Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. ALLARD. I object, Mr. President. I might explain.

Mr. ALLARD. Reserving the right to object, and I don't plan to object, does that mean there will not be any more votes tonight so Members can clear their schedules?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank both the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking Republican, Senator Warner, for their diligent efforts in reaching this compromise. It means a lot to me, to the State of Colorado, and particularly to the Nation. When you consider the events that happened just 10 days ago, those tragic events, it is imperative that we get a Defense authorization bill to move forward. The way the issue of missile defense started out in the subcommittee on which I am the ranking Republican, it was a rocky road. The chairman of that strategic subcommittee, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, is a tremendous chairman. I like working with him. There are a couple of committees on which I serve with him, where he is the chairman and I am the head Republican. Our working relationship I describe as superb. He listens, tries to work with the minority side. I try and do everything I can to work with him. We have a very good relationship. It was with a heavy heart, when reporting out of that subcommittee our portion of the armed services bill, we had it reported out in a divided mode. We had a strict partisan vote, Republicans voting against it, Democrats were for it, the chairman. It was over the issue of missile defense. Then the issue went to the full Armed Services Committee and that debate continued. I know when it got to that point in the debate, people began to lock in their positions, and we would still be tied up today if it would not have been for the tremendous leadership of our chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, as well as the ranking Republican working together on this most important issue. There are many other important issues in this bill. I am particularly pleased that we have moved forward with missile defense. I am pleased the restrictive language in missile defense was taken out and the funding is there with the flexibility to either use for missile defense or for terrorism. The President, in light of the recent changes in the last 10 days, needed that flexibility. I, for one, was more than willing to give it to him. I appreciate the efforts in the area of defense environmental management of my chairman, what has been in the committee; in particular, the support in the bill for closure sites which would benefit the sites' surrounding communities and the Nation as a whole. This would provide a clean and safe environment at the sites of former defense nuclear weapons facilities. It would free up scarce resources as these sites are cleaned up and closed down to help advance environmental cleanup and restoration at other environmental management sites. In my subcommittee, we had basically two functions. We have the armed services function, and then also we have the Energy Department function. So we deal with many of the nuclear programs, as well as the bombing programs and missile defense and defense intelligence. So I think this was important to the country as well as the State of Colorado. I also appreciate the efforts for the National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration appears to be making important strides. There are still enormous challenges ahead, but I think the NNSA seems to be moving in the right direction. In intelligence matters, I was encouraged by the support for unmanned aerial vehicles, sensor capabilities, and commercial satellite imagery. I am still concerned, however, that other critical components of the intelligence architecture did not receive similar support. Processing and dissemination of intelligence products remains a weakness in the overall system. Current programs in intelligence are underfunded and would greatly benefit from increased support. Hopefully, we have taken care of much of that with some of the funding approved by the Senate in the past week. I was pleased with the support for greater Department of Defense involvement in the development of reusable launch vehicles. However, I should note that I was disappointed that the committee had opted not to implement any of the reforms of the Space Commission. This is an area of particular interest to me and to another former member of the subcommittee, Senator Bob Smith. There was a lot of hard work put into the Space Commission report. So I was very disappointed that there wasn't more consideration taken on those recommendations. I was also a member of another commission, the NRO Commission. Many of the provisions we recommended in our commission were adopted in the Intelligence Committee and then subsequently adopted in my subcommittee and the full Armed Services Committee. So I think we have set the stage for us to move forward at this point in time. I am supportive of the bill and am pleased the chairman and the ranking member could work out our differences and move forward. I look forward to the debate, and I thank the ranking Republican for his tremendous statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak about an issue of great importance to the State of Colorado. This is the nomination and confirmation of Federal judges. I am pleased to announce that recently the President nominated two outstanding individuals to fill vacancies on the Colorado Federal District Court. The first is U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Marcia Krieger of Denver, the other is Colorado District Court Judge Robert Blackburn of Las Animas. Both are extremely well qualified. Both are sitting judges with extensive experience managing a case load. Both have had distinguished legal careers and are widely respected in our State. Both will make Colorado and the Nation proud as Federal judges. Judge Krieger has been a Federal bankruptcy judge for the District of Colorado since 1994, and she was appointed Chief Judge for the Bankruptcy Court for Colorado last year. Judge Krieger is a graduate of the University of Colorado School of Law and she currently serves as an adjunct law professor at her alma mater. Judge Krieger has extensive private practice and litigation experience. Judge Blackburn has been a Colorado State District Court Judge since 1988. He is a judge in the 16th Judicial District, in the southeast part of Colorado, a largely rural and agricultural area of the State. He is graduate of the University of Colorado School of Law, and he has extensive experience in private practice and as a deputy district attorney. He has also been a cattle rancher in our State. Earlier this year the President also nominated Mr. Tim Tymokovich of Broomfield to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. This appointment is important not only to Colorado, but also to the other five States in the 10th Circuit--Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Mr. Tymkovich is the former solicitor general for the State of Colorado, he has extensive litigation experience in both Federal and State court, and he is currently a distinguished attorney in private practice in our State. Mr. Tymkovich is a graduate of the University of Colorado School of law, he was a law clerk for the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, and he recently served as cochair of the Colorado Governor's Task Force on Civil Justice Reform. Today I rise to speak not only of the tremendous qualifications of these three individuals, but to also urge that the Senate move expeditiously to confirm them as Federal judges. The 10th circuit seat became vacant in October of 1999--nearly 2 years ago. One of the district court seats became vacant in April of 1998--over 3 years ago. The other seat became vacant in May of this year. Recently, I researched some of the history of appointments to the 10th circuit and one of the things that really jumps out is how quickly Federal judicial vacancies were filled in the past in Colorado. It was unusual for a seat to remain vacant for a long period of time. I hope we can get back to this tradition. The Senate should carefully review all nominees, I have taken this responsibility very seriously as a Senator. But when we get qualified candidates that are not controversial, we should confirm them in a timely manner. That is why I am today asking that the Judiciary Committee begin the process of reviewing these three individuals. I look forward to hearings and confirmation this fall. Colorado needs to have a full compliment of Federal judges. We are a fast growing State. We have a heavy case load in our Federal courts, and these vacancies need to be filled. I have worked hard to support the selection of Federal judges of the highest qualification. That is why Senator Campbell and I have formed a Judicial Vacancy Advisory Committee to screen candidates for district court vacancies in Colorado. this is a non-partisan process. This past spring, once we learned the process that would be followed by the President in selecting Federal judges, we appointed a six-member advisory committee. This committee was made up of distinguished lawyers in our State. They reviewed dozens of candidates for the two district court vacancies in Colorado. They narrowed the list down to nine qualified individuals. I personally interviewed all nine, and I was very confident that all nine would make fine Federal judges. Senator Campbell and I then forwarded these nine names to the President and his legal counsel. The President announced his selection of Judges Krieger and Blackburn from this list. I am proud of these choices, and I am proud of the prior choice of Mr. Tymkovich for the 10th circuit. I intend to work very hard to see that they are confirmed by the Senate in a timely manner. In fact, I encourage the leadership in the Senate to move forward with a number of other nominations that relate to law enforcement--for example, U.S. marshals and the U.S. attorneys. I hope that in a very expeditious and rapid manner we get these positions throughout the country filled and confirmed, particularly in light of the events of the last week and a half. Madam President, I conclude by saying I think it is important that we move forward with all law enforcement nominations as quickly as possible and that we move forward with our judicial nominations as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I request 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to day to pay tribute to a man who has had a profound impact on Colorado State University, the City of Ft. Collins, CO and the veterinary community nationwide. According to US News and World Report, Colorado State University boasts the second best veterinary medicine program in the nation. One of the reasons CSU is so nationally renowned is because of its wonderful Veterinary Teaching Hospital. And one of the reasons that hospital exists is because of Dr. James L. Voss. Currently the Dean of the CSU College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Dr. Voss received his Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine from CSU in 1958 and was hired by the University as an instructor. While a student, he was one of my best instructors. As the university was growing and seeking to enhance its veterinary teaching capabilities, plans for a news Veterinary Teaching Hospital got underway. Dr. Voss became the faculty representative of the hospital building committee. In 1979, the Hospital was completed. And now, the Hospital will bear his name. I am proud to join all CSU veterinary School alumni in saying that no finer man deserves this honor. This building and all the science and teaching that has taken place in it since 1979, are direct results of Dr. Voss' determination, dedication and love of veterinary medicine. Because of Dr. Voss and his long service to the university and our profession, CSU has produced some of the finest veterinarians in the nation. CSU and Ft. Collins have become central locations in national and international veterinary science. When one man does so much for an institution and a profession like Dr. Voss has, it is only fitting to honor him in this manner. I am extremely pleased that from this day forward, the James L. Voss Veterinary Teaching Hospital at Colorado State University will continue to serve the university, the veterinary medical community, and science.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. How much time remains?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, President Bush last night did what many of us do in times of trouble: He prayed. When we prayed last night, we did so not only for those who were injured or killed yesterday, but for what our nation and people are still to face. After the horror of yesterday, there are still other horrors to come. One of those horrors will be the casualty figures. The disaster is so large we don't even yet know how large it is. Some time, in the next few weeks, we are going to hear a number, the number of the dead and permanently missing. It will probably be in the thousands. I would like to take a moment to mention Capt. Jason M. Dahl, the pilot of United Airlines Flight 93. This 43-year-old Ken-Caryl Ranch, CO, father spent most of his workdays training others to fly Boeing 757's and 767's. That way, according to newspaper reports, he got to spend more time with his wife and teenage son, Matthew. But trainers must fly every so often, and Dahl apparently scheduled himself on Flight 93. He died yesterday morning when the plane slammed down into a Pennsylvania field. This is one name, one short background, and there will be thousands more. But America is strong. No terrorist can undermine our country. There is no casualty figure that could come from this that will make us lose our fundamental purpose as a nation and a people. Anyone who doubts this only needs to look at the flags popping up on streets, the lines outside blood donation centers, the supplies being gathered for the survivors. America has long exported compassion by responding to African droughts and Central American hurricanes and European earthquakes. Now we have to deal with a massive tragedy in our own land, and I am sure we will do so strongly. I was in a meeting yesterday dealing with Middle East security when my Chief of Staff came in and told us that the building was being evacuated. It occurs to me that aspects of life in the Middle East-- terrorist attacks, public fear and public mourning, heavy domestic security, checkpoints, rigid airline safeguards--could quite possibly be incorporated into the American way of life as well. Things that we have seen before only on TV broadcasts from foreign lands could be brought home to us, right here in America. I trust the Nation will understand that these new measures might change our lives, but not our way of life. Increased security might, for instance, add to travel time, but not effect our ability to travel. Just as we learned to live with safety wrapping on store bought items and metal detectors in public buildings, we are going to have to learn with new airport and border security. Our Nation once also learned, through necessity, to deal with the potential of nuclear war. Some of the old Cold War defenses we incorporated into our lives were even able to assist us in this new war we face. The North American Areospace Defense center--NORAD--in Colorado Springs was monitoring the highjacked airplanes yesterday. We in the Government are going to have to answer ``What next?'' The Senate has already approved supporting increased resources in the war to eradicate terrorism, and supporting the president in punishing the perpetrators of the attacks. The phrase ``war on terrorism'' has been used lightly before. This is a war. And this war cannot be fought by, as I have heard it mentioned, by just using cruise missiles to blow up tents in a desert. I thank again the thousands of personnel who have responded, in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, to the crisis. Especially those whose response only meant that they themselves became victims of this hostile tragedy. This morning New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said ``we are better than they are.'' A simple statement, but it accurately reflects a truth. America is better than evil terrorists, America is better than sneak attacks on innocent civilians, America is better than fanatics, and America will prevail in this crisis.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on July 20 the senior Senator from the great State of North Dakota made a series of thought-provoking comments on the floor of the Senate. Many of those comments related to a speech Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic advisor and a distinguished public servant, delivered in Philadelphia on July 19. In his statement my colleague alleges that Dr. Lindsey misrepresented his views on raising taxes at a time of economic slowdown. In fact, on page 12 of his speech, Dr. Lindsey said, ``In recent hearings conducted by Senator Conrad at which Budget Director Daniels testified, the Senator agreed that raising taxes this year might not be a good idea given the economy. But he went on to be clear that next year might be different. He hinted at a tax increase in 2002, just as the economy is recovering.'' If, when he made his remarks on the floor of the Senate, Senator Conrad had not seen a copy of Dr. Lindsey's speech, I can well understand that he may not have realized that his allegation on the matter of his favoring a tax increase this year was false. As to Senator Conrad's views on the advisability of a tax increase next year, I must say that the transcript of his floor statement on July 20 only reinforces the view that he might support a tax increase next year when the economy is growing more robustly. Independent observers have drawn the same conclusion about Senator Conrad's views from his public statements. Robert Samuelson, in the July 11 Washington Post wrote, ``To protect on-budget surpluses, Conrad says the Bush administration has `an affirmative obligation to come up with spending cuts or new revenue (tax increases).''' If this is not the case, and Senator Conrad is opposed to tax increases next year, I can assure you that I would applaud his decision. In his Philadelphia speech, Dr. Lindsey provided compelling reasons why we should not even be talking about the possibility of raising taxes next year. First, a tax increase next year would undermine the sense of permanence associated with this year's tax cut. That sense of permanence is key to the success of this year's tax cut. Talk of increasing taxes, or of repealing the tax cut next year, thus reduces the effectiveness of this year's tax cut. Furthermore, you need only look at Japan's experience when it increased taxes early in an expansion. It wasn't pretty. A second point of concern in this dialogue involves the timing of the tax cut. I am pleased to discover the amount of agreement between the administration and Senator Conrad on the need for a fiscal stimulus this year. When he announced his tax program in December, 1999, the President said that the country may need an insurance policy. Thus, while he proposed a basic plan involving a 5-year phase-in, the President left flexible the actual timing of his tax reduction, explicitly letting it depend on macroeconomic circumstances. In January he indicated a need to work with Congress on an acceleration of the tax cut. And in his formal proposal in February, the President said explicitly, ``I want to work with you to give our economy an important jump-start by making tax relief retroactive.'' That was a full month before the distinguished senior Senator from North Dakota proposed his $60 billion tax cut proposal for this year. Fortunately, Congress did pass a fiscal stimulus for 2001. Senator Conrad's floor statement indicates support for a $60 billion tax reduction this year. That figure is very close to the $74 billion figure that actually passed and was signed into law. I don't believe that the $14 billion difference in these figures could be the basis for Senator Conrad's assertion that the administration is ``driving us into the fiscal ditch,'' especially given a $2 trillion Federal budget and the Senator's apparent support for cutting taxes during an economic slowdown. Furthermore, the spending side of the fiscal year 2001 budget was determined last fall under President Clinton. At that time, the President and the Congress increased discretionary spending by more than 8 percent. Had that rate of spending increase been sustained, we certainly would have deficit problems later this decade. Fortunately President Bush proposed a budget, and Congress adopted a budget resolution, with a sharp deceleration of that rate of spending increase. Looking forward, a comparison of the Democratic alternative that Senator Conrad referred to in his remarks and the bill that actually passed is instructive. For example, in fiscal year 2002 the bill that passed the Congress and was signed by the President was scored at $38 billion. By comparison, the Democratic alternative was scored at $64 billion. Would the Democratic alternative tax proposal have driven us into the ``fiscal ditch'' deeper and faster than the President's budget? In fiscal year 2003, the relevant scoring by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation shows the bill that actually passed cost $91 billion while the Democratic alternative cost $83 billion. In fiscal year 2004 the figures were $108 billion for the bill that actually passed and $101 billion for the Democratic alternative. In fiscal year 2005 the actual legislation cost $107 billion while the Democratic alternative cost $115 billion. Surely this $7 billion difference between the two bills over a three year period cannot plausibly be labeled ``driving us into the fiscal ditch'' either. One must assume that Senator Conrad's assertions are based on the long-term revenue effects of the President's proposal. Yet, in fiscal year 2006 and later no one is forecasting anything but a large budget surplus. Thus, it is hard to find any factual basis for claims that the President's tax plan is ``driving us into the fiscal ditch'' by any definition of that term that does not also apply to the proposals Senator Conrad and his Democrat colleagues advanced during the budget debate. It is apparent from Senator Conrad's remarks that he and Dr. Lindsey differ on the proper measure of fiscal tightness. Dr. Lindsey asserted in his speech that the best measure of the Government's effect on the financial markets is the Unified Budget Surplus. This was a concept created by a special commission appointed by President Lyndon Johnson and has been in use for more than 30 years. It has long been the standard for non-partisan analysis of the budget. For good measure, on page fifteen of his speech, Dr. Lindsey quoted Robert Samuelson regarding the usefulness of alternative definitions. As to the appropriate size of the unified surplus, I concur wholeheartedly with the administration's view that the unified surplus should be at least as large as the Social Security surplus. Dr. Lindsey outlined in his Philadelphia speech why this is appropriate. But, Senator Conrad and Dr. Lindsey disagree fundamentally regarding the right term to apply to Medicare. As Dr. Lindsey stated in his speech, every dollar of Medicare premiums paid by beneficiaries and every dollar of Medicare taxes paid by workers and their employers is spent on Medicare. In addition, Medicare receives $50 billion in extra money from the rest of the Federal budget. Frankly, the ``surplus'' concept does not make much sense under the circumstances. In his floor speech Senator Conrad made an analogy to ``defense,'' noting that all of its funding is paid for from the rest of the Federal budget. But no one talks of a ``defense surplus.'' Indeed, the concept of a ``surplus'' in a program that requires net inflows from the rest of the budget seems to make little sense. I therefore do not see why references to the budgetary funding of defense conceivably supports the assertion that Medicare has a ``surplus.'' Finally, Senator Conrad and Dr. Lindsey also seem to disagree on the extent to which the Government should control the fruits of our Nation's labor, saving, and risk-taking. Over the last 8 years, the share of GDP taken in Federal receipts has increased from 17.3 percent to 20.3 percent. Even if the President's original campaign proposal on taxes were to have been enacted, the tax share of GDP would have been rolled back only modestly, and would still have been above the post-War average. I believe that I am on firm ground stating that Senator Conrad's opposition to even this modest rollback means that he supports something close to the current record-setting tax take. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I urge my colleagues to consider these facts as they consider the appropriate course for fiscal policy in the months and years ahead.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with Senator Bob Smith, a bill to improve the organization and management of the Department of Defense with respect to space programs and activities. To my very good friend, I would like to extend my congratulations for being the driving force in establishing the ``Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization'' or better known as the Space Commission which led to this legislation. The Commission looked at the role of organization and management in the development and implementation of national-level guidance and in establishing requirements, acquiring and operating systems, and planning, programming and budgeting for national security space capabilities. What the Commission found is that the United States dependence on space is creating vulnerabilities and demands on our space systems which requires space to be recognized as a top national security priority. This priority must begin at the top with the President and must be embraced by the country's leaders. Senator Smith and I agree that space must be a top priority and that is why we are introducing this legislation. We want this to be a statement to everyone, that space is a priority and must be treated as such. The Commission also concluded that these new vulnerabilities and demands are not adequately addressed by the current management structure at the Department. The Commission found that a number of space activities should be merged, chains of command adjusted, lines of communications opened and policies modified to achieve greater responsibility and accountability. I understand the Department is making some of these changes today. However, we believe Congress should show its support to our military men and women involved in space that Congress wants them to succeed and that we will provide the tools for them to achieve that goal. This legislation will provide the Secretary of Defense the tools he needs for more effective management and organization of space program and activities. Specifically the legislation: Provides permissive authority for the Secretary of Defense to establish an Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence and Information--This permissive authority will provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility. Designates the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence and Information, provides for an additional Assistant Secretary of Defense (conditional on creation of the new Under Secretary of Defense position). This provision follows the recommendations of the Commission. Requires the Secretary of Defense to issue a report 30 days prior to exercise of the authority to establish the new Under Secretary position on the proposed organization; and requires a report one year after enactment if the new position has not been created to describe how the intent of the Space Commission is being implemented. Establishes the Secretary of the Air Force as the Executive Agent for DOD space programs for DOD functions designated by the Secretary of Defense; and assigns to acquisition executive function to the Under Secretary of the Air Force. The Secretary of Defense has flexibility in assigning and defining functions of the Executive Agent; Assigns the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the director of the NRO; and directs the Under Secretary of the Air Force to coordinate the space activities of DOD and the NRO; Directs the Under Secretary of the Air Force to establish a space career field and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assign the Commander of Air Force Space Command to manage the space career field. Establishment of career field is an important commission recommendation and key indicator concerning AF implementation. Requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, space programs be jointly managed. I believe this will encourage the Army and Navy to develop space personnel. Creates a major force program for space which will provide visibility into space program funding. Requires a GAO assessment of the progress made by DOD in implementing the recommendations of the Space Commission. Requires the commander of Air Force Space Command to be a four star general; and prohibits the commander of Air Force Space Command from serving concurrently as CINCSPACE or and commander of the U.S. element of NORAD--Elevates space component commander to level of all other major Air Force component commanders Finally, it expresses the sense of Congress that CINCSPACE should be the best qualified four-star officer from the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force--Rotation of CINCSPACE will encourage Army, Navy, and Marines to develop space expertise These measures provide the authority which, if exercised by the Secretary, can provide the focus and attention that space programs and activities deserve. This is imperative in a world where some technology's life span can be less than 24 months. DOD must be able to respond to these changing environments. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague for joining with me in this effort to provide the Department the tools it needs to make space a top national security priority. We look forward to seeing this bill becoming law and welcome all Senators to join us on this important legislation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with Senator Bob Smith, a bill to improve the organization and management of the Department of Defense with respect to space programs and activities. To my very good friend, I would like to extend my congratulations for being the driving force in establishing the ``Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization'' or better known as the Space Commission which led to this legislation. The Commission looked at the role of organization and management in the development and implementation of national-level guidance and in establishing requirements, acquiring and operating systems, and planning, programming and budgeting for national security space capabilities. What the Commission found is that the United States dependence on space is creating vulnerabilities and demands on our space systems which requires space to be recognized as a top national security priority. This priority must begin at the top with the President and must be embraced by the country's leaders. Senator Smith and I agree that space must be a top priority and that is why we are introducing this legislation. We want this to be a statement to everyone, that space is a priority and must be treated as such. The Commission also concluded that these new vulnerabilities and demands are not adequately addressed by the current management structure at the Department. The Commission found that a number of space activities should be merged, chains of command adjusted, lines of communications opened and policies modified to achieve greater responsibility and accountability. I understand the Department is making some of these changes today. However, we believe Congress should show its support to our military men and women involved in space that Congress wants them to succeed and that we will provide the tools for them to achieve that goal. This legislation will provide the Secretary of Defense the tools he needs for more effective management and organization of space program and activities. Specifically the legislation: Provides permissive authority for the Secretary of Defense to establish an Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence and Information--This permissive authority will provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility. Designates the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence and Information, provides for an additional Assistant Secretary of Defense (conditional on creation of the new Under Secretary of Defense position). This provision follows the recommendations of the Commission. Requires the Secretary of Defense to issue a report 30 days prior to exercise of the authority to establish the new Under Secretary position on the proposed organization; and requires a report one year after enactment if the new position has not been created to describe how the intent of the Space Commission is being implemented. Establishes the Secretary of the Air Force as the Executive Agent for DOD space programs for DOD functions designated by the Secretary of Defense; and assigns to acquisition executive function to the Under Secretary of the Air Force. The Secretary of Defense has flexibility in assigning and defining functions of the Executive Agent; Assigns the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the director of the NRO; and directs the Under Secretary of the Air Force to coordinate the space activities of DOD and the NRO; Directs the Under Secretary of the Air Force to establish a space career field and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assign the Commander of Air Force Space Command to manage the space career field. Establishment of career field is an important commission recommendation and key indicator concerning AF implementation. Requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, space programs be jointly managed. I believe this will encourage the Army and Navy to develop space personnel. Creates a major force program for space which will provide visibility into space program funding. Requires a GAO assessment of the progress made by DOD in implementing the recommendations of the Space Commission. Requires the commander of Air Force Space Command to be a four star general; and prohibits the commander of Air Force Space Command from serving concurrently as CINCSPACE or and commander of the U.S. element of NORAD--Elevates space component commander to level of all other major Air Force component commanders Finally, it expresses the sense of Congress that CINCSPACE should be the best qualified four-star officer from the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force--Rotation of CINCSPACE will encourage Army, Navy, and Marines to develop space expertise These measures provide the authority which, if exercised by the Secretary, can provide the focus and attention that space programs and activities deserve. This is imperative in a world where some technology's life span can be less than 24 months. DOD must be able to respond to these changing environments. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague for joining with me in this effort to provide the Department the tools it needs to make space a top national security priority. We look forward to seeing this bill becoming law and welcome all Senators to join us on this important legislation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on a subject unrelated to the topic that is now before us, and that my comments follow those of the Senator from Mississippi this morning, Mr. Cochran, who spoke on missile defense.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senators for their interest in working with us on this issue. I look forward to the conference committee's outcome. air traffic instructional services

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his support. We understand the wishes of our friends in New Mexico. However, we feel that the overwhelming support for the US 287 route coupled with the massive opposition in Colorado to encouraging any further traffic on Interstate 25 simply needs to be heard. Further, the existence of the Camino Real High Priority Corridor on Interstate 25 should be taken into account--allowing another High Priority Corridor on already- congested Interstate 25 just doesn't make sense. It should be noted that many of the high population centers along Interstate 25 south of Denver have made their opposition to the corridor well known. Those along US 287 in Eastern Colorado have made their support equally as well known. In fact, just this week, the four states got together one more time and have been able to iron out a compromise that accommodates all parties. Allowing this feasibility study to stay in the bill would further complicate and delay a process that is clearly working.

Mr. ALLARD. I appreciate that. As the Senator knows the states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Colorado have been engaged for several years now in determining the best route for this TEA-21 authorized trade corridor. Just last week, the Colorado Transportation Commission voted unanimously for designation of the Eastern Colorado route from the Oklahoma panhandle to Denver via US 287. A feasibility study for a New Mexico section of this route would clearly send a signal that Congress intends to legislate that the corridor be routed up Interstate 25 into Denver.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on a transportation issue important to the State of Colorado. The Ports to Plains High Priority Corridor is a most pressing issue for my state, however, I have concerns about language currently in the Transportation Appropriations bill. As it stands, the bill contains a $1 million feasibility study for a section of the corridor on US 64/87 in New Mexico.

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

Mr. ALLARD. I request 20 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to speak for a few minutes this afternoon on a point I want to make regarding missile defense and the budget and the ABM Treaty compliance. I think this is going to be a very important debate. It has already started in the Armed Services Committee on which I serve. I thought my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Thad Cochran, this morning made some very cogent comments. I did want to follow up with some further comments on that particular issue. I have heard some reluctance by a few of my colleagues to approve the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization budget without knowing for certain now whether the testing activities planned comply with the ABM Treaty. They say the Senate cannot approve a budget if it is not compliant. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is my understanding that compliance determinations are almost never--I emphasize never--made well in advance of a test or other activity. It is virtually impossible to do so because the plans often change right up to the time of the test. I would like to highlight a few examples of this occurring. In integrated flight test 1, what we commonly refer to as IFT-1, which was the first test of the exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which occurred on January 16, 1977, compliance itself was not certified until December 20 of 1996. Here is another example, the Technical Critical Measurements Program, the TCMP, flight 2A was not certified until February 14, 1997, just 8 days before that actual test occurred. The risk reduction flight test 1, for what was then the National Missile Defense Program, was certified just 3 days before it occurred in 1997, and the second risk reduction flight was certified just 2 days before it was conducted a month later. A test for the NMD prototype radar was not certified until August 31, 1998. That was less than 3 weeks before it occurred. The first test of the Navy theater-wide missile was certified November 2, 1998, for a November 20 flight. IFT-3 for the National Missile Defense system, which was the first-- and successful--intercept attempt, was certified on September 28, 1999, just 4 days before the test. IFT-4 was certified 12 days before the test took place on January 18, 2000. The certification for IFT-5 was issued 8 days before that test last summer, but the certification actually had to be modified on July 7, the day before the test because of changes in the test plan. I have a chart on my right. On this column, we talk about test events. We talk about the day the test was performed. Then we talk about the day that it was certified for compliance with the ABM Treaty. As you can tell from the many times I mentioned earlier in several examples, it was just a day before the actual test flight for compliant certification. My point is to expect us to have compliance during the budget deliberations before the Senate hearing simply doesn't make any sense. However, I will note that there are at least two exceptions to this practice. Last year, Congress approved a budget that included military construction funding for a radar in Alaska that Congress knew was non- compliant with the ABM Treaty. And in January 1994, a compliance review of the proposed THAAD program determined that it was not in compliance with the terms of the ABM Treaty. Yet in the fall of 1994, Congress voted to approve the BMDO budget--one that included a program that was certified to be non-compliant. It is also interesting to note that THAAD program testing was approved in January of 1995 on the condition that its ability to accept data from external sensors be substantially limited. Only in 1996 was THAAD testing with external cuing data approved because the determination was finally made that THAAD did not have ABM capabilities. I believe this stands as a good illustration of two salient facts: first, that ABM Treaty compliance is in part a matter of both legal and political judgment; second, that the United States has always reserved for itself the authority to judge the compliance of its own programs. Bearing these facts in mind, I would argue that this administration has been very straightforward with Congress. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Deputy Secretary have all told us that the United States and Russia need to move beyond the ABM Treaty. They have told us that the President's commitment to deploy missile defenses and the missile defense program he has proposed are on a collision course with the ABM Treaty. They have told us that the BMDO test program was not designed either to violate or comply with the Treaty, but that it was designed to proceed as efficiently as possible toward the goal of developing effective missile defenses. They have told us that, as a result, there will be serious issues concerning treaty compliance that will arise in a matter of months. My colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, tried to make that point--that we need to focus on what our needs are and shoot towards those defensive needs. Secretary Wolfowitz has even identified the key issues that he expects will emerge. The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Lt. Gen. Kadish have also told us that BMDO program activities have not been fully vetted through the certification process--as is typically the case. Consequently, the legal and political judgements to resolve those issues have not been made yet. I would further argue that statements by Secretary Wolfowitz, Lt. Gen. Kadish, and others in the administration have been remarkably open and consistent in this area. Lt. Gen. Kadish indicated in a briefing several weeks ago his understanding that the BMDO program proposals for fiscal year 2002 would be compliant with the ABM Treaty, with the important caveat, that some issues needed to be clarified by the compliance review process. Secretary Wolfowitz went into considerable detail concerning areas in which the proposed program would ``bump into'' treaty constraints. An administration document says that the proposed program would be ``in conflict'' with the treaty ``in the matter of months, not years.'' Whether someone says the program is ``awaiting clarification'' or ``that it may bump up against'' or ``come into conflict with'' the ABM treaty, the point is that this is a serious issue that needs to be resolved. And that was precisely the Deputy Secretary's point--that several months ahead of time, the department would know what key program issues would need to be resolved through the established compliance review processes, and that they would be resolved through these processes in regular order. In considering how we ought to handle these issues, we need to bear in mind that there is a wide range of opinion concerning the value of the ABM Treaty. Some believe that the ABM Treaty is the foundation stone on which U.S. security is built. Others argue that the ABM Treaty is gone and has simply outlived its usefulness and some agree with the administration that the Nation needs to move on to a new strategic framework to guide our relations with Russia. Given this range of opinion, and the administration's view that the treaty's value has been overtaken by events, the use of well- established processes and procedures to judge the treaty compliance of BMDO program activities hardly seems radical or unusual. Indeed, it seems a modest and conservative approach. Secretary Wolfowitz outlined for us several possible outcomes of these deliberations within the compliance review process. The nation may have moved beyond the ABM Treaty to a new strategic framework with Russia and the program will not be constrained by the treaty. The program activities in question might be deemed to be compliant with the treaty. Or on the other hand, the program activities might be deemed to be inconsistent with the treaty. In the absence of an alternative framework, according to the Secretary, the Nation will be faced with an unpalatable choice--either we must alter the test program so that it is compliant with the treaty but is less efficient and more costly, or we must face the prospect of exercising our rights under article XV that allows the nation to withdraw from the treaty. Please note--and this cannot be stressed too much--in all of these cases, the United States will remain in compliance with our obligations under domestic and international law. Thus, the suggestion that Senators should not agree to the BMDO budget because we don't have perfect visibility into the ABM Treaty compliance of Ballistic Missile Defense program activities strikes me as, at best, odd. It is inconsistent with past practice. It is inconsistent with established processes and procedures used throughout the Clinton administration and which the Bush administration intends to continue. And it is inconsistent with the simple fact that the United State will remain in compliance with our obligations under domestic and international law regardless of the conclusions of the established legal and political authorities regarding specific BMD test activities. It does strike me as a path that indicates a desire for confrontation with the administration, not cooperation, and one that expresses philosophical opposition to missile defense rather than practical programmatic concerns. For the Congress to take the position that absolute adherence to the ABM Treaty is a prerequisite for approval of a BMDO budget would, in one stroke, undermine both tracks of the President's policy: to proceed with expedited development of missile defenses and to engage Russia in a constructive dialogue. I urge all my colleagues to proceed in this matter in a calm, reasoned, and non-partisan manner that does not undermine the President or the flexibility to proceed in his discussions with Russia as he sees fit. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, with the passage of this amendment I thank the Members of the Senate. We have strong sponsorship on the bill as it goes to conference committee. I hope the conferees, when they deliberate this bill in conference committee, will keep in mind the strong support we have had in the Senate. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. The amendment I am offering is a bill I have been working on for over 3 years in the Senate. It is commonly known as the cockfighting bill. The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to remove a loophole that permits interstate movement of live birds for the purpose of fighting to States in which animal fighting is lawful. Currently, the Animal Welfare Act makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in any animal fighting venture to which the animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore, if an animal crosses State lines and then fights in a State where cockfighting is illegal, that is a crime. The law further states, the activities prohibited by such subsections shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof. This means that the law applies to all animals involved in all types of fighting--except for birds being transported for cockfighting purposes to a State where cockfighting is still legal. Because of this crafty loophole, law enforcement officers have a more difficult time prosecuting under their State cockfighting bans. As introduced, this legislation will close the loophole on cockfighting, and prohibit interstate movement of birds for the purpose of fighting from States where cockfighting is illegal to States where cockfighting is legal. Illegal cockfighting is rampant in this Nation. All over the country, birds are affixed with razors and knives, pumped full of steroids, stimulants, and blood clotting agents, and made to fight to the death-- all for sport and money. Not only are most of the fights themselves illegal--gambling, money laundering, assaults, and even murders are not uncommon activities that accompany cockfights. I simply do not see any place for any of this in American society. Having said that, I want to make it clear I am a strong proponent of smaller government and of States rights. I do not believe you will find a stronger supporter of States rights in the Senate today than myself. While I do not personally approve of cock fighting, my bill clearly protects the rights of States to make or keep cockfighting legal if they so choose. I would not have introduced this bill if it did not. Three States currently allow cockfighting, and under my bill these three States would still be allowed to have cockfighting. This bill is much more than a humane issue. It is a serious law enforcement issue. I know so because my bill has received the endorsement of 70 law enforcement agencies from all over the Nation. In States such as Texas, Arkansas, California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, and many others, they recognize that this Federal loophole is undermining their ability to enforce their own State and county laws. Federal law is being thrown in the faces of citizens in 47 States and used as a shield for criminals to hide behind. As a veterinarian and supporter of States rights, I believe it is time to bring parity to the laws governing animal fighting and give law enforcement greater leverage to enforce State laws. I appreciate Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Lugar's assistance to my efforts.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 1188.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor those who lost their lives, as well as those who survived, Colorado's Big Thompson Flood of 1976. Twenty-five years ago today more than one foot of rain fell in a matter of hours, creating a flash flood in Big Thompson Canyon which killed 144 people and caused over $30 million in property damage. We remember those who died in this natural disaster, and also the survivors who had to rebuild their lives, working as a community to start over again. Today, outside of my hometown of Loveland, Colorado, 1,000 survivors of this tragedy will gather to commemorate the Big Thompson Flood. Though I cannot be with them in this ceremony, my thoughts and prayers are with them and I speak on the Senate floor today as a tribute to this special event. I ask unanimous consent that the following letter, which I wrote for the commemoration ceremony of the Big Thompson Canyon Flood of 1976, be printed in the Record.