Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think it is vitally important that the Senate pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit plan now. Our seniors need it, our seniors have been waiting for years for it, and our seniors deserve it now. Medicare is a health care entitlement program for the elderly. Since Medicare was established in 1965, Congress has considered adding a prescription drug benefit to the program. In the 106th Congress, the Senate got serious about enacting a benefit but was unsuccessful in their efforts. I hope the Senate is successful now. I am concerned, however, that the legislative process has been derailed. The majority leader decided to bring to the floor S. 812, the Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act. This legislation did not proceed through the Committee on Finance. In order for a revenue measure to not face a Budget Act point-of-order, legislation must proceed through the Committee on Finance. S. 812 did not. As a result, the Senate is left with assuming budget points-of-order against any and all revenue legislation as we continue debate this week. This is unacceptable. Seniors need drug coverage now. But the Senate majority has stalled the process. I hope seniors across the United States realize what has happened. This faulty procedure is robbing seniors of their drug benefit, which Congress and the President support but which the Senate is denying. Politics is superseding policy and that is simply unacceptable. Because S. 812 did not proceed through the Committee on Finance, next week the Senate will take up the Graham-Miller, tripartisan, Hagel- Ensign, and Smith-Allard amendments in an attempt to provide a prescription drug benefit. We can only hope that the Senate will waive the budget point-of-order raised against these measures. I have serious concerns about the legislation introduced by Senators Graham and Miller. Graham-Miller would be a temporary drug benefit, without secure financing. Graham-Miller would raise drug prices significantly, and Graham-Miller would not be able to be implemented as proposed. Graham-Miller would have an immeasurable and possibly unlimited cost. Senator Graham's bill does not even have a CBO score. That is another concern I have. Preliminary estimates are that it would cost at least $400 billion to $800 billion over only 6 years. With two-thirds of seniors already obtaining their prescription drugs independent of Government, the Graham plan, frankly, is too generous at a time when Social Security solvency is at risk. According to CBO, Medicare beneficiaries will utilize $1.8 trillion worth of drugs over the next 10 years. But $1.1 trillion of this $1.8 trillion will be paid by third parties, such as employers, States, and Medicare+Choice plans. Drug benefit proposals should focus on reducing the $700 billion that will be paid by beneficiaries, not shifting the remaining $1.1 trillion to the Federal budget. Seniors and taxpayers need a plan that provides a benefit that does not blanket seniors with costs completely covered and that does not break the Nation's bank. Graham-Miller's cost alone is reason to oppose it. Other Senate drug proposals are less expensive. The tripartisan 21st Century Medicare Act of 2002, introduced by Senators Grassley, Snowe, Breaux, Jeffords, and Hatch, is estimated to cost about $350 billion from the years 2005 to 2012. For days, weeks, and months, the Senate Finance Committee members and staff have worked tirelessly to write a bill that expands drug plan options for seniors and refines and enhances Medicare+Choice, Medigap, and other programs. This tripartisan bill will establish a universal, voluntary prescription drug benefit with affordable premiums and special protections for low-income seniors. The tripartisan bill would add a new voluntary fee-for-service option to fit modern health benefit packages, and it will strengthen another drug option under Medicare+Choice. I am pleased that this tripartisan group of Republican, Democrat, and Independent Senators have joined together to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The tripartisan plan expands drug options for seniors so they can choose a plan that fits their needs. I also laud the work of Senators Hagel, Ensign, Gramm, and Lugar who introduced the Medicare Prescription Drug Discount and Security Act. The Hagel-Ensign plan would offer beneficiaries a voluntary drug discount card that they could use to purchase prescription drugs. The bill would cover catastrophic drug costs for beneficiaries under 600 percent of the Federal poverty level, so that seniors making less than about $53,000 will pay no more than $1,500 to $5,500 in out-of-pocket expenses. The bill also does not require monthly premiums, deductibles, or benefit caps. This bill is fiscally responsible, costing about $150 billion over 10 years. I commend Senators Hagel and Ensign for their work in offering this voluntary plan for seniors who need it most. Senator Smith and I also have introduced an amendment to S. 812 that would provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Under our plan, the voluntary Medicare prescription drug plan, a Medicare beneficiary already enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B will have the option of choosing a new, voluntary prescription drug plan called Rx Option. This would cover 50 percent of their prescription drug costs toward the first $5,000 worth of prescriptions that the senior purchases. Currently, Medicare Part A has a $812 deductible and Part B has a $100 deductible. The Smith-Allard plan would create one deductible for Part A and Part B of $675 that would apply to all hospital costs, doctor visits, and prescription drug costs. Once this $675 deductible is met by the Medicare recipient, Medicare will pay 50 percent of the cost toward the first $5,000 worth of prescription drugs that the senior purchases. In addition, there is no benefit premium that would be required. Our plan is revenue-neutral. It is voluntary and will lower Medigap premiums by $550 per year. According to the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, the Federal Government pays about $1,400 more per senior if the senior has a Medigap plan that covers his Part A and Part B deductibles. This generally is attributed to the fact there is overutilization of hospital and doctor visits by the senior because no deductible is required under Medigap, and seniors are more inclined to visit the hospital or doctor without having to pay a deductible. The Smith-Allard plan would require seniors pay a deductible. As a result, Medigap utilization will decrease and savings are achieved. In other words, there is an incentive created for the senior to go to the doctor when he needs to and not simply because it cost him nothing. The Smith-Allard plan would work as a stand-alone drug benefit or as a complementing, additional drug benefit in conjunction with the other drug options about which I talked earlier. Our plan has a number of features that both the Graham-Miller plan and the House-passed Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act do not have. I would like to take a minute to go over a chart I put together on Smith-Allard. This is the Smith-Allard proposal as compared to current law, as compared to the Democrat plan referred to as Graham-Kennedy, and as compared to the House GOP plan for prescription drugs. This is assuming the senior has Medigap supplemental insurance. Under current law, there is no deductible with the doctor or the hospital when they have Medigap insurance coverage. With the Smith-Allard plan, there would be a $675 deductible that would combine for both Part A and Part B of Medicare. Under the Democrat plan, there is no deductible, and in the House plan there is no deductible. The prescription drug deductible is not covered in current law. It is combined in the Smith-Allard plan. There is no deductible in the Democrat plan and the House plan. The average supplemental insurance premium under current law is $1,611. Under the Smith-Allard plan, this comes to $1,061. This remains the same under both the Graham-Kennedy and House GOP plan. Prescription drug premium: Under current law, there is no coverage. Under the Smith-Allard plan, the prescription drug premium would be zero. Under the Democrat plan, the monthly charge that is talked about as $25 a month, this amounts to a $300-a-year premium, and the House GOP plan, which is $30 a month, amounts to an annual premium of $420. Total annual premiums and deductible: Under current law, we stay at the $1,611 level. Under the Smith-Allard plan, it is $1,736. Under the Democrat plan, the Graham-Kennedy proposal, it is $1,911. And the House GOP plan is $2,281. Let's look at the 10-year cost to the Medicare Program. Obviously, we do not have anything under current law. The Smith-Allard plan would remain at zero. The 10-year cost of the Medicare Program to the taxpayer is zero. The Graham-Kennedy plan gets up to $600 billion, and some estimates are running between $400 billion and $800 billion; $600 billion is the number we use on this chart. The House GOP plan comes in at $350 billion. Some are estimating $370 billion currently. Who provides the drug benefit? Under current law, it is not covered. Under the Smith-Allard plan, Medicare provides that drug benefit. In the Graham-Kennedy bill, Medicare provides it. And under the House GOP, it is provided by the private insurance industry. What is the comparison of drug coverage? Currently, there is no coverage. In the Smith-Allard plan, there is 50 percent coverage of all drugs up to $5,000. In the Graham-Kennedy plan, the senior pays $10 for generic drugs and $40 for brand name drugs. Then in the House GOP, there is 20 to 30 percent coverage up to $1,000 the senior pays, and then 50 percent between $1,000 and $2,250, and 100 percent over the $2,250, up to $5,000. Let's look at the catastrophic coverage under these various plans. Under the Smith-Allard proposal, it is optional. Seniors can decide whether they want to take it or not. Coverage could be provided with savings if they decide to take that optional provision. In the Graham- Kennedy plan, it is over $4,000, and in the House GOP plan, it is over $5,000. The nice thing about the Smith-Allard plan and one reason I am presenting it to the Senate today and have introduced the legislation with Senator Smith is because it provides another option, and it is compatible with these other drug plans, particularly the first one we talked about, the tripartisan plan, with an Independent, Democrats, and Republicans supporting the plan. Our bill is very compatible with that kind of a plan. The amendment I will be offering with Senator Smith is simply to provide seniors with an option so that as we move forward with this, it may be they do not want to pay the $25-a-month premium or the $30-a- month premium. They can say: I will offset that by increasing my deductibles in Part A and Part B on Medicare. I think it is the kind of choice we ought to offer seniors. It will balance any of the plans that happen to pass the Senate, and we ought to pass it in the Senate in order to give seniors some choice. I am pleased the Senate is working to pass a prescription drug benefit for Medicare's 40 million enrollees. The Senate should be pleased that many Members have worked hard in recent years to add a drug benefit. We should be pleased that we are debating various proposals now. But our efforts are in vain if we do not pass a drug benefit this year. Our efforts are in vain, I repeat, if we do not pass a drug benefit this year. I urge my colleagues to set aside politics and pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit now. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In 1987, after being ranked as the site that possessed the best technical and scientific characteristics to serve as a repository, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was amended to direct the Department of Energy to study Yucca Mountain as a potential storage site. The Federal Government has spent over 20 years and $8 billion analyzing and studying potential sites for disposal of nuclear waste. This serious investment of money and human capital has led to the clear conclusion that Yucca Mountain is indeed scientifically and technically suitable for development. As a result of this massive effort, on February 14, 2002, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham formally recommended to President Bush that the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada be developed as the Nation's first long-term geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste. I fully support this designation, and I will vote to move forward with the process, allowing the bipartisan regulatory experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make a final determination of whether to allow storage at the site. Colorado, and indeed the Nation, has much to gain from the opening of Yucca Mountain. Material that is currently scattered throughout the United States will finally find a safe long-term shelter at Yucca Mountain--isolated in the remote Nevada desert. Those opposed to opening Yucca continue to argue about the method of delivery to Yucca Mountain. Much has already been said in this respect, but I would like to point out that in the last 40 years, more than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have traveled 1.6 million miles in the United States with no radiation related injuries or deaths. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has performed numerous safety tests on the multi-layered containers that carry the nuclear substance. These tests, often exceeding regulatory requirements, have never yielded any negative or potentially harmful results. Additionally, nuclear waste is a solid that is not flammable and cannot explode. The casks have surpassed expectations during rigid drop tests, puncture tests, heat exposure trials and submergence drills. Public safety has always been a priority, but has become even more important in this unprecedented time of threat to our national security. I believe that the centralization of our used nuclear waste 1,000 feet beneath the earth's surface in a single, highly secure location is preferable to the current scattered distribution of nuclear waste in 131 temporary surface facilities in 39 States. Without Yucca Mountain, the fuel at the Fort St. Vrain facility will remain there indefinitely. This means that the 2.6 million people in Colorado that live within 75 miles of a nuclear facility will continue to live in close proximity; our citizens will be forced to wait another 20 years and spend 8 billion more taxpayer dollars to find another suitable site. Without Yucca Mountain, major metropolitan areas in my State will still have only 20 miles between their town limits and a nuclear facility that stores fuel above ground. Without Yucca Mountain, waste being stored at facilities that are safely designed to hold waste for 50 to 100 years will have to wait untold years for a new destination, costing billions of dollars. Without a favorable decision on Yucca Mountain, a facility that is designed to store nuclear material safely for 10,000 years will shut down. It is important to note that this vote does not mean that Yucca Mountain will open tomorrow. What it does mean, is that the next phase of science can begin in earnest--highly skilled nuclear experts will determine whether the facility merits a license to begin accepting the material. After that, any shipping is subject to strict Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines and regulations, and would not begin, if Yucca is finally approved, until 2010. I support the Yucca Mountain Project, and will continue to be an active participant in the debate. I encourage my fellow colleagues to support the project, and fulfill the requirements of the law imposed by Congress some 20 years ago.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we just passed an amendment which will require the Missile Defense Agency to provide yet another report. While we accepted this amendment, I believe it is redundant and wasteful. The criticism of MDA for classifying information on targets and countermeasures for future missile defense tests has been surprising, at best. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) informed us some time ago that such information would be classified as testing becomes more sophisticated. From the last three successful long-range intercept test successes, MDA has begun a progressive and more rigorous testing program to evaluate emerging and evolving technologies. These technologies include countermeasure to missile defenses that our adversaries might use and the means MDA devises to overcome those countermeasures. MDA has laid in a structure and process to identify likely or possible countermeasures and to assess their potential effectiveness; and to identify and assess possible counter-countermeasures. I can't resist noting that the majority has cut about half the funding for this function in its missile defense proposals in this bill. I think if they were that concerned about countermeasures, perhaps they wouldn't have made this cut. After MDA has identified these countermeasures, it designs and builds them. That's the only way MDA can test against them. Detailed knowledge of ballistic missile defense countermeasures techniques--techniques that we may be developing ourselves to test the strengths and weakness of our missile defense systems--could lead our adversaries to develop capabilities that can defeat our systems. I don't believe anyone wants to reveal information that might compromise our security. We should not share information on targets and countermeasures with the likes of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. I fully concur with those who believe that Congress should have access to all relevant information related to missile dense tests. MDA has assured me that it will provide us with this information. All members, and staff with appropriate clearances, will have access to this information. Indeed, staff received classified information related to targets and countermeasures prior to the last long-range missile defense test. To those who suggest that this move is designed to disguise or hide missile defense test failures, I would note that test successes or failures really can't be hidden. Congress will have access to all the information, classified or otherwise. Not all information will be classified. it will be clear to the public whether the interceptor hit the target or not. Classification may actually make it harder for MDA to demonstrate success to the public because it can't make details of the test public. Details of almost all military tests are classified. Have we ever explained to our adversaries how to defeat stealth technologies? Why would we do so with missile defense technology? The decision to classify this information meets the criteria of Executive order 12958 that guides all DOD agencies in decisions on these matters. This executive order notes that information can be classified if it relates to ``military plans, weapons systems, or operations'' and ``vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems. . . . relating to the national security''; or if release of the information could reasonably be expected to ``reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.'' I believe MDA countermeasures and targets information qualifies in all three categories. Is classification premature? I don't think so. We hope to have early missile defense capabilities in the field in the not too distant future. These capabilities will be based on test assets. Publicly revealing the weaknesses of our test systems to our adversaries simply doesn't make any sense. At this time, I would also like to make a few more points regarding the original cuts made by the Majority to the missile defense programs. While I am very happy that the $814 million cut was restored by the Warner/Allard amendment, I am concerned that there is confusion that the second degree amendment in some way reflects that this Senate believes that the President does not have the flexibility to spend the money as he fits between missile defense and counter-terrorism. As a matter of fact, according to the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the chairman, the second degree amendment does not preclude the President from deciding where to spend the money--missile defense or counter-terrorism. And that is certainly my understanding, as well as the ranking member of the Armed Service Committee. One of the major criticisms stated by the majority is the expenditure rates for Ballistic Missile Defense projects, particularly the rate of expenditure in the BMD System program element. The Missile Defense Agency is attempting to develop a single integrated ballistic missile defense system capable of attacking missiles of varying ranges in all phases of flight and defeating missiles of all ranges. Thus MDA has shifted from an element-centric approach with a focus on THAAD, PAC-3, NTW, NMD etc., to a system-centric approach that knits each of the elements into an integrated whole. The goal is to develop a seamless took-kit of sensors, shooters, platforms battle management, and command and control assets that function as a single integrated BMD system. Critical to this refocusing are integration efforts to tie disparate BMD projects into a coordinated whole. The BMD System program element is key to success in the endeavor. But the chairman seems to argue that some funding will be left over at the end of fiscal year 2002 and thus not all the funding requested for fiscal year 2003 will be needed. I strongly disagree and several points need to be made. The 2002 budget was approved late. The FY 2002 defense authorization act wasn't signed until January of this year, at the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year. MDA projects--and all other DOD projects-- were late in getting FY 2002 funds. The expenditures that the chairman cited are already out of date. The figures he used were the expenditure figures from March 31, less than three months after MDA started receiving 2002 funds. The figure updated for the end of April is already about $100 million. The end of year expenditure projection for this program element is about half the funds appropriated. More than 90 percent will be obligated. These figures are well within expected ranges. I have the Missile Defense Agency projections for all their major project activities. All appear to be within expected ranges. It is also very important to remember that the funding request in the BMD System program element is all R&D money. R&D funding is available for obligation for two years and available for expenditure until disbursed or rescinded. Congress provides extended availability for R&D funding specifically to help assure funding stability and planning and contractual flexibility. If we accept the argument that we can cut funding in this program element because MDA will have Fiscal Year 02 funds left over, we have to accept the argument that the whole rationale for providing extended availability for R&D funding is flawed. We may as well go ahead and cut all R&D programs that have any funding left over from the previous year. I don't think any one believes we should do that. Citing an outdated expenditure figure for this program element so early in the fiscal year is simply misleading and I believe misguided. Another concern I had with the Majority's cuts was the $147 million reduction in program operations. This reduction may sound mundane but is critical to the success of the programs. The majority has justified the cuts on grounds that the funding is redundant and excessive. The committee report notes that program operations are adequately funded in each Missile Defense Agency project and the program operations funds justified in separate lines in each program element simply aren't needed. So the Armed Services Committee bill cuts each and every one of these funding lines. But this justification is simply wrong. It is simply mistaken to state that the funding for program operation is redundant to funding elsewhere in the MDA budget. Not only is it mistaken, this funding reduction is extraordinarily damaging to the Missile Defense Agency. What are ``program operations?'' Program operations are people. They provide the basic support for any program. They provide information technology support--the computer support people. They provide communications support. They provide security. They provide contract support. They support basic infrastructure and facilities. It is true that this work is done at the project level. The THAAD project funds program operations unique to the THAAD project. Each MDA projects fund program operations unique to that project. But the simple fact is that the program operations funds in each project are not used for same purposes as the funds that have been cut in Armed Services Committee bill. The funds cut by the Committee bill are not for activities unique to any particular project. They are for common program support. The funds identified in the MDA budget for program operations will be used to support government and contractors for common program support at Missile Defense Agency Headquarters and for the service executive agents for missile defense programs. The Missile Defense Agency is required by law--Section 251 (d) of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act to request these funds in separate program elements. This bill cuts almost all of this funding--$147 million of $185 million requested, or nearly 80 percent. What does this cut do? This reduction cuts nearly 1,000 people who provide basic support for Missile Defense Agency projects and activities. Army Space and Missile Defense Command will lose almost 400 people. The Army Program Executive Office for Air and Missile Defense will lose another 60. Missile Defense Agency Headquarters will lose around 400. The Navy and Air Force will lose about 75. Heres how MDA describes the impact: The majority of Army SMDC and Army PEO-AMD staffs would be eliminated. Air Force and Navy organizations responsible for centralized management and/or sharing of common program management costs would be eliminated. All contract support at MDA for program operations would be eliminated; computer center and thus computers shut down; no security (technical or physical), no staffing for supply/mail room, cleaning, and facility maintenance; no contractor support for common acquisition management functions performed by MDA, e.g. contracting, financial management, cost estimating, human resources. That is an incredible hit on any organization. Could MDA recover by redirecting funds to cover these functions? If these cuts survive the process, MDA would have to move money into activities in direct contravention of Congressional intent which is usually a pretty bad idea. But even if MDA were to try use project funds to perform these program-wide activities, the agency would be in the position of trying to use new people to do many of these jobs. The Missile Defense Agency simply could not do this in anything approaching a timely manner. Consider contracting support. The whole thrust of the missile defense program has changed, moving toward a single integrated missile defense system and away from autonomous ``stove-piped'' systems. This will inevitably mean contract changes as the architecture evolves. Yet MDA's institutional memory would have been surgically excised by this reduction at precisely the time it is needed most. So MDA would take a double hit--a cut to project funds to pay for program operations, and inefficient and ineffective program operations because all the people who did that job will have been fired. The 80 percent reduction to program operation is just one example of how damaging the missile defense reductions in this bill. It is inconsistent with good management, current law, and common sense. I cannot say if the majority simply erred in this reduction, or if the intent was to cripple the organization. Another program that was it hard by the majority's missile defense cuts deals with countermeasures--which for me makes these cuts even more surprising. Many critics on the majority side have argued that simply countermeasures can render missile defenses ineffective. They have criticized missile defense technology and testing as too simple, and not sensitive enough to the measures our enemies might take to defeat our defenses. The former Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Phil Coyle used to make this argument in his official capacity and had many recommendations about how to improve what he saw as deficiencies. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee just recently repeated the view that simply countermeasures may be able to defeat missile defenses. The Missile Defense Agency agreed that countermeasures represent a significant challenge, and has structured a significant part of its program to meet this challenge. Here's what they have done: MDA moved from an architecture that relied very heavily on intercepting enemy missiles and warheads in their terminal phase, the final phase of flight as these weapons approach their target, to an architecture that seeks to intercept missiles and warheads in all phases flight-boost phase right after launch, and midcourse as the missiles and warheads fly ballistically toward their target as well as terminal phase. Countermeasures to defenses in any one phase of flight are greatly complicated by attacking missiles in all phases of flight. MDA initiated technology efforts in the midcourse defense segment to develop counter-countermeasures and advanced kill vehicles to defeat countermeasures that our adversaries may develop or deploy. MDA initiated a ``Red, White, and Blue'' team and a process to objectively assess the types of countermeasures that might be developed and deployed and the countermeasures that could be developed to counter them. The Red team assesses the likelihood and technical feasibility and effectiveness of various countermeasures; the Blue team assesses ways to defeat the countermeasures and does basic technical work to produce the counter-countermeasures; and the White team is the referee to make sure that proposals and assessments from the Red and Blue teams are fair. Given the concerns expressed by our majority about the ability of adversaries to produce countermeasures that defeat our defenses, you would thank that these efforts would among those receiving the strongest support in this bill. If you thought that, you would be wrong. This bill decimates each of these approaches. The bill makes extraordinarily deep reductions in boost phase intercept projects. The Airborne Laser program--cut by about a quarter--there is almost no funding for anything beyond the first prototype aircraft. Funding for space-based kinetic boost phase interceptors is eliminated. Funding for sea-based boost phase interceptors is eliminated. Space-based laser? That was killed last year. And the bill makes a $52 million reduction to Navy mid-course missile defense, and concept development and risk reduction effort to produce Navy missile defenses against medium, intermediate, and long- range missiles. The bill cuts all the funding--100 percent of the funding--for the next generation kill vehicle and midcourse counter-countermeasures. This leaves the midcourse segment with no follow-on technology to defeat any advanced countermeasures our adversaries might develop or obtain and then deploy. The bill cuts almost half of the funding for the Red, White and Blue team. This reduction is part of the 2/3 reduction to Ballistic Missile Defense System program element. A key project in that program element is system engineering and analysis. That's where the Red, White and Blue team is funded. This bill decimates this key effort. These reductions severely damage the effort to defeat BMD countermeasures--an effort that everyone-Republicans, Democrats, MDA, and missile defense critics--believes is critical. The rationale for these reductions, to be charitable, is unclear. Let me end my statement by summarizing some of the majority's arguments which we have heard during the course of this debate. First, funding is not adequately justified or unclear what product will be provided. Not true. The committee has received hundreds of pages of justification which describes in tremendous detail activities and products in each program element. I admit that not all of the detail was available at the beginning of the budget cycle because the National Team--which plans the activities--was just standing up. It is all available now. Many of these important activities and products included in System Engineering & Integration are: concept development and system architecture; trade studies and analysis; functional allocation; BMD element (e.g. PAC-3, ABL, THAAD) specifications; verification of text objectives; engineering process controls; configuration management; interface specification; architecture definition; threat databases; modeling and simulation; test infrastructure and target requirement definition; schedule baseline; specialty engineering; and data management. For Battle Management/Command and Control these activities include: definition of intelligence and sensor inputs; specifications; definition of interfaces; mission planning across BMD elements BM/C2 test planning, assessments BM/C2 system performance BM/C20T&E plans; BM/D2 transition plans; order of battle definition communications architecture message definition and formats network management information assurance wargaming support; and BM/C2 verification and test. Here is an example of some of these activities: System and element capability specification: $17.8 million. Description: The system capability specifications provide design requirements for system integrators and element contractors to use in development and testing. It enables contractors to understand the context in which they are designing elements and to be more innovative in ensuring that their element meets its requirements and milestones in the BMD system. The system capability specification document describes the BMD system in terms of functions and performance based capabilities, shows the allocation of those capabilities the elements in the BMD system, and identifies methods to verify those capabilities at the system level. Element and component capability specifications documents describe the functions and capabilities of BMD system elements and components as they are allocated in the systems capabilities specifications. For new elements these documents may provide a very complete description of functions and capabilities and allocations to major subsystems. For existing elements, the documents may be higher level and might serve as the basis for engineering change proposals to bring the element into compliance with BMD system allocations and specifications. These documents are reviewed quarterly and updated annually. The committee got over 100 pages of similar material describing these activities in a minute detail. The second argument is that the funding is redundant. Again, not true. There is a semantic problem in considering ``system engineering.'' System engineering takes place at the system level and the at the element level. The system level effort integrates all the disparate elements into a seamless whole. At the element level--or perhaps we would better call this ``element engineering''--provides for integration between the parts of an element. For example, the THAAD program spends about 10 percent of its funding on ``system engineering'' to assure that the THAAD components-radar, missile, launcher, BMC2--work together seamlessly. This is not the same work that is being done at the BMD system level. The system engineering and integration across elements of the BMD system is being done at a much more detailed level and more systemtically than in the past. This is new or expanded work. On reason this work hasn't been done so much is the past is because of the former ABM Treaty constraints. A third argument is that the funding is premature. Once again, not true. Much of this work has not been done before. It is needed to implement the new concept of missile defense as a single integrated system. If this work isn't started and can't continue now--the effectiveness of all missile defense systems will be degraded; deployment of effective missile defense will be delayed; costs will increase, since each element will have to ``carry more of the load'' and element-centric work will have to be redone later to make it compatible with a single integrated system. The start or expansion of this work coincides with establishment and stand-up of the National Team. As I mentioned earlier but I believe is important to reiterate, it has also been argued that some funding will be left over at the end of fiscal year 2002 and thus not all the funding requested for fiscal year 2003 will be needed. Although the 2002 budget was approved late, the obligation and expenditure rate in System Engineerring and Integration is well within expected ranges. The funding request is all R&D money. R&D funding is available for obligation for two years and available for expenditure until disbursed or rescinded. Congress provides extended availability for R&D funding to help asure funding stabililty and planning and contractual flexibility. If we accept the argument that we can cut funding in this program element because MDA will FY 02 funds left over, we have to accept the argument that the whole rationale for providing extended availability for R&D funding is flawed. We may as well go ahead and cut all R&D programs that have any funding left over from the previous year. Fourth, that the funding is excessive. Once again, not true. MDA's BMD system level engineering and integration funding request, at 2 percent of the MDA budget of the budget, is modest. Standard text (Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management) estimates requested resources for systems engineering to be 4-8 percent of total project cost. Costs tend to be higher for complicated projects. MDA's system and element level engineering and integration funding is low compared to other programs. What other programs spend on system engineering: V-22--7.2 percent. B-1b--14.3 percent. V-22 (Marine)--11.5 percent. F-22--5.5 percent. E-3A AWACS--13 percent. Safeguard--16 percent. Patriot--19 percent. E-4 Airborne Command post--12 percent. Pershing II--21 percent. JTIDS--12 percent. Here's what Ballistic Missile Defense spends on system engineering: Ground-based Midcourse--6.9 percent. THAAD (03)--10 percent. BMDS SE&I--2 percent. These figures are not at all out of line with other complex DOD programs. The BMDS systems engineering funding is low by comarison- particularly given that we haven't done this mission before. This mission is almost uniquely complex. In conclusion--the BMDS funding reductions aim at the heart of what MDA is trying to do and how MDA is trying to do it. I believe the funding reductions are completely unjustified and I am glad we made some progress in getting these very important missile defense programs back on track.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the ridiculous ruling of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Literally ridiculous; it deserves to be ridiculed. It was a 2-1 decision, so there is, at least, one judge on the Court who can rule based on the same legal and civic theory that the rest of the country has been operating under for the last 226 years. I cannot accept removing ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance. This ruling is appalling. I never thought I would see the day when saying the Pledge of Allegiance would be declared unconstitutional by a court. I certainly did not think I would see it on the day I placed my hand on a Holy Bible and made an Oath at my swearing in. The Magna Carta of 1215, considered the initial codification of Western democratic theory, clearly shows that power is granted from ``above.'' Not ``above'' from a judge's bench, but higher--from an Almighty Power. Every major assertion of our fundamental political thought references God, and not in passing, but as a cornerstone of human life. Sometimes it is again literally a cornerstone. The Jefferson Memorial has quotes from that great man, which contain references to God carved into the stone. The Lincoln Memorial also has a testament to that President's commitment to God cut into the very marble. Anyone reading his Second Inaugural must know his view of a daily presence of God in the affairs of man and in the political life of this nation. The Holocaust Memorial facade quotes scriptures. So does our Library of Congress, Union Station, Constitution Hall, and many others. Even William Shakespeare's Puck is quoted referring to God over outside the Folger Shakespeare Theater--in a quote that I think rings especially true regarding certain court rulings--``Lord, What fools these mortals be.'' Lord, what foolish rulings these judges make. There has already been discussions on this floor regarding our coins, our money, and this very Chamber. I don't bring these up just to worry aloud as to whether they are soon to be ruled against as well, but to show that our nation was incorporated under God, and an attempt to excise God from this Republic is wrong and lacking in historical and legal insight. Our citizens are free from an official state religion--not forced to be free from religious thought. When President Eisenhower signed the law adding ``under God'' to the pledge, he was not doing so in attempt to lead this Nation down a Godly path. It was not using the bully pulpit to attempt to steer a course. He was affirming that this nation has already consistently and thoroughly incorporated belief in and submission to God. We separated ourselves from the United Kingdom under the laws of Nature's God, claiming the unalienable rights we were endowed with by our Creator and appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for recititude of our intentions. We have continued this way ever since--no matter what the Ninth might say. Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not merely upset about the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled against. I want to also speak against the ongoing assault on our basic religious beliefs. As my friend Senator Sessions voiced earlier, this is just another result of a dangerous and radical viewpoint that is held by an irresponsible few. Few as they are compared to our citizens as a whole, there are far too many in this body and elsewhere who express beliefs and support for radical judges that cannot help but lead us to these types of decisions. We do not jump from a nation that believes itself endowed by its Creator with unalienable rights to a nation where the Pledge of Allegiance can be ruled unconstitutional without many intervening steps along the way. Those of us who oppose the many small steps taken down this path welcome those who finally stand aghast at where we end up. I hope this body and the Nation will move to correct the error.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate General Ralph E. Eberhart, United States Air Force, on his appointment to serve as the first Commander-in-Chief of Northern Command as well as the commander of NORAD. General Eberhart's qualifications for this very important position are impeccible, and I have absolutely no doubt that he will bring the same success to Northern Command as he did to US Space Command. Before General Eberhart departs US Space Command, I want to express my most sincere appreciation to him for his steadfast advocacy of military space capabilities over the past two years. His visionary leadership and dedication as the Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command and, until recently, Air Force Space Command, has truly brought military space into a new era. When he took command of US Space Command in February 2000, our country had just completed Operation Allied Force in Kosovo. At that time we recognized the value that space-based capabilities bring to the flight. GPS-guided weapons were the preferred munition and satellite communications provided double the bandwidth available in Desert Storm. Since Operation Allied Force, General Eberhart was able to increase the effectiveness of these very same capabilities by pressing for the integration of space capabilities with air, maritime and land assets. US Space Command's contributions are the hallmarks of Operation Enduring Freedom. When military historians look back at Operation Enduring Freedom, they will note the extreme effectiveness bombs delivered with pinpoint accuracy within minutes of being requested by soldiers on the ground. They will note persistent survellience and near-real time threat information beamed to cockpits. These capabilties would not be possible if it weren't for US Space Command. Space-based capabilities are an enabler of not just the Air Force's transformation, but also the Navy and Army. General Eberhart's leadership of NORAD during Operation Noble Eagle is equally impressive. After September 11, NORAD went from having 14 aircraft on alert to more than 100. General Eberhart faced the challenges of supporting continous combat air patrols, including all the supporting logistics such as tankers and integrating NATO AWACS. The change in focus of NORAD since Sept 11 is not, unfortunately, temporary and points our nation's need for a Unified Command to address threats to the United States as well as operations in North America. North Command is crucial to our national security. I am very proud to host this command in Colorado and sincerely look forward to continue working with General Eberhart.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. The amendment is cleared on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. ALLARD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. The amendment has been cleared on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4098

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4094

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Collins, I offer an amendment which would extend the authority for the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for DDG-51 destroyers by 2 years until fiscal year 2007.

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

Mr. ALLARD. On behalf of Senators Helms and Cleland, I offer an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a policy and a risk mitigation plan for testing and certification requirements for telecommunications switches connected to the Defense Switch Network. I believe this amendment has been cleared.

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

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4103

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an amendment that would amend the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 to modify the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit a master plan on the use of the Navy Annex.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. The amendment has been cleared on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4109

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment which provides key enabling robotics technologies that will support Army, Navy, and Air Force robotics and unmanned military platforms.

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