Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, on Friday, amendment No. 3954 to S. 2514 was approved by the Senate and I would like to make a few remarks regarding this important provision. I am proud to have sponsored this amendment with my good friend from Florida, Senator Nelson. We both have a strong interest in space, for personal and constituent reasons, and believe this amendment, while only a Sense of the Senate, is important to show that the Senate is on record supporting assured access to space. United States national security and economic vitality depend on our ability to launch a variety of satellites into earth orbit. Access to and utilization of space provides an advantage to the United States that must be maintained. Unfortunately, significant contractions in the commercial space launch marketplace have eroded the overall viability of the United States space launch industrial base and could jeopardize the ability of the Department of Defense to provide assured access to space in the future. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, EELV, program is the Air Force's solution for assured access. EELV is designed to be more responsive and affordable than current launch vehicles. With EELV, the Air Force has adopted a commercial launch services approach. The DOD also shared with the contractors the investment to develop next generation launch vehicles--the Atlas V and Delta IV. In 1997, at a time when worldwide projections envisioned 70 launches per year, the Air Force decided to retain both EELV contractors rather than down selecting to a single provider. The commercial satellite marketplace, it appeared, would provide adequate sustainment for the U.S. space launch industrial base, thereby justifying the large contractor investments in EELV, and providing the DOD a more robust assured access capability for a relatively modest government investment. Since 1997, however, such launch projections have deteriorated by 65 percent. The 2002 projection envisions approximately 25 launches per year. As the EELV program transitions from development to recurring operations, the Air Force is evaluating a range of options for sustaining the launch infrastructure and industrial base necessary to assure access to space. The key to this effort is the maintenance of two financially stable launch service providers that will keep U.S. launch providers competitive in the global market and provide backup for any technical or operational problems that may be encountered. Such a program will not fundamentally alter the projected cost savings associated with the EELV program, a 25-50 percent reduction over today's systems. The Air Force is currently negotiating with the two EELV contractors to develop an appropriate cost and risk sharing strategy for assured success. The amendment calls on the Air Force to evaluate all the options for sustaining the space launch industry base, develop an integrated, long- range, and adequately funded plan for assuring U.S. access to space, and for the Air Force to submit a report to Congress at the earliest possible time. Again, I want to thank Senator Nelson for working with me on this simple but important sense of the Senate. I look forward to working with him on this and other space issues in the future.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I am proud to announce that the Rocky Flats Closure Project security team was named the DOE's ``Team of the Year'' by placing first out of 12 teams representing nuclear facilities at the 30th Annual Security Police Officer Training Competition at Oak Ridge, TN earlier this month. The Wackenhut Services security police officers team competed against a team from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Act Constabulatory, teams from the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air Force, teams from the Office of Transportation Safeguards, and law enforcement teams. The competitions tested the teams' skills in combat shooting, physical fitness, and tactical obstacle courses. The Rocky Flats team demonstrated their ability to respond effectively to a situation with superior teamwork and decisiveness. I would like to congratulate Rocky Flats Wackenhut Services team members Muhtalar Dickson of Aurora, Chris Duran of Denver, Todd Harrison of Erie, Randy Irmer of Colorado Springs, Jim Krause of Westminister, and Chris Welseler of Highlands Ranch. These Rocky Flats employees are currently involved in the cleanup and closure of the plant, which involves nuclear material management and shipment, nuclear deactivation and decommissioning, waste management and shipment, and environmental cleanup and site closure. As always, the employees at Rocky Flats are making and keeping Coloradans proud.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for their tremendous effort in working on eliminating the death tax. I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment and in support of the Gramm amendment which is the provision that was passed out of the House of Representatives last week. Fundamentally, if we want to help farmers and ranchers, if we want to help small businesspeople, we need to kill the death tax. It is a sham to put in qualifiers and provisions so that such a small number of small businesspeople can qualify instead of eliminating the tax altogether. What we need to do is to kill the death tax. This unfair tax has been a concern of mine for some time. I have previously introduced my own legislation to eliminate the death tax. I was pleased to support the repeal of the death tax as part of last year's tax relief package. But those cuts simply do not go far enough. One of the tenets of a fair tax system is that income is taxed only once. I know this argument has been made a number of times by my colleagues. These small businesspeople, farmers and ranchers, families are subjected to a tax that is initiated at the time of tragedy in the family, an event when somebody passes away. This is money on which the taxpayer has already paid taxes. Income should be taxed when it is first earned or realized. It should not be repeatedly taxed by the government. The death tax simply violates this tenet. The way I see it, it comes down to one question: Should death be a taxable event? I emphatically believe the answer is no. People who work hard and save throughout their lifetime should be able to expect that the products of their labor will go on to help their family, not go on to fund some politician's pet project. This issue of the death tax really hits home for me. Family farms and small businesses are two of the groups most affected by the estate tax. I grew up on my family's ranch in Colorado, and I owned a small business before I came to Washington. So I truly understand the concerns of those who live in fear of the impact that this tax will have on their legacy to their children. The estate tax has resulted in the loss of family farms and family businesses across the Nation. Many people work their entire lives to build a business that they can pass on to their children. When these hard-working businessmen and farmers pass away, their families are often forced to sell off the business to pay the estate tax. I see this as an affront to those who try to pass on the fruits of their life's work to their children. America was founded on entrepreneurship and hard work, and a high death tax serves to stifle both. The people affected by this tax are not necessarily wealthy. Many small businesspeople are cash poor but asset rich. For example, the owner of a small restaurant might have $800,000 of assets but not much cash on hand. Her children will still have to pay an excessive tax on the assets. The produce wholesaler, who has invested all of his revenue in trucks and storage, might have more than $700,000 in assets. That does not make him a cash-wealthy man. Yet he is still subject to this so-called ``tax on the wealthy.'' In too many situations the heirs must dismantle or sell a family business simply to pay the taxes. This isn't right. The death tax also impacts employment and the economy. When a family- owned farm or a small business closes, the workers lose their jobs. Conversely, leaving resources in the economy can create jobs. In fact, in a 1995 Gallup Poll, 60 percent of business owners reported that they would add more jobs over the coming year if the death tax were eliminated. Additionally, the estate tax is a disincentive for Americans to save their earnings. The government has created a number of tax breaks and other incentives for those who save their money: 401(k)s and IRAs--to name a few. Yet the estate tax sends a contradictory message. Basically, it says, ``If you don't spend all your savings by the time you die, the government will penalize you.'' This tax is no small penalty, either. We are talking about some very high tax rates. The death tax also represents an unjust double taxation. The savings were taxed initially when they were earned. Then, when the saver passes away, the government comes along and takes a second cut. There is no good reason for the current system--other than the government's desire to make a profit. The current death tax law has a greater effect on the lower end of the scale than the higher. Wealthy people can afford lawyers and planners to help them plan their estate. Those at the lower end of the estate tax scale are often unable to afford sophisticated estate planning. So the current law also makes the tax somewhat regressive, which is not fair. This is particularly true given the uncertainty of the tax due to phase in and sunset dates. Planning and compliance with the estate tax can consume substantial resources. The National Association of Manufacturers has reported that more than 40 percent of its members have spent at least $100,000 on death tax planning. For three out of five members the annual compliance costs are more than $25,000. This is money that could have been better spent to expand the business and create new jobs--rather than dealing with the death tax. The estate tax only raises 1 percent of Federal revenue, yet it costs farms, businesses, and jobs. No American family should lose their farm or business because of the Federal government. I support full permanent repeal of the Federal estate tax. I urge my colleagues to end this unfair system and join me in supporting permanent repeal of the death tax.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the American Dream Downpayment Act, which will help thousands of families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. The rate of homeownership in the United States has risen steadily over the past few years. However, for many working families, low-income families, women-headed households, minorities, urban dwellers and young families the dream of homeownership remains elusive. While Americans enjoy the world's greatest opportunities for becoming homeowners, only 46 percent of African-American and Hispanic families own their homes as compared to 74 percent of non-Hispanic whites who own their homes. For many of these families, the biggest barrier to homeownership is their inability to afford downpayment requirements and closing costs. To help eliminate the gaps in homeownership achievement, I am introducing the American Dream Downpayment Act. This legislation will help 40,000 families annually, focusing on low-income families who are first-time homebuyers. The American Dream Downpayment Fund will provide communities across America with $200 million in grants to help homebuyers with the downpayment and closing costs. The American Dream Downpayment Fund, which will be administered as a part of HUD's existing HOME Investment Partnerships Program, HOME, will make more than 400 State and local governments eligible to receive the $200 million in grant funding to help more families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. The positive effects of homeownership exist on many levels: homeownership has public benefits in the form of neighborhood stability, individual benefits in the form of the financial rewards that come from the appreciation of equity in a home over time, and personal benefits that stem from the satisfaction of attaining a goal, the pride of ownership, and a greater sense of security. In addition to these affirmative impacts of homeownership, the Homeownership Alliance released findings of a study revealing that children living in owned homes had nine percent higher achievement in mathematics and seven percent higher achievement in reading. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on the American Dream Downpayment Act. I believe this legislation will be critical in helping more families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the American Dream Downpayment Act, which will help thousands of families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. The rate of homeownership in the United States has risen steadily over the past few years. However, for many working families, low-income families, women-headed households, minorities, urban dwellers and young families the dream of homeownership remains elusive. While Americans enjoy the world's greatest opportunities for becoming homeowners, only 46 percent of African-American and Hispanic families own their homes as compared to 74 percent of non-Hispanic whites who own their homes. For many of these families, the biggest barrier to homeownership is their inability to afford downpayment requirements and closing costs. To help eliminate the gaps in homeownership achievement, I am introducing the American Dream Downpayment Act. This legislation will help 40,000 families annually, focusing on low-income families who are first-time homebuyers. The American Dream Downpayment Fund will provide communities across America with $200 million in grants to help homebuyers with the downpayment and closing costs. The American Dream Downpayment Fund, which will be administered as a part of HUD's existing HOME Investment Partnerships Program, HOME, will make more than 400 State and local governments eligible to receive the $200 million in grant funding to help more families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. The positive effects of homeownership exist on many levels: homeownership has public benefits in the form of neighborhood stability, individual benefits in the form of the financial rewards that come from the appreciation of equity in a home over time, and personal benefits that stem from the satisfaction of attaining a goal, the pride of ownership, and a greater sense of security. In addition to these affirmative impacts of homeownership, the Homeownership Alliance released findings of a study revealing that children living in owned homes had nine percent higher achievement in mathematics and seven percent higher achievement in reading. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on the American Dream Downpayment Act. I believe this legislation will be critical in helping more families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise before my colleagues today to address the very serious matter of chronic wasting disease. As a United States Senator, chronic wasting disease presents a great animal health challenge. As a Veterinarian, chronic wasting disease presents an even greater challenge to the scientific communities of both the States and the Federal Government. In a mounting bipartisan effort to defeat the disease, I, along with Senators Feingold, Kohl and Campbell, introduce the ``Chronic Wasting Disease State Support Act of 2002.'' The importance of the title cannot be emphasized enough. Although the bill authorizes a substantial amount Federal funding to fight and eradicate the disease, the States will retain their undisputed primacy and policy-making authority with regard to wildlife management. Nothing in this act interferes with or otherwise affects the primacy of the States in managing wildlife generally, or managing, surveying and monitoring the incidence of chronic wasting disease. Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, may be a new threat to some. Others may not be familiar with it at all. However, it is not new to those of us in Colorado and Wyoming, who have been dealing with it for over twenty years, and if the disease continues to spread, those unfamiliar with the fatal disease will, in time, become experts in CWD policy. The scientific community has gone to great lengths to deal with the disease on limited budgets. These experts, through scientific publication and Congressional hearings, have told us that, although we have learned a tremendous amount about chronic wasting disease, there is much that we do not know and much that we must do to eradicate it. One thing we do know is that sound science is the answer, and that the Chronic Wasting Disease State Support Act of 2002 is intended to greatly increase research, monitoring, surveillance, and management of the disease on all levels. Increased research and research funding is necessary because the disease is quite simply a mystery--the origin and transmission of CWD is unknown. Unfortunately, the treatment for chronic wasting disease is all too familiar. The only way to treat an animal or to contain the disease is to destroy the animal and cull the herd. Together, we must embark on an ambitious and sound scientific commitment for research and investigation to end chronic wasting disease. That is what this bill calls for--cooperation and collaboration, working together at both the state and federal level to achieve a common objective. We must end chronic wasting disease, and we must begin our eradication efforts now. The impact CWD will have on wildlife and agriculture is undeniable, and the economic and emotional toll of the disease cannot be overstated. Communities that are economically reliant upon deer and elk related enterprises will feel the impact of CWD as concern about the disease grows. But we can stop this, and we must stop this. We have an opportunity to restore cervid health, to contain the disease, and, most importantly, to eradicate the disease. This is the challenge that I urge my colleagues to accept, and to take decisive action; adequate research funding that is directed toward the complete eradication of chronic wasting disease starts with this authorizing legislation. In those States that are already dealing with CWD, the fiscal demands required to manage the disease is quite apparent. State budgets are stretched thin as they cull wild and captive herds and research for workable solutions to stop the disease. An infusion of Federal resources and technical assistance is required to help the States keep CWD from spreading, to treat infected or exposed populations, and to greatly expand research for testing and possible cures. This bill does just that by providing assistance in the form of grants, Federal research programs and incidence reporting, as well as scientific assistance. State and federal cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, provide relief to family elk ranchers, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health. The Chronic Wasting Disease Act of 2002 provides the foundation for a nationwide increase in diagnostic capabilities. Undoubtedly, the spread of CWD and the increased awareness of the disease, will cause the demand for testing to grow exponentially--this bill helps us prepare to handle a large volume of cases efficiently and reliably. The legislation calls for the development of new testing methods to help us understand the disease, as well as developing a live test. Chronic wasting disease presents a common problem to the states and the federal government. The federal conduit role that is provided in the bill will allow animal health experts to unravel the CWD mystery. The challenge we face is to achieve what we all recognize as a common objective--to understand CWD and to eradicate it. But, we must act quickly or this disease will redefine the wildlife characteristics of our States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise before my colleagues today to address the very serious matter of chronic wasting disease. As a United States Senator, chronic wasting disease presents a great animal health challenge. As a Veterinarian, chronic wasting disease presents an even greater challenge to the scientific communities of both the States and the Federal Government. In a mounting bipartisan effort to defeat the disease, I, along with Senators Feingold, Kohl and Campbell, introduce the ``Chronic Wasting Disease State Support Act of 2002.'' The importance of the title cannot be emphasized enough. Although the bill authorizes a substantial amount Federal funding to fight and eradicate the disease, the States will retain their undisputed primacy and policy-making authority with regard to wildlife management. Nothing in this act interferes with or otherwise affects the primacy of the States in managing wildlife generally, or managing, surveying and monitoring the incidence of chronic wasting disease. Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, may be a new threat to some. Others may not be familiar with it at all. However, it is not new to those of us in Colorado and Wyoming, who have been dealing with it for over twenty years, and if the disease continues to spread, those unfamiliar with the fatal disease will, in time, become experts in CWD policy. The scientific community has gone to great lengths to deal with the disease on limited budgets. These experts, through scientific publication and Congressional hearings, have told us that, although we have learned a tremendous amount about chronic wasting disease, there is much that we do not know and much that we must do to eradicate it. One thing we do know is that sound science is the answer, and that the Chronic Wasting Disease State Support Act of 2002 is intended to greatly increase research, monitoring, surveillance, and management of the disease on all levels. Increased research and research funding is necessary because the disease is quite simply a mystery--the origin and transmission of CWD is unknown. Unfortunately, the treatment for chronic wasting disease is all too familiar. The only way to treat an animal or to contain the disease is to destroy the animal and cull the herd. Together, we must embark on an ambitious and sound scientific commitment for research and investigation to end chronic wasting disease. That is what this bill calls for--cooperation and collaboration, working together at both the state and federal level to achieve a common objective. We must end chronic wasting disease, and we must begin our eradication efforts now. The impact CWD will have on wildlife and agriculture is undeniable, and the economic and emotional toll of the disease cannot be overstated. Communities that are economically reliant upon deer and elk related enterprises will feel the impact of CWD as concern about the disease grows. But we can stop this, and we must stop this. We have an opportunity to restore cervid health, to contain the disease, and, most importantly, to eradicate the disease. This is the challenge that I urge my colleagues to accept, and to take decisive action; adequate research funding that is directed toward the complete eradication of chronic wasting disease starts with this authorizing legislation. In those States that are already dealing with CWD, the fiscal demands required to manage the disease is quite apparent. State budgets are stretched thin as they cull wild and captive herds and research for workable solutions to stop the disease. An infusion of Federal resources and technical assistance is required to help the States keep CWD from spreading, to treat infected or exposed populations, and to greatly expand research for testing and possible cures. This bill does just that by providing assistance in the form of grants, Federal research programs and incidence reporting, as well as scientific assistance. State and federal cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, provide relief to family elk ranchers, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health. The Chronic Wasting Disease Act of 2002 provides the foundation for a nationwide increase in diagnostic capabilities. Undoubtedly, the spread of CWD and the increased awareness of the disease, will cause the demand for testing to grow exponentially--this bill helps us prepare to handle a large volume of cases efficiently and reliably. The legislation calls for the development of new testing methods to help us understand the disease, as well as developing a live test. Chronic wasting disease presents a common problem to the states and the federal government. The federal conduit role that is provided in the bill will allow animal health experts to unravel the CWD mystery. The challenge we face is to achieve what we all recognize as a common objective--to understand CWD and to eradicate it. But, we must act quickly or this disease will redefine the wildlife characteristics of our States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last week Senator Campbell and I sent a letter to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing our concern about the state of the judicial confirmation process. We shared with the chairman our thoughts on the serious injustice being served on the American people by the committee's failure to provide hearings for the President's judicial nominations. It is unfortunate that the citizens of the United States must bear the consequences of the Judiciary Committee's delaying tactics. It is unfortunate that the citizens must bear the burden of delayed justice. One year ago, President Bush forwarded his first 11 judicial circuit court nominees to the Judiciary Committee. Every person in this group of nominees received a ``qualified'' or ``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. Now, 365 days later, 8 of the original 11 nominees are yet to receive a hearing. One year later, we are still waiting to have a hearing for 8 of those 11 nominees. This weekend also marks the 1-year anniversary since the President nominated Tim Tymkovich for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. So, today, 1 year since he was nominated by the President, I stand before you still hoping Mr. Tymkovich will have a hearing, still hoping to fill the 3-year vacancy in the Tenth Circuit, and still hoping that the people of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Nebraska will no longer be victimized by a vacant bench--a bench paralyzed by a lack of personnel to move quickly through an overwhelming caseload. So now Mr. Tymkovich, the former solicitor general of Colorado, waits indefinitely for the opportunity to serve his country. He waits indefinitely for his opportunity to help administer the justice that our constitutional Government guarantees. And the people of the United States wait for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duties. The events of the past year clearly demonstrate an active effort by the enemies of the United States to destroy the liberties and freedom of our great Nation. The most basic of our country's values and traditions are under attack. Congress has responded by enacting new laws and by providing financial assistance to businesses and families and defense. We acted swiftly to suffocate terrorists and destroy the hateful organizations that work to undermine our society. Yet the instruments through which justice is served are being denied their chance to serve by ugly, partisan politics. For a year, Mr. Tymkovich's nomination has languished in the committee without action. Today, once again, I urge you to move forward with his confirmation. Mr. Tim Tymkovich is highly qualified and will serve his country with the utmost of patriotism and respect for adherence to constitutional principles. The committee must provide a hearing for the Tenth Circuit seat because the seat has remained vacant entirely too long. A necessary component of providing justice is an efficient court system--a system equipped with the personnel and resources that enable it to fulfill its role as a pillar of our constitutional system of government. The current state of judicial nominations is simply unacceptable. It has evolved into a petty game of entrenchment, creating a vacancy crisis that prevents the service of the very justice upon which our great Nation depends. The simple fact remains: Justice cannot be delivered when one of every six judgeships on the appellate level remains vacant. I will repeat that: One out of every six judgeships on the appellate level remains vacant. It is unfortunate--perhaps even shameful--that the confirmation stalemate continues. How much longer will the American people have to wait? How much longer? Many people across the country are asking this same question and responding by urging the chairman to act quickly and provide hearings for qualified judges. The sentiment is being echoed across the pages of every major newspaper in the Nation and the State of Colorado. They all agree that the Senate must act to fill judicial vacancies and end this vacancy crisis. Mr. President, I wish to share with you some of the statements made in the editorial pages of these papers. They all recognize that the treatment of certain Bush nominees has established a pattern of political partisanship. I ask that these editorials be printed in the Record upon completion of my statement.

Mr. ALLARD. The first article is by the Denver Post, dated Monday, May 6, 2002. The other article I ask to be printed is an editorial by the Rocky Mountain News from May 8, 2002. Next is an editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette, dated May 8, 2002. Next is an editorial by the Rocky Mountain News, dated May 9, 2002. Mr. President, the Denver Post editorial states: The U.S. Constitution grants to the president the power to appoint judges with the ``advice and consent'' of the Senate. There is nothing in that provision that anticipates a process in which a president nominates replacements to the federal bench and the Senate acts as if it has no responsibility to cooperate. The Post continues in its editorial: . . . it is difficult to think of a single reason why [Mr. Tim Tymkovich] has been denied a confirmation hearing and an up-or-down vote in the full Senate. Such a vote is the prescribed solution for cases where there is disagreement between the Senate and the president. The Post also expresses the frustration that the American people are feeling: Unless the Democrat leadership abandons its delay tactics, we think the treatment of judicial nominees ought to be a front-and-center issue in the upcoming elections. If the Senate won't vote to end the judicial logjam, maybe the citizens should. The Rocky Mountain News notes that Mr. Tim Tymkovich is not the only Tenth Circuit nominee awaiting a hearing, there are two vacancies, both of whom were appointed 1 year ago. This means the committee is depriving the court of two qualified judges. Unfortunately, it is the people of the United States who suffer, the people who turn to the courts to address their grievances. The committee does not face the daily injustice served on the people, nor does it face the costly court delays caused by an overwhelming docket. The committee does not face the frustration of citizens as they pursue justice in front of an empty bench. The Rocky Mountain News reveals that the chairman is blaming the President for the delay. According to the chairman, ``Controversial nominations take longer.'' But as the paper points out, there is little controversy regarding the nomination of Tim Tymkovich. Yet he still has not received a hearing. Outside the city of Denver, newspaper headlines herald the same message, citing the stalemate as ``justice delayed'' and calling for action. The Colorado Springs Gazette states: There is a slate of looming vacancies on the federal bench across the country thanks in large part to backlogged nominations, and its risks paralyzing the courts. The Gazette concludes by adding that swift justice is supposed to be a hallmark of our system; its prospects do not look good while policymakers are making it harder to get before a judge at all. Mr. Tymkovich is an outstanding choice for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and he will serve this Nation well, but he must be given the opportunity to do so. In Colorado, his nomination enjoys broad bipartisan support and the support of our State's legal community. He has also passed the litmus test of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, and is deemed qualified by the American Bar Association. The committee must move to end the confirmation stalemate and restore the people's faith that our judicial system is, indeed, built to provide all the judicial resources that are needed to provide access to the courts of law. It must diligently perform its duty to provide hearings so that the vacancies that plague our courts may be filled. The President has asked for the forging of a bipartisan consensus in favor of fair and efficient consideration of all judicial nominations--I do not think that is an unreasonable request--regardless of the pattern of party control of the political branches of Government. I urge the committee to answer this call and move forward with the judicial nomination process and prove to the American people that the committee is, indeed, interested in serving justice. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Denver Post, May 6, 2002] Politics and the Bench There is a fresh reminder of how political the judicial selection process has become. Colorado's two senators, Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard, both Republicans, have written a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, pointing out that it was a full year ago that President Bush nominated Denver attorney Timothy Tymkovich to a seat on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The two senators complained, and we agree, that ``the current state of judicial nominations . . . devolved into a petty game of entrenchment'' that has created a vacancy crisis. The recent treatment of a Charles Pickering, a Bush nominee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, consumed a great deal of the committee's time and established a pattern of political partisanship. The issue for the committee and the nation is whether such treatment--and ultimate rejection on a straight party-line vote in committee--is a pattern the Democratic leaders of the Senate want to repeat. It will be no bargain for the country if the Senate committee adopts a strategy of simply delaying all Bush judicial nominations. The U.S. Constitution grants to the president the power to appoint judges with the ``advice and consent'' of the Senate. There is nothing in that provision that anticipates a process in which a president nominates replacements to the federal bench and the Senate acts as if it has no responsibility to cooperate. Because Tymkovich is well-known in Colorado, having served as the state's solicitor general, it is difficult to think of a single reason why he has been denied a confirmation hearing and an up-or down vote in the full Senate. Such a vote is the prescribed solution for cases where there is disagreement between the Senate and the president. Unless the Democratic leadership abandons its delay tactics, we think the treatment of judicial nominees ought to be a front-and-center issue in the upcoming elections. If the Senate won't vote to end the judicial logjam, maybe the citizens should.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my honor today to acknowledge the retirement of Carroll Beach, president of the Colorado and Wyoming Credit Union Leagues. Mr. Beach began his tenure with the Colorado league in 1973, and since that time has brought about significant progress with that organization. The total number of credit union members in Colorado has grown from 350,000 to almost 1.4 million. These are members who, like others nationwide, own and control their credit unions. During this same period, assets in Colorado credit unions have also increased from $355 million to more than $7 billion. With great innovation, Mr. Beach has developed a variety of high quality, fairly priced programs, products and services over the years to meet the needs of credit unions and their members. In 1997 the Wyoming Credit Union League contracted with the Colorado League for management services. Since then, all staff and resources available to Colorado credit unions are also available to Wyoming credit unions. His record of committed service to others and dedication to cooperative principles includes the creation of the Volunteer Involvement Program, which meets the needs of credit union volunteers throughout Colorado and promotes credit union principles and philosophy. Mr. Beach has also been a member of the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) board; the CUNA Service Group Boards; Chairman of the U.S. Central Credit Union; Chairman of the Association of Credit Union League Executives (now AACUL); and a member on the National Credit Union Capitalization Commission. The Colorado Credit Union System also participates in many statewide charity organizations and is the primary sponsor of the Colorado Credit Union's Courage Classic Bicycle Tour to benefit the Children's Hospital in Denver. The international credit union movement has also been important to Mr. Beach. Over the years, the Colorado League has worked with credit union officials in Macedonia, Romania, Poland and Ecuador in various efforts to help build credit unions in those countries. In addition to these many accomplishments, as chairman of Credit Union House, LLC, Carroll Beach gained the cooperation and support of all leagues to build Credit Union House, which serves as a gathering location for credit union representatives as they visit Capitol Hill. I am proud to acknowledge the retirement of this very accomplished man, Mr. Carroll Beach.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to commemorate Brigadier General Bruce H. Barlow, 7th Infantry Division, Light, and Fort Carson Assistant Division Commander/Deputy Commanding General, Central, Fifth United States Army, who died Wednesday while on temporary duty at Offut Air Force Base, Nebraska. General Barlow, a 1972 West Point graduate, had been stationed at Fort Carson since August 2000. As Maj. Gen. Charles Campbell, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Carson commander, said: ``General Barlow was a valuable member of the Mountain Post team and we will miss him.'' General Barlow graduated from the United States Military Academy and earned a Masters from the Naval War College. He was 51 years old. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Sandra, his son First Lieutenant Christopher Barlow, and daughter, Kelly Barlow.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, it is with great pride that I congratulate one of the finest organizations in the United States for a truly remarkable accomplishment. This year marks the centennial anniversary of 4-H, a youth organization that was launched by a group of volunteer visionaries who wanted to challenge America's youth to become a fundamental building block of our Nation's communities. With the motto, ``To make the best better,'' the organization has grown from an agriculture based institution into a well balanced mix of 7 million urban and rural members. 4-H encourages service; it promotes civility; broadens life experiences; and pushes a better way of life through a healthy spirit and healthy living. After 100 years of existence, the organization has grown to more than 50 million alumni, of which 55 are Members of Congress. In an interview with Roll Call Daily, I had the chance to reflect on my 4-H experience. I remember well how 4-H taught me how to be a leader, how to prioritize and organize, as well as running meetings with efficiency and purpose. 4-H projects paid for nearly all of my tuition to become a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. The value of 4-H to America's youth can be measured in the accomplishments of its members--both past and present, and in the hours and hours of service the many 4-H clubs across the country have dedicated to service projects and personal development. Congratulations, and, I wish the organization many more successful years.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have an amendment numbered 2858 at the desk.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his gracious remarks and really appreciate him working with us on this particular issue. I also thank the Senator from New Hampshire for all his help. I particularly thank the chairman for his support, and the ranking Republican Senator, Mr. McConnell, for his help in relation to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is addressing the matter of election reform. Like carpenters tending to their tools or fishermen working on their nets, this Nation's government must constantly maintain and improve the voting rights of American citizens, the very basis of our democracy. I am pleased with the work of Senators McConnell and Dodd and others on the bill before us. Nobody who has ever participated in an election in any serious way, running, campaigning, judging, and so on, would believe that our system is perfect. It is based on a sound framework, but the devil in the details requires constant exorcism. Today we are moving to address in this body various problems that have come to our attention, some of them alarmingly so in the November 2000 elections. I have been in contact with the Colorado Secretary of State, and local election officials, and I know that there are problems on a federal level, on the state level, and the local level. Everybody from county clerks to Senate Rules Committee chairmen have recognized the faults that currently call for correction. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services, I paid special attention to the complaints I heard from our uniformed services men and women. Without undue politicalization, I believe it is appropriate to at least allude to the spectacle of campaign lawyers hovering over election officials with pre-printed military absentee ballot challenge forms. I understand that in an election every opportunity available will be utilized. I think, however, that this body should undertake efforts to ensure that military service men and women are given all due chances to exercise their right to vote. Now, this body has tried to do so. Last year, during consideration of the Defense Authorization, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment strongly supported by Chairman Dodd and Senator McConnell that significantly improved the voting rights of military service members. I was pleased at this passage, and so were the various military support groups, veterans organizations, and others who contacted me with their notes of encouragement and support. Unfortunately, in conference the House refused to accept two of the provisions. I believe their position on this matter was not the correct one. I think they were seriously wrong. And so we must try again. My current amendment, cosponsored by Senators Bob Smith, Phil Gramm, Allen, Roberts, Cochran, Collins, and Lugar, is another attempt to legislate protection for our military voter's franchise. The first section prohibits a State from disqualifying a ballot based upon lack of notarization, postmark, address, witness signature, lack of proper postmark, or on the basis of comparison of envelope, ballot and registration signatures alone, these were the basis for most absentee ballot challenges. There has been report after report of ballots mailed, for instance from deployed ships or other distant postings, without the benefit of postmarking facilities. Sometimes mail is bundled, and the whole group gets one postmark, which could invalidate them all under current law. Further, military ``voting officers'' are usually junior ranks, quickly trained, and facing numerous other responsibilities. We can not punish our service personnel for the good faith mistakes of others. The second section addresses a certain group of voters who can slip through the cracks. Military voters who are discharged and move before an election but after the residency deadline cannot vote through the military absentee ballot system, and sometimes are not able to fulfill deadlines to establish residency in a State. This language allows them to register absentee and vote in person at their new polling place. This brings military voters into their new community quicker. The third section contains language denying States the ability to deny a military ballot because it is mailed in too early. There are very good administrative reasons why early ballots are prohibited in some cases, but there are better reasons why we should offer uniform voters--who are subject to rapid deployments, temporary duties, and unexpected assignment changes, the option to secure their vote by mailing their ballot when they can, even if it is early. Finally, given all the changes considered and passed by the Congress in various vehicles, I have included language directing the DoD to mail a copy of current military voter laws to every state to be distributed to each voting jurisdiction. I think it would be a good idea to assist State Secretaries of States in their duties and clarify Congressional intent by codifying all the modifications. Given the current deployment schedule of our armed forces, I can conceive of no time more urgent than the present to let our men and women in uniform know that the government of the Unites States will not tolerate any appearance of a challenge to their voting rights. I urge acceptance of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, before we had the vote, I was talking about my support of the Crapo amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, because of the need I felt to remove the Reid amendment from the farm bill. At the time, I was making the point that water issues in the West are very complicated. Here is an issue that has come to the floor of the Senate that has not had any hearings in committee and has not had any kind of study. Before we move forward with this kind of a proposal from the Senate, we ought to have thorough hearings and study so the Members of the Senate can understand the implications of this type of amendment, particularly out West where we deal with and are under a completely different set of water laws than those parts of the country that have more water. For those of us in semiarid States, water is a property right. The responsibility of managing water has been made the responsibility of the States. This has gone to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that, yes, that is a proper role; States should assume that responsibility. The Reid amendment to the farm bill could literally devastate my State of Colorado. It is a very serious problem because we are a semiarid State, and farm country relies a good deal on agriculture. One of the largest agricultural-producing counties in the country is in the State of Colorado. They rely on irrigated agriculture and having a reliable source of water. The practical effect of this language could mean that farmers end up giving their water rights to the Federal Government when they sign up for participation in the Conservation Reserve Program. This language, if it is left in the farm bill, could potentially dewater Colorado and other Western States. It would dewater States such as Colorado that rely on interstate compacts and State water laws to allocate a very scarce commodity--water. Water is the essential substance of life. The farmer depends on it to grow enough food to meet our national food needs. The city depends on it to survive. Commerce depends on it to deliver goods to customers, to restock store shelves, and to continue as a viable business, providing jobs and security. Colorado has a unique system in water law. We have our own water courts. We are the only prior appropriation State that does not have a permit system. Appropriators in Colorado must make a claim first and then seek a ``decreed'' water right in court. In Colorado, we have actually even set up a different set of courts. It does not go through the regular court system. We have a different set of courts that just deal with water rights. When somebody applies for a right to use water, not only are there attorneys in that court but there are engineers, hydrologists, all sorts of scientists who come in and discuss the impact of the diversion of that water for one reason or another. This requires considerable study. Each individual case is different. And these individual cases--usually the circumstances are never the same--have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Why many of us get so concerned about the Federal Government and a Federal law is that this treats everything as a blanket process. The Federal Government does not go through that process. They just collect the water off the CRP land, and there is no study as to what impact it has on private property rights. The Colorado Constitution, which the Supreme Court has said has a sovereign right on water issues, says: ``The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream shall never be denied.'' These are not mere words. This is a collective ideology, molded from over 100 years of practical use. Many have brought an excellent point regarding beneficial use. Beneficial use is an integral part of western water law. When the farmer allows the Government to take the water, it is possible that the farmer could lose the water right under the State's beneficial use laws. It is possible that this law would result in an unintentional loss of water rights, water rights terminated through the operation of State law. Let me offer a scenario. A farmer decides to go into the CRP, and it is the CRP where the Federal Government would take the water. Suppose he goes in it for 10 years. He has not been using that water so, under our State law, he would lose the right to use that water. Or the other question comes up, Does that right transfer to the Federal Government and remain with the Federal Government even though he has brought his land out of the CRP and back into production? That is why it is very important that we proceed with hearings and study. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly given the States sovereignty in the matter of water adjudication. This ill-founded amendment attempts to give the Federal Government a new water right that it simply is not entitled to, nor should it be granted by Congress. My home State is united in opposition to this usurpation of water: the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado Farm Bureau, and the Attorney General. There is bipartisan concern in my State, and agricultural groups from all aspects of Colorado have raised concerns with me about this particular amendment. The Colorado groups are not alone. The list of those deeply concerned with the negative implications of this language reaches the national level as well. We have heard from some of my colleagues and will probably hear more. The Reid amendment ties the water rights to endangered species. We have seen this combination before. Land, water, and the Endangered Species Act create a mix that is often disadvantageous for property rights and property owners. We have seen this, for example, in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon. Unfortunately, we are not sure what will happen with the water rights when the farmer's deal with the Government ends. I raised this point. We don't know because the proposal is silent on what has to take place upon termination of the enrollment period. Does the Government keep the water? As we know, the Endangered Species Act requires consultation for any Federal action that affects species. That requirement could be applied to transfer of water rights back to the landowner on termination of the agreement. Does the landowner have to establish that there is no longer a need for the water by the listed species? The landowner is placed in an expensive and dangerous position of proof--a difficult proposition that, if not answered, could mean the landowner loses his water right. When water habits and availability of water to the land are changed, this alters the character of the land. In a region that receives far too little rain to depend on skies for moisture, a deprivation of water, no matter how permanent, could change the very nature of the ground itself. Again, I would like to cite, in this context, my own personal experience. I grew up on a ranch. We had many hay meadows, and they were watered with flood irrigation. No longer is that ranch under private ownership. It is now owned by the Federal Government. They quit the surface right irrigation. It dried up all the springs that were feeding into this river that ran through the place. As a result, we see that that river dries up and is bone dry. I see my colleague from Iowa wants to be recognized for a minute. I yield to my colleague from Iowa.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, the point I was making is that we have to be very careful in how we use our water or we could have a lot of far-reaching ramifications that have had some inadvertent effects on fish and wildlife and plant species that survive in that particular area, which simply may not be met with a ready, easy transfer of water to the Federal Government without a serious study of those ramifications. There is a serious lack of fair and open discussion on this issue. I remind my colleagues again, there was little congressional investigation or involvement when this language was inserted into the bill, and the committees responsible for many of the details simply were not involved in the discussion. One must also ask the question: What is the purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program? Our debate is focused on many things, but not once have Members had the opportunity to discuss until now whether or not the purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program is for endangered species. This program also allows for a permanent transfer of water rights. CRP has always been limited to a certain number of years. The Reid language also expands the basic coverage afforded to the protection of species under the Endangered Species Act. This is an important point. Not only will endangered species and threatened species be covered, but the Reid program would cover sensitive species, too. What is a sensitive species? At this time everyone should be reminded that the Endangered Species Act has no classification or definition of sensitive species. What happens to the other uses of the water source? Participation in the program could lead to increased delivery costs to mutual users. The costs of operating ditch companies could increase as cost share participants leave the program. Downstream users could also be affected. Participation in the program could lead to underground recharge problems. The language is simply too vague. It does not specify sources of water eligible to participate in the program. Not only would the language apply to surface water and CRP, but it could apply to ground water as well; a whole different set of issues become pertinent. Ground water use and set-asides affect neighboring use. My point is, this is a very complicated issue. It has a lot of ramifications. Without careful study, this could be the wrong action to be taken. It could have just the opposite effect of what the sponsor would like to accomplish. I rise in support of the Crapo amendment. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.