Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, while I am getting set up, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business. I have two amendments at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to call them up en bloc and send them to the desk.

Mr. ALLARD. Yes. I plan on calling it up--I wish to call up both amendments so I have votes on them. The first amendment, and then the second amendment I plan on putting in the group of amendments we will vote on at the end, which we only allow a few minutes for debate. The first amendment I was going to call up--this will be the one we will debate and take up floor time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to send up----

Mr. ALLARD. I will be glad to get those to my colleagues. Here is the one on discretionary spending, the one we will be debating during this time period. Would the Senator like the second amendment before I send it up?

Mr. ALLARD. That is the one that was offered in committee dealing with discretionary spending. The second amendment deals with mandatory spending.

Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine.

Mr. ALLARD. I wish to make sure we get an opportunity to vote on the second amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator very much. Amendment No. 491

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments about the PART program in general, which is a program that has been put in place by the Congress through a piece of legislation that was passed more than a decade ago. This program directs the agencies to set up measurable goals and objectives, and then we go in later on and those goals and objectives are evaluated to see if the agency is actually meeting those goals and objectives. The piece of legislation, which was passed more than a decade ago, was called the Government Results and Procedures Act. So these agencies have had time to work with this program for some time under the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration. When making funding decisions, Members of Congress should consider what they are buying for the taxpayer. Funded programs should be effective and efficient. The Federal Government has completed comprehensive assessments of the performance of almost 1,000 programs, representing 96 percent of the total program funding using this Program Assessment Rating Tool, which is referred to as PART. These detailed program assessments and the evidence on which they are based are available for the public to view at www.expectmore.gov. It is a very good reference for the public to use--for, in fact, Members of Congress or any agencies to know exactly where they stand as far as where 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,'' ``results not demonstrated'' or ``ineffective.'' While a program's overall rating should not be the sole determinant of its funding, Congress should prioritize funding programs that perform well. Ineffective programs, in particular, should be scrutinized to determine if the resources they use could be better spent elsewhere and if their goals could be achieved through another means. When determining where to invest resources, Members of Congress can look to the PART for important information. No. 1: Does the program address an existing problem, interest or need, and those that do not should not be funded. The other question to be asked is: 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. The other question: If an increase in funding is requested for a program, has the program explained how the additional funding will impact its performance? Programs that cannot articulate how they will use their resources simply aren't 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. Let's look at a few of those. PART found that actual additional natural gas reserves attributable to technology developed by the Natural Gas Technology Program have been relatively small. Moreover, as noted by the National Academy of Sciences: It is difficult to separate the contributions made by the Department of Energy and contributions made by industry and others. Another program rated ineffective by PART is the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program, which may not concentrate enough on providing training and employment. Each year, more than 60 percent of the program's approximately 30,000 participants receive only supportive services, such as emergency cash assistance. They don't carry on with the goal and objective, which is training and employment. Although these services are important, they are not contributing significantly to helping participants gain stable, year-round employment. If we want to train them, we need to look at that program. PART found the same thing with the Health Professions Program. 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. There is only a four-tenths of a percent performance difference. What is that 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. Another program rated ineffective by PART is the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program. It was found ineffective because it has no measurable impact on either juvenile crime or the juvenile justice system to date. These are only a few of the programs that have been looked at by the PART Program. I think they provide the information Members of Congress need to evaluate whether programs are ineffective. The amendment before us just addresses a portion of discretionary spending. The full PART Program evaluates mandatory programs and discretionary programs. I put forward two amendments. The amendment before us is the discretionary program where we will get a considerable amount of debate. The mandatory amendment is one the chairman asked be reviewed, and he assured me I will have an opportunity to offer that amendment at a later time. So I rise today asking Members to support this amendment where we deal with the discretionary spending as the PART Program is being applied. The overall purpose of the amendment is to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate Government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ``ineffective'' by the Office of Management and Budget's PART program. This is through the career professionals in the agency. This is not driven by any kind of political agenda. PART is a Government-wide assessment of the performance of almost 1,000 programs, again, representing 96 percent of total program funding. If we look at programs in the discretionary spending area which are rated ineffective, it amounts, over the time period of this budget, which is 5 years, to $88 billion of program spending. My amendment says we will reduce 25 percent of the spending in this area, which is about $17 billion over the period of 5 years. We will say that those programs are ineffective and we need to reduce spending for those so that we motivate the agencies to redo their programs, so they truly are accomplishing what was laid out for the original purpose of the program. What happens in our budget that is before us is we have $900 billion in increasing taxes by default because we don't do anything to extend those tax provisions which are expiring in 2010 and before. So my point is this: We are forcing the taxpayers to pay more into the Federal budget, and at the same time we are spending $88 billion on ineffective programs. My amendment says we are going to take a portion of the $88 billion-- about $18 billion--out of here for a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Those programs which I recounted to you are just representative of some of the efforts that happen under the PART Program. It is a wonderful way for the Members of Congress to begin to evaluate whether a program is effective, and then not just leave it there but say, through the budget, to those agencies: You have to get your act together; we don't tolerate using taxpayer dollars--particularly when we are increasing your taxes--to allow those programs to go on in an ineffective manner. Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs. They have absolutely refused to do anything to create accountability so that the Members of Congress can evaluate what is going on in those programs. So that is what my amendment is all about. It is 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. The budget authority is about $4.3 billion in each year, from 2008 to 2012. That comes close to about $18 billion or so, which is used to pay down the Federal debt. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in trying to bring forward more accountability in the programs we have passed. I think 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. This is not an onerous amendment. It is trying to bring accountability to Government programs that we pass. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, let me summarize my comments and respond. I think if we look at our budget process, we hopefully--maybe not this year but next year--will be able to put in some instructions to the committees. I understand we cannot specifically tell them but, as budgeteers, we have an opportunity to put in instructions to the various committees to participate. I hope this passes, and maybe we can deal with this in conference. If not, maybe the chairman would look at it either in conference committee or in future years and we can put in some kind of instructions and say: Look at those programs under your jurisdiction and look at the ones classified as ineffective and begin to demand more accountability on those particular programs. I hope we can get a ``yea'' vote on both of these amendments to send a message, if nothing else, to the conference committee to get it passed. If it doesn't work out this year, maybe we can work it out in future years. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Citizens Against Government Waste in support of both of my amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield back my time.

Mr. ALLARD. I have a question, if the Senator will recognize me for a question, if the Senator will allow me to ask a question of Senator Baucus. I think the Senator from New Hampshire has the time.

Mr. ALLARD. I have a question.

Mr. ALLARD. In effect, this adds to the debt?

Mr. ALLARD. In effect, this amendment adds to the total debt?

Mr. ALLARD. I had $194 billion, but $195 billion. That seemed to me it did increase the debt. Maybe we can check that out.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I have been listening to this debate from my office. I tell you, I have to agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee. I joined him in voting against this budget. But generally this is what this budget does: we are back to the old spend- and-tax ways and increases in the debt. This budget has an increase, over a $900 billion tax increase. We have a nondefense increase in spending of $146 billion. The President has already come in with his budget with a 50-percent increase in spending. Now on top of this, this budget provides $146 billion. Then we look at the debt figures. We see that the debt is increasing by $2.2 trillion. This is unimaginable. If the tax increase goes into place--and that happens because there is no provision in here to make the tax cuts that were passed in the Republican Congress in 2001 and 2003 to make them permanent--by default these taxes are going to increase over $900 billion. That is going to be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. I want to look at the $146 billion. I think we need to pull up a spendometer and talk a little bit about how much spending there is, if you are already starting at $146 billion--because you are $146 billion above what the President's budget proposal is--based on a $50 billion increase. So in addition to that, we are seeing a tremendous growth in the deficit, increasing by $440 billion. We see mandatory spending growing unchecked by $411 billion, fiscal years 2008-2012. We spend more than $1 trillion of the Social Security surplus. Ultimately, what we end up with is a growth in the debt of over $2.2 trillion. Now, we have heard those who are supporting this budget and justify it because they are going to tax the rich. I think we ought to take a look at who pays taxes in this country. You know the top 1 percent of the wealthy pay 37 percent of the taxes. The top 5 percent pay 57 percent of the taxes. So if you are going to raise taxes, the only place you can go is there. If we look to the top 10 percent, there is another 10 on top of that. You have got 31 percent plus 37. We have 68 percent of the taxes that are paid by the top 11 percent of the taxpayers of this country. So we have a very progressive tax system. The tax cuts that we put in place in 2003 really stimulated this economy. As a result of those tax cuts, there is more money available for local governments to help pay for their programs. There is more money available for the Federal Government. That is why it was so easy for the majority party to put together this budget--because of the large amount of revenues coming into the Federal Government. I attribute that to the fact that we cut taxes for the working men and women of this country, primarily those who own their small business, by the way, who put in more than 40 hours a week. Many times they work 7 days a week to keep those small businesses operating, supporting their communities. That is where we really generate the revenue. We are going to start talking about how we are going to tax them now so that they do not keep as much in their own pocket. The reality of that is going to be that we are going to depress our economic growth. We are talking about increasing taxes on corporations that do business all over the world. Well, they are in a competitive environment. They have to compete with other countries. We cannot constrict our economy to strictly American borders. We have to extend beyond that. If we really want to get our economy going, we are going to have to talk about trade. We are going to have to talk about doing business all over the world. We cannot expect it to grow and constrict it to the borders of this country. That is what we are doing, in the tax policy that we have heard from the other side of the aisle. The question always comes back to all the spending that we have in this bill, some $146 billion above the $50 billion increase that the President already put in place. Where are we going to get the money to do that? The only way that happens is when we do not act on putting those tax cuts in place that have served us so well to grow this economy. They talk about closing the tax gap. We had testimony in committee, and they thought that the reasonable amount was $35 billion in collections as a reasonable expectation over 5 years. Yet on the other side, they insist it is going to be much more, regardless of what the IRS--the ones who would know--said in our Budget Committee hearings. I think this is a budget that is going to create problems for us down the line. It is going to begin to create problems as soon as it is passed. It is going to create spending problems. It is going to create tax increases by default. We are going to see the debt continue to increase by $2.2 trillion. Let's look and see how individuals are going to be impacted by this tax increase that will happen in this budget by default because we do not do anything to keep them from expiring in the outyears of this budget. A family of four, earning $40,000 a year--that is if the husband and wife are both working and making $20,000 each--will face a tax increase of $2,052. And we have 113 million taxpayers who will see their taxes go up an average of $2,216. Now, when we look at this a little further, we see that over 5 million individuals and families who have seen their income tax liabilities completely eliminated will now have to pay taxes. That is the new tax bracket that we have created to provide tax relief for many of those working families. So that is going to expire. When that expires, that is going to impact 5 million individuals and families who will again have to pay taxes that they were allowed to get by without paying so they could pay for their educational costs for their kids, so they could pay for health care, and so they could pay for the needs of the family--food and shelter. We are not talking about individuals who are making a lot of money in this case. Forty-five million families with children will face an average increased tax of $2,864; that is the marriage penalty. Fifteen million elderly individuals will pay an average tax increase of $2,934. These are the people who are on retirement. Twenty-seven million small business owners will pay an average tax increase higher than any of the groups that I mentioned of $4,712. That is where our economic growth is generated. If you want to see your economy grow like we did, you target the small business sector. Well, that is true in Colorado; that is true nationally. I think one of the things that stimulated growth of the small business economy more than anything else was the expense provisions that we put in place so that small business owners could write off over $100,000 a year, expense them out in one year. They took that money and they invested it. They invested it in equipment they needed. If they were a contractor, they went and bought a Bobcat and a pickup and got to work. If they were a farmer, they bought a new harvester and got to work. If they were a physician, they got an x ray and had more work to do. If they were a veterinarian, maybe they bought some lab equipment and had more work to do. So by targeting the small business sector, we generated all these jobs. It churned the economy. I had an opportunity to visit with Dr. Greenspan, former chairman of the Fed. I said: One of the things that has not been talked about much is how the small businesses generated this economy. I think the expensing provisions we put in there had a lot to do with that. He said: I agree with you. I don't think that people really appreciate what has happened because of the tax cuts that were directed toward small business. There are many important items that are not to be found in this particular legislation. There is no long-term entitlement reform. There is no permanent AMT relief, no permanent tax relief at all with the tax cuts that were put in place to stimulate the economy. There is no funding for ongoing war costs between 2009, no proposals on reducing mandatory spending or the debt. People of Colorado have asked me: How is this likely to affect me? Let me talk a little bit about how this could affect taxpayers of the State of Colorado. In Colorado, the impact of repealing the Republican tax relief would be felt widely. For example, more than 1.6 million taxpayers Statewide who are benefiting from a new lower 10-percent bracket would now see their tax rates go up; 590,000 married couples would face higher tax rates because of an increase in the marriage penalty; 432,000 families with children would pay more taxes because the child tax credit would expire; 310,000 investors, including seniors, would pay more because of an increase in the tax rate on capital gains and dividends. Remember, seniors who have retired have a lot at stake when we talk about capital gains taxes and dividends because they have put their money many times in the stock market. They have put it in investments. As retired individuals, they are finding that they are beginning to pull that out. The consequences are that without that tax break, they would not have been able to save as much money toward their retirement. To wrap this up, I wish to remind people I will be keeping a spending barometer here. We are at $146 billion already over what the President proposed. We are not off to a very good start on this budget. We are going to see it increase considerably before this week is over. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to have permission to alternate between Republicans and Democrats. If I could be lined up to speak after--who was the first Democrat after Senator Bunning? Senator Schumer. If I may be allowed to speak next, I would appreciate it. I was lined up to speak at 2 o'clock originally, but we had the vote at 2 o'clock and, obviously, that has been slid out now. If the Senator from Connecticut can move me in there, I would appreciate it. We have always alternated between Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. ALLARD. All right. I was set up to speak at 2 o'clock, and then we had the vote at 2 o'clock.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, 10 minutes. Senator Cornyn and I want to engage in a colloquy, and then I have a few comments. We just need 10 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of my amendment No. 272 to the Improving America's Security Act, and I believe it will do that, improve America's security. We have a rampant problem of identity theft in this country. Identity theft not only affects innocent victims, it poses a security threat to our country. As the 9/11 Commission put it: ``Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft.'' We have long been aware that failure to protect the integrity of the SSN has enormous financial consequences for the Government, the people, and the business community. We now know that shortcomings in the SSN issuance process can have far graver consequences than previously imagined. The difficult lessons of September 11, 2001 have taught us that SSA can no longer afford to operate from a ``business as usual'' perspective. Whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice, we must protect the number that has become our national identifier; the number that is the key to social, legal, and financial assimilation in this country. We recognize SSA alone cannot resolve the monumental issues surrounding homeland security. Efforts to make our Nation safer will involve new or expanded initiatives by almost every segment of our population, including State and local governments, private industry, nongovernmental organizations, and citizens. However, we also recognize that, in endeavoring to protect our homeland, no Government system or policy should be ignored. As such, SSA, as a Federal agency and public servant, must resolve to review its systems and processes for opportunities to prevent the possibility that anyone might commit or camouflage criminal activities against the United States. We believe SSN integrity is a link in our homeland security goal that must be strengthened. The 9/11 Commission went on to note: `` . . . all but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud.'' I have here an inspector general's report, inspector general for the Social Security Administration, and he is talking about the integrity of the Social Security number. He says an important link in homeland security is the Social Security number. To specifically quote him, he says: The difficult lessons of September 11, 2001, has taught us that the Social Security Administration can no longer afford to operate from a business-as-usual perspective. Whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice, we must protect the number that has become our national identifier, the number that is the key to social, legal, and financial assimilation in this country. He went on to say in his report: We believe the Social Security number integrity is a link in our homeland security goal that must be strengthened. For every case of identity theft, there is a thief. We have to ask ourselves: Why would someone want to steal somebody else's identity? After all, every person has an identity of their own. Why would somebody be so dissatisfied with their own identity that they deem it necessary to steal from another? The answer to that question is simple: They have something to hide. For many, the fact they are trying to hide is that they are in this country illegally. Whether someone is here illegally in pursuit of work or to carry out the work of an international terrorist organization remains anyone's guess. What we do know, however, is that there are clear signs of when an identity has been stolen. One obvious sign is when multiple people are using the same Social Security number. By law, every Social Security number has only one true owner. It follows, if 10 people are using the same Social Security number, 9 of them are thieves: 9 of them have something to hide. One common use of Social Security numbers is for reporting earnings. And where are earnings reported? Earnings are reported to the Social Security Administration. That means that when multiple people are reporting to the Social Security Administration using the same Social Security number, the Social Security Administration has information in its possession relating to the crime of identity theft. What does the Social Security Administration do? Absolutely nothing. It is prohibited from sharing their information with others in our own Federal Government, such as the Secretary of Homeland Security. I believe it is an example of what the 9/11 Commission described as, and I quote from the Commission: The pervasive problem of managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers. In January of this year, a bipartisan group of Senators and I met with Secretary Chertoff on this very issue. Secretary Chertoff explained that, under current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information with one another that, if shared, could expose cases of identity theft. My amendment tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing information among Government agencies and permits the Commissioner of Social Security to share information with the Secretary of Homeland Security where such information is likely to assist in discovering identity theft, Social Security number misuse or violations of immigration law. Specifically, it requires the Commissioner to inform the Secretary of Homeland Security upon discovery of a Social Security account number being used with multiple names or where an individual has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year. It seems logical that we would already be doing this, but we are not. In the meantime, we are effectively enabling thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft. In addition to the national security implications, for every case of identity theft there is an innocent victim. Innocent victims like Connecticut resident John Harrison who had his active duty military ID and Social Security number stolen. The thief ran up an over $260,000 debt and opened 61 credit or bank accounts in the victim's name. Meanwhile the victim lost his job and the military decreased his retirement pay because Phillips had run up a debt owed to the U.S. Government. Connecticut resident John Harrison is not alone, In fact, for the seventh year in a row, with nearly 250,000 complaints, identity theft is the No. 1 complaint received by the FTC from Connecticut residents. Likewise, for the State of Maine, 2006 marked the seventh year in a row that identity theft complaints topped the Federal Trade Commission's Annual ``List of Top Consumer Complaints.'' Even my home State of Colorado is no stranger to identity theft. With 4,535 victims in 2005, we are ranked 5th in identity theft--behind only Arizona, Nevada, California, and Texas. For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income too high to qualify. Unfortunately, for the victims of identity theft, by the time the identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. Yet when the Social Security Administration has reason to believe that a Social Security number is being used fraudulently, they are prevented from sharing it with the Department of Homeland Security. Withholding this information effectively enables thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft against innocent victims. By simply sharing information related to the fraudulent use of Social Security numbers among Government agencies, cases of identity theft could be discovered much sooner. Victims of identity theft deserve to have this existing information acted on, and my amendment allows this. Senator Cornyn, who is on the floor with me, was at the meeting where Secretary Chertoff explained the problems with the Social Security numbers and DHS not being notified so that they could take law enforcement actions against such acts as a terrorist threat. I wonder if Senator Cornyn would give me his impression.

Mr. ALLARD. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. ALLARD. A large portion of the population that is affected by the Social Security theft identification is the older population, those individuals on Social Security. The impact it is going to have on them is immediate in some cases because they are qualifying for a certain amount of Social Security based on the income that may be coming. If somebody else is using their Social Security number, that exceeds, perhaps, what allowances they may have to qualify for the Social Security benefits. If an individual has a job, then the effect is felt much later on. The retired individuals of this country are most dramatically affected in this regard.