Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my amendment cuts 10 percent of the funding under this bill for programs labeled ``ineffective'' under the OMB--the Office of Management and Budget--PART Program and transfers the funding to an account previously established to pay down the national debt. Now, I do not believe I am being presumptuous when I say that most of us in this body would like to reduce spending. Where to cut is the question we fight over. So that is where the fight exists. Now, given ballooning Federal spending and the Federal debt, this amendment lets us make an easy choice to cut spending. It has to start with programs that cannot even justify their mission or success internally. In case you are unfamiliar with the PART Program in general, let me give you some background. When making funding decisions, Members of Congress should consider what they are buying for the taxpayer. Funded programs should be effective and efficient. So the Program Assessment Rating Tool--that is, PART--was put in place by the Congress more than a decade ago. Agencies have had time to work with this program under the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration. The program directs the agencies to set up measurable goals and objectives, and then the Office of Management and Budget goes in later on and evaluates to see if the agency is actually meeting those goals and objectives. These detailed program assessments and the evidence on which they are based are available to the public to view. All they have to do is go to www.expectmore.gov. That is the Web page you would go to. It is a very good reference for the public, for Members of Congress, or for any agency to know exactly where they stand as far as their performance standards are concerned. These assessments represent the combined wisdom of career officials. This is not a political process. These are objective evaluations done by career officials at agencies and OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, and are based on evidence of that program's performance. Programs assessed with the PART receive an overall rating. The best rating they can get is ``effective,'' then it goes to ``moderately effective,'' ``adequate,'' then it goes to ``results not demonstrated,'' and finally to ``ineffective,'' the lowest rating. This amendment tries to address the lowest rating, which is ``ineffective.'' While a program's overall rating should not be the sole determinant of funding, Congress should prioritize funding programs that perform well. Ineffective programs in particular should be scrutinized to determine whether the resources they use could be better spent elsewhere and whether their goals could be achieved through other means. When determining where to invest resources, Members of Congress can look to the PART Program for important information: No. 1, does the program address an existing problem, interest, or need? Those that do not should not be funded. The other question to be asked: Does the program have performance goals that relate to the outcomes the American people want? Those that do not may not be worthwhile investments of taxpayer dollars. Do independent, rigorous evaluations demonstrate that the program is effective? If not, Congress may want to reconsider whether to fund the program. If evaluations have not been conducted, Congress may want to consider investing some money in an evaluation to determine if the program is having its intended impact. Is the program working to improve its performance is another question we ask. A program that does not have an improvement plan in place or is not working aggressively to improve may not be the best investment of resources. Another question: If an increase in funding is requested for a program, has the program explained how the additional funding will affect its performance? Programs that cannot articulate how they will use their resources simply are not the best candidates for investment. So that is what the PART Program is all about. It is a good program, and it is being implemented more and more throughout the agencies. Some of the PART findings are programs that have been ineffective. I would like to look at a few of those. Take the Health Professions Program, for example. One study found that only 1.5 percent of the physicians trained by institutions receiving the program's family medicine training grant provided health care in areas with a physician shortage, compared to 1.1 percent of physicians trained by other institutions. So there is only a four- tenths of a percent performance difference. So the question comes up: What is the program accomplishing? PART found no evidence that the Radiation and Exposure Screening and Education Program reaches the maximum number of beneficiaries or the beneficiaries who are at the greatest risk. There is not even an estimate of the number of people potentially affected by uranium and nuclear testing activities and where they might live. These are only a few of the programs that have been looked at by the PART Program. They provide the information Members of Congress need to evaluate whether programs are ineffective. Some of these are programs I have supported. I am sure there are programs that are not doing well, and I think we need to take a close look at them. That is all we are asking with this amendment. The amendment before us addresses a portion of discretionary spending. I ask Members to support this amendment as we deal with discretionary spending areas where the PART Program is being applied. The overall purpose of the amendment is to pay down the Federal debt, currently over $9 trillion, and eliminate Government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget PART Program. This is through the career professionals in the agencies. This is not driven by any kind of political agenda. That is what my amendment is all about, saving taxpayer dollars in a responsible way. It is about forcing managers of these programs to put in effective goals and objectives so that they accomplish what the legislation intended when the Congress passed it. I ask my colleagues to join me in trying to bring forward more accountability in the programs we have passed. This is a wonderful tool we have for whatever administration is in control. This is a direct message to the agencies to get their act in order because we are concerned about how taxpayer dollars are being spent. It is not an onerous amendment. It is trying to bring accountability to Government programs we have passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of Trooper Zachariah ``Zach'' Templeton. My wife Joan and I were deeply saddened to hear of the tragic death of Trooper Zachariah Templeton while in the line of duty this past Friday in Adams County, CO, as he tried to help a motorist on Interstate 76. It takes a person of great courage to become an officer of the law. It takes a strong, hardworking, and considerate individual. It takes a special someone who is willing to pay the ultimate price in protecting the safety of others. Trooper Templeton was just this person. And unfortunately, Trooper Zachariah Templeton paid the ultimate price. At age 27, Trooper Zachariah was the 24th Colorado State Patrol trooper who has died in the line of duty. Trooper Jason Lee Manspeaker was the last trooper killed on duty and died in a motor vehicle crash on January 23, 2001, while attempting to locate a vehicle believed to be associated with the ``Texas Seven,'' who were wanted in connection with the death of a Texas police officer. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, more than 17,500 officers have been killed nationwide since 1792, including 238 in Colorado. A native of Colorado, Zach joined the Adams County Sheriff's Office as a detention specialist from May 2002 to July 2003, and then joined the CSP and graduated from the CSP Academy in 2003. According to CSP officials, ``Templeton was best described by fellow troopers and supervisors as an individual with a big heart and willingness to help others. It is that desire to serve which led Templeton to respond to the call of a fellow officer. He served the citizens of Colorado with dignity and honor for four years.'' Zach came from a family steeped in law enforcement tradition. Zach's father is a sergeant with the Adams County Sheriff's Office, and his great-grandfather was once county sheriff. Trooper Zachariah Templeton was a father, brother, and a son. He is survived by daughter Samantha, parents Doug and Teresa Templeton, his brother Levi, and his girlfriend Holly Holsinger. Zach was well liked by his peers and was often very funny and a jokester with his fellow coworkers. The State of Colorado and the Colorado State Patrol has lost a valuable member of its community, and we are all forever grateful for Trooper Zachariah Templeton's service and dedication to the safety and well-being of others. His service to all of us is highly commendable, and his contributions will be remembered. I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Trooper Zachariah Templeton. May his bravery and unwavering sense of duty serve as a role model for the future generation of law enforcement officers. Thank you for your service, Trooper Templeton. Rest in peace, Sir. End of watch: Friday, October 12, 2007.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about a program that is important to me and to the low-income children in this country: the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and want the program to cover all uninsured, lower income children. I fully support a reauthorization of this program, but I also support the President's decision to veto the flawed SCHIP bill sent to him by Congress. The SCHIP legislation that was vetoed by the President yesterday includes frivolous spending, expands coverage to children already covered by private insurance and neglects the original intent of the program--to provide health coverage for low-income children. While I support the reauthorization of SCHIP, I do not support legislation that expands the program and serves as an initial step towards government- run health care. The State Children's Health Insurance Program works! It has enrolled low-income eligible children in a health coverage program to ensure that they have adequate access to coverage and services. While the program is certainly a success, there are some oversights that need to be addressed. Congress has been given the opportunity to tackle these issues with the reauthorization of the program. In Colorado we have yet to enroll all of the currently eligible children of low-income families into the SCHIP program. We should focus our attention on enrolling these children instead of fighting over an expansion of the program. Expanding eligibility requirements would only make it harder for the neediest children in Colorado, and the Nation, to receive coverage. I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and want the program to cover all uninsured, lower income children. I support giving Americans the opportunity to access health care, and giving them the ability to purchase affordable suitable private coverage. I support the effort by many Members of this body to spend in a fiscally responsible way, without increasing taxes or using budget gimmicks. More importantly, I support putting children first. The State Children's Health Insurance Program was put in place to cover low-income children who would otherwise not have access to health coverage. The SCHIP agreement that passed the House and Senate not only disregards the original intent of the program, but also reauthorizes the program in a fiscally irresponsible manner that will end up costing the taxpayers $12.5 billion in the final year of the authorization. For example, the revenue source for the reauthorization is being sold as a tax increase on cigarettes which is expected to reduce the number of people smoking, but this is an unstable revenue source. I don't agree with paying for a program as important as the State Children's Health Insurance Program with an unsustainable income. The State Children's Health Insurance Program can be reauthorized in a way that increases the number of enrolled children who are currently eligible for the program. While I oppose the expansion of the program, I do not oppose reauthorization and therefore I am cosponsoring the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, S. 2086, which will fully fund the current program for 18 months, and give Congress more time to discuss the best way to reauthorize the program. SCHIP was scheduled to expire on September 30 and it is imperative that Congress reauthorize the current program to ensure that children of lower income families still receive health coverage. I will also be cosponsoring the Kids First Act, as an alternative proposal for the reauthorization of the SCHIP program.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to speak in favor of the Kyl amendment, but I do not want to step in front of the speaking order. I wonder what the speaking order might be?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think the Senator from North Dakota was here before me. I ask the Senator, does he want to speak?

Mr. ALLARD. No. I say to the Senator, go ahead and speak. Then I will follow.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request 10 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my good friend from Arizona to restore funding to the Missile Defense Agency's space test bed program. The committee currently provides no funding to the program in this bill. Cutting this program will eliminate the ability to identify alternative architectural options for the space-based missile defense layer that sets the stage for any and all subsequent experimentations and demonstrations. I do not think this issue is as simple as my colleague from North Dakota mentioned. I think that no matter what we do, our adversaries will continue to try to figure out ways to disable our space capabilities. If we do not watch it, we are going to find ourselves on the short end. I do not think it speaks well for the future of this country. Think of the assets we have in space. It is not all related to missile defense. Think of our telecommunications systems, our telephone systems. Think of our systems where we are doing mapping from out in space, for example. The fact is, this country is building more and more of its infrastructure on the concept of some sort of interaction with assets in space. We need to be prepared to defend those assets. This is not something we can deal with at the last minute. We need to be thinking: Where are our vulnerabilities going to be 15, 20 years down the road? Because you just cannot click your fingers and decide you are going to have all the technology there and the assets you need. We need to prepare today to begin to think about our vulnerabilities and prepare for those potential risks we may be faced with in the future. I do not think we can ignore the fact that China set up a missile and destroyed a satellite in space. What do you think the message is there? That is happening no matter what we do. We have a lot of assets in space, some of it is defense related, some of it is not. But it is this test bed that will help us develop the technology that will allow us to protect those vital assets we have. Essentially, by rejecting this amendment, we would be choosing to cut the legs out from underneath the program of missile defense and delaying the possibilities of reaching future missile defense superiority. But I think it is more than that. Cutting off funding to the space test bed now is the first step of a new direction for MDA that moves away from exploring the future interceptions in space. Supporting Senator Kyl's amendment to restore the program at $10 million is not an unending commitment to achieving a space-based missile defense system, but it allows a study of concepts and integrated technologies that will someday, perhaps, enable a greater space-based layer in the ballistic missile defense system. But it is more than just that; it is protecting our other space systems and continuing to refine and develop those capabilities. Without funding our space programs, I think we are limiting our future national security options and we are putting our assets in space at risk. On a broader scale, I am concerned that the rejection of this amendment would serve as a precedent in future years to provide further cuts to missile defense programs. Obviously, we are no longer involved in the Cold War, which prompted the creation of our missile defense programs, but we now face new threats from enemies who are anxious for our demise. As we all know, last July, I will reiterate, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile that they had hoped could reach the United States. Iran is also testing ICBMs and is projected to have the ability to reach continental Europe and potentially the United States by 2015. Certainly, I do not need to reiterate the comments Iran's President directed at our Nation and Israel. The Space Test Bed is a study for technology that could protect us in the future, and a space-based system that protects our satellites and our space assets, and it enables us to have that protection. Cutting off funding for this study and ignoring this future threat is simply irresponsible, in my mind. General Obering, regarding last week's missile test, asked the question: Does the system work? The answer is yes to that. General Obering also said: Is it going to work against more complex threats in the future? We believe it will. That is his opinion. I think we have more to be concerned about than just missile defense. Obviously, I am a strong proponent of that and everybody knows where I come from and how essential I think that is to protecting this country and assuring the security of this country in future years. But even more important, we have to be working on this technology to protect our other space assets that we have flying around up in the sky that are helping us with telecommunications, helping us with the GPS, which we have become more and more reliant on, and other infrastructure that we have been developing. So I hope the rest of the Senators will join me in supporting the Kyl amendment. I don't think we can continue to ignore the threat to our assets in outer space, and that is why I rise to support the Kyl amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3146 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my amendment designates $5 million, the amount requested by the Pentagon, for the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a facility within the Missile Defense Integration Operations Center, on Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO. This amendment is sponsored by myself and Senator Salazar. This concludes my comments to this particular point. I thank the chair and the ranking member for allowing me to make this amendment pending before the Senate. Yesterday I explained in full the details of this amendment.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President: I want to speak at this point with Senators Inouye and Stevens on the amendment offered by Senator Salazar and myself designating $5 million--the amount requested by the Pentagon and previously approved by the House--for the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a facility within the Missile Defense Integration and Operations Center on Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO. May I ask, are the chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee aware of the potentially valuable work proposed for this center?

Mr. ALLARD. Exactly. We hear frequent mention on this floor about the other, non-Iraq dangers facing this country, and our national missile defense system is designed to deal with some of the most worrisome of those threats--an accidental or rogue nation launch of ballistic nuclear weapons against our country. I am sure the chairman and ranking member agree on the value of this system, and that a system as technologically complex as this one requires constant analysis, demonstration, and integration?

Mr. ALLARD. I further, then, suggest that the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center fulfills this role, and also supports advanced technology and algorithm development, and other mission areas such as space situation awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space characterization. The MDSEC facility buildout began in fiscal year 2006 and continued through fiscal year 2007 under the STSS program. As the MDSEC supports multiple satellite operations and experiments, the fiscal year 2008 request of $5 million is contained within the MDA Space Program Element. The MDSEC provides the Missile Defense Agency a common support infrastructure and connectivity to the BMDS for the two satellites to be launched in 2008. It will also integrate space data in support of the missile defense mission such as ongoing experiments using Defense Support Program data for missile defense, planned experiments with data from MDA and other defense and national security systems. MDSEC further supports mission integration of space-based missile track--boost and midcourse phases--sensor and weapons cueing via C2BMC, features and discrimination, kill and impact point assessments into C2BMC, Aegis, terminal high altitude area defense--THAAD--global missile defense-- GMD--and other non-MDA mission areas to include space situation awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space characterization. I believe the mission and task for the MDSEC require our support and I urge the distinguished chairman and ranking member of this committee to give their full support to this program.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank you both.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on my amendment, designating $5 million--the amount requested by the Pentagon--for the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a facility within the Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center on Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO. The Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center supports research and development, agency operations, test and evaluations and operations and training for missile defense capabilities. It provides the Missile Defense Agency a common support infrastructure and connectivity for operating MDA experimental satellites, and integrating space data in support of the missile defense mission. The MDSEC provides a multilevel security environment for sensor data management and integration across all space and terrestrial sensor data activities. MDSEC activities support analysis, demonstration and integration of space sensor capabilities into developmental and operational MDA Elements. MDSEC also supports advanced technology and algorithm development, including fusion of multiple sensor types--radar, overhead nonimaging infrared, electro-optical and other emerging sensor technologies. MDSEC supports mission integration of space-based missile track--boost and midcourse phases--sensor and weapons cueing via C2BMC, features and discrimination, kill and impact point assessments into C2BMC, Aegis, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense--THAAD--Global Missile Defense--GMD--and other--non-MDA--mission areas such as space situation awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space characterization. For Fiscal Year 2008, the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center will: Demonstrate connectivity and integration of space layer data into X-lab, BMDS elements, and external users; demonstrate capability to access, share, and playback data across stakeholder programs--MDSEC Interchange System; provide synergy for testing, experiments, integration and algorithm development-- Integration Lab; demonstrate capability to support and integrate across multiple security environments/domains; demonstrate space-layer data support to non-BMDS Missions--external users; demonstrate integrated birth-to-death tracking and fusion across existing, R&D and future BMDS sensors; support space-based sensors data collections and algorithm testing experiments; complete MDSEC Interchange System--MIS: Test prototype MIS operating system and host MIS hardware suite. I believe the mission and task for the MDSEC require our support and I urge passage of this amendment. Mr. President, in regards to my amendment designating $5 million to support research and development, agency operations, test and evaluations and operations and training for missile defense capabilities at the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a facility within the Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center on Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO, neither I nor anyone in my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the center or its operations. Amendment No. 3140

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize my friend and fellow Coloradan Jim Nicholson. Although it is with sadness that his resignation takes effect this week, I would like to take this time to commend him for his service as the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jim is a veteran's veteran. As a West Point graduate, Army Ranger, highly decorated Vietnam war veteran, and 4 years of service as the ambassador to the Holy See, Jim was well prepared and highly qualified for the duties as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Jim was nominated by President Bush to serve as Secretary in December of 2004 and was subsequently confirmed unanimously by the Senate. The confidence bestowed upon Jim Nicholson by the President and all of those who gather here speaks to his unassailable ability to assist our veterans. Sworn into office on February 1, 2004, Jim readily assumed his role as the primary advocate for veterans. Jim accepted control of the VA at an extremely difficult time and has proven himself to be the right man for the job. He was asked to serve his country in a new capacity and brought with him a great sense of honor and duty. In this time of war, Jim has worked tirelessly to ensure that the VA meet the current needs of those veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Although there is great urgency in caring for our recently wounded service men and women, Jim has also understood the crucial need to continue to provide the utmost care for our veterans and warriors of past generations. Under his leadership, the VA has earned higher marks for medical services than the private health care industry for customer satisfaction, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, for the seventh consecutive year. He has helped to give all our veterans the care they deserve, as they have sacrificed so much for all of us. I have personally worked with Jim for years. I would especially like to thank him for the instrumental role he played in reinvigorating the construction of a new VA hospital in Aurora on the Fitzsimons campus. Without his support, this project would not have progressed to the point it is at today. This hospital will prove to be a great asset for our veterans in Colorado, and Secretary Nicholson should be commended for his efforts. As we celebrate the service of Secretary Nicholson, I had also like to take this opportunity to thank his family, notably his wife Suzanne, whose endless support is undoubtedly valued and is greatly appreciated. Jim Nicholson has served this country with honor and valor in many capacities. I will certainly miss Secretary Nicholson, and wish him and his family the best of luck in the future. I thank him for his exceptional service on behalf of all our veterans.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize our Nation's first responders. I, along with Senators McCain and Casey, introduced S. Res. 215 recognizing today, September 25, 2007, as National First Responders Appreciation Day. The Senate acted quickly and passed this resolution by unanimous consent with a total of 33 cosponsors. The contributions that our Nation's 1.1 million firefighters, 670,000 police officers, and over 890,000 emergency medical professionals make in our communities are familiar to all of us. We see the results of their efforts every night on our TV screens and read about them every day in the paper. From recent tornadoes in the Southeast and wildfires in the West in 2007, and the Christmas blizzard in Colorado in 2006, to the tragic events of Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, Platte Canyon High School, and the wrath of Hurricane Katrina, our first responders regularly risk their lives to protect property, uphold the law, and save the lives of others. Nationwide, many of our first responders take the call on a daily basis and are exposed to life-threatening situations. While performing their jobs, many first responders have made the ultimate sacrifice. According to Craig Floyd, Chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a total of 1,649 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years; an average of 1 death every 53 hours, or 165 per year, and 145 law enforcement officers were killed in 2006. In addition, according to the United States Fire Administration, from 1996 through 2005, over 1,500 firefighters were killed in the line of duty, and tens of thousands were injured. It is also important to note that four in five medics are injured on the job. More than one in two, about 50 percent, have been assaulted by patients, and one in two, 50 percent, have been exposed to an infectious disease, and emergency medical service personnel in the U.S. have an estimated fatality rate of 12.7 per 100,000 workers, more than twice the national average, and most emergency medical service personnel deaths in the line of duty occur in ambulance accidents. Yet to recognize our first responders only for their sacrifices would be to ignore the everyday contributions they make in communities throughout America. In addition to battling fires, firefighters perform important fire prevention and public education duties such as teaching our children how to be fire safe. Police officers do not simply arrest criminals; they actively prevent crime and make our neighborhoods safer and more livable. And if we or our loved ones experience a medical emergency, EMTs are there at a moment's notice to provide lifesaving care. Last Saturday, I hosted a first responder appreciation day in northern Colorado and was overwhelmed by the support shown to our first responders by the public. Farmers, ranchers, small business owners and members of the community alike thanked their firefighters, paramedics, sheriffs, deputies, and police officers for being there at a moment's notice to lend a hand while putting their own safety at risk. As a practicing veterinarian and a former health officer in Loveland, Colorado, I can attest to the numerous times I called on first responders to help me get through a situation. In many ways our first responders embody the very best of the American spirit. With charity and compassion, those brave men and women regularly put the well-being of others before their own, oftentimes at great personal risk. Through their actions they have become heroes to many. Through their example they are role models to all of us. To all of our first responders, thank you for your service. I ask my colleagues to please join me today in recognizing September 25 as National First Responder Appreciation Day as we honor first responders for their contributions, sacrifices, and dedication to public service. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to speak on an issue that is weighing on the minds of many Members of this body, employees of the Federal Government, and patients in the United States. Many people working for the FDA are faced with the possibility of receiving a reduction in force notice if new user fee legislation is not passed quickly. The FDA needs the necessary resources so that they may approve drug applications within a timely manner. Being able to access new drugs can allow patients to live fuller lives, and in some cases, save them from death. I am frustrated by what I have seen as a desire to have a partisan debate on an issue of liability. We have been working for some time now on a bipartisan level to ensure that we have a bill passed by Friday. We should not be throwing partisan politics into the debate during the 11th hour. Because I am committed to working on a bipartisan level, I continue to hope that we will have legislation passed to ensure that patients can get the drugs that they desperately need. Some believe that the Senate position on liability may have favored the pharmaceutical companies. However, I am of the opinion that the House position favored the trial lawyers. Should we make any changes we should also ensure that any labeling change authority would not provide for an opportunity for partiality by the courts. I strongly believe that every individual should be allowed to argue equally for their particular case in court. Currently the FDA regulation allows for labeling changes by accepting submissions from companies, and the company may make a label change. This is referred to as ``changes being effected'' or CBEs. A company also has the opportunity to discuss the change with the FDA before making a label change, since the regulations have a particular bound on what sort of changes can and cannot be made under this regulation. The current authority may not be adequate to deal with all cases in which a labeling change may be necessary. An example that is referenced frequently deals with a Vioxx label change in which FDA had been talking to the company for 18 months. This situation has led to many pending suits related to Merck's ``failure to warn'' people that the drug had some potential side effects. In the user fee reauthorizations this year both the House and Senate decided to give FDA the authority to do an expedited labeling change provision. In addition to this new authority, the House and Senate language included provisions that made it clear that the ``changes being effected,'' CBE, regulations should still stand. However, the House and Senate took different stances as to how that additional information or regulatory option should play out in court. The Senate-passed language, which was done on a bipartisan level, would have established a new labeling change process. This language would have also implied that if a company was already in discussions with the FDA about the labeling issue, and attempting to determine if the labeling change was necessary, then a future lawsuit would have to argue how the company was acting in an improper way. In this situation, the FDA regulation would have ``occupied the field'' with respect to liability for failure to warn. The House-passed language would have the opposite effect. Essentially a company would not be able to use the argument that they were in the midst of discussion with the FDA as a defense. In my mind, the House language is a huge boon to trial lawyers. It also makes it harder for companies that are working in the best interest of the patient to prove that they are doing so. I have long been a supporter of reducing the opportunity for frivolous lawsuits, and in my mind the House language increases this. I would even be happy dropping both the House and Senate language regarding liability. This would leave a situation in which either side would be on an equal playing field to argue a case on failure to warn. This situation would allow suits to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Congress would not be weighing in one way or the other. The legislation that is expected to pass uses the House language on liability. It provides a source for bias in the courts and opens the floodgates for frivolous lawsuits. This is a definite boon for trial lawyers. As with many other instances in which Congress has addressed the demands of trial lawyers, I am not willing to risk the livelihood of the employees at the FDA or the health of my constituents who rely on the drug applications approved by the FDA. I will not hold up the legislation, but I wanted to take this opportunity to express my dismay at the partisan way that the liability issue was addressed.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, children and animals are the most vulnerable of our Nation's population, as they do not have a voice of their own. Organizations which aid animals or children are very important in creating and maintaining a humane, safe and just society. That is why I rise today to honor and praise the American Humane Association on the occasion of its 130th anniversary. The American Humane Association is unique in America in that it is not only the oldest but the only national organization with the dual mission of protecting both animals and children. As a true American icon of humanity, the American Humane Association has been the voice of the most vulnerable both animals and children--for each and every one of its 13 decades of existence. American Humane was formed on October 9, 1877, with the vital mission of protecting both children and animals from abuse, neglect, cruelty and exploitation. Over those years covering much of two centuries, American Humane has actively and successfully promoted humane values and education, built significant public awareness and understanding, and has developed programs and processes that effectively protect both children and animals. It has been a leader in advancing humanity in this Nation and has been a model for the rest of the world to see and emulate. Among numerous other initiatives, American Humane, based in Denver, CO, originated such programs as ``Be Kind to Animals Week,'' and ``Tag Day,'' to educate the public on the need to treat animals humanely and to adequately identify their animals. American Humane is the only organization to monitor and certify the making of movies to ensure ``No Animals Were Harmed.'' The organization also created ``The Front Porch Project,'' an initiative to educate communities on how to protect children from abuse, and it was the world's first organization to identify ``The Link'' between animal abuse and human violence. I am grateful for American Humane's continuing good work in advancing humanity on a national scale. The United States of America is greatly enriched by the ongoing work of American Humane Association, and I congratulate the Association on this significant historical milestone.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I commemorate the fifth anniversary of U.S. Northern Command, located in Colorado Springs, CO. I take enormous pride in seeing the Colorado flag fly alongside the flags of the United States and Canada. Officially, USNORTHCOM was established on October 1, 2002. However, it was the terrible events of September 11, 2001, that made the country realize its need for increased homeland defense. Within 13 months of 9/ 11, USNORTHCOM stood up as the combatant command charged with defending the homeland and providing military assistance to civil authorities. Five years later, USNORTHCOM is proudly executing its missions of Homeland Defense and civil support operations to defend, protect, and secure the United States and its interests. Since 9/11, our Nation has been engaged in a fight against terrorism on multiple fronts, including our homeland. As USNORTHCOM enters its fifth year, they are fully mission capable, prepared and ready to respond to the broad spectrum of homeland defense challenges that exist in today's dynamic security environment. USNORTHCOM is actively deterring threats from crossing our borders by closely working with other combatant commands, intelligence agencies and interagency partners to detect and defeat threats before they arrive in our homeland. When it comes to rendering assistance to civil authorities, U.S. Northern Command is prepared to help. By anticipating threats, ranging from natural disasters to man-made, the command provides Department of Defense capabilities in a timely and coordinated fashion. Facilitated by Defense coordinating officers attached to every FEMA region, USNORTHCOM works side by side with its interagency partners to support the States and their emergency response teams when requested. In its 5 short years of existence, USNORTHCOM has effectively responded to several catastrophes. They have been absolutely essential to saving lives while mitigating the suffering and losses experienced. USNORTHCOM understands the multi-agency approach to defending our homeland and providing support to civil authorities. Therefore, it places a high priority on building and strengthening relationships with the States, territories, other government and nongovernment agencies, as well as partnering with our border nations, Canada and Mexico. USNORTHCOM is also actively engaged with the National Guard, and serves as the combatant command advocate to provide the Guard with the tools and resources necessary to accomplish their mission. A committed, lasting partnership between U.S. Northern Command and the National Guard will strengthen our national defense and defy those attempting to sabotage our way of life. Let me also recognize the unsung heroes of this command, the men and women of U.S. Northern Command. They are synonymous with homeland defense; they are a total force team of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guardsmen from the active and Reserve Components of our military. The men and women of USNORTHCOM clearly understand the importance of their mission and carry out their responsibilities with a sense of urgency. Their pride in contributing to the defense of our great Nation is evident in every aspect of their operations. To the men and women of U.S. Northern Command, I stand today to say: Thank you for your dedication and service to the United States of America. On the occasion of your fifth anniversary, I congratulate you for a job well done.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to make sure we don't have Republican colleagues who have a need to speak further in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD. Very good. I have no objection.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this issue boils down to just a few important points. First and foremost, denying the Army the opportunity to explore expansion efforts at a time when the Army is facing a training land shortfall is not in our national security interests. Second, this amendment will tie the hands of the Army. The language is so restrictive that it will prevent them from providing information, handouts, or holding community meetings to find common ground for conducting an environmental impact statement which will be important to the decisionmaking process. Last, we do need to remember that property rights should be protected, and we are doing that through other amendments which the Army supports.