Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Would the Senator further support asking Secretary Glickman to report back this next year on ways in which USDA might lower the inspection fees to help strengthen the U.S. bison industry.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am speaking in support of an amendment to address a problem facing small reliever airports that do not accept scheduled service operations. Centennial Airport is a small reliever airport near Denver, Colorado, where operations consist primarily of small private chartered and business planes. A unique situation exists at Centennial Airport involving certain charter services and a loophole in the federal regulations governing scheduled flights. Centennial Airport is not certificated for scheduled flight service. In fact, the Airport Authority, with strong local backing, has banned scheduled service at Centennial. According to federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration cannot force any airport to become certificated. The airport is not equipped with a terminal, baggage system, or passenger security. Furthermore, Denver International Airport is less than 25 miles from Centennial, and has the capacity to handle additional scheduled service operations. A situation arose more than three years ago when a company called Centennial Express Airlines, Inc. began charter service at Centennial, but immediately announced that the airline's service would continue as scheduled service. The Airport Authority sued and the County District Court ordered the flights stopped. In April of this year the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Centennial Airport Authority's ban. The Court cited the safe operation of the airport as a priority, and upheld the airport's discretion to prohibit scheduled passenger service. While this decision protected the airport's right to refuse scheduled service, a similar situation recently arose with another company, Colorado Connection Executive Air Services, and the result has been detrimental for Centennial Airport. In 1997, Colorado Connection proposed to start public charter passenger service pursuant to a regular and public schedule. Colorado Connection, which is entirely owned by Air One Charter, tried using a combination of Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration exemptions to offer scheduled service. Air One Charter indicated intent to market 6-12 daily flights to various Colorado cities and to contract baggage services for their flights. The Centennial Airport Authority unanimously voted to deny airport access to Colorado Connection's scheduled service. The vote took place in April 1998 and a month later the FAA initiated a Part 16 investigation. The FAA claims that the Airport Authority's move to deny service is unjustly discriminatory. Recently, the FAA issued a decision to pull federal funding for Centennial Airport if the ban on scheduled service is not lifted. This decision is in direct conflict with the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the issue. It is the result of a loophole in a law that was not intended to force small airports to take on the responsibility and burden of supporting scheduled service. Immediately following the announcement of the FAA's decision, the owner of Centennial Express was reported by the Denver Post to have plans to begin scheduled flights from Centennial Airport. I have proposed legislation to rectify this situation and uphold the authority of airports like Centennial to ban all scheduled service if they choose to do so. This proposal allows a general aviation airport to deny access to a public charter operator that operates as a scheduled service, and clarifies that such action would not be in violation of requirements for federal airport aid. This will not require any airport to do anything, and it will not allow an airport to discriminate against one scheduled service operator and not another. This measure, which is included in the manager's amendment, is nearly identical to language that the House Commerce Committee has included in its FAA Reauthorization Act. It would prohibit the FAA from charging discrimination if an airport chooses to deny access to scheduled service operators. It will only apply to reliever airports that are not certificated under Part 139 to handle scheduled service and airports within 35 miles of a large hub airport. I appreciate my colleagues' support for the rights of small airport authorities and surrounding communities to retain control over their airports. Banning Commercial Tour Overflights at Rocky Mountain National Park Mr. President, I begin by thanking Chairman McCain and the other Committee members for their efforts to mitigate the problems presented by scenic overflights at national parks. Tour overflight disturbances are a growing problem at a number of parks. This is an issue that I have been involved in for the last four years, and I recognize that other Members of Congress have tried to address this issue. While I support the plan put forth by the Committee, I am offering an amendment to modify the overflights bill to address a specific Colorado issue. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work with me on this problem. In particular, I am concerned that helicopter sightseeing tours at Rocky Mountain National Park would seriously detract from the enjoyment of other park visitors and would have a negative impact on the resources and values of the park itself, and I worry about the serious safety risks involved with overflights in this area. Rocky Mountain National Park is a relatively small park in the Rockies, about 70 miles from Denver. The park receives nearly three million visitors each year, almost as many as Yellowstone national park, which is eight times its size. The park is easily accessible, yet continues to provide quiet, solitude, and remoteness to visitors, especially in the back country. Trail Ridge road provides a unique experience for visitors that are not able to hike in the park. It is the highest paved highway in the United States, and crosses the park from east to west. Spectacular views of peaks and valleys can be seen from the road and nearby overlooks in every direction, similar to what you could see during a helicopter tour. Trail Ridge Road reaches above the timber line and travels for 4 miles above 12,000 feet and for 11 miles above 11,000 feet. Several problems are specific to this mountainous national park. The elevation of the Park does not allow for a large minimum altitude to minimize noise, therefore, according to the National Park Service, natural quiet is unlikely if overflights are permitted at all. The terrain, consisting of many 13,000 foot peaks and narrow valleys, coupled with unpredictable weather presents serious safety concerns. Also, the unique terrain of Rocky Mountain National Park would cause air traffic to cumulate over the popular, lower portions of the park as pilots are forced to navigate around the dangerous peaks and high winds. Not only would the overflights be concentrated directly over the most popular portions of the park, but more powerful, and louder, helicopters must be used to achieve the necessary lift at a high altitude. Rocky Mountain National Park has been fortunate enough to be free from overflights to this point, partially because local towns have discouraged companies that might provide such services. Last year the FAA issued a temporary ban on sightseeing flights over Rocky Mountain National Park. In light of these distinctive qualities, one can assess that the best solution to overflight disturbance is a ban on commercial tour flights at Rocky Mountain National Park. My proposed ban will apply to commercial tour overflights only, with exceptions granted for emergency flights and commercial airlines and private planes. Both the senior Senator from Colorado and I are strongly behind this effort to permanently ban overflights at the park. A ban would be completely consistent with the recommendations of the overflights task force. There has been public involvement and preparation of an air tour management plan. There is no need to repeat the steps required under this legislative proposal at Rocky Mountain National Park. A commercial tour overflight ban has wide spread support throughout my state. State and local officials in areas adjacent to the park strongly support a ban on overflights. In fact, local ordinances already exist to protect the quiet at the Park. The entire Colorado delegation and Colorado's Governor are on record in support of an overflight ban. My proposal is supported by the business community, including the local Chambers of Commerce, as well as the local environmental community. In 1995, one of our top Denver newspapers editorialized that the FAA should make Rocky Mountain National Park off-limits to low-flying aircraft use, ``the sooner the better.'' Now, three years later, we have finally taken the opportunity to place a permanent restriction on scenic overflights.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise with good news about Americans on welfare. It is clear that the hard labor we put forth during the 104th Congress to enact welfare reform has been paying off with big returns. The system so many had grown to use as a crutch and a burden to self-sufficiency for 62 years was finally removed in July of 1997. States are now showing that Americans can achieve financial independence when given the right tools. I thought it would be of benefit for the Members of the Senate to hear a review about Colorado's experience with changing the welfare program. In 1982, I was elected to the State Senate of Colorado and found that one of the first issues I was involved in was the idea that we needed to change welfare. I was approached by one of the counties I represented at the time that had a very frustrating problem. They saw their budget escalating out of control, and there was not anything they could do about it. So they said to the Colorado legislature at the time, and they said to me also, ``Look, if you will give us some local control, we have some ideas on how we can change the welfare system to make it better and save the taxpayer dollars and actually get people to work and be self-sufficient.'' They had two phases that they wanted to go through. First of all, they wanted to go through a reorganization of their county government. They wanted to consolidate those agencies that dealt with employment and welfare. And they wanted to put these agencies together and under the guidance of one individual. They happened to select Walt Speckman at the time who was in charge of finding jobs for people in Weld County. This was the county that had come to me and was trying to do something about reforming their welfare system. They were putting him in charge because he was used to looking for jobs instead of putting people in a position where they were becoming put in a position to rely on government. This individual was used to getting them off of government and getting them into a self-sufficient program. And having been prepared to do that type of reorganization, they had to come to the State legislature to get some legislation passed. And I was involved in that. Another part of that process was that they had to go to the Federal Government and they had to get a waiver in order to be able to waive some Federal laws and regulations that were being applied to the State of Colorado as well as the county. As a result of that legislation--which we passed in a Republican legislature, by the way, from both the House and the Senate, and which was reluctantly signed by a Democratic Governor of the State of Colorado--we began to put the program in place. And as it moved along, we found that it was beginning to move people off of welfare into the workplace. It was working in this county at a time when there was a large amount of unemployment because one of the major employers in Weld County at that time had found it necessary--they were in a labor dispute, so they found it necessary to close their large plant. We also recognized in this program that we needed to provide some day-care services for many of the women who were on welfare. Most of the people in Colorado who were on welfare were young women who had children. We had to provide educational opportunities for them as well. This experience in Colorado gave us an example, those of us who were serving in the Congress at that time. After I left the Senate in the State of Colorado, then in 1990 I got elected to the House of Representatives, and it gave me a good example to point to my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives about how welfare reform could work if managed properly. And my colleague at that time was Senator Hank Brown from Colorado, who was from Weld County and also worked hard on welfare reform as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate. When I had the opportunity, as a Member of the House of Representatives, to work on welfare reform, I was thrilled because I could see what could happen if you would just turn the responsibility over to the States. If that State, in turn, would turn the responsibility over to the county, miracles could happen. And that is exactly the type of thing that I proposed in the 1994 election when the Republicans were putting forward the Contract With America. I had a good deal to do with putting in a lot of the provisions that were in the Contract With America on welfare reform because I could point to the experience in Weld County and the experience of Colorado and the tremendous success that happened out of that program. So I was absolutely delighted to see that the Republican Congress was beginning to adopt that idea. Finally, as I mentioned in my opening comments, in 1997 it was a Republican Congress, with a Republican Senate and Republican House, that finally had a reluctant President who was willing to sign some legislation on welfare reform. And it is working. The Johnson era and the decades following this taught us that the availability of Government welfare only feeds poverty, digging a deeper hole for those who grow to depend on it. By returning power to the States and giving them the flexibility to design and administer welfare programs tailored to the needs of their citizens, Americans are seeing the fruits of liberating the public from welfare dependence. Some skeptics would say our strong economy and low unemployment are responsible for the decline in welfare cases, but they forget that the flourishing economy of the 1980s barely put a dent in the welfare rolls. It is clear that our new laws are working. From January 1993 to March 1998, the number of welfare recipients in the Nation declined by 5.2 million, or 37 percent, from 14.1 million individuals in 1993 to 8.9 million in 1998. Since welfare reform was enacted in August of 1996, the number of recipients has declined by 3.3 million individuals, which is 27 percent, while the number of families on welfare has declined by 1.2 million, also 27 percent, since welfare reform was enacted. I am proud to say that Colorado continues to be one of the front runners in the progress of welfare reform. Colorado is the only State which has block-granted all welfare funds directly to the counties. Since 1995, Colorado's caseload has declined by nearly 50 percent. I have a number of other examples that I will point out to my colleagues in the Senate on the success of the Colorado program. Each county in my state has been experimenting with various programs which comply with the Colorado state law. Our law requires that an ``individual responsibility contract'' be signed by each of the 32,000 welfare recipients in Colorado. The contract describes each recipients program for obtaining a job. What makes Colorado's program work is the local flexibility and control handed to counties to carry out the new laws. In addition, counties have used their leverage power through their contracting and procurement activities to help create more jobs in the private sector. Counties in Colorado tell me they had to re-think their purpose in distributing welfare. Now, they see their role defined more by encouraging recipients to make a commitment to immediate work and imposing a shorter time limit for cutting off those who don't cooperate with this commitment. They are accomplishing this by reeducating recipients, creating new incentives to get off welfare, and contracting out job training. Since implementation of ``Colorado Works,'' our new version of the former Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, welfare cases dropped 28 percent in just one year. Several counties in Colorado have shown remarkable progress: El Paso County has renamed its welfare office the ``Family Independence Center'' and has moved into the same building that houses Goodwill Industries. They have developed a philosophy of empowerment of participants to care for their own families and seek employment as soon as possible, not as a last step in the self-sufficiency process. Boulder County has taken new strides in implementing reform. In July of 1997, they had 715 cases. At the end of June 1998, the caseload was 562. 257 people were placed in jobs. The average wage of the former recipients was $7.82 an hour. Three of those former welfare recipients have found permanent jobs with Boulder County's own employment and training center. Mesa County has gone even further with a reduction of 40 percent in their welfare rolls. They tell me it's working because the county commissioners and social services staff have remained committed to getting people off welfare and into jobs. Plus, businesses and human services agencies in the county have pitched in to help find jobs for former welfare recipients. In several Colorado counties, the leading civic organization in welfare-reform efforts is the Chamber of Commerce. Communities are pulling together resources to help new reforms become a success. Colorado welfare cases have continued to drop since June of this year to an all-time low of 17,990 cases in the month of August. That is 10,000 fewer welfare cases than we had in 1983--15 years ago. But on top of that, this phenomenon has been taking place while population in Colorado has been increasing. According to the Census Bureau, our population has increased 13 percent from 1990 to 1995. Although caseload reduction is not the only measure for success in this area, the fact that we have reduced our welfare reform by more than 50 percent in just the last five years is worth talking about. Caseworkers in my state applaud this work-first model. They stress that there has been a large increase in child care utilization and expenditures--yet another sign that Colorado residents are being put to work. Since July, 1997, statewide child care expenditures have increased from $3 million to $6 million per month. Also, the number of families receiving child care assistance increased from 8,200 to 12,600 per month during the same period. But I think more than anything else, we should acknowledge that there is a clear-cut change in society's opinion about behavior we once just accepted. It's no longer acceptable for large chunks of our tax dollars to serve as a permanent wage to those who choose to lean on welfare. People are not helpless, as the welfare state has told them. In fact, predictions that we would see a massive increase in the homeless population have not come true. Instead, we see now that for years, our laws underestimated the abilities of welfare recipients to work and care for their own families by earning their own money. Mr. President, changing the work ethic of the welfare community is not a simple process, but the results so far are impressive. The state and local governments are proving that they can accomplish this goal when we give them the latitude to do so. I'm proud to have been a part of this historical policy change.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Idaho for yielding to me to make a few comments.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, I am rising in support of Senate bill 1981, the Truth in Employment Act. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas that we do protect the right of employees to organize under the National Labor Relations Act. The problem is that we have small businesses out here that are being harassed and their businesses are being disrupted. I want to take a minute to explain to you or relate an incident that happened in Denver, CO. It is a real life story of what happened. This businessman, who happened to be an electrical contractor, saw a van pull up in front of his business. Seven union organizers jumped out of the van, ran into his office, and they applied for a job with the business. They had their videotape running. When all was said and done, he hired some of them and put them to work. When all was said and done, when all the harassment was done, and all of the later procedure and everything, there was a considerable amount of cost to the company in management time as well as actual dollars. It ended up that there were approximately 19 frivolous and sometimes false charges with the National Labor Relations Board. Each one of those charges was eventually dropped. However, the company had already dedicated 500 management hours to deal with problems created by these salting workers and suffered financial losses of more than $1 million. This is not workers' rights, this is going out and harassing your competition. It is going out and disrupting another company that is trying to compete in the fair marketplace. It doesn't have anything to do with jobs. What it ends up doing is costing the consumer. You and I, as consumers of electricity, will have to pay more electrical rates because of this type of activity that increases the cost of providing the services that consumers end up utilizing. I think this is a good bill. I am rising in support of it. I urge my colleagues to support this. I think my colleague from Arkansas is doing the right thing. I believe that we are protecting the rights of employees. What we are doing is eliminating the harassment and the unnecessary cost to the employer. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to say a few quick words in support of S. 2094, the Fish and Wildlife Service Revenue Enhancement Act. I have toured the Repository in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. I was impressed by the instructional programs the Fish and Wildlife Service runs from that facility. It is obvious that the Repository serves a vital educational role. The Service is trying to utilize their resources to educate and inform the public about wildlife and wildlife trade. The passage of this bill will allow them to put to good use assets that are now just wasting away, and to further their scholastic goals. Another important reason for passage of this bill is that it benefits the National Eagle Repository. They support the cultural and religious activities of Native Americans. We all know how important Raptores such as Bald and Golden Eagles are to the various tribes. The Service goes to great lengths to match the thousands of requests they receive from Native Americans for these rare birds. Any assistance that we can give them which will improve that already excellent operation will be a credit to the Congress. I would like to thank Chairman Chafee, Ranking Member Baucus, and their staff for their assistance on this bill. Several improvements were made during the committee process, and I believe the bill is the best possible solution to the funding and allocation problem currently facing the Repository. I would urge my current colleagues to support the passage of this bill, and I hope my former colleagues in the House will take up this matter and pass it soon after they return next week. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of S. 1873, the American Missile Protection Act, and I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this much needed legislation. Let me begin by being blunt--the United States cannot defend its borders against a single ballistic missile attack. This leaves all fifty states, especially Alaska and Hawaii, defenseless against any country that wants to threaten the U.S. with ballistic missiles. We will hear that there is no need for a national missile defense because the Soviet Union is gone. This is true, but the USSR's demise has given rise to many nations ready to take their place. Russia has 25,000 nuclear warheads and recent reports show that their technology and warheads are readily available. Just as problematic is that 25 nations have or are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Over 30 nations have ballistic missiles, with many more attempting to strengthen their weapon of mass destruction capability. Until just recently, China, with its over 400 warheads, had strategic nuclear missiles targeted at the United States. However, these missiles could be red-targeted within minutes if so desired. Just last week, North Korea placed all of South Asia on high alert due to their missile test. They now have demonstrated the capability to build two-stage missiles, which is significant because adding stages increases missile range. While the Administration plays down the threat, I cannot. This leaves the region and our over 80,000 troops in the area vulnerable to attack. Also, according to ``Jane's Strategic Weapons Systems,'' North Korea is developing long-range missile capability that could threaten southern Alaska and with additional assistance from Russia could later develop missiles with ranges which could threaten the west coast of the U.S. Opponents will also argue that a missile defense system cannot defend the United States against suitcase nukes or terrorist attacks on our own soil. They are right, and we need to do more to detect this form of terrorism, but it should not be done at the risk of a ballistic missile attack. To quote William Safire, ``. . . nations like China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, India, and Pakistan have not been investing heavily in suitcases.'' These countries are spending money on long range missiles. While many of these countries may never threaten the United States, we should not base all of our future threats on the present. Opponents also point out that non-proliferation agreements will end the need for a missile defense. The problem is that not all countries abide by these agreements, or even sign at all. Presently, China, North Korea, and Russia are all engaged in the transfer of missile components and technologies. Despite past denials, North Korea now admits to testing and selling missiles in an effort to help build the arsenals of Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Again, despite the threats and pleadings of the Administration, North Korea has refused to stop developing, testing, and deploying missiles. Lastly, opponents of a missile defense system point to the Administration's 1995 National Intelligence Estimate which stated that the United States would not face a threat of a missile attack for at least 15 years. However, to come to this conclusion, they had to exclude any threat to Alaska and Hawaii. This intentional omission is deceptive at best. We must not sacrifice the protection of U.S. citizens living in Alaska and Hawaii just to score political points. By leaving one state vulnerable, we leave the country vulnerable. This is unacceptable. While I am a strong supporter of the capability of our intelligence community, they are not perfect. In May, the U.S. intelligence community was caught by surprise when India conducted a series of nuclear tests on the 11th and 13th of that month. In another surprise, despite intelligence estimates that Iran could not field its medium range ballistic missile until 2003, Iran flight-tested this system on July 22nd of this year. Also, it has been reported that Iran is developing a longer-range version capable of reaching Central Europe. Again, the Administration believes that we will have at least 3 years warning before any missile attack would be feasible. However, on July 15th, the Congressionally mandated bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission concluded that the United States could get little to no warning of ballistic missile deployments from several emerging powers. The Commission stated that ``The threat to the U.S. posed by these emerging capabilities is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the intelligence community.'' It also warns 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.'' While it may be difficult, we must admit that we live in an era of unstable international politics. The U.S. should never initiate a ballistic missile attack, but we cannot be sure that other nations are like-minded. The United States must be able to defend itself. I believe the world would be a better place without these weapons. In the meantime though, we must live with the reality that they do exist and in the wrong hands will be used. The bottom line is that if the United States is on the receiving end of a missile attack, we are defenseless. I believe it is wrong to understate the danger still lurking in the world. We must do all that is possible to protect all Americans. We must develop a true national missile defense as soon as technologically possible. To do anything less would be to shirk our duties to provide for the common defense of the United States and all its citizens.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address a problem facing small reliever airports that do not accept scheduled service operations. Centennial Airport is a small reliever airport near Denver, Colorado, where operations consist primarily of small private chartered and business planes. A unique situation exists at Centennial Airport involving certain charter services and a loophole in the Federal regulations governing scheduled flights. Centennial Airport is not certificated for scheduled flight service. In fact, the Airport Authority, with strong local backing, has banned scheduled service at Centennial. According to Federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration cannot force any airport to become certificated. The airport is not equipped with a terminal, baggage system, or passenger security. Furthermore, Denver International Airport is less than 25 miles from Centennial, and has the capacity to handle additional scheduled service operations. A situation arose more than three years ago when a company called Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., began charter service at Centennial, but immediately announced that the airline's service would continue as scheduled service. The Airport Authority sued and the County District Court ordered the flights stopped. In April of this year the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Centennial Airport Authority's ban. The Court cited the safe operation of the airport as a priority, and upheld the airport's discretion to prohibit scheduled passenger service. While this decision protected the airport's right to refuse scheduled service, a similar situation recently arose with another company, Colorado Connection Executive Air Services, and the result has been detrimental for Centennial airport. In 1997, Colorado Connection proposed to start public charter passenger service pursuant to a regular and public schedule. Colorado Connection, which is entirely owned by Air One Charter, tried using a combination of Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration exemptions to offer scheduled service under Federal regulations, because the company that books the flights does not own the aircraft and the schedule is not officially published in the airline guide. The use of two different corporate names allowed Air One Charter to fly the scheduled passenger service under Colorado Connection without subjecting the airline to FAA scheduled service regulations. Air One Charter indicated intent to market 6-12 daily flights to various Colorado cities and to contract baggage services for their flights. The Centennial Airport Authority unanimously voted to deny airport access to Colorado Connection's scheduled service. The vote took place in April 1998 and a month later the FAA initiated a part 16 investigation. The FAA claims that the Airport Authority's move to deny service is unjustly discriminatory. Last week the FAA issued a decision to pull Federal funding for Centennial Airport if the ban on scheduled service is not lifted. This decision is in direct conflict with the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the issue. It is the result of a loophole in a law that was not intended to force small airports to take on the responsibility and burden of supporting scheduled service. Immediately following the announcement of the FAA's decision, the owner of Centennial Express was reported by the Denver Post to have plans to begin scheduled flights from Centennial Airport. I am proposing legislation to rectify this situation and uphold the authority of airports like Centennial to ban all scheduled service if they choose to do so. This bill would allow a general aviation airport to deny access to a part 380 public charter operator that operates as a scheduled service, and clarifies that such action would not be in violation of requirements for federal airport aid. This will not require any airport to do anything, and it will not allow an airport to discriminate against one scheduled service operator and not another. This amendment is nearly identical to language that the House Commerce Committee has included in its FAA Reauthorization Act. It would prohibit the FAA from charging discrimination if an airport chooses to deny access to scheduled service operators. It will only apply to reliever airports that are not certificated under Part 139 to handle scheduled service and airports within 35 miles of a large hub airport. I am not aware specifically of any other reliever airports existing outside of Colorado that have an interest in this legislation, however, I hope that my colleagues see the importance of protecting the right of small airports and surrounding communities to refuse all scheduled service operations.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address a problem facing small reliever airports that do not accept scheduled service operations. Centennial Airport is a small reliever airport near Denver, Colorado, where operations consist primarily of small private chartered and business planes. A unique situation exists at Centennial Airport involving certain charter services and a loophole in the Federal regulations governing scheduled flights. Centennial Airport is not certificated for scheduled flight service. In fact, the Airport Authority, with strong local backing, has banned scheduled service at Centennial. According to Federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration cannot force any airport to become certificated. The airport is not equipped with a terminal, baggage system, or passenger security. Furthermore, Denver International Airport is less than 25 miles from Centennial, and has the capacity to handle additional scheduled service operations. A situation arose more than three years ago when a company called Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., began charter service at Centennial, but immediately announced that the airline's service would continue as scheduled service. The Airport Authority sued and the County District Court ordered the flights stopped. In April of this year the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Centennial Airport Authority's ban. The Court cited the safe operation of the airport as a priority, and upheld the airport's discretion to prohibit scheduled passenger service. While this decision protected the airport's right to refuse scheduled service, a similar situation recently arose with another company, Colorado Connection Executive Air Services, and the result has been detrimental for Centennial airport. In 1997, Colorado Connection proposed to start public charter passenger service pursuant to a regular and public schedule. Colorado Connection, which is entirely owned by Air One Charter, tried using a combination of Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration exemptions to offer scheduled service under Federal regulations, because the company that books the flights does not own the aircraft and the schedule is not officially published in the airline guide. The use of two different corporate names allowed Air One Charter to fly the scheduled passenger service under Colorado Connection without subjecting the airline to FAA scheduled service regulations. Air One Charter indicated intent to market 6-12 daily flights to various Colorado cities and to contract baggage services for their flights. The Centennial Airport Authority unanimously voted to deny airport access to Colorado Connection's scheduled service. The vote took place in April 1998 and a month later the FAA initiated a part 16 investigation. The FAA claims that the Airport Authority's move to deny service is unjustly discriminatory. Last week the FAA issued a decision to pull Federal funding for Centennial Airport if the ban on scheduled service is not lifted. This decision is in direct conflict with the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the issue. It is the result of a loophole in a law that was not intended to force small airports to take on the responsibility and burden of supporting scheduled service. Immediately following the announcement of the FAA's decision, the owner of Centennial Express was reported by the Denver Post to have plans to begin scheduled flights from Centennial Airport. I am proposing legislation to rectify this situation and uphold the authority of airports like Centennial to ban all scheduled service if they choose to do so. This bill would allow a general aviation airport to deny access to a part 380 public charter operator that operates as a scheduled service, and clarifies that such action would not be in violation of requirements for federal airport aid. This will not require any airport to do anything, and it will not allow an airport to discriminate against one scheduled service operator and not another. This amendment is nearly identical to language that the House Commerce Committee has included in its FAA Reauthorization Act. It would prohibit the FAA from charging discrimination if an airport chooses to deny access to scheduled service operators. It will only apply to reliever airports that are not certificated under Part 139 to handle scheduled service and airports within 35 miles of a large hub airport. I am not aware specifically of any other reliever airports existing outside of Colorado that have an interest in this legislation, however, I hope that my colleagues see the importance of protecting the right of small airports and surrounding communities to refuse all scheduled service operations.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I object.

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

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding. I was in the Chair, and I had the podium put up much earlier this morning, but because a colleague next to me was going to speak, he wanted it removed.

Mr. ALLARD. I had requested that my podium be put up on the Senate floor at 10 o'clock this morning when I was presiding so that I could be in proper order to be recognized as soon as I got out of the Chair. I certainly didn't intend to create a problem for the Senator from West Virginia. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments, and I respect the Senator.

Mr. ALLARD. What is the order of business?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to address the Senate for 25 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. How much time does the Senator need for his morning business remarks?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, during the 105th Session of Congress, my colleagues and I are addressing a broad range of high tech issues, including military, civilian, and commercial space issues. The industry supporting high technology products and services has become extremely important to our nation, and particularly in my home state of Colorado. Today I would like to take a look at the high-tech industry through global, national, state, and local perspectives, and relate the broader examples to Colorado. Colorado is a microcosm of the nation when you look at high-tech and the future of the industry. The prosperity, trends, and needs within the Colorado community are prime examples of what the entire nation is faced with. The growth-inducing power of technology at the industry level has been astonishing. In the United States, research-intensive industries, such as aerospace, chemicals, communications, computers, pharmaceuticals, scientific instruments, semiconductors, and software- have been growing approximately twice the rate of the U.S. economy as a whole the past two decades. The high-tech world has also become extremely competitive. High-tech firms are now facing global competition, regional competition, and competition for jobs. There is every reason to believe that this trend will continue for at least the next decade. As competition increases locally and globally, we must field an educated workforce that can also be competitive. America's future economy depends on sustaining a competitive edge through greater development and knowledge. But there is growing concern that America is not prepared for this new economy. I would like to share some startling statistics revealing the serious lack of education in this country. Forty percent of our 8 year-olds cannot read. A Department of Education study concludes that 90 million adult Americans have limited information and quantitative skills. According to the American Society for Training and Development's 1997 ``State of the Industry Report,'' 50 percent of organizations now have to provide employee training in basic skills. U.S. students do not perform well in comparison with students in other countries. According to the Third International Mathematics and Science Study--a study of half a million children in 41 countries--U.S. eighth-graders had average mathematics scores that were well below those of 20 other countries. Although U.S. eighth-graders performed better in science, they were still outperformed by students in nine other countries. We are experiencing phenomenal growth in jobs for highly skilled information technology workers, yet there are mounting reports that industry is having great difficulty recruiting adequate numbers of workers with the skills in demand. We, as a society, need to find ways to counter these serious problems and work towards filling all of our employment needs. Due to increasing global competitiveness, our economy is creating millions of new jobs--more than 15 million new jobs since 1993. Employees are in demand due to this increased competitiveness, and of the 10 industries with the fastest employment growth from 1996-2006, computer and data processing services are number one on the list, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Report of December 1997. In this field alone, there were 1. 2 million jobs in the United States in 1996. This number is projected to rise to 2.5 million jobs in 2006. That represents a 108 percent increase in the next 8 years. Of the 10 occupations with the fastest employment growth from 1996- 2006, the top three occupations have some connection to the high tech industry. Database administrators, computer support specialists, and computer scientists had a population of 212,000 jobs in 1996, and are projected to be needed in 461,000 jobs in 2006, a 118 percent change. Computer engineers will see a 109 percent increase in jobs and systems analysts a 103 percent increase by the year 2006. This trend is representative of the high-tech employment needs of Colorado. We are facing a problem as the need for technical bachelors' degrees rises, because the number of students entering this field is not increasing at a rate to meet this need. In addition, the science and math scores needed to pursue technical degrees at higher education institutions are not being met by more and more students every year. If the trend continues as we expect it to, we will see an increasing lack of skilled employees to meet the industry's demand. The consequences of not filling these jobs could mean several things. One being that high-tech industry in the United States will not be globally competitive. Another being that we will need to continually find workers from out of the country to fill high-tech jobs, instead of giving those jobs to Americans. Whatever the consequences may be, we know that they will be substantial if we do not fill the employment needs of the high-tech industry. Colorado is seeing tremendous signs of growth in the technology arena. As an example, the City of Colorado Springs relies on high-tech for over 50% of its local economy. Complex electronics and information technology sectors support about 30% of the total local economy, and there is a strong defense sector presence which is heavily reliant on high tech employers and needs. 40% of the local economy in Colorado Springs is tied into the defense sector. Right now Colorado has effectively no unemployment in the engineering field. Between this year and 2006, information technology, telecommunications, information processing, software development, and systems engineering will all have employment needs that will more than double in the Colorado Springs area. The proper role of the government in high-tech and space issues is an ongoing debate. For example, Congress is considering now what access the government should have to encrypted stored computer data or electronic communications, and how to facilitate commercial space businesses. The United States is competing with several other countries in the high tech industry. There are five countries that we know have the ability to launch satellites, while many other countries have the technology to compete in other areas. Therefore, our workforce development must support the needs of our domestic industry to allow it to be competitive. Without growth in the United States technology industries, we will be surpassed by the technology of our competitors, and our commercial industry will ultimately rely on foreign companies for technology. One of the major debates in trying to fill the technology workforce needs deals with who should fill those needs when we cannot. The United States has come to depend on foreign-born engineers; we have reached the point where we import as many engineers as we graduate from our universities. Recently, my colleagues in the U.S. Senate and I approved the American Competitiveness Act of 1998. It raises the ceiling on the number of visas designated for high-tech workers, or H1-B visas, from 65,000 to 95,000 in the fiscal year 1998, and then to 115,000 a year through 2002. This bill is partially in response to the ``year 2000'' problem and will help high-tech industries hire enough employees to effectively resolve the problem. But this is a short-term solution, and in the year 2002, Congress will reevaluate the number of H1-B applicants that this country allows in to work. The competitive edge that America needs depends on the knowledge attributes of our workforce. Due to the rapid changes in the high-tech field, we must focus on educating our youth. Educating students about the high-tech needs and changes our society faces will allow for adaptation and innovation. The industry's growth depends on the students that are entering universities with high scores in math and science. Employers are desperate for students with bachelors and advanced degrees in computer engineering, computer information systems, computer science, chemical engineering, and electrical engineering. We need to focus on improving the educational opportunities for every student, but we could especially make improvements by targeting under- represented minorities. While a small amount of high school graduates, 15%, have taken calculus and physics, only 6% of minority students have taken those classes, which are required for a college major in math, engineering or science. This year, universities graduated a record number African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians with engineering degrees, yet they constitute only 10% of all students with engineering degrees, and only 2.8% of doctorates. The number of female minorities in this category is even smaller. Only 2.8% of college engineering graduates and .6% of engineering doctorates went to minority women. The solution begins with our youngest students, kindergarten through 12th grade. How do we more specifically improve our education system from K-12 so that children will eventually meet the standards that high-tech, and business in general, demand? It should be obvious that we first need to improve math and science interest and education, starting with increased teacher support. Knowledge of the subject matter and the ability to actually use technology need to be taught to our future teachers at universities across the country. Current teachers need access to continuing education and high-tech resources. We also must increase the number of teachers who are teaching math and science subjects. Projections show that there is going to be a severe teacher shortage in the years 2010-2025. We are going to face yet another crisis in high-tech workers and leaders if we do not encourage more math and science graduates to become math and science teachers. Without more and better math and science teachers our high- tech teacher shortage will progressively worsen, and we will not be able to increase the number of students in math and science classes. Industry partnerships, which are successful in many university settings, can be very beneficial to younger students as well. The U.S. Space Foundation, which is based in Colorado, has been especially successful in cooperative programs with schools across the country with their support for math and science programs. Kids find it more interesting and fun if real life entities are tied into the classroom, and the U.S. Space Foundation facilitates this for the students and teachers. Rotating high-tech specialists and resources in classrooms will keep our teachers current and motivated. In addition, high school students are eligible for job opportunities and student internships in the workplace that require scientific knowledge and will increase their excitement for the field. With increased attention to our students, especially in regard to math and science, we can interest students in the world of technology. Another outstanding example of a partnership between school and industry is the Technology Student Association. The TSA is composed of over 150,000 elementary, middle, and high school students, in 2,000 schools spanning 45 states, including Colorado. It is supported by educators, parents, and business leaders who believe in the need for a technologically literate society. Through leadership and fun problem- solving, K-12 students are shown why increased education in math and science can pay off and be exciting. These partnerships are successful, and demonstrate one way we can start now to fill the technology workforce needs of the 21st Century. While it is imperative to encourage young students to be involved in math and science and to expose them to high-tech occupations, I am not suggesting support for school-to-work programs. School-to-work centralizes unprecedented powers at the federal level and requires federal standards and assessment testing which would be the basis of all our children's education, and this process would begin in kindergarten. Most importantly, school-to-work takes local elected officials of the states and local school boards out of the process of education. This alone could be devastating to businesses and specifically to high-tech industries. Local Boards and elected officials are well aware of the needs of their community in particular, and can adapt accordingly. Government does not need to set ``standards'' for children to determine their career paths, but instead improve those standards of existing education policies in order to raise test scores, and more specifically science and math scores. If we do so, our children will be inclined to attend higher education institutions where cooperative education and internship opportunities will be available to them, and we will be on our way to building a workforce that can compete globally. As more students graduate from high school with aptitude and interest in math and science we must have a college education system that will foster their interests and can propel them into the industry. Colorado's universities demonstrate how well-adapted programs can be to the regional industry. The space industry, in particular, is a crucial part of Colorado's economy, and in turn our state is one of the nation's leaders in space industries. The National Space Symposium, held annually in Colorado Springs, emphasizes the importance of technology in our state and nation. Space Command, Air Force Academy, and NASA, are some of the major presences. In addition, four space centers tied in with NASA are based in Northern Colorado: the Center for Aerospace Structure, Colorado Center for Aerospace Research, Center for Space Construction, and Bioserve Technologies, which produces hardware for the space shuttle. Our universities are aware of the need for high-tech education, and have focused on preparing students for this field. The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs offers a well established Master of Engineering Degree in Space Operations, and the Air Force Academy continually graduating students into this field. Graduates of the University of Colorado-Boulder, which offers the only aerospace degree in Northern Colorado, also support Colorado's space industry. At the college level internship opportunities become significant. Employers see cooperative education programs and internships as real- world employment experience which lets college students become familiar with an organization and its work style. High-tech industries are seeing a trend toward expensive training costs and high employee turnover. By partnering with colleges and universities, high-tech industries will see a more highly trained workforce entering their industry and employees who are more committed to the organization. The main idea behind cooperative education and internships are that they provide students the opportunity to apply theory learned in the classroom to the workplace. High-tech industries now consider the use of partnering with a university's cooperative education and internship programs as the number one recruitment tool for long-term commitments of regular employment. For example, the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs recognized this as an important investment in students' futures. In addition to helping their own students with internships, the University itself provides internships to students from other universities without internship opportunities. The University has formed partnerships with community, junior, and 4-year colleges without engineering programs. In conclusion, this is a critical time; we must start today if we want to solve the high-tech employment problem. The signs are everywhere that high-tech is booming, but high-tech employees are not. We must act fast, for studies show key math and science decisions are made by a student at the 5th to 7th grade level. This means that there can be up to a ten-year lead-time for bachelor degree level technology workers. There are four areas that I think we should focus on in order to help solve the problem. No. 1, Clearly understand the challenge, communicate it to our teachers, parents and students, and consider the consequences of not acting on this issue immediately. No. 2, Better connect education systems and industry. No. 3, Find innovative ways to remove barriers to education in math and science, and continue improvement in higher education. No. 4, Leverage government funding through greater collaboration among government agencies, educational institutions and the private industry. We need to work together in order to solve this problem. Our universities need to increase engineering and computer sciences scholarships, improve distance learning, and expand their internship and cooperative education programs to meet the needs of the high-tech industry. Our government needs to upgrade training and out-source more work, education, and training. Our industries must increase recruiting, build higher retention rates, and offer on-site courses. And finally, our public schools must increase partnerships with outside entities, educate our teachers about technology, and make science and math fun for our students. The examples I have given from my home state of Colorado demonstrate that through increased internships, partnerships, teacher training, and K-12 student programs, communities can do something to meet the employment needs of the 21st Century. The United States will continue to be a global leader in the technology arena if these ideas are implemented tomorrow and we ensure that our schools are producing the best, most educated workforce in the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to recognize and commend the Senator from Arizona, who spoke earlier today in morning business, for his good comments regarding the Rumsfeld report. Senator John Kyl has taken a particular interest in that report. I wanted to take a moment to recognize how important I think that report is. I think he was right-on in his comments. I think this Congress and this administration ought to look very seriously at the contents of that report. I serve on the Intelligence Committee with the Senator from Arizona and am privy to the same information to which he is privy.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, in a place where President's have laid, Officers J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson lay in state under the Capitol Dome, the very symbol of freedom and democracy that they died to protect. On Friday, July 24th, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Chestnut laid down their lives for the people visiting their Capitol, for our staffs, and for us. These two brave men are true public servants. Their actions protected American lives and our cradle of freedom, the Capitol. Even though I never had the opportunity to meet Mr. Gibson and Mr. Chestnut, I do know many like them. They are both husbands, fathers-- Mr. Gibson has 3 children, and Mr. Chestnut has 5, and J.J. Chestnut is a grandfather. I also know them from the friendships that I and my wife Joan have formed with the committed and selfless Capitol Hill Police. I want to thank them for their service to me, my family, my staff, and every visitor that enters this Capitol. Mine, my wife's, and my staff's hearts go out to the families of these two loved family men and the Capitol Hill Police for their two fallen respected colleagues. They are heroes. While no words can ever express the sorrow felt, our prayers go out to their families, friends, and the Capitol Hill Police. Thank you Officer John Gibson and Officer J.J. Chestnut for your service to all of us and to this country. God bless their memory and their families.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, good morning.