Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I realize that I am not going out on a limb here, but I want to say this: I support Campaign Finance Reform. To that end, today I am introducing the Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 2001. My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they are running. Equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees, PACs, by raising the individual limit from $1000 to $2500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to $2500. Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation. Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5000. Require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders. Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported. Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by fax machines and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt. Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings. This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate back into his district or state to raise money from individual contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what they want in a political campaign is preserved--but the right of the public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely information.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will be participating in the Habitat for Humanity ``House the Senate Built.'' We will be breaking ground March 17th at 1:00 p.m. This home will be built for the Portillo family at 1209 Raven Place in Loveland, Colorado. I am especially proud to be working with the Loveland Habitat for Humanity chapter because Loveland is my hometown. In addition, the Loveland chapter has existed for 14 years and, in that time, they have built 41 houses. Forty-one families that may have never been in a position to own a home, are now homeowners thanks to the Loveland chapter of Habitat for Humanity. This is not my first involvement with Habitat for Humanity. During the Republican Convention last year my wife Joan and I had the opportunity to work on a project with the Philadelphia chapter of Habitat. I have also participated in builds with Colorado affiliates in Fort Morgan and in Loveland. This September Habitat International will be celebrating their Silver Anniversary. Since its inception, Habitat has built a total of 100,000 houses. When I reflect on my vision of housing assistance, an old saying comes to mind: ``If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.'' I am especially supportive of Habitat for Humanity because the way that they operate as an organization, fits this old saying perfectly. While Habitat homes are purchased by the individual homeowner families, corporations, faith groups and others all provide financial support and assistance in building the home, and the work is organized at the local level. Instead of relying solely on perennial handouts from the government, Habitat seeks out both private and community resources to form a partnership that results in homes for people who, otherwise, may not have them. This approach works because people at the local level are best equipped to know who needs assistance and are most familiar with the way that local systems operate. Homeowner families are chosen by the local Habitat affiliate according to their need; their ability to repay the no-profit, no-interest mortgage; and their willingness to work in partnership with Habitat. Each family is responsible for paying back their loan and participating in the building of their own home. All of this indicates that Habitat is far more interested in helping people to create a new life for themselves than they are in simply putting a roof over their heads. Put quite simply, Habitat is a very effective way to promote the American dream of home ownership. On this same note, I would also like to talk for a moment about two people that I hold in high esteem. The first person I would like to recognize is someone whom I can say, with very little bias, is one of the most wonderful women in the world: my wife Joan. She is someone who often seems tireless in her willingness to pitch in. This willingness was exemplified again at the House the Senate Built. Now, as I said before, Joan has worked on several of the Habitat projects with me, and this project was no exception. Just before the Senate members departed the building site to return to the Capitol, many of us passed our hammers on to our spouses so that they could continue building into the afternoon. I was proud to be able to hand my hammer over to Joan. She came home exhausted, but pleased with the progress that was made on the home, which I understand was considerable. In fact, I am told that when a crew member was walking back to the building site with several of the ladies Joan warned him that ``now that the men are gone it's time for the real work to begin.'' She then put in several hours in her hardhat pounding nails, stuffing insulation and lending a hand wherever it was needed. The second is Colorado's first lady Frances Owens. She has made Habitat for Humanity projects a top priority since her husband was elected several years ago. She has participated in three builds within the last few years and will now be host to a program called Women Building a Legacy. This program will take place May 5-11 in Montbello, a suburb of Denver. Women Building a Legacy will be a blitz build that will result in five houses in seven days. These homes will be a much needed addition to the Montbello neighborhood where they are to be built and I commend Mrs. Owens for her efforts. Again, I say thank you to Habitat for Humanity for the services that they provide to so many communities throughout America and the world, thank you to Frances Owens for the work that she does on behalf of Habitat and thank you to my wife Joan for always being willing to do what needs to be done for no bigger reason than because it needs to be done.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I realize that I am not going out on a limb here, but I want to say this: I support Campaign Finance Reform. To that end, today I am introducing the Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 2001. My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they are running. Equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees, PACs, by raising the individual limit from $1000 to $2500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to $2500. Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation. Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5000. Require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders. Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported. Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by fax machines and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt. Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings. This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate back into his district or state to raise money from individual contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what they want in a political campaign is preserved--but the right of the public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely information.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President. I am honored today to introduce the Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 2001 which provides a 15 percent residential tax credit for consumers who purchase solar electric, photovoltaics, and solar thermal products. This bill is similar to one I introduced in the last Congress. I believe we have a wonderful opportunity to address this important energy issue and pass this bill. The legislation is an important step in preserving U.S. global leadership in the solar industry where we now export over 70 percent of our products. In recent years, over ten U.S. solar manufacturing facilities have been built or expanded making the U.S. the world's largest manufacturer of solar products. The expansion of the U.S. domestic market is essential to sustain U.S. global market dominance. Other countries, notably Japan and Germany, have instituted very large-scale market incentives for the use of solar energy on buildings, spending far more by their governments to build their respective domestic solar industries. Passage of this bill will insure the U.S. stays the global solar market leader into the next millennium. Recent tax legislation passed by this body, has included necessary support of the independent domestic oil producers, overseas oil refiners, nuclear industry decommissioning, and wind energy, all worthy. This small proposal not only adds to these but provides an incentive to the individual homeowner to generate their own energy. In fact, 28 states have passed laws in the last two years to provide a technical standard for interconnecting solar systems to the electric grid, provide consumer friendly contracts, and provide rates for the excess power generated. These efforts at regulatory reform at the state level combined with a limited incentive as proposed in this bill, will drive the use of solar energy. Contrary to popular belief, solar energy is manufactured and used evenly throughout the United States. Solar manufacturers are in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, solar assembly and distribution companies are in: Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, as well as Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. In addition to these states, solar component and research companies are in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia. More than 90 U.S. electric utilities including municipals, cooperatives and independents--which represent more than half of U.S. power generation--are active in solar energy. Aside from new, automated solar manufacturing facilities, a wide range of new uses of solar has occurred in the last two years, such as: an array of facilities installed in June at the Pentagon power block to provide mid-day peak power; installation of solar on the first U.S. skyscraper in Times Square in New York City; and development of a solar mini-manufacturing facility at a brown field in Chicago which will provide solar products for roadway lighting and for area schools. This small sampling of American ingenuity is just the beginning of the U.S. solar industry's maturity. Adoption of solar power by individual American consumers will create economies-of-scale of production that will, over time, dramatically lower costs and increase availability of solar power. The bill I have introduced costs much less than previous proposals and provides consumer safeguards. This bill represents a pragmatic approach in utilizing the marketplace as a driver of technology. The benefits to our country are profound. The U.S. solar industry believes the incentives will create 20,000 new high technology manufacturing jobs, offset pollution of more than 2 million vehicles, cut U.S. solar energy unit imports which are already over 50 percent, and leverage U.S. industry even further into the global export markets. The Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 2001 is sound energy policy, sound environmental policy, promotes our national security, and enhances our economic strength at home and abroad. I ask my colleagues to include this initiative in any upcoming tax and/or energy deliberations. American consumers will thank us, and our children will thank us for the future benefits we have preserved for them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President. I am honored today to introduce the Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 2001 which provides a 15 percent residential tax credit for consumers who purchase solar electric, photovoltaics, and solar thermal products. This bill is similar to one I introduced in the last Congress. I believe we have a wonderful opportunity to address this important energy issue and pass this bill. The legislation is an important step in preserving U.S. global leadership in the solar industry where we now export over 70 percent of our products. In recent years, over ten U.S. solar manufacturing facilities have been built or expanded making the U.S. the world's largest manufacturer of solar products. The expansion of the U.S. domestic market is essential to sustain U.S. global market dominance. Other countries, notably Japan and Germany, have instituted very large-scale market incentives for the use of solar energy on buildings, spending far more by their governments to build their respective domestic solar industries. Passage of this bill will insure the U.S. stays the global solar market leader into the next millennium. Recent tax legislation passed by this body, has included necessary support of the independent domestic oil producers, overseas oil refiners, nuclear industry decommissioning, and wind energy, all worthy. This small proposal not only adds to these but provides an incentive to the individual homeowner to generate their own energy. In fact, 28 states have passed laws in the last two years to provide a technical standard for interconnecting solar systems to the electric grid, provide consumer friendly contracts, and provide rates for the excess power generated. These efforts at regulatory reform at the state level combined with a limited incentive as proposed in this bill, will drive the use of solar energy. Contrary to popular belief, solar energy is manufactured and used evenly throughout the United States. Solar manufacturers are in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, solar assembly and distribution companies are in: Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, as well as Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. In addition to these states, solar component and research companies are in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia. More than 90 U.S. electric utilities including municipals, cooperatives and independents--which represent more than half of U.S. power generation--are active in solar energy. Aside from new, automated solar manufacturing facilities, a wide range of new uses of solar has occurred in the last two years, such as: an array of facilities installed in June at the Pentagon power block to provide mid-day peak power; installation of solar on the first U.S. skyscraper in Times Square in New York City; and development of a solar mini-manufacturing facility at a brown field in Chicago which will provide solar products for roadway lighting and for area schools. This small sampling of American ingenuity is just the beginning of the U.S. solar industry's maturity. Adoption of solar power by individual American consumers will create economies-of-scale of production that will, over time, dramatically lower costs and increase availability of solar power. The bill I have introduced costs much less than previous proposals and provides consumer safeguards. This bill represents a pragmatic approach in utilizing the marketplace as a driver of technology. The benefits to our country are profound. The U.S. solar industry believes the incentives will create 20,000 new high technology manufacturing jobs, offset pollution of more than 2 million vehicles, cut U.S. solar energy unit imports which are already over 50 percent, and leverage U.S. industry even further into the global export markets. The Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 2001 is sound energy policy, sound environmental policy, promotes our national security, and enhances our economic strength at home and abroad. I ask my colleagues to include this initiative in any upcoming tax and/or energy deliberations. American consumers will thank us, and our children will thank us for the future benefits we have preserved for them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my good friend and Colorado colleague, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to permanently designate Rocky Flats as a National Wildlife Refuge following the cleanup and closure of the site. This legislation is the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Rocky Flats. The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act is the product of more than a year's worth of work by citizens, community leaders, and local elected officials. Its passage will ensure our children and grandchildren will continue to enjoy the wildlife and open space that currently exists at Rocky Flats. To that end, I have worked in a bi-partisan manner with my Colorado colleague from the other body, Congressman Mark Udall, to produce the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001. This bill was originally introduced in November of 2000, and with a few refinements, is being reintroduced today in both the Senate and House. Also, this bill could not be possible without the hard work and dedication of the local governments and the Rocky Flats stakeholders. My vested interest in Rocky Flats began during the 1980's when I was the Chairman of the State Senate Committee on Health, Environment, Welfare and Institutions. Although I supported the national security mission of the Rocky Flats site prior to closure, I believe that the Department of Energy must also ensure the safety and health of all Coloradans and the environment. When the Rocky Flats site was shut down in 1990, cleaning up and closing of the site became one of my top legislative priorities and will remain so until this project is complete. In 1999, I became the Strategic Subcommittee Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has direct oversight of former DoE weapons facilities including Rocky Flats. This is the first site in the DoE complex to receive funding for cleanup and closure, and will therefore be a role model for other sites in the complex. As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I will continue to work closely with my colleagues to educate them on the importance of cleaning up and closing down Rocky Flats so it can be utilized as a National Wildlife Refuge. This education extends beyond the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats to the importance of cleaning up and closing of all the former DoE weapons sites and how all closure sites in the DoE complex are closely tied together. That is why it is important for everyone in Congress with a closure site to work together in a non-partisan manner for the good of the country. We also need to work close with our new Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, to ensure that cleanup and closure remain a priority for DoE. As a brief summary of the bill, I would like to bring to your attention a few of the following high points of the bill: To begin, Rocky Flats will remain in permanent federal ownership through a transfer from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the cleanup and closure of the site is complete. The historic Lindsay Ranch will be preserved for future generations. There will be no annexation of land to any local government, nor any construction of through roads. The only roads that may be constructed on the site would be by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the management of the refuge. The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior are authorized to grant a transportation right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site for transportation improvements along Indiana Street. Please note, however, that we are aware of the continued evaluation of this issue and want this section of the bill to be consistent with the needs of the local governments. The Department of Energy and the Fish and Wildlife Service are to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding addressing administrative responsibilities prior to the transfer of the site not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act. The Department of Energy will not transfer any property to the Fish and Wildlife Service that must be retained for future onsite monitoring or that must be retained for protection of human health and safety. This legislation also clarifies that in the event of future cleanup activities, this action will take priority over wildlife management. One of the most important directives in this Act and it states that ``nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the degree of cleanup at the Rocky Flats site required under the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement or any Federal or State law.'' I believe it is important to reiterate that this bill should not be used as a mechanism to drive the level of cleanup. As with any cleanup, the future land use is always considered in setting cleanup levels, but other important factors will play into any decision. For instance, the protection of surface water coming off the site, the desire to minimize long- term operation and monitoring costs, and the State of Colorado's rules for decommissioning nuclear sites which say licensees should reduce potential radiation dose levels as low as reasonably achievable. Once the site is transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the refuge will be managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Act to preserve wildlife, enhance wildlife habitat, conserve threatened and endangered species, provide education opportunities and scientific research, as well as wildlife compatible recreation. The Fish and Wildlife Service are to convene a public process to include input on the management of the site. I firmly believe that access rights and property rights must be preserved. Therefore, this legislation recognizes and preserves all mineral rights, water rights and utility rights-of-way. This Act does, however, provide the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes. With regard to mineral rights, the Secretary of Energy is required to seek to purchase mineral rights from willing sellers. As a tribute to the Cold War and the dedicated Rocky Flats workers both prior to and after the site closure, the bill authorizes the establishment of a Rocky Flats museum to commemorate the site requiring that the creation of the museum shall be studied, and a report shall be submitted to Congress within three years following the enactment of this act. Finally, this bill directs the Department of Energy and the Fish and Wildlife Service to inform Congress on the costs associated with the implementation of this Act. Lastly, I want to thank Representative Mark Udall for the bi-partisan manner in which he and his staff worked with me and my office. Rocky Flats, like all other cleanup sites, is bigger than partisan politics and this effort proves it. I would also like to specifically thank the Department of Energy for taking the expedited cleanup plan and making it work within their budgetary guidelines; Kaiser-Hill for making the impossible, possible; and, I would like to say a great big thanks to all of the workers at Rocky Flats whose skill and dedication have made the reality of cleanup possible. Without the workers, even the best laid plans would be for naught. Once cleanup and closure is accomplished in 2006, I look forward to returning to Rocky Flats for the dedication of the new Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my good friend and Colorado colleague, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to permanently designate Rocky Flats as a National Wildlife Refuge following the cleanup and closure of the site. This legislation is the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Rocky Flats. The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act is the product of more than a year's worth of work by citizens, community leaders, and local elected officials. Its passage will ensure our children and grandchildren will continue to enjoy the wildlife and open space that currently exists at Rocky Flats. To that end, I have worked in a bi-partisan manner with my Colorado colleague from the other body, Congressman Mark Udall, to produce the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001. This bill was originally introduced in November of 2000, and with a few refinements, is being reintroduced today in both the Senate and House. Also, this bill could not be possible without the hard work and dedication of the local governments and the Rocky Flats stakeholders. My vested interest in Rocky Flats began during the 1980's when I was the Chairman of the State Senate Committee on Health, Environment, Welfare and Institutions. Although I supported the national security mission of the Rocky Flats site prior to closure, I believe that the Department of Energy must also ensure the safety and health of all Coloradans and the environment. When the Rocky Flats site was shut down in 1990, cleaning up and closing of the site became one of my top legislative priorities and will remain so until this project is complete. In 1999, I became the Strategic Subcommittee Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has direct oversight of former DoE weapons facilities including Rocky Flats. This is the first site in the DoE complex to receive funding for cleanup and closure, and will therefore be a role model for other sites in the complex. As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I will continue to work closely with my colleagues to educate them on the importance of cleaning up and closing down Rocky Flats so it can be utilized as a National Wildlife Refuge. This education extends beyond the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats to the importance of cleaning up and closing of all the former DoE weapons sites and how all closure sites in the DoE complex are closely tied together. That is why it is important for everyone in Congress with a closure site to work together in a non-partisan manner for the good of the country. We also need to work close with our new Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, to ensure that cleanup and closure remain a priority for DoE. As a brief summary of the bill, I would like to bring to your attention a few of the following high points of the bill: To begin, Rocky Flats will remain in permanent federal ownership through a transfer from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the cleanup and closure of the site is complete. The historic Lindsay Ranch will be preserved for future generations. There will be no annexation of land to any local government, nor any construction of through roads. The only roads that may be constructed on the site would be by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the management of the refuge. The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior are authorized to grant a transportation right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site for transportation improvements along Indiana Street. Please note, however, that we are aware of the continued evaluation of this issue and want this section of the bill to be consistent with the needs of the local governments. The Department of Energy and the Fish and Wildlife Service are to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding addressing administrative responsibilities prior to the transfer of the site not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act. The Department of Energy will not transfer any property to the Fish and Wildlife Service that must be retained for future onsite monitoring or that must be retained for protection of human health and safety. This legislation also clarifies that in the event of future cleanup activities, this action will take priority over wildlife management. One of the most important directives in this Act and it states that ``nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the degree of cleanup at the Rocky Flats site required under the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement or any Federal or State law.'' I believe it is important to reiterate that this bill should not be used as a mechanism to drive the level of cleanup. As with any cleanup, the future land use is always considered in setting cleanup levels, but other important factors will play into any decision. For instance, the protection of surface water coming off the site, the desire to minimize long- term operation and monitoring costs, and the State of Colorado's rules for decommissioning nuclear sites which say licensees should reduce potential radiation dose levels as low as reasonably achievable. Once the site is transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the refuge will be managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Act to preserve wildlife, enhance wildlife habitat, conserve threatened and endangered species, provide education opportunities and scientific research, as well as wildlife compatible recreation. The Fish and Wildlife Service are to convene a public process to include input on the management of the site. I firmly believe that access rights and property rights must be preserved. Therefore, this legislation recognizes and preserves all mineral rights, water rights and utility rights-of-way. This Act does, however, provide the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes. With regard to mineral rights, the Secretary of Energy is required to seek to purchase mineral rights from willing sellers. As a tribute to the Cold War and the dedicated Rocky Flats workers both prior to and after the site closure, the bill authorizes the establishment of a Rocky Flats museum to commemorate the site requiring that the creation of the museum shall be studied, and a report shall be submitted to Congress within three years following the enactment of this act. Finally, this bill directs the Department of Energy and the Fish and Wildlife Service to inform Congress on the costs associated with the implementation of this Act. Lastly, I want to thank Representative Mark Udall for the bi-partisan manner in which he and his staff worked with me and my office. Rocky Flats, like all other cleanup sites, is bigger than partisan politics and this effort proves it. I would also like to specifically thank the Department of Energy for taking the expedited cleanup plan and making it work within their budgetary guidelines; Kaiser-Hill for making the impossible, possible; and, I would like to say a great big thanks to all of the workers at Rocky Flats whose skill and dedication have made the reality of cleanup possible. Without the workers, even the best laid plans would be for naught. Once cleanup and closure is accomplished in 2006, I look forward to returning to Rocky Flats for the dedication of the new Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce some legislation which I send to the desk. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 425 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mrs. President, the bad taste left in everyone's mouth after the Florida election debacle is certainly strongest in those who had their franchise questioned while, incredibly, they were away serving our country. Military men and women are forced to give up some opportunities during their military service that the rest of us can still enjoy. They surrender some of the freedom of speech, privacy and personnel liberty that we take for granted. But losing their right to vote is never something they agreed to face, and never something we should allow them to face. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Military Voter Support Act, enhances the voting ability of absentee military voters in six key ways. This bill will help us ensure that we will not see the repeat of campaign lawyers scrutinizing military ballots in a partisan attempt to silence their voice. I know that I was not the only one who felt outrage over this. My office received a flood of calls and letters from Colorado citizens equally upset. I hope this bill proves to our uniformed voters that we not only value their service, we value their voice, and we value their right to vote. The language applies to service members, their spouses, and voting age dependents who are necessarily absentee with them. The bill prohibits a state from disqualifying a ballot based upon lack of postmark or witness signature alone--this was the basis for most absentee ballot challenges in Florida. Technical faults beyond the control of the voter should not endanger their ballot. The bill secures the voting residence of a military voter as they travel on orders. It prevents a repeat of the 1997 Texas lawsuit challenging future intent of residency. It will allow polling places to be operated on military installations to serve military voters and others at the discretion of the appropriate service Secretary. The law against this was revived and enforced by the Clinton Administration for the 2000 elections. There is a Catch-22 for military voters who are discharged and move before an election but after the residency deadline. They cannot vote through the military absentee ballot system. Yet sometimes they are not able to fulfill deadlines to establish residency in a State. This bill allows them to use the proper discharge forms as a residency waiver and vote in person at their new polling site. Given the technologies available to us, it should be possible for the military to devise and run an efficient and reliable electronic voting program. The bill calls for a demonstration program during the 2002 elections of a possible electronic voting system for the 2004 elections. After each election the Pentagon Federal Voting Assistance Program makes recommendations to each state on ways to improve the voting ability of absentee voters by state statute changes. This bill brings more attention to bear on these improvements--and hopefully generates more state legislature interest--by requiring the states to report on their implementation of these suggestions to the Secretary of Defense. I believe this mild requirement upon a state will raise the profile of these fixes, and facilitate in-depth discussion and study by the states. And that will, in turn, only serve to improve military absentee voting. I sincerely hope that military members understand that we in the Congress are as outraged as they are about the problems they experienced in voting. This bill is a way to attack those problems. With it, I hope the 2002 election and every one following is a far better demonstration of our democracy and the value we place on the right to vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mrs. President, the bad taste left in everyone's mouth after the Florida election debacle is certainly strongest in those who had their franchise questioned while, incredibly, they were away serving our country. Military men and women are forced to give up some opportunities during their military service that the rest of us can still enjoy. They surrender some of the freedom of speech, privacy and personnel liberty that we take for granted. But losing their right to vote is never something they agreed to face, and never something we should allow them to face. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Military Voter Support Act, enhances the voting ability of absentee military voters in six key ways. This bill will help us ensure that we will not see the repeat of campaign lawyers scrutinizing military ballots in a partisan attempt to silence their voice. I know that I was not the only one who felt outrage over this. My office received a flood of calls and letters from Colorado citizens equally upset. I hope this bill proves to our uniformed voters that we not only value their service, we value their voice, and we value their right to vote. The language applies to service members, their spouses, and voting age dependents who are necessarily absentee with them. The bill prohibits a state from disqualifying a ballot based upon lack of postmark or witness signature alone--this was the basis for most absentee ballot challenges in Florida. Technical faults beyond the control of the voter should not endanger their ballot. The bill secures the voting residence of a military voter as they travel on orders. It prevents a repeat of the 1997 Texas lawsuit challenging future intent of residency. It will allow polling places to be operated on military installations to serve military voters and others at the discretion of the appropriate service Secretary. The law against this was revived and enforced by the Clinton Administration for the 2000 elections. There is a Catch-22 for military voters who are discharged and move before an election but after the residency deadline. They cannot vote through the military absentee ballot system. Yet sometimes they are not able to fulfill deadlines to establish residency in a State. This bill allows them to use the proper discharge forms as a residency waiver and vote in person at their new polling site. Given the technologies available to us, it should be possible for the military to devise and run an efficient and reliable electronic voting program. The bill calls for a demonstration program during the 2002 elections of a possible electronic voting system for the 2004 elections. After each election the Pentagon Federal Voting Assistance Program makes recommendations to each state on ways to improve the voting ability of absentee voters by state statute changes. This bill brings more attention to bear on these improvements--and hopefully generates more state legislature interest--by requiring the states to report on their implementation of these suggestions to the Secretary of Defense. I believe this mild requirement upon a state will raise the profile of these fixes, and facilitate in-depth discussion and study by the states. And that will, in turn, only serve to improve military absentee voting. I sincerely hope that military members understand that we in the Congress are as outraged as they are about the problems they experienced in voting. This bill is a way to attack those problems. With it, I hope the 2002 election and every one following is a far better demonstration of our democracy and the value we place on the right to vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his leadership on home health care. I agree with him. It does save money for the patient, and we want to encourage it as far as health care is concerned.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding and certainly appreciate his hard work and dedication on the issue of taxes. I served with him in the House and now serve with him in the Senate. He is certainly a great American. I understand that we are moving into time controlled by Senator Bond and Senator Collins. I have a number of points I want to make in relation to national defense. I would like to yield to my colleague from Missouri to visit with him a little bit on how he plans to manage the time and what his plans are.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his leadership on home health care. I agree with him. It does save money for the patient, and we want to encourage it as far as health care is concerned.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our national security and defense. This is the week the President has decided to emphasize defense. I will take a moment to review briefly where we are as far as the National Missile Defense Program is concerned. Before I do that, I will lay out a few things for the record. First, this week the President has decided to talk about quality of life. He has emphasized the fact that soldiers enlist, but families reenlist, trying to address the problems we have with retention in our military services. I wholeheartedly agree with him in his efforts. He has made tremendous strides in that direction, when he says he will go ahead and try to promote the idea that we need to have a military pay raise, renovate standard housing, improve military training, and review overseas deployments to reduce family separations. The President also has recognized the concept of a citizen soldier. I can relate to that. I like to think of myself as a citizen legislator. These are individuals who have regular jobs but take a spell from those jobs to serve our country. That is our National Guard and Reserve troops, and States play an important role. The National Government plays an important role to make sure these citizen soldiers are readily available in time of national emergency to serve our country and its defense. The third item he has talked about is the transformation of the military to a stronger, more agile, modern military, which has both stealth and speed. I think we also need to rethink our vulnerabilities and the time to do it is now. We need to rethink our strength, and the time to do it is now, while we are transitioning from one administration to another. There is no doubt in my mind that for the last 8 years our defense structure in this country suffered intolerably. It is time we made very significant changes. I support the idea that we need to increase spending for defense. As we look at our vulnerabilities and strengths, we certainly need to base our thinking on the new technology that we have and what the future is for the development of that new technology. We need to think about the future threat from potential adversaries. We need to work toward the idea of more peace and more freedom through renewed strength and renewed security. Based on all of that, we have to control the high ground. I think that is as true today as it was two or three centuries ago. Controlling the high ground is very important in the field of battle. I am a strong proponent of looking at an enhanced role for space. We must think in terms of a space platform. By controlling that high ground, we would secure all our forces and secure our national defense system. I believe the technology is very close, where we can move forward with some very significant steps in enhancing, in a modern way, our defense systems in America. I want to take a little time while I have the floor to review the background of our National Missile Defense System--a step in that direction--and review a little bit about where I see we are today. First of all, on the National Missile Defense System, I think we ought to quit referring to it as the ``national'' missile defense system. I think we need to refer to it as our missile defense system and get away from the vagueness of trying to identify a theater missile defense system and a national missile defense system. I think, from a foreign relations standpoint, when we use the term ``national,'' it implies it is just for America. We are putting together a missile defense system, hopefully, that will secure world peace. I think we need to keep that in mind when we talk about what we are going to do to enhance our missile defense system. In my discussion this morning on defense and the National Missile Defense System, I am just going to refer to it as the missile defense system. Starting back in 1995, the Republican Congress consistently pressured the Clinton administration to make a commitment to deploy a national missile defense system. In 1995, then-President Clinton vetoed the Defense Authorization Act over its establishment of a national missile defense deployment policy. Then, in 1998, the Rumsfeld report, now-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, said that a ballistic missile threat to the U.S. was ``broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly'' than the Intelligence Community had been reporting prior to that. The report also stated that: The warning times the U.S. can expect of new, threatening ballistic missile deployments are being reduced . . . the U.S. might well have little or no warning before operational deployment. That is what our current Secretary of Defense was saying. Then, in 1999, the National Intelligence Council warned that: The probability that a WMD armed missile will be used against the U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the Cold War. That was made in 1999 by the National Intelligence Council. In 1999, finally, the President signed the National Missile Defense Act of 1999--referred to around here as the Cochran bill--which requires deployment of a national missile defense system ``as soon as technologically possible.'' That is the key--``as soon as technologically possible.'' Even though the administration funded the National Missile Defense Acquisition Program, President Clinton never committed the United States to actual deployment. So in September of last year, 2000, President Clinton decided to defer a deployment decision to the next administration. Having laid out that background, I want to talk about where we are today. The current missile defense system is preparing to deploy a single ground-based site in Alaska, with a threshold capacity of 20 interceptor missiles in fiscal years 2005-2006, and 100 interceptors in fiscal years 2007-2008. That is the current plan. This is referred to as the initial stage. This would be upgraded, and a second ground-based site would be deployed to deal with more complex and numerous threats in the fiscal year 2010-2011 timeframe. This stand-alone, ground-based approach is inadequate really to satisfy U.S. global security requirements. Nonetheless, the most affordable and most effective path to a global ballistic missile defense system is to augment the current missile defense program rather than replace it. Now, the current ground-based missile defense program has made significant technical progress and offers the earliest deployment options. Once this system is deployed, it will offer an ``open architecture.'' This is very important. It offers an ``open architecture'' that can be augmented with ground-based, sea-based, and/ or space-based systems as they mature and are demonstrated. So we leave the door open for technological advances so we can build upon the structure we are initially going to lay out there. I will reemphasize that this is a defense structure, not offensive; it is a defense system. Frankly, I don't understand the opposition from many of our allies to a system that is defensive in nature. I think they ultimately will share in that technology because it will assure that we have a safer world. The key to deploying an effective missile defense architecture is a layered system that is deployed in phases. A top priority should be the prompt establishment of programs to develop the sea-based and then the space-based elements that can be added to the initial system when they are ready. The sea-based missile defense elements should be based on the existing Navy Theater Wide (NTW) Theater Missile Defense Program. The NTW Program will need to be augmented, both in terms of funding and technical capability. The interceptor missiles are not sufficiently capable to perform the missile defense mission. Therefore, the Department of Defense should consider a phased approach to the NTW, which involves initial deployment of a system for long-range TMD and limited missile defense applications, and then upgrade to a more dedicated sea-based missile defense capability in the future. The development of a strategy for dealing with the ABM Treaty is as important as the technical/architectural issues mentioned above. The United States will need to determine whether it wants to pursue modifications to the treaty or seek a completely new arrangement. Any effort at incrementally amending the treaty will involve many of the same problems the Clinton Administration experienced with Russia and our allies. The current acquisition cost, including prior years, for the initial ground-based National Missile Defense system (with 100 interceptor missiles) is $20.3 billion. The average annual cost for R&D and Procurement is approximately $2.0-2.5 billion. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is also recommending a significant increase to enhance its flight test program and its efforts to deal with counter- measures, which could increase the overall Missile Defense cost by several billion dollars. The Navy has estimated that an initial sea- based National Missile Defense capability could be deployed in 5-8 years for $4-6 billion; an intermediate capability could be deployed in 8-10 years for $7-10 billion; and a far-term capability, involving dedicated Missile Defense ships and missiles, could be deployed in 10- 15 years for $13-16 billion. Note that the Navy estimates assume that the ground-based National Missile Defense infrastructure is in place. Without this infrastructure, the Navy would have to add radars, space- based sensors, battle management, and command and control to their cost estimates. There are many issues before Congress and this administration concerning our missile defense system and they are the following: We need to establish a policy for ballistic missile defense reflecting the current global security environment. We need to illuminate the path ahead regarding the ABM Treaty. We need to redefine the relationship between ballistic missile defense and strategic forces. We need to establish a global missile defense as a new ballistic missile defense paradigm. We need to deemphasize the distinction between national missile defense and theater missile defense. We need an integrated missile defense architecture and operational concept. We need to have a layered approach to ballistic missile defense starting with land, sea, and space in the future. Our greatest challenge is overcoming 8 years of funding inadequacy. In the fiscal years 1994 through 1999, Secretary Cheney at that time envisioned $7 billion to $8 billion SDI budgets. We have a great opportunity before us. I think most Americans like most of President Bush's major proposals. A Newsweek poll found 56 percent approved of his plan for a missile defense system. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said no President could allow a situation in which ``extinction of civilized life is one's only strategy.'' The New York Times reports today that Russian President Putin and Germany's Foreign Minister Fischer discussed the proposed American missile defense at a Kremlin meeting yesterday, ending 2 days of talks that Mr. Fischer said pointed to new Russian flexibility on the notion of a shield against rogue missiles. Mr. Fischer told reporters: ``In the end, I think Russia will accept negotiations.'' The Senate Armed Services Committee has met with the British foreign minister and discussed this. A nuclear missile defense will benefit the world. Only our aggressors, I believe, need fear our missile defense technology. Robert L. Bartley says in today's Wall Street Journal: ``The deliberate vulnerability of `mutual assured destruction' carries an appropriate acronym, MAD.'' In the end, with the cold war over, we should look beyond the cold war rules and to the unpredictable future and weapons of mass destruction. I reemphasize that I believe we need to rethink our vulnerabilities and our strengths based on our new technology and based on the future threat from potential adversaries. Our goal should be more peace and more freedom through renewed strength and a renewed security, and we accomplish that by establishing control of the high-ground. Technology is the key, and we need to be sure we are willing to put our dollars and our brain power behind the idea that we will move forward with a strong defense system which will, in the long run, assure continued world peace. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before I say anything about how necessary I believe the President's tax cut is at this time in our Nation's history, I want to also point out to my colleagues on the Senate floor another way we can save dollars, save on Government expenditures, another way we can make money available for tax cuts, another way we can begin to do more to pay down the debt: voluntarism. Senators who are here in this body are going to have a great opportunity on March 7 to volunteer for a very worthwhile project, Habitat for Humanity. Members of the Senate are sponsoring a home, where staffs, spouses, and Members of the Senate can actually go out and help construct a home for a family who is struggling and needs assistance. This is an excellent alternative to a Federal program. I encourage Members of the Senate to participate in this volunteer program. I am also pleased to join my colleagues in the Senate in calling for tax cuts for all Americans. I support tax cuts for the people who work hard every day. Everyone paying taxes should receive tax relief. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas who earlier spoke very eloquently about the need for tax cuts, that people have a better idea how they would like to spend their dollars than any bureaucrat in Washington or any Member of this Senate. I think it is time we have a tax cut now that we have unprecedented revenues coming into the Federal Government. Many people I see here on the floor arguing against tax cuts, willingly and excitedly spend more money in the appropriations process. Their argument against tax cuts is that we need to have the money to pay down the debt. But when we get toward the end of the session, we have a spending binge. In the final 6 months of last year, we spent $561 billion--the biggest tax spending binge in this country's history in peacetime. I don't think we should allow that to happen because in the long-term we are dealing with some very big liabilities. To increase programs and increase spending at this time just means it is going to get worse. We should work to pay down the debt, and we did a good job toward paying down the debt. Ninety percent of our surplus went toward debt repayment last year. I am proud of our efforts in doing that. I think the other solution is that we need to have a tax cut. We need a plan to pay down the debt, and we need to have a plan to reduce the tax burden on the American people. I happen to agree with what the President recently said, that we need to make tax cuts retroactive. Why not? In the past, Congress has instituted tax increases and made them retroactive. So if we see a need to keep the economy from slowing down too much, or if we have excess surpluses, then I think we ought to go ahead and have tax cuts that are actually retroactive rather than increase spending. We frequently discuss the budget surplus, and I believe it is actually more accurate--and I want to emphasize this--to talk about it as a tax surplus. The surplus represents an overpayment by taxpayers. These overassessed taxpayers should not have to send the money to Washington in the first place. My colleague from Arkansas pointed out that it gets distributed on the whims and wishes of the bureaucracy and Members of the Congress. I think it is better to empower local taxpayers to spend that money as they see fit. Allowing people to keep their own money makes sense to me. They are in a better position to know what they need. I believe in people's priorities, not Washington priorities. Rather than addressing the basic question of whom we should trust with the taxpayers' money--the taxpayers or Washington--some have attempted to shift the focus, claiming they can't afford tax cuts. In fact, tax cuts don't jeopardize debt repayment or the Government's other obligations. I think my record here on the Senate floor is clear. I am known as a budget and debt repayment hawk. I want to see the debt paid down as fast as possible. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a recent Budget Committee hearing, which I attended, that based on the current projections, there is room in the surplus for both debt repayment and a tax cut. He stated repeatedly before many different committees that the least desirable option is to use surplus money for new spending--exactly what the Congress did in the final 6 months of the last Congress. On July 1, 2001, CBO delivered an encouraging fiscal forecast. They saw that the foreseeable budget surplus would allow the Government to return a major portion of the surplus to its rightful owners. That means a tax cut. They saw that the surplus would allow continued efforts to pay down our national debt. It continues to make good on a Republican promise to protect the Social Security surplus. To put it simply, CBO's baseline assumptions for 2001 to 2011 project surpluses large enough to allow the Federal Government to retire all available debt held by the public. Surpluses from this year through 2011 are projected to approach between $5.6 trillion and $6 trillion--nearly four times the amount needed to fund the Bush tax cut. The Bush tax cut plan is an important first step towards returning the tax surplus by lowering taxes. It will mean on the average $1,600 more for each American family. That is real money. It can be used for such things as buying a home, paying for a college education, purchasing a computer to help kids in school, buying a car, or paying the energy bill. I support the Bush tax cut because it offers real tax relief for every American taxpayer. First, the Bush plan cuts and simplifies the current tax rate structure. Rather than five marginal tax rates President Bush proposes four new, lower rates. In effect, this simplifies the Tax Code and also provides tax relief where it is really needed. I think that all taxpayers should have a tax break. The current tax rate brackets, which run from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, will be replaced by four new brackets at 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. Those at the lower end will receive the highest percentage of relief. I want to repeat that. Those at the lower end--that is the 10 percent range-- will receive the highest percentage of relief. In fact, one in five taxpaying families with children will no longer pay any tax at all. This means 6 million families will receive complete tax relief. The Bush tax cut will also provide important tax relief for families by reducing the marriage tax penalty. In meeting with my constituents at town meetings, I have heard repeatedly that the people of Colorado want marriage penalty relief. I am one who takes my responsibilities seriously, and I hold a town meeting in every county in Colorado every year. You can imagine how many people stood up and made that very important statement on behalf of their family. The statistics show why. In the State of Colorado, over 400,000 couples pay additional, unfair taxes simply because they are married. Nationally, this amounts to more than 21 million couples paying on average another $1,400 per year in taxes; again, just because they are married. The Bush tax cut will go a long way towards eliminating this disparity. The penalty runs counter, in my view, to common sense. Marriage is a practice that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. This penalty really hits young married couples hard. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, I am constantly reminded of the increasing scarcity of affordable housing for young couples. This tax relief would go a long way towards helping working families afford a home. President Bush also proposed that the child tax credit be doubled from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Again, this is money in the pocket of hard-working American families--particularly young American families just getting started. Undoubtedly, it would be especially helpful to lower income families. I am particularly pleased to support the provision to eliminate the death tax. I share the President's belief that the tax should be eliminated. I have already introduced legislation to do just that, as have a number of other Members in the Senate. The United States retains among the highest estate taxes in the world, and top estate tax rates can reach over 55 percent. This is money that was already taxed when it was earned. Frankly, the estate tax--or death tax--can destroy a family business. This has been called to my attention a number of times in the State of Colorado. One of the more recent examples happens to be a ranch in the Aspen area--a pretty affluent area experiencing a lot of growth. A family happened to have an unexpected death. They had to sell off the family ranch to pay the estate tax. As a result, open space will be developed, contrary to what many people in that area wanted to see happen. They wanted to see more open space instead of more development. Repeal of the estate tax would certainly benefit the economy. Without the estate tax, greater business resources can be put toward productive economic activity. I think the President's proposal to expand education savings accounts will also give parents more flexibility in determining what is best for their children. There is a lot more to the President's tax plan. But the fact is that I do think we need to move forward. Americans are spending more than ever on taxes, and we need to reduce that tax burden. I strongly support the President's comments that we should make it retroactive. In other words, we ought to address the problem now and not wait. I offer my strong endorsement of the President's proposed tax cut, and I look forward to a swift enactment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that time has been set aside for Senator Thomas. I would like to claim 15 minutes of that time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I want to take a few minutes to recognize the efforts of everyone involved in the capture of the Texas fugitives that ended one of the largest manhunts this national has ever seen. As you know, the last two of the seven Texas inmates that escaped from a maximum security prison in Kenedy, Texas on December 13th surrendered on January 24th in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This can be attributed to the exemplary work done by the local and federal law enforcement agencies involved as well as the communities of Woodland Park and Colorado Springs. This was a cooperative effort that saw the pooling of all the resources available and resulted in a peaceful conclusion. There cannot be enough said about the work that was done by the law enforcement agencies involved. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Colorado Springs office of the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, the U.S. Marshals office, the Texas authorities, the Teller County Sheriffs office, the El Paso County Sheriffs office, the Colorado Springs Police Department, the Woodland Park Police Department and the Colorado State Patrol did a tremendous job of working together to apprehend the seven fugitives. The effort and support of the residents of Woodland Park and Colorado Springs can't be overlooked. We need to commend people like Wade Holder and Eric Singer. Mr. Holder resides in Woodland Park and is the owner of the RV park where the fugitives were hiding out. He called in a tip to the local authorities after seeing pictures of the fugitives on the America's Most Wanted Web Site. KKTV's Colorado Springs news anchor Eric Singer helped negotiators by conducting a telephone interview with the last two fugitives in order to assure a peaceful surrender. These are just a couple of examples of how the two communities contributed to the successful manhunt. In all of this we should not forget that two law enforcement agents lost their lives in this investigation. Irving, Texas Officer Aubrey Hawkins and Colorado State Trooper Jason Manspeaker both died in the line of duty. Officer Hawkins was brutally shot 11 times and killed by one of the fugitives while responding to a robbery of a sporting goods store in Irving Texas on December 24th. Colorado State Trooper Jason Manspeaker was killed when he crashed his Jeep Cherokee Squad car into a heavy equipment trailer on U.S. Highway 6 in Colorado. The crash occurred while chasing a vehicle suspected of harboring the last two fugitives on January 23rd. Both Officer Hawkins and State Trooper Manspeaker paid the ultimate price for our freedom. My wife Joan and I offer all our compassion, our sympathy and our prayers to the families of both victims.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to lend my support to President Bush's nomination of John Ashcroft to be the next United States Attorney General. He is another individual in the Senate whom I have always viewed as quite honorable. It is the constitutional right and duty of each President to appoint Cabinet Members who will help serve the citizens of this great country during their tenure. I believe President Bush has made a wise choice in John Ashcroft as a member of his Cabinet. John Ashcroft is a man of great honor and high personal integrity. He will bring these much needed characteristics to the office of the U.S. Attorney General. I have no doubt about that. He has had a long and distinguished career serving the people of Missouri and the people of the United States. I am confident he has the experience to fulfill the duties of this position. Those who defended President Clinton to the death are now attacking one of the most honorable individuals of the Senate as less than honorable. This was most evident by Senator Ashcroft's gracious concession to his opponent in his Senate race in Missouri. John Ashcroft served as Missouri's attorney general from 1976 to 1985, where he worked tirelessly to enforce Missouri State laws and chaired the National Association of Attorneys General; having been supported in that position, I might add, by both Democrats and Republicans. After serving his home State as their top law enforcement agent, he was elected as Missouri's 50th Governor in 1984. He was reelected in 1988 to a second term, where he received 64 percent of the vote. It was during his second term that he was recognized as a leader among his colleagues and was named chairman of the National Governors' Association. Again, he was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. In 1994, John Ashcroft was elected by the people of Missouri, this time to serve his State in the U.S. Senate. While serving in the Senate, Senator John Ashcroft was a member of the Judiciary Committee as well as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. His record has shown a strong commitment to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law equally and fairly. Throughout this grueling nomination process, Members on the other side of the aisle have questioned John Ashcroft and, in some cases, even accused him of allowing race to affect his decision on judicial nominees. There is absolutely no evidence that backs up these absurd allegations. Let me remind Members of this body that as a United States Senator John Ashcroft supported 26 of 28 African American Judicial nominees sent to the Senate for confirmation by the President. As the Governor of Missouri, John Ashcroft nominated eight African American judges, including the first ever to the court of appeals in the state. He appointed three African American members to his cabinet while he was the chief executive of the state of Missouri. He supported and signed into law Missouri's Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. He supported and signed the law that established Scott Joplin's house as the first and only historic site honoring an African American citizen. He led the fight to save independent Lincoln University, founded by African American soldiers. He established an award, emphasizing academic excellence, in the name of George Washington Carver. I believe John Ashcroft wants equal opportunity extended to all. Over the last few weeks we have heard from a number of people who have questioned the nomination of John Ashcroft. I would like to take a few moments to mention some of the groups who have endorsed the nominee for Attorney General: National District Attorney's Association, Fraternal Order of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, National Sheriffs Association, Missouri Police Chiefs of Police, National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network, Victims of Crime United, Citizens for Law and Order, Justice for Homicide Victims, Justice for Murder Victims, National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, National Association of Manufacturers, United States of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Insurance Association. I could go on and on and continue to name a total of some 263 groups that have voiced their support for John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General. John Ashcroft is clearly qualified for the job of U.S. Attorney General. He understands what is expected of the office. During his hearings he summed up his duties in one statement: My responsibility is to uphold the acts of the legislative branch of this government and I would do so and continue to do so in regard to the cases that now exist and further enactments of the Congress. John Ashcroft is a man of unquestionably high character and morals who has the knowledge and experience to serve our Nation with justice and excellence as our Nation's next Attorney General. Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I am glad to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. ALLARD. I would also like to join with the Senator in commending Senator Byrd for his distinguished service in the Senate. We all respect him. Whether we agree with him or not, he is one of the more honorable Members here, somebody I appreciate. He has joined on the Budget Committee; I am new on the Budget Committee. I am looking forward to visiting with him about those issues as they come up before the Budget Committee. I think it is going to be a challenging year, and it is an important committee. It is an important start for the Congress. Hopefully, we will get some legislation quickly reported out of there, as we get the process moving forward. Again, I am glad we have all these animal lovers here in the Senate. I talked to Senator Ensign, who is in the Chair, about facetiously setting up a veterinary caucus. With all these comments, I begin to take it more seriously. We would like to perhaps extend an invitation to all the dog lovers here in the Senate, to see if they would like to join us.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. The Denver Post, which describes itself as a newspaper with an active environmentalist agenda says that ``Norton should not be slammed for other politicians' mistakes,'' also defends Norton as one who tried to fix Summitville under nearly impossible circumstances. I hope my colleagues read these editorials and help set the record straight to end these vicious rumors. With Gale as the Secretary of the Interior, we can begin the healing process in our rural communities, of regaining their trust. You see, when I was elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to all the residents of Colorado, that I would visit their county every year for a town meeting. I've held more than 250 town meetings, and whether I was in the rural communities of Craig and Lamar or the larger communities of Grand Junction and Pueblo, the message was the same--they were tired of constant threats and assaults on their way of life, they don't trust government. And how can they? When in the waning days of the Clinton administration, some 2000 pages a day of new rules and regulations were added to the Federal Register. How can this be good for the environment and the economy? Gale believes there is a role for local input in the public policy process. It's one thing to say that you believe in local involvement, but to actually use their input and listen is different. I know that Gale adheres to this philosophy. I also know that Gale recognizes the role of Congress in protecting our environment. I am confident that she will work with all of us, as elected officials and our constituents to address our complex environmental issues. With Gale Norton and President Bush, we will restore the premise that the public and Congress have a role in the decision making process, especially as it relates to federal land management. Local input and congressional support ensures that sound public policy prevails. I know the new administration will work to protect the environment and restore integrity to the public process. Now that you know who Gale Norton is and what she represents, I hope you too will give her your strong support and vote yes for her confirmation. Again, I thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Ben Campbell for their efforts on Gale Norton's behalf.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I compliment him on a fine job on the floor and in committee on the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior. I also recognize the diligent efforts of my colleague, Senator Ben Campbell of Colorado, in carrying forward, making sure we get a confirmation. I rise today in strong support of President Bush's nomination of Gale Norton to be the next Secretary of the Interior. I have known Gale Norton for years and know her to be an individual with strong personal convictions and the upmost professional integrity. This past month, my colleagues in the Senate and our constituents have had a chance to get to know Gale Norton. During that time they learned that Gale was a member of the law school honor society at the University of Denver; after law school she joined her alma mater as the Interim Director of the Transportation Law program at the University of Denver law school. Gale also worked at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior serving as Associate Solicitor for Conservation and Wildlife. This diverse background gave her a solid foundation to run successfully for Colorado's Attorney General, a position she was overwhelmingly reelected to in 1994. During her 20 years working on environmental and natural resource issues, Gale Norton has gained a solid reputation defending the role of the State, advocating sensible environmental cleanup and solving problems. Now, I know that most western Senators support Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. But for those of my Senate colleagues who still have doubts, let me tell them some more about Gale and her career and why she deserves their support. I am a fifth generation Coloradan, and believe me, I know what it means to represent such a beautiful and diverse State. Gale also grew up in Colorado and she knows that Coloradans take environmental issues seriously. Whether it's a farmer or rancher, small businessman, high tech employee or new immigrant to the state, everyone recognizes and appreciates the connection between our economy and our environment. Colorado is not gaining a 7th congressional seat because our environment has been neglected. If anything, Colorado has demonstrated that there can be a balance between environmental protection and economic prosperity. This balanced approach was utilized during Gale's tenure as Attorney General. Coloradans recognized Gale's ability and qualifications and entrusted her to represent them on complex and diverse issues. As Colorado Attorney General, Gale was committed to enforcing the law. She led efforts to ensure that the federal government cleaned up its hazardous and toxic wastes in Colorado and actively participated in the settlement of complex water rights cases. Gale also testified before Congress on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Superfund and Colorado wilderness legislation. Gale's input on these issues was always based on the premise that we can improve the laws so they protect the environment without imposing unnecessary burdens on society. Contrary to some reports, commenting on the effectiveness of a law does not equate to advocating repeal of the law. We need to set the record straight on some of the outlandish statements radical environmental groups have been generating. Radical environmental groups are trying to tie Gale Norton to the Summitville mine disaster, an event that didn't even happen on her watch. It happened under former Colorado Governor Roy Romer, a Democrat, his head of Department of Natural Resources Ken Salazar, and the attorney general, also a democrat. No one denies the environmental abuses at Summitville, but unfairly trying to link Gale to this is appalling. Even Ken Salazar, who now serves as Colorado's Attorney General believes she should have the opportunity to serve as Secretary of the Interior. During Gale's 8 years as attorney general, she never allowed free reign for polluters to come in and destroy our environment. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial entitled ``Summitville Gold Mine Is Cast As A Political Boogeyman'' by Denver Post columnist and editorial writer Al Knight.