy, Strom continued service in the U.S. Army as a reservist to eventually gain the rank of Major General after 36 years in the military. Somehow he even found time to run for governor of South Carolina and serve for 6 years. We have ceremonies for men who were veterans in World War II and were involved in the D-Day invasion in France. We have ceremonies for former Governors who are elected and serve their states with distinction. We even hold ceremonies for those fortunate enough to serve in the armed services for 36 years. And today we hold a day of celebration for a man who accomplished not one but all of these feats, and then was elected as a write-in candidate on his way to serving in the U.S. Congress longer than any other human being. Yet many of his past accomplishments are overlooked because of his remarkable service in his nearly 50 years in the Senate. It is a testimony to his nature and the impact he has had on American politics that we sometimes fail to mention the first part of his life. As we honor Strom Thurmond today, I would like to thank him personally for not only his dedication to serving the people of South Carolina, but also for his leadership in the Senate and for being a friend. It has been a privilege to serve on the Armed Services Committee with Mr. Thurmond, and we all know about his hard work and commitment to our military that he has displayed over the years. Thank you also, Senator Thurmond, for your dedication to this institution that we serve in today, an institution that will bare your mark for years. But more importantly, thank you for your service to the United States; you certainly are a centenarian for the ages. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the outstanding achievements of StorageTek, A Colorado technology firm recently named ``Company of the Year'' by ColoradoBiz Magazine. StorageTek, headquartered in Louisville, CO, is an innovator and frontrunner in virtual storage solutions for tape automation, disk storage systems, and storage networking. With 22,000 customer locations in forty countries, StorageTek employs more than 7800 people worldwide. Their customers include finance, insurance, and telecommunications leaders, as well as government agencies such as the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and Congress. ColoradoBiz magazine rewards companies demonstrating exceptional achievement in financial performance, community involvement, marketing innovation, operational efficiency and research and development. StorageTek is specifically cited for its reduction of customer order processing time by twenty five percent, reducing inventory by $100 million, and reducing facility space by fifty percent. Additionally, the company is lauded for contributing more than nine million dollars to charitable causes, with emphasis on education, arts, health, and human services. Through a program called Volunteers in Partnership with the Community, VIP.COM, StorageTek also rewards and encourages employee volunteers with a monetary gift to an employee's chosen organization when that employee volunteers 100 hours or more. I congratulate StorageTek for receiving ``Company of the Year,'' and commend them for setting the standard in business and the community.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to honor the Freedom Service Dogs on the occasion of its 15th anniversary of serving people with mobility impairments by providing them with service dogs. Freedom Service Dogs was founded by Mike Roche, a Colorado paramedic, and P.J. Roche, a dog trainer. They started the service to help Colorado citizens be more mobile by training dogs to open doors, turn on lights, pull wheelchairs, pick up dropped items, tug clothing on and off, and alert for help when needed. Not only does Freedom Service Dogs provide people with increased confidence and social acceptance, it also saves the lives of hundreds of good dogs abandoned in animal shelters by training them to help those impaired. Freedom Service Dogs is a charitable organization that relies on the support of the community to provide free services to those in need. I congratulate Freedom Service Dogs for 15 years of service and commend this group and the communities that support them for creating a model organization that serves the needs of mobility impaired Coloradans.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding some of his time to me. I thank him for his leadership, trying to bring some common sense to the way we manage our forests. It is a pleasure for me to be on the Senate floor with my western colleagues who face a lot of problems similar to those I am facing in the State of Colorado. The citizens of Colorado and the west are facing a challenging time. Faced with drought and fires across the state, our response to the test of mother nature is being measured, and will continue to be measured with the passage of time. Yet the message I want to send home today, and one that my colleagues rising in support of forest health also wish to convey, is that we must not fiddle while our forests burn. We have studied forest fires, forest health, and forest management. We have studied while our forests burn and while our critical habitat turns to ash. Yet we continue to imperil life, property and nature with catastrophic wildfires. I want to thank the rescue workers, fire fighters, police, sheriffs offices, aid workers, and the thousands of volunteers who have battled the blazes all summer long. I hope these brave firefighters realize that their efforts are not in vain, and that new policies will restore sound forest health and revitalize our management of our great forestlands. Unfortunately, today there is an increasing threat of fire in millions of acres of forestlands and rangelands throughout the United States. This threat is especially great in the interior States of the western United States, where the Forest Service estimates that 39,000,000 acres of National Forest System lands are at high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Today's forestlands and rangelands are the consequences of land management practices that emphasized the control and prevention of fires, disrupting the occurrence of frequent low-intensity fires that periodically remove flammable undergrowth. As a result of these management practices, forestlands and rangelands in the United States are no longer naturally functioning ecosystems, and drought cycles and the invasion of insects and disease have resulted in vast areas of dead or dying trees, overstocked stands and the invasion of undesirable species. Population movement into wildand/urban interface areas exacerbate the fire danger, and the increasing number of larger, more intense fires pose grave hazards to human health, safety, property and infrastructure in these areas. In addition smoke from wildfires, which contain fine particulate matter and other hazardous pollutants, pose substantial health risks to people living in the wildland/urban interface. The budgets and resources of local, State, and Federal entities supporting firefighting efforts have been stretched to their limits. In addition, diminishing Federal resources--including personnel--have limited the ability of Federal fire researchers to respond to management needs, and to utilize technological advancements for analyzing fire management costs. Now, I would like to share with my colleagues a little about Colorado's devastating fire season. Several months ago, one third of the State was blanketed in smoke from forest fires, blocking the sun, the mountain view, and creating major pollution problems, and asthma related deaths. Over 500,00 acres of Colorado has burned this year. The normal is 70,000 acres. Over the course of the wildfires, safety and emergency personnel have had to evacuate 142 subdivisions, 85,000 people, and ended up spending more money on suppression because of the interface complexity. It is critical for life and property protection to mitigate this problem. The result of the catastrophic fires is a hardened surface that is impenetrable by water. When the ground can't absorb the water, not only is the drought prolonged, but the water has to go somewhere. So it goes downhill. As the volume of the water increases, it picks up rocks, additional--possibly undamaged--soil and other debris. This flow of tainted water and debris does not discriminate. It enters watersheds and people's homes. Right now in southwestern Colorado roads are closed, homes are damaged and people are trying to dig their yards out of up to ten feet of mud. In the past six years, six major forest fires have affected the mainstem of the South Platte river, a major source of water for the Denver metropolitan area. The Hayman fire this summer was the first of these fires to destroy Denver Water property. However, all of these fires have caused problems with the watershed which has negatively affected the quality of the water delivered to the two largest water treatment plants for Denver Water. The Hayman fire completely consumed the trees on the acreage surrounding Denver Water's Cheesman Reservoir, except where Denver had applied Forest Service procedures of thinning and brush removal. As a result of the fire and the emulsified granite soil surrounding Cheesman, the burned trees and ash has been washing into the Reservoir as well as into the mainstem of the South Platte along the burn area. About 90 percent of Denver Water's property was burned. At Cheesman Reservoir where Denver Water used Forest Service-type techniques, fire intensity was diminished and the fire did not destroy the entire forest. Therefore erosion and attendant water quality degradation will be minimized. One of the Forest Service mandates in its enabling legislation was protection of municipal water supplies. It is imperative that the Forest Service limit fire damage in municipal watershed areas. This will take money, personnel, quick response and long-term dedication of public resources. In order to protect and preserve watersheds as public purpose resources, the Forest Service will need money and Congressional support to reverse policies that limit sound forest management. It is estimated that damage to Denver Water facilities from sediment deposits and degraded water quality will occur for the next thirty years. To date, Denver Water's cost to try to mitigate some of the Hayman fire damage is over $500,000 for erosion prevention and protection of facilities. It is estimated the cost for the next 8 weeks will be $100,000/week. Additionally, the life of our reservoirs impacted by the fire will be reduced by about 40 years due to increased sediment. Dredging of the reservoir will solve some problems, but will not prevent the continued inflow of sediment. It is conceivable the total cost of dredging Cheesman Reservoir will exceed $20 million. These examples are just a few of the tragedies created by the fires. Glenwood Springs, Durango, Steamboat and many more, have suffered as well. Yet the quiet tragedy of the fires will not be revealed for years--what have we done to the ecosystem, to habitat, and wildlife? Only after thousands of hours of human capital investment and millions of dollars in rehabilitation will we know. We all value protection of our forests and the natural beauty of our land. But we can no longer respond and react--we must take the steps to achieve a healthy balance and return our forests to a state of good health. We are facing some serious problems. My feeling on this is that the forest managers themselves--they are scientists--know how to best manage our environment. I think we need to give them some more latitude in practicing good science and protecting forest health. I will elaborate on this a little later.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for being willing to yield some time to my side. I want to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleagues from the intermountain area, particularly the Rocky Mountain region. Colorado is right in the center of this drought. With all the stories you have heard about the States around Colorado, we are much more affected than anybody else. This is a very unique drought. It is a more severe drought than any of the people in Colorado can ever remember. In fact, if you look at the tree rings up in some of the foothill areas, a study has been done which suggests that maybe this drought has been the most severe drought we have had since the 1700s. So we have a lot of individuals in rural communities, farmers and ranchers, suffering as a result of this drought. I have been working closely with the Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, to try to provide as much relief as we can with the program moneys available. I thank the administration for being responsive, but we have to do more than that. That is why I am a cosponsor on this particular legislation. That is why I am pushing hard for its passage. I grew up on a ranch in Walden, CO, spending my summers baling hay, and tending to cattle. But this year, hay is scarce and maintaining a cattle herd is a task of monumental proportions. I have seen the devastation caused by the drought as I have traveled across the state, and I have come to the very serious conclusion that farmers and ranchers, and the rural communities that depend on them, must receive emergency disaster assistance--before it is too late. Those involved in agriculture have a strong tradition of lending their neighbor a hand when they are in need, and helping those who have suffered through a major loss. When a rancher's barn burns to the ground, you can count on farmers and ranchers throughout the county showing up to help rebuild. When a death or illness prevents the harvest of a crop, you can bet that a dozen combines will show up to bring the crop in, to salvage the season in the face of loss, and to lend a helping hand to those in need. Yet this type of kindness is not isolated to the farm or ranch--we in the United States have always responded to natural disasters by providing the needed emergency assistance. And providing the needed assistance to those who produce our food, and sustain our democracy is no different. Following in the great fellowship that calls Americans together during the most challenging times, I urge my colleagues to immediately pass the emergency disaster amendment that is now before us. The drought, which in some parts of my state has entered its fourth year, has transformed large expanses of prairie landscapes, and scarred mountain slopes and valleys to the point that all four corners of the state are parched beyond memory. In fact, the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that 93 percent of Colorado pasture is rated as either poor or very poor, and subsoil moisture supplies continue to be rated at extremely low at 86 percent very short. Responding to the drought by developing new feed programs, working with Natural Resources Conservation Service field offices, funding the Emergency Conservation Program, and by responding quickly to the needs of farmers and ranchers of my state, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and President Bush, have provided farmers and ranchers with the tools to survive, and for that, I thank them both. When I first urged the Secretary to release CRP ground for emergency grazing and haying in May, she responded by acting much more quickly than past practice dictated. In August, when I personally called the Secretary to urge the extension of the deadline, she responded the next day by extending the emergency haying and grazing deadline through November 30. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your leadership in this difficult time. While the administration has provided the tools to survive up to this point, the drought has now reached the point at which Congress must act swiftly to ensure survival beyond today. I recognize that the arid climate of the west means dry weather, but I think that everyone would agree that this drought is anything but normal. In fact, I have been told dozens of times by farmers and ranchers--producers who have 70 plus years of experience--that this is the most severe drought they have ever witnessed. I recently had the opportunity to discuss the drought with scientists studying tree rings along Boulder Creek. They told me that only by tracing the rings back to the 1700's, could one find a period of comparable drought. I have taken an active role in providing Coloradan's with access to programs that provide the necessary emergency resources. Over the past month, I have traveled across Colorado, meeting with 600 farmers and ranchers in Yuma, CO, coordinating meetings with dozens of producers in Las Animas, Alamosa, and Delta, and meeting with well over one hundred producers in Pueblo, to discuss the drought and drought relief. At the disaster forums, I brought together federal agencies that provide drought relief with the people who need their help the most. I listened as farmers and ranchers--some of whom had driven nearly 300 miles to attend--told of their need for assistance. I listened as the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture warned that state could lose as many as 50 percent of its farms because of the drought, and ranchers expressed their anguish at the fact that more than 1 million head of cattle--half the state's total--have already been liquidated. I listened as Larry Fillmore, a rancher north of Boone, CO, stood in a barren pasture that normally supports tall grass and cattle, and emotionally describe that the last moisture the pasture received was last October--in the form of a hail storm. Even the sage brush, with roots ten feet deep, had turned brown. I listened as ranchers told the story of mass cattle selloffs. In the proud community of La Junta, they are experiencing drought induced traffic jams, as a streaming line of trucks hauls cattle to the sale barn. Sale volume records are falling, and one sale--just one sale--can last nearly 24 hours straight, running from 9 am to 6:30 am the next morning. According to an article in the Denver Post, over 700,000 acres of dryland winter wheat, worth an estimated $120 million, has been lost due to drought. Production was 38 million bushels this year, compared with a 10-year annual average of 83.4 million bushels. Sunflower production, worth almost $20 million last year, was down 71 percent this year, and 250,000 acres of dryland corn has completely withered away. Perhaps the most telling story of all is that of Ed Hiza. Standing in the middle of his pasture, he said that 80 percent of the cattle in a 20 mile radius were gone, and that most of the remaining 20 percent would be shipped out within a month. Mr. Hiza made it clear about what the drought means for him, and many of his neighbors, ``We've endured a lot of hardship in this county, and this drought is just the nail in our coffin.'' This story is recounted in the Pueblo Chieftan. For those who do not believe that the drought is indeed that severe, I hope that they will pay attention to the following statistics, and keep in mind that Colorado is the source of water for many downstream States. According to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the South Platte River flows now hover at 13% of average, and Arkansas River streamflows are at record lows. In the San Luis Valley, many domestic wells have stopped flowing. Citizens are seeking assistance from Federal and State agencies for redrilling wells. The San Luis Valley aquifer has been drawn down to the lowest level ever recorded. On the Rio Grande, the flow is 6% of normal. Without using the flows that are normally dedicated to a wildlife refuge, the Rio Grande would probably be dry at the stateline. Many streams are dry and many more may go dry. On the Gunnison River, streamflows are near record lows. Calls on the river are occurring that have not been placed since the construction of one million acre feet of storage--the Aspinall Unit reservoirs--upstream. In the Colorado River Basin, reservoir supplies are bleak. Active storage in Grandby Reservoir is less than 1/5 of capacity. Dillon will have 75,000 acre feet out of 252,000 acre feet. Williams Fork will be at its dead pool. Wolford Mountain Reservoir will have 19,000 acre feet and Reudi Reservoir will have 35,000 acre feet of its 120,000 acre feet capacity. In the Yampa, White and North Platte basins, many reservoirs are empty save for their dead pool storage. Streamflows are well below normal. In the San Juan and Dolores Basins, all irrigation reservoirs are expected to be emptied. The San Juan is flowing at 3% of normal, and the Animas River is flowing at 14% of normal. In short, the need for relief is real. Although there is no legislative cure for a lack of moisture, we can help ease the economic hemorrhaging caused by the drought. As we search for new alternatives that will provide drought relief to communities and businesses, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and support those who have suffered from natural disaster. I ask unanimous consent to print the following information in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to student loan interest deduction. My bill will make permanent the provisions that are set to expire under current law on December 31, 2010. The affected provisions include the elimination of the 60-month limit on deductibility of interest paid on a qualified education loan and clarify that voluntary payments of interests are deductible, as well as the adjustment to the phase out range for eligibility for loan interest deduction up to $50,000 through $65,000 for single taxpayers and $100,000 to $130,000 for joint returns. Making these provisions permanent will be good for taxpayers because borrowers will benefit from added tax relief when they voluntarily pay back higher amounts of their student loans each month. More people will also benefit from the adjustment of the phase out range to a higher income bracket for both single and joint tax returns. In my home State of Colorado over 40 percent of the adult residents have at least a Bachelor's degree, thus repealing the sunset date of these provisions will have a positive long term effect on my constituents. The current law is already helping many people and we can continue to help Americans keep more of their money by repealing the sunset date of these provisions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to student loan interest deduction. My bill will make permanent the provisions that are set to expire under current law on December 31, 2010. The affected provisions include the elimination of the 60-month limit on deductibility of interest paid on a qualified education loan and clarify that voluntary payments of interests are deductible, as well as the adjustment to the phase out range for eligibility for loan interest deduction up to $50,000 through $65,000 for single taxpayers and $100,000 to $130,000 for joint returns. Making these provisions permanent will be good for taxpayers because borrowers will benefit from added tax relief when they voluntarily pay back higher amounts of their student loans each month. More people will also benefit from the adjustment of the phase out range to a higher income bracket for both single and joint tax returns. In my home State of Colorado over 40 percent of the adult residents have at least a Bachelor's degree, thus repealing the sunset date of these provisions will have a positive long term effect on my constituents. The current law is already helping many people and we can continue to help Americans keep more of their money by repealing the sunset date of these provisions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of the men and women of Air Force Space Command, which celebrates the 20th anniversary of their creation this week. On September 1, 1982, the Air Force formally activated Space Command. This single event would forever change the way the United States fights and wins its wars. Space Command originated as an operational command standing shoulder- to-shoulder with other Air Force operational commands such as the historic Strategic Air Command. Although the command was young, the visionary men and women of Space Command quickly stepped up to their immense task. These pioneers looked to the future and recognized the vast potential space-based systems could provide our nation. In the two decades since Space Command was created, the Air Force's space programs have come a long way. In 1983, Space Command was given the responsibility for operating the Air Force's world wide network of surveillance and missile warning sensors. Also in the 1980's Space Command was given responsibility for command and control of its first two satellite constellations, the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program and the Defense Support Program. These satellite programs continue to be a crucial element of the nation's warfighting capability. The early nineties saw Air Force Space Command also take responsibility of all operational space lift vehicles, followed by the Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBMs. In the years leading up to Desert Storm, Air Force Space Command continued to expand its capabilities and enhance our Nation's warfighting forces. Desert Storm provided us the first glimpses of how space-based capabilities can transform the way we fight wars. The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program enabled planners to avoid adverse weather conditions and allowed General Schwarzkopf to successfully execute his now famous ``Hail Mary'' attack against the Iraqis by showing him where his tanks could effectively maneuver. The Defense Support Program was invaluable in providing early warning of SCUD launches. And the effectiveness of our bombing was just starting to see the improvements enabled by the Global Positioning System. On the first night of the war, Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missiles descended on Baghdad with deadly accuracy after using Global Positioning System to update their own internal navigation. Desert Storm gave us a preview of space-based capabilities, and in the years that followed the innovative men and women of Air Force Space Command continued to refine these capabilities and experiment with the best way to employ them. Operation Enduring Freedom showed the fruits of their hard effort. Communications and GPS satellites enabled the tremendous feat of a B-52 providing close air support to a soldier on the ground within minutes of the soldier calling in a target. Today Air Force Space Command is a unique command within the Air Force, responsible for both acquisition and operation of Air Force satellite systems, launch vehicles, and missiles with over 30,000 people stationed around the globe. The role of Air Force Space Command is continuing to grow as they develop even more sophisticated systems such as SBIRS, the Space Based Radar, and advanced communication satellites, while expanding into areas such as space control. I congratulate Air Force Space Command on a very successful 20 years and wish them the very best for the next twenty.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, water is a precious resource that nourishes our civilization and cultivates our society. Yet finding clean, inexpensive water in Southeastern Colorado, can be difficult. That is why today I am introducing legislation that paves the way for expedited construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By providing for the Federal Government to pay for 75 percent of the construction costs of the Conduit, we can put Southeastern Coloradans in the position of being able to provide themselves with the water that they so vitally need. The Conduit was originally authorized with the enactment of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in 1962. Due to Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status and the fact that the authorizing statute lacked a cost share formula, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate enough to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has seriously declined. At the same time, the federal government has continued to strengthen its water quality standards while providing no assistance to water municipalities struggling to meet those standards. In order to comply with these standards. In order to comply with these standards, the region's municipalities have begun exploring options for water treatment, some of which are estimated to cost between $20,000,000 and $40,000,000. Taken together, the municipalities alone are facing potential expenditures of $320,000,000 to $640,000,000, simply to comply with federally mandated water quality standards. As you know, this is not a financially feasible option for small farming communities. The local sponsors of the project have initiated, and are nearing the completion of, an independently funded feasibility study of the Conduit. They have developed a coalition of support from water users in Southeastern Colorado and are exploring options for financing their 25 percent share of the costs. Because forty years have passed between the enactment of the authorizing statute and the current efforts to build the Conduit, the Bureau of Reclamation has stated that a Reevaluation Statement, rather than a Reconnaissance Study, is the next appropriate action. I would like to see the Bureau begin the Reevaluation Statement as quickly as possible. To help make this happen, I have made a request for an additional $300,000 in the Bureau's General Investigations account to be used to prepare the Statement and to begin work in earnest on the Conduit. I am pleased to learn that the Appropriations Committee is currently working to include the funding for the Reevaluation Statement, the Conduit's next step. With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, water is a precious resource that nourishes our civilization and cultivates our society. Yet finding clean, inexpensive water in Southeastern Colorado, can be difficult. That is why today I am introducing legislation that paves the way for expedited construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By providing for the Federal Government to pay for 75 percent of the construction costs of the Conduit, we can put Southeastern Coloradans in the position of being able to provide themselves with the water that they so vitally need. The Conduit was originally authorized with the enactment of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in 1962. Due to Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status and the fact that the authorizing statute lacked a cost share formula, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate enough to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has seriously declined. At the same time, the federal government has continued to strengthen its water quality standards while providing no assistance to water municipalities struggling to meet those standards. In order to comply with these standards. In order to comply with these standards, the region's municipalities have begun exploring options for water treatment, some of which are estimated to cost between $20,000,000 and $40,000,000. Taken together, the municipalities alone are facing potential expenditures of $320,000,000 to $640,000,000, simply to comply with federally mandated water quality standards. As you know, this is not a financially feasible option for small farming communities. The local sponsors of the project have initiated, and are nearing the completion of, an independently funded feasibility study of the Conduit. They have developed a coalition of support from water users in Southeastern Colorado and are exploring options for financing their 25 percent share of the costs. Because forty years have passed between the enactment of the authorizing statute and the current efforts to build the Conduit, the Bureau of Reclamation has stated that a Reevaluation Statement, rather than a Reconnaissance Study, is the next appropriate action. I would like to see the Bureau begin the Reevaluation Statement as quickly as possible. To help make this happen, I have made a request for an additional $300,000 in the Bureau's General Investigations account to be used to prepare the Statement and to begin work in earnest on the Conduit. I am pleased to learn that the Appropriations Committee is currently working to include the funding for the Reevaluation Statement, the Conduit's next step. With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality. Thank you. 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 I be allowed to speak for 20 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to express to the Senate my sincere disappointment that we have not passed a budget. It has been 27 years since we have had this budget process in place in the Senate. This is the first time we have not had a budget plan passed out of the Senate. If we are going to begin to talk about the need for various programs, it would certainly be helpful if we had some idea of where our limits were. I happen to believe we need to work to eliminate our deficit spending. We need to work to make sure we are trying to hold down the growth in our total debt.